April 1, 20061 Beam measurement with -Update - David Jaffe & Pedro Ochoa 1)Reminder of proposed technique 2)Use of horn-off data 3)Use of horn2-off data?

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Update on Data / MC Comparisons for Low Hadronic Energy CC-like Events Reminder of problem Fiducial studies with more MC statistics Effect of offset in.

Advertisements

Low x workshop Helsinki 2007 Joël Feltesse 1 Inclusive F 2 at low x and F L measurement at HERA Joël Feltesse Desy/Hamburg/Saclay On behalf of the H1 and.

1 A preliminary estimate of the beam e ’s from antineutrinos David Jaffe, Pedro Ochoa December 7 th 2006.

Off-axis Simulations Peter Litchfield, Minnesota  What has been simulated?  Will the experiment work?  Can we choose a technology based on simulations?

1 Using the pHE data to measure the beam e ’s from  + decay David Jaffe and Pedro Ochoa March 13 th 2007  Introduction  Antineutrino selection  Feasibility.

Selection: i) Used “basic cuts” described in my NuBarPID talk (slide 3). 74.4% of CC events pass this cut. ii) Used David’s PID cut at -0.2 to remove NC.

MINOS Feb Antineutrino running Pedro Ochoa Caltech.

Inclusive  Production at Y(1S) Sheldon Stone Jianchun Wang Syracuse University CLEO Meeting 09/13/02.

1 Using the pHE data to measure the beam e ’s from  + decay David Jaffe and Pedro Ochoa April 12 th 2007  Reminder  Systematic from background  Horn.

Nubar-PID Nubar-PID distribution for data and MC after: 1) fiducial 2) track quality 3) fit significance data MC data/MC Horn-off.

DPF Victor Pavlunin on behalf of the CLEO Collaboration DPF-2006 Results from four CLEO Y (5S) analyses:  Exclusive B s and B Reconstruction at.

Summary of Results data-Fit/Scaled MC, E < E cut (candidates for  + decay) data-Fit/Scaled MC, E > E cut raw MC375.8±15.1(stat)79.5±9.2(stat) reweighed.

(q/p) / (σ q/p) 0 < Planes < 3030

MINOS 1 Beam e ’s from antineutrinos David Jaffe and Pedro Ochoa September 27 th 2007  Preliminaries  Data & MC  Expected sensitivities  Preliminary.

1 Scaling methods Main idea of scaling methods is: Overall method: C(E) is obtained in 5 different ways: From horn-off data, E cut < E < E high From horn-off.

Search for B     with SemiExclusive reconstruction C.Cartaro, G. De Nardo, F. Fabozzi, L. Lista Università & INFN - Sezione di Napoli.

Far Detector Fiducial Volume Studies Andy Blake Cambridge University Saturday February 24 th 2007.

Status of  b Scan Jianchun Wang Syracuse University Representing L b scanners CLEO Meeting 05/11/02.

2015/6/23 1 How to Extrapolate a Neutrino Spectrum to a Far Detector Alfons Weber (Oxford/RAL) NF International Scoping Study, RAL 27 th April 2006.

NuMI Offaxis Near Detector and Backgrounds Stanley Wojcicki Stanford University Cambridge Offaxis workshop January 12, 2004.

25 April Antineutrino selection for constraining the e beam Goal: extract component of  rate from  + decays Requirement: High purity at low neutrino.

1 Beam e ’s from antineutrinos using the pME and LE beams David Jaffe, Pedro Ochoa December 8 th 2006  Part 1: Reminder and update  Part 2: Change in.

1) Horn-on selection (L010185) Tightening the NuBarPID cut NuBarPID Purity vs. Efficiency nu nubar.

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.

Preliminary Measurement of the BF(   → K -  0  ) using the B A B AR Detector Fabrizio Salvatore Royal Holloway University of London for the B A B AR.

1 Using the pHE data to measure the beam e ’s from  + decay David Jaffe and Pedro Ochoa June 14 th 2007  Reminder  Updated Statistical error  Horn.

First tried to reproduce Jeff’s cuts described in his talk at Oxford (minos-doc 1409): For this, used tracks in fiducial volume (1m

Identification of neutrino oscillations in the MINOS detector Daniel Cole

1 Beam e ’s from antineutrinos – Update – David Jaffe, Pedro Ochoa November 13 th 2006  Part 1: from  + reweighing  Part 2: New ideas.

