Alternative Code to Calculate NMH Sensitivity J. Brunner 16/10/2015 1.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Oscillation formalism
Advertisements

Atmospheric Neutrinos Barry Barish Bari, Bologna, Boston, Caltech, Drexel, Indiana, Frascati, Gran Sasso, L’Aquila, Lecce, Michigan, Napoli, Pisa, Roma.
Linked to ORCA/PINGU J. Brunner. Calibrations Main stream External input Simulation Reconstruction.
X The values of all neutrino oscillation parameters in the 3ν scheme can now be extracted from global fits of available data with a precision better than.
Status Analysis pp -> D s D s0 (2317) Overview Reconstruction Some QA plots Figure of merit First approach/strategy.
CC analysis progress This talk: –A first attempt at calculating CC energy sensitivity using the Far Mock data MC files with full reconstruction. –Quite.
Blessed Plots 2005 The current set of Blessed plots available from the MINOS website are taken from the 5 year plan exercise that occurred in mid-2003.
1 Latest CC analysis developments New selection efficiencies: –Based on C++ reco + PDFs rather than old (Fortran+reco_minos) cuts –Attempt to optimise.
1 CC analysis update New analysis of SK atm. data –Somewhat lower best-fit value of  m 2 –Implications for CC analysis – 5 year plan plots revisited Effect.
1 Recent developments on sensitivity calculations Effect of combined le and me running –Is there a statistical advantage over pure le running? Discrimination.
Chris Barnes, Imperial CollegeWIN 2005 B mixing at DØ B mixing at DØ WIN 2005 Delphi, Greece Chris Barnes, Imperial College.
1/16 MDC post-mortem redux Status as of last CC meeting: –True values of cross-section and oscillation parameters were used to reweight the ND and FD MC.
Atmospheric Neutrino Oscillations in Soudan 2
P. Vahle, Fermilab Oct An Alternate Approach to the CC Measurement— Predicting the FD Spectrum Patricia Vahle University College London Fermilab.
Analysis Meeting vol Shun University.
E. Devetak - LCWS t-tbar analysis at SiD Erik Devetak Oxford University LCWS /11/2008 Flavour tagging for ttbar Hadronic ttbar events ID.
W  eν The W->eν analysis is a phi uniformity calibration, and only yields relative calibration constants. This means that all of the α’s in a given eta.
Simulation study of RENO-50 Jungsic Park Seoul National University RENO-50 International Workshop June 13-14, 2013 Hoam Faculty House, Korea.
A statistical test for point source searches - Aart Heijboer - AWG - Cern june 2002 A statistical test for point source searches Aart Heijboer contents:
Point Source Search with 2007 & 2008 data Claudio Bogazzi AWG videconference 03 / 09 / 2010.
Counting Electrons to Measure the Neutrino Mass Hierarchy J. Brunner 17/04/2013 APC.
Extrapolation Neutrino Flux measured at Near Detector to the Far Detector Near Detector Workshop, CERN, 30 July 2011 Paul Soler, Andrew Laing.
IceCube Galactic Halo Analysis Carsten Rott Jan-Patrick Huelss CCAPP Mini Workshop Columbus OH August 6, m 2450 m August 6, 20091CCAPP DM Miniworkshop.
Search for Electron Neutrino Appearance in MINOS Mhair Orchanian California Institute of Technology On behalf of the MINOS Collaboration DPF 2011 Meeting.
MEASUREMENT OF THE NEUTRINO MASS HIERARCHY IN THE DEEP SEA J. Brunner.
Study of neutrino oscillations with ANTARES J. Brunner.
Study of neutrino oscillations with ANTARES J. Brunner.
ORCA with e J. Brunner. Step 1 Oscillation probabilities – Values from Fogli et al. (arxiv: ) –  23 =45˚ (avoid octant problem) – CP-phases :
Mass Hierarchy Study with MINOS Far Detector Atmospheric Neutrinos Xinjie Qiu 1, Andy Blake 2, Luke A. Corwin 3, Alec Habig 4, Stuart Mufso 3, Stan Wojcicki.
ORCA simulations - First steps J. Brunner 06/09/2012.
