1 / 37

PROGRESS ON WATER PROPERTIES ON TRACKS RECONSTRUCTION Harold Yepes-Ramirez 17/11/2011

PROGRESS ON WATER PROPERTIES ON TRACKS RECONSTRUCTION Harold Yepes-Ramirez 17/11/2011. DATA/MonteCarlo SELECTION: Data  2008 – 2010 data from the official SeaTray production May 2011 (5997 runs). First run: 31051. Last run: 54244. Subsample from PS data from Juan Pablo.

merton
Download Presentation

PROGRESS ON WATER PROPERTIES ON TRACKS RECONSTRUCTION Harold Yepes-Ramirez 17/11/2011

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PROGRESS ON WATER PROPERTIES ON TRACKS RECONSTRUCTION Harold Yepes-Ramirez 17/11/2011

  2. DATA/MonteCarlo SELECTION: • Data 2008 – 2010 data from the official SeaTray production May 2011 (5997 runs). • First run: 31051. Last run: 54244. Subsample from PS data from Juan Pablo. • Lifetime: 618.96 days. • MonteCarlo (no r-b-r) SoS prepared (C. Bogazzi) with the previous runs (5997 data runs). • Mupage for muons + Geasim for neutrinos. • Statistics hugely increased: CM Moscow two runs per water model (2 n, 2 n-, 2 m), right now: sc = scattering centers; aa = om angular acceptance; abs = absorption; sca = scattering; eta = fraction of Rayleigh scattering.

  3. SANITY CHECKS WITH PREVIOUS PRODUCTIONS: • Harold: • It is not a run-by-run simulation. • 5997 data runs (2008-2010). • 312 mupage muon runs. • 90 neutrino + 40 anti-neutrino Geasim files. • TE May 2011. • Down-going neutrinos not used in this MC. • Juan Pablo: • Run-by-run simulation. • 5997 data runs (2008-2010). • 5941 mupage muon runs. • 5898 neutrino + 5900 anti-neutrino Geasim files. • TE September 2010. • Down-going neutrinos are used in the r-b-r MC. L >-5.2 removes some events close to the horizon (my sample), L > -5.4 relax this zone (SEE NEXT SLIDE).

  4. ±31-43% [-1, -0.1] ±25% [>0.2] ±45% [-0.1, +0.1] • A restrictive cut at L > -5.2 removes neutrinos and muons near the horizon (and some muons below the horizon). This may have a large impact on this analysis due to the smaller statistics (concerning the run-by-run MC statistics). • If we relax the cut to L > -5.4 the agreement to data is better within the different available samples (typical cut on point sources analysis before run-by-run MC).

  5. UPDATED PLOTS FOR THE ZENITH ANGLE CONTRIBUTION: UNCERTAINITY ESTIMATION OF RECONSTRUCTED TRACKS DUE WATER OPTICAL PARAMETERS

  6. Lesson learnt since the CM in Moscow: the extreme scattering models (lsca<22) shows the worst agreement to data: • Lower values (~0.02) of contribution of Rayleigh scattering (h) over-estimates the data, and higher (~0.17) values under-estimates it. • Values of labs > 55 m could not be an good approach. • The best agreement to data is then expected for large scattering lengths and not enough higher absorption lengths. • The ANTARES site seems to have a large scattering length.

  7. DATA/MC rates for zenith angle distribution: • lsca < 22 m discarded. • lsca > 41 m: h ~ 0.11 MC overestimates the data. • lsca > 41 m && h ~ 0.17 && labs ~ 55 m fit better to data, overall at neutrino region.

  8. DATA/MC rates for zenith angle distribution: • labs > 63 m could be discarded. • lsca < 22 m for lower h, seems to compensate the effect of large absorption lengths  An intermediate value of labs = 60 m could confirm it to us.