Measurement of the Branching fraction B( B  D* l ) C. Borean, G. Della Ricca G. De Nardo, D. Monorchio M. Rotondo Riunione Gruppo I – Napoli 19 Dicembre.

P. Vahle, Fermilab Oct An Alternate Approach to the CC Measurement— Predicting the FD Spectrum Patricia Vahle University College London Fermilab.

E. De LuciaNeutral and Charged Kaon Meeting – 7 May 2007 Updates on BR(K +  π + π 0 ) E. De Lucia.

Latest Results from the MINOS Experiment Justin Evans, University College London for the MINOS Collaboration NOW th September 2008.

Search for Electron Neutrino Appearance in MINOS Mhair Orchanian California Institute of Technology On behalf of the MINOS Collaboration DPF 2011 Meeting.

First Look at Data and MC Comparisons for Cedar and Birch ● Comparisons of physics quantities for CC events with permutations of Cedar, Birch, Data and.

 0  5  Outline Event selection & analysis Background rejection Efficiencies Mass spectrum Comparison data-MC Branching ratio evaluation Systematics.

Measurements of Top Quark Properties at Run II of the Tevatron Erich W.Varnes University of Arizona for the CDF and DØ Collaborations International Workshop.

Cedar and pre-Daikon Validation ● CC PID parameter based CC sample selections with Birch, Cedar, Carrot and pre-Daikon. ● Cedar validation for use with.

Progress on F  with the KLOE experiment (untagged) Federico Nguyen Università Roma TRE February 27 th 2006.

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.

Mark Dorman UCL/RAL MINOS Collaboration Meeting Fermilab, Oct. 05 Data/MC Comparisons and Estimating the ND Flux with QE Events ● Update on QE event selection.

Study of the ND Data/MC for the CC analysis October 14, 2005 MINOS collaboration meeting M.Ishitsuka Indiana University.

Preliminary Measurement of the Ke3 Form Factor f + (t) M. Antonelli, M. Dreucci, C. Gatti Introduction: Form Factor Parametrization Fitting Function and.

1 Constraining ME Flux Using ν + e Elastic Scattering Wenting Tan Hampton University Jaewon Park University of Rochester.

T2K muon measurement 2014 Momentum module A.Ariga, C. Pistillo University of Bern S. Aoki Kobe University 1.

Proposal for the study to define what is really necessary and what is not when the data from beam, ND and SK are combined A.K.Ichikawa 2008/1/17.

06/2006I.Larin PrimEx Collaboration meeting  0 analysis.

MINOS Coll Meet. Oxford, Jan CC/NC Data Cross Checks Thomas Osiecki University of Texas at Austin.

P. Ochoa, September Using Muon Removed files to assess the purity of the nubar-PID selection Pedro Ochoa MINOS Collaboration Meeting September 2006.

Kalanand Mishra June 29, Branching Ratio Measurements of Decays D 0  π - π + π 0, D 0  K - K + π 0 Relative to D 0  K - π + π 0 Giampiero Mancinelli,

Kalanand Mishra February 23, Branching Ratio Measurements of Decays D 0  π - π + π 0, D 0  K - K + π 0 Relative to D 0  K - π + π 0 decay Giampiero.

Status of QEL Analysis ● QEL-like Event Selection and Sample ● ND Flux Extraction ● Fitting for MINOS Collaboration Meeting FNAL, 7 th -10 th December.

Comparison of MC and data Abelardo Moralejo Padova.

Belle General meeting Measurement of spectral function in the decay 1. Motivation 2. Event selection 3. mass spectrum (unfolding) 4. Evaluation.

Paolo Massarotti Kaon meeting March 2007  ±  X    X  Time measurement use neutral vertex only in order to obtain a completely independent.

1 D *+ production Alexandr Kozlinskiy Thomas Bauer Vanya Belyaev

Extrapolation Techniques  Four different techniques have been used to extrapolate near detector data to the far detector to predict the neutrino energy.

Measurement of the Muon Charge Ratio in Cosmic Ray Events with the CMS