1 Top and Tau Measurements Tim Barklow (SLAC) Oct 02, 2009.
The ORCA Letter of Intent Oscillation Research with Cosmics in the Abyss ORCA Antoine Kouchner University Paris 7 Diderot- AstroParticle and Cosmology.
KM3NeT – ORCA Measuring Neutrino Oscillations and the Neutrino Mass Hierarchy in the Mediterranean Sea J. Brunner CPPM.
P. Vahle, Oxford Jan F/N Ratio and the Effect of Systematics on the 1e20 POT CC Analysis J. Thomas, P. Vahle University College London Feburary.
Bartol Flux Calculation presented by Giles Barr, Oxford ICRR-Kashiwa December 2004.
Inclusive Measurements of inelastic electron/positron scattering on unpolarized H and D targets at Lara De Nardo for the HERMES COLLABORATION.
Beam Extrapolation Fit Peter Litchfield  An update on the method I described at the September meeting  Objective;  To fit all data, nc and cc combined,
A bin-free Extended Maximum Likelihood Fit + Feldman-Cousins error analysis Peter Litchfield  A bin free Extended Maximum Likelihood method of fitting.
Alternative Code to Calculate NMH Sensitivity J. Brunner 16/10/
1 Constraining ME Flux Using ν + e Elastic Scattering Wenting Tan Hampton University Jaewon Park University of Rochester.
Mitchell Naisbit University of Manchester A study of the decay using the BaBar detector Mitchell Naisbit – Elba.
Peterson xBSM Optics, Beam Size Calibration1 xBSM Beam Size Calibration Dan Peterson CesrTA general meeting introduction to the optics.
Aart Heijboer ● ORCA * catania workshop sep statistical power of mass hierarchy measurement (with ORCA) Aart Heijboer, Nikhef.
Current Physics Results Gordon Thomson Rutgers University.
4/12/05 -Xiaojian Zhang, 1 UIUC paper review Introduction to Bc Event selection The blind analysis The final result The systematic error.
ORCA from ANTARES modules J. Brunner 06/10/2012. Detector Hexagonal layout a la IceCube 37 lines, distance 20m 25 ANTARES storeys  z = 4.5m Equipped.
Neutral Current Contributions J. Brunner 22/04/2015.
Status of QEL Analysis ● QEL-like Event Selection and Sample ● ND Flux Extraction ● Fitting for MINOS Collaboration Meeting FNAL, 7 th -10 th December.
A New Upper Limit for the Tau-Neutrino Magnetic Moment Reinhard Schwienhorst      ee ee
1 D *+ production Alexandr Kozlinskiy Thomas Bauer Vanya Belyaev
Low energy option for KM3NeT Phase 1? KM3NeT-ORCA (Oscillation Research with Cosmics in the Abyss) P. Coyle, Erlangen 23 June 2012.
Extrapolation Techniques  Four different techniques have been used to extrapolate near detector data to the far detector to predict the neutrino energy.
MIND Systematic Errors EuroNu Meeting, RAL 18 January 2010 Paul Soler.
Reconstruction code and comparison between Genie and Genhen A. Trovato, C. Distefano, R. Coniglione and P. Sapienza Kick-off ORCA meeting: 6 September.
Muon Energy reconstruction in IceCube and neutrino flux measurement Dmitry Chirkin, University of Wisconsin at Madison, U.S.A., MANTS meeting, fall 2009.
T2K Experiment Results & Prospects Alfons Weber University of Oxford & STFC/RAL For the T2K Collaboration.
IC-22 Point Source Analysis with Unbinned Maximum Likelihood C. Finley, J. Dumm, T. Montaruli 2008 May 2.
Wrong sign muons detection in a
Measurement of the Neutrino Mass hierarchy in the deep sea
ORCA proposed public plots
p0 life time analysis: general method, updates and preliminary result
A New Measurement of |Vus| from KTeV
EMCal Recalibration Check
Fluxes and Event rates in KM3NeT detectors
T2KK sensitivity as a function of L and Dm2
EMCal Recalibration Check
Claudio Bogazzi * - NIKHEF Amsterdam ICRC 2011 – Beijing 13/08/2011
Problems with the Run4 Preliminary Phi->KK Analysis
Report on p0 decay width: analysis updates
Dilepton Mass. Progress report.
Presentation transcript:

Alternative Code to Calculate NMH Sensitivity J. Brunner 16/10/2015 1

Method to Determine NMH 2 Cos(zenith) : 40 bins from -1 to 0 E ν : 40 bin in log(E) from 2 to 100 GeV 1600 pairs of true values [E ν,θ] (bin center) Oscillation probabilities from Globes

Ingredients : Honda Flux Reference: Honda paper(2006) arxiv/astro- ph/ v3 Choices made: – Frejus site – no mountain – Solar minimum – azimuth averages 3

Honda Flux : Sanity check Low energy differences due to site & season 4

Ingredients : Cross Sections From Genie, combination Oxygen, n, p Provided by Martijn 5

Detector Parameters Dependency on Zenith angle currently ignored 1-Dim parametrisation functions derived from input histograms Generally Gaussian smearing assumed 6

Angular Resolution 7 Gaussian smearing in cos(SpaceAngle) Width adjusted to approximately fit the shown distributions ( ~ √m/E ν )

Angular Resolution - 6m 8 Gaussian smearing in cos(SpaceAngle) Width adjusted to approximately fit the shown distributions ( ~ √m/E ν ) Scaling to 9m, 12m : 1 10 GeV degradation per 3m spacing increase

9 True cos(zenith) Xxxxx Parametrisation 7 GeV < E < 8 GeV Parametrisation 7 GeV < E < 8 GeV Full Simul/Reco Jannik 7 GeV < E < 8 GeV Full Simul/Reco Jannik 7 GeV < E < 8 GeV Comparison with full Simulation

10 Assume Gaussian smearing in E ν Two free parameter : mean value & width Fit for each bin in E ν Example : E reco distribution for E ν ≈ 10 GeV Energy Resolution νeνe νμνμ Fit 9.57 ± 2.55 GeV Fit ± 2.77 GeV

11 Gaussian smearing in E ν Showers width : [0] + [1]*E ν + [2]*E ν 2 Energy Resolution - 6m ν e CC ν μ CC ν τ CC ν NC

12 Gaussian smearing in E ν Showers width : [0] + [1]*E ν + [2]*E ν 2 Energy Resolution - 9m ν e CC ν μ CC ν τ CC ν NC

13 Gaussian smearing in E ν Showers width : [0] + [1]*E ν + [2]*E ν 2 Energy Resolution – 12m ν e CC ν μ CC ν τ CC ν NC

14 Use quadratic template in log 10 (E ν ) E reco = E ν ( [0] + [1]*lgE ν + [2]*lgE ν 2 ) Energy Shift – 6m ν e CC ν μ CC ν τ CC ν NC

15 Use quadratic template in log 10 (E ν ) E reco = E ν ( [0] + [1]*lgE ν + [2]*lgE ν 2 ) Energy Shift – 9m ν e CC ν μ CC ν τ CC ν NC

16 Use quadratic template in log 10 (E ν ) E reco = E ν ( [0] + [1]*lgE ν + [2]*lgE ν 2 ) Energy Shift – 12m ν e CC ν μ CC ν τ CC ν NC

17 Use quadratic template in log 10 (E ν ) E reco = E ν ( [0] + [1]*lgE ν + [2]*lgE ν 2 ) Energy Shift – Muon 6m 9m 12m

18 Use three parameter template in E ν M eff = [0]*TanH((E ν -[1])/[2]) Effective Mass – 6m ν e CC ν μ CC ν τ CC ν NC

19 Use three parameter template in E ν M eff = [0]*TanH((E ν -[1])/[2]) Effective Mass – 9m ν e CC ν μ CC ν τ CC ν NC

20 Use three parameter template in E ν M eff = [0]*TanH((E ν -[1])/[2]) Effective Mass – 12m ν e CC ν μ CC ν τ CC ν NC

21 Use three parameter template in E ν M eff = [0]*TanH((E ν -[1])/[2]) Effective Mass – ν e 6m 9m 12m HE limit does not scale ?

22 Use three parameter template in E ν M eff = [0]*TanH((E ν -[1])/[2]) Effective Mass – ν μ 6m 9m 12m HE limit does not scale ? Systematically smaller ?