  9. INFLUENCE OF labs ON RECONSTRUCTED TRACKS: Strategy  For a couple of water models with different labs but same scattering parameters, estimate the difference on the reconstructed track rate  Uncertainty on labs Vs uncertainty on the muon rate. Previous systematic studies in ANTARES (J.A et al / Astroparticle Physics 34, 2010, 179-184, Pag. 182)  “The uncertainty of the light absorption length in water is assumed to be ±10% over the whole wavelength spectrum and yields a variation of ±20% on the number of expected events”. CASE 1 Neutrinos uncertainty (sn_rate) slabs ± 7% (8 m) sm_rate≈ 8% (0.002 Hz) Muons uncertainty (sm_rate) slabs ± 7% (8 m) sm_rate≈ 25% (0.14 Hz)

  10. CASE 2 Neutrinos uncertainty (sn_rate) slabs ± 7% (8 m) sm_rate≈ 8% (0.002 Hz) Muons uncertainty (sm_rate) slabs ± 7% (8 m) sm_rate≈ 13% (0.07Hz) CASE 3 Muons uncertainty (sm_rate) slabs ± 7% (8 m) sm_rate≈ 10% (0.07Hz) Neutrinos uncertainty (sn_rate) slabs ± 7% (8 m) sm_rate≈ 4% (0.001 Hz)

  11. CASE 4 Muons uncertainty (sm_rate) slabs ± 7% (8 m) sm_rate≈ 13% (0.07Hz) Neutrinos uncertainty (sn_rate) slabs ± 7% (8 m) sm_rate≈ 29% (0.0006 Hz) Muons uncertainty (sm_rate) slabs ± 7% (8 m) sm_rate≈ 15% (0.08Hz) Neutrinos uncertainty (sn_rate) slabs ± 7% (8 m) sm_rate≈ 64% (0.0006 Hz)

  12. UNCERTAINTY ON labs (± 7%) and UNCERTAINTY ON MUON RATES: FUNCTION OF ZENITH ANGLE Case 1: sm_rate≈ 25 % Case 2: sm_rate≈ 13 % Case 3: sm_rate≈ 14 % • UNCERTAINTY ON labs ±7% • MEAN UNCERTAINTY mrate≈ 15% Case 4: sm_rate≈ 14 % Case 5: sm_rate≈ 14 % •  THE UNKNOWLEDGE ABOUT ABSORPTION LENGTH FOR DIFFERENT WATER OPTICAL PARAMETERS HAS AN IMPACT LESS THAN THE 15% ON THE RECONSTRUCTED MUON RATE 

  13. UNCERTAINTY ON labs (± 7%) and UNCERTAINTY ON NEUTRINO RATES: FUNCTION OF ZENITH ANGLE Case 1: sn_rate≈ 8 % Case 2: sn_rate≈ 8 % Case 3: sn_rate≈ 4 % • UNCERTAINTY ON labs ±7% • UNCERTAINTY nrate≈ [4-64]% Case 4: sn_rate≈ 29 % Case 5: sn_rate≈ 64 % • RECONSTRUCTED NEUTRINO RATE IS VERY SENSITIVE TO THE RAYLEIGH SCATTERING CONTRIBUTION GIVING A UNCERTAINTY BETWEEN [29-64]%. • TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THAT EXTREME SCATTERING MODELS ARE DISCARDED, THE UNCERTAINTY ON NEUTRINO RATES DUE TO THE UNKNOWLEDGE OF ABSORPTION LENGTH IS LESS THAN THE 29 %.

  14. INFLUENCE OF lsca,eff ON RECONSTRUCTED TRACKS: Strategy Two optical parameters fixed (absorption, eta) and one free parameter (scattering length), for both absorption lengths. Uncertainty on lsca_eff: ~23 % (51.5 m). Uncertainty on muon rate: ~16 % (0.08 Hz). Uncertainty on lsca_eff: ~46 % (81.5 m). Uncertainty on muon rate: ~17 % (0.1 Hz). Uncertainty on lsca_eff: ~58 % (133 m). Uncertainty on muon rate: ~31 % (0.18 Hz). Uncertainty on lsca_eff: ~23 % (51.5 m). Uncertainty on neutrino rate: ~0 % (0 Hz). Uncertainty on lsca_eff: ~46 % (81.5 m). Uncertainty on neutrino rate: ~2% (0.00005 Hz). Uncertainty on lsca_eff: ~58 % (133 m). Uncertainty on neutrino rate: ~2 % (0.00005 Hz). • UNCERTAINTY ON lsca_eff [23-58]% UNCERTAINTY mrate [16-17]% • UNCERTAINTY ON lsca_eff [23-58]% UNCERTAINTY nrate < 2%

