1 / 14

Atmospheric Neutrino Oscillations in SK-I

Atmospheric Neutrino Oscillations in SK-I. An Updated Analysis. Alec Habig, Univ. of Minnesota Duluth for the Super-Kamiokande Collaboration. With much help from Masaki Ishitsuka & Mark Messier. Updated Analysis. All “SK-I” data (April 1996-July 2001) reanalyzed (1489 live-days)

nailah
Download Presentation

Atmospheric Neutrino Oscillations in SK-I

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. Atmospheric Neutrino Oscillations in SK-I An Updated Analysis Alec Habig, Univ. of Minnesota Duluth for the Super-Kamiokande Collaboration With much help from Masaki Ishitsuka & Mark Messier

  2. Updated Analysis • All “SK-I” data (April 1996-July 2001) reanalyzed (1489 live-days) • Ring selection, Particle ID, multi-ring fits improved • Up-m reduction automated and fitting improved (1646 live-days) • Monte Carlo predictions improved • New 2001 Honda 3D n flux (was Honda 1995) • Fermi Momentum, Axial Mass changed to better match K2K near detector n interaction data • (pF now flat, MA for QE, single p from 1.01.1) • New calibs. improve Outer Detector, H2O parameters in detector simulation (GEANT 3 based) Alec Habig

  3. Flux Changes • Honda 1995 1D to Honda 2001 3D • Absolute normalization lower • “3D” enhancement • At low energies • Near the horizon • But at low E, nm following angle is large • Smears out the peak near horizon • So 3D-ness changes little for Super-K (see next slide…) Alec Habig

  4. Sub-GeV Data Sub-GeV (stat.) (syst.) (note no “3D” horizon peak) No cos(q) shape information at the lowest energies, only flavor ratio is useful At higher energies, nm directionality better preserved plus shorter L nm no longer oscillate: cos(q) shape information very useful Key:  Data  MC (no osc.)  MC (best fit) Alec Habig

  5. Multi-GeV data n baseline L: 12800 6200 700 40 15 km Multi GeV+PC (stat.) (syst.) (stat.) (syst.) At even higher energies, n flux up/down symmetric and low-L nm do not have time to disappear. Compare to Ae-like= -0.0200.0430.005 MC Am-like= -0.0030.0050.009 Observed Am-like 9.5s from no-oscillation prediction! Key:  Data  MC (no osc.)  MC (best fit) Alec Habig

  6. More Data SK m nm SK m nm En ~10 GeV Up through going m - • More nm, different En and systematics Measured flux: nm+Nm+np (stat.) (syst.) Theoretical calc: En~100 GeV (theo.) Up stopping m - Measured flux: nm+Nm+np (stat.) (syst.) Theoretical calc: Key:  Data  MC (no osc.)  MC (best fit) (theo.) Alec Habig

  7. New Oscillation Results • For nmnt oscillation: • Best fit: sin2(2q)=1.0, Dm2=2.0x10-3 eV2 • c2 = 170.8/170 dof • 90% c.l. region: • sin2(2q)>0.9 • 1.3 < Dm2 < 3.0x10-3 eV2 Contours represent oscillation hypotheses which fit the observed data less well with a Dc2 corresponding to: Alec Habig

  8. Difference from Previous Results • Small improvements + the same data: • but the end result has changed by more than you might expect • What happened? • (Note this figure is highly zoomed) 90% CL regions Old result @2.5x10-3 New result @2x10-3 Preliminary Alec Habig

  9. Effects of Improvements on Fit • Changes each of which caused Dm2 region to move slightly down: • n flux change (Honda 19952001) • n interaction model (pF flat, MA 1.01.1) • Improved detector simulation (OD, H2O calib.) • Improved event reconstruction (Particle ID, ring selection, up-m fitting) • Net effect on c2 surface of several small changes in same direction is larger Alec Habig

  10. Sub-Sample Consistency • Check oscillation fits using different classes of data independently – allowed regions all overlap best fit • The low energy sub-sample’s only handle on oscillations is the m/e flavor ratio • Used to be high (alone!), is now consistent with other sub-samples Note open-ended “swoosh” shape of a one-parameter flavor ratio fit to two osc. parameters (lowest E event sub-sample) Alec Habig

  11. Unusual Models • Ways to make nm disappear without nm,nt flavor oscillations include: • Lorentz inv. violation • n decay, decoherence • Fits using all available SK n data strongly constrain many such models • Hard for model to get good fit over 5 orders of mag. in E and 4 in L • Long t nm decay and nm decoherence disfavored but not eliminated Data Used: (diff. from std.) (FC+PC (cut into 2 samples @Evis = 5 GeV)+NC+multiring+up-m, 195 bins, 190 d.o.f.) Alec Habig

  12. nm to nsterile? • High energy n experience matter effects which suppress oscillations to sterile n • Matter effects not seen in up-m or high-energy PC data • Reduction in neutral current interactions also not seen • constrains ns component of nm disappearance oscillations • Pure nmns disfavored • ns fraction < 20% at 90% c.l. Alec Habig

  13. CPT Violation • Do nm oscillate differently than nm? • SK cannot tell the difference between nm and nm event-by-event • But we see the sum of the two • One behaving very differently would show up in the total Alec Habig

  14. Summary • nmnt oscillations fit the data better than other means of making nm disappear • Best fit value is (Dm2 = 2.0x10-3 eV2, sin2(2q) = 1.0) • 1.3 < Dm2 < 3.0x10-3 eV2, sin2(2q) > 0.9 @ 90% c.l. • Analysis improvements to • n interaction & flux models • Detector simulation • Event reconstruction • No one improvement drove the changes to the final fit • Each contributed a little in the same direction • All data sub-samples now individually consistent with the overall fit The presenter gratefully acknowledges support for this presentation from the National Science Foundation via its RUI grant #0098579, and from The Research Corporation’s Cottrell College Science Award Alec Habig

More Related