23 Use three parameter template in E ν P track = [0] + [1]*E ν **[2] Particle ID – 6m ν e CC ν μ CC ν τ CC ν NC

24 Use three parameter template in E ν P track = [0] + [1]*E ν **[2] Particle ID – 9m ν e CC ν μ CC ν τ CC ν NC

25 Use three parameter template in E ν P track = [0] + [1]*E ν **[2] Particle ID – 12m ν e CC ν μ CC ν τ CC ν NC

26 Use three parameter template in E ν P track = [0] + [1]*E ν **[2] Particle ID – ν e 6m 9m 12m

27 Use three parameter template in E ν P track = [0] + [1]*E ν **[2] Particle ID – ν μ 6m 9m 12m

Method to Determine NMH 28 Start with 1600 pairs of [E ν,θ] Apply Resolution matrices – NE reco [i] = Σ M E [i][j] NE true [j] – Nθ reco [i] = Σ M θ [i][j][k] NEθ true [j][k] Apply Particle ID Below (IH-NH)/√ NH for 1 year NH  IH |Δm 2 31 |  |Δm 2 31 | - 2Δm 2 21 |Δm 2 32 |  |Δm 2 32 |

Method to Determine NMH 29 Start with 1600 pairs of [E ν,θ] Apply Resolution matrices – NE reco [i] = Σ M E [i][j] NE true [j] – Nθ reco [i] = Σ M θ [i][j][k] NEθ true [j][k] Apply Particle ID Below (IH-NH)/√ NH for 1 year NH  IH |Δm 2 31 |  |Δm 2 31 | - Δm 2 21 |Δm 2 32 |  |Δm 2 32 | +Δm 2 21

Event Rate in ORCA – 6m Events per year per GeV One example bin in cosθ (width 0.1 at ~45 0 ) Numbers for full angular range No Resolutions, no PID ν μ CC 21,700 ν e CC 17,300 ν τ CC 2,500 NC 5,300 NH  IH |Δm 2 31 |  |Δm 2 31 | - Δm 2 21 |Δm 2 32 |  |Δm 2 32 | +Δm

Event Rate in ORCA – 9m Events per year per GeV One example bin in cosθ (width 0.1 at ~45 0 ) Numbers for full angular range No Resolutions, no PID ν μ CC 24,800 ν e CC 17,300 ν τ CC 3,100 NC 5,300 NH  IH |Δm 2 31 |  |Δm 2 31 | - Δm 2 21 |Δm 2 32 |  |Δm 2 32 | +Δm

Event Rate in ORCA – 12m Events per year per GeV One example bin in cosθ (width 0.1 at ~45 0 ) Numbers for full angular range No Resolutions, no PID ν μ CC 23,800 ν e CC 14,500 ν τ CC 3,000 NC 4,600 NH  IH |Δm 2 31 |  |Δm 2 31 | - Δm 2 21 |Δm 2 32 |  |Δm 2 32 | +Δm

Event Rate in ORCA – 6m ν μ CC 21,700 ν e CC 17,300 ν τ CC 2,500 NC 5,300 Events per year per GeV (Flux, CrossSection, M eff ) One example bin in cosθ (width 0.1 at ~45 0 ) Numbers for full angular range Resolutions added, no PID 33

Event Rate in ORCA - 9m ν μ CC 24,800 ν e CC 17,300 ν τ CC 3,100 NC 5,300 Events per year per GeV (Flux, CrossSection, M eff ) One example bin in cosθ (width 0.1 at ~45 0 ) Numbers for full angular range Resolutions added, no PID 34

Event Rate in ORCA – 12m ν μ CC 23,800 ν e CC 14,500 ν τ CC 3,000 NC 4,600 Events per year per GeV (Flux, CrossSection, M eff ) One example bin in cosθ (width 0.1 at ~45 0 ) Numbers for full angular range Resolutions added, no PID 35

Event Rate in ORCA – 6m Events per year per GeV (Flux, CrossSection, M eff ) One example bin in cosθ (width 0.1 at ~45 0 ) PID added ; CP phase : 0,90,180, Tracks 28,200 Cascades 18,700

Event Rate in ORCA – 9m Events per year per GeV (Flux, CrossSection, M eff ) One example bin in cosθ (width 0.1 at ~45 0 ) PID added ; CP phase : 0,90,180, Tracks 30,600 Cascades 20,000

Event Rate in ORCA – 12m Events per year per GeV (Flux, CrossSection, M eff ) One example bin in cosθ (width 0.1 at ~45 0 ) PID added ; CP phase : 0,90,180, Tracks 26,600 Cascades 19,300