  15. Uncertainty on lsca_eff: ~23 % (51.5 m). Uncertainty on muon rate: ~4 % (0.02 Hz). Uncertainty on lsca_eff: ~46 % (81.5 m). Uncertainty on muon rate: ~14 % (0.09 Hz). Uncertainty on lsca_eff: ~58 % (133 m). Uncertainty on muon rate: ~17 % (0.11 Hz). Uncertainty on lsca_eff: ~23 % (51.5 m). Uncertainty on neutrino rate: ~0 % (0 Hz). Uncertainty on lsca_eff: ~46 % (81.5 m). Uncertainty on neutrino rate: ~6 % (0.00015 Hz). Uncertainty on lsca_eff: ~58 % (133 m). Uncertainty on neutrino rate: ~6 % (0.00015 Hz). • UNCERTAINTY ON lsca_eff [23-58]% UNCERTAINTY mrate [4-17]% • UNCERTAINTY ON lsca_eff [23-58]% UNCERTAINTY nrate < 6%

  16. INFLUENCE OF h ON RECONSTRUCTED TRACKS: Strategy One optical parameters fixed (absorption) and two free parameters (scattering length and eta), for both absorption lengths. Uncertainty on h: ~35 % (0.06). Uncertainty on muon rate: ~13 % (0.06 Hz). Uncertainty on h: ~81 % (0.09). Uncertainty on muon rate: ~2 % (0.01 Hz). Uncertainty on h: ~88 % (0.15). Uncertainty on muon rate: ~15 % (0.07 Hz). Uncertainty on h: ~35 % (0.06). Uncertainty on neutrino rate: ~38 % (0.00095 Hz). Uncertainty on h: ~81 % (0.09). Uncertainty on neutrino rate: ~67 % (0.00105 Hz). Uncertainty on h: ~88 % (0.15). Uncertainty on neutrino rate: ~79 % (0.0019 Hz). • UNCERTAINTY ON h [35-88]% UNCERTAINTY mrate [38-79]% • UNCERTAINTY ON h [35-88]% UNCERTAINTY mrate [2-15]%

  17. Uncertainty on h: ~35 % (0.06). Uncertainty on muon rate: ~2 % (0.01 Hz). Uncertainty on h: ~81 % (0.09). Uncertainty on muon rate: ~2 % (0.01 Hz). Uncertainty on h: ~88 % (0.15). Uncertainty on muon rate: ~4 % (0.02 Hz). Uncertainty on h: ~35 % (0.06). Uncertainty on neutrino rate: ~21 % (0.00055 Hz). Uncertainty on h: ~81 % (0.09). Uncertainty on neutrino rate: ~34 % (0.0007 Hz). Uncertainty on h: ~88 % (0.15). Uncertainty on neutrino rate: ~48 % (0.00125 Hz). • UNCERTAINTY ON h [35-88]% UNCERTAINTY mrate [21-48]% • UNCERTAINTY ON h [35-88]% UNCERTAINTY mrate < 4%

  18. CONCLUSIONS/COMMENTS: Current study shows that, for the current physics conditions simulated in the ANTARES KM3 code (whichever they are), the impact of water parameters could be summarized as follow (s = uncertainty): The effective scattering length seems to be the most relevant parameter for muons. Neutrino tracks reconstruction is very sensitive to the Rayleigh scattering, if the contribution of h could be less than 0.17. These uncertainties could be more lower if we consider that scattering lengths less than 22 m are not possible in ANTARES site, however the strongest impact on tracks reconstruction mainly comes from the effective scattering length and not from the absorption length. An extensive study to effective areas and angular resolution will be performed. An internal note will be prepared soon with a dedicated description of the analysis.

  19. BACKUP

More Related