Event Rate in ORCA Events per year per GeV (Flux, CrossSection, M eff ) One example bin in cosθ (width 0.1 at ~45 0 ) PID added ; Zoom : CP phase : 0,90,180,270 39

NMH Sensitivity Calculation Calculate Event rates W for cascade/track[40,40] for «true» parameters (including hierarchy choice) Fit «wrong» hierarchy event rates – all free parameters also fitted Minimizer : MIGRAD within Minuit2 from Root Significance from χ 2 = Σ (NH-IH) 2 /NH No pseudo-experiments (« Asimov-Set ») Sanity check : Fitting «true» hierarchy yields χ 2 = 0 40

Fit Parameters Fixed oscillation parameters : θ 12,θ 13,Δm 21 Fitted oscillation parameters : θ 23,Δm 31, [ δ CP ] Fitted Nuisance parameter – Individual normalisations for tracks, cascades, NC 6 parameters, no priors, i.e. no constraints Fit starting points at «nominal» values Convergence after ~200 calls (~10min) 41

Sensitivity to Neutrino Mass Hierarchy 42 True value for θ 23 varied, different δ CP conditions Dashed : δ CP = 0 not fitted Solid thin : δ CP = 0 fitted ; thick δ CP = 180 fitted Initial value for θ 23 : true value

Sensitivity to Neutrino Mass Hierarchy 43 Introduce scan of starting values for θ 23 Look at fitted values for θ 23 NH true – IH fitted : always second octant IH true – NH fitted : always first octant

Sensitivity to Neutrino Mass Hierarchy 44 Add nuisance parameters: spectral index, ratio ν/ν Small decrease of sensitivity Compatible with result from Martijn

Sensitivity to Neutrino Mass Hierarchy 45 Add nuisance parameter: spectral index, ratio ν/ν Simplified resolution functions : identical for ν/ν Find systematic shift towards anti-neutrino 10-30% lower neutrino rate, 20-60% higher Antinu  need prior here ?? Martijn : spread of 4% Inconsistent with above ?

46 Add nuisance parameter: spectral index, ratio ν/ν Channel dependent resolution function Ratio ν/ν much more stable  need prior here ?? No !! Martijn : spread of 4% Consistent with above !! Sensitivity to Neutrino Mass Hierarchy

47 Add nuisance parameter: spectral index, ratio ν/ν Gaussian Prior with 10% width added Minor effect

Dependency on δ CP and θ Plot presented at ICRC (Martijn) Tendency visible but scrambled due to limited statistics

Dependency on δ CP and θ Same plot (for true NH) Symmetric pattern around δ CP = Highest sensitivity for δ CP = 0, and large θ 23

Dependency on δ CP and θ Same plot (for true IH) Symmetric pattern around δ CP = Highest sensitivity for δ CP = 0, and θ 23 close to 45 0

51 Normalisations behave well without priors Jitter compatible with values from Martijn Martijn : 2.0% Martijn : 11.0% Nuisance Parameters Total NormNC Norm

52 Spectral Index & Track/Cascade ratio ok Jitter compatible with values from Martijn Martijn : 1.2% Spectral Index Track - Cascade Martijn : 0.5% Nuisance Parameters

53 ΔM 2 very stable for IH δ CP always around even for true value 0 δ CP Δm 2 32 Oscillation Parameters

54 What happens if PID changes ? Reminder : Present values Effect of modified detector performance

55 Assume improvement of PID of muon-neutrinos at 10 GeV from 75% to 85% Below : Assumed performance and new results Moderate gain of 0.2σ Effect of modified detector performance

56 What happens if energy resolution improves from ~20-25% to 10-15% ? (all channels) Reminder : Present values Effect of modified detector performance

57 What happens if energy resolution improves from ~20-25% to 10-15% ? (all channels) Below : Assumed performance and new results Average gain of 0.5σ in 3 years Effect of modified detector performance

58 NH true, 3 years data taking Effect of vertical spacing 6m 9m 12m

59 IH true, 3 years data taking Effect of vertical spacing 6m 9m 12m

Summary & Further Plans New Sensitivity code fully operational – based on parametrized detector response – Asimov sets (no pseudo-experiments) Results from pseudo-experiment study reproduced Further studies – Nuisance parameters on non-nominal values – Study more systematic effects (energy scale) – Uncertainty of resolution functions – Effect of Bjorken-Y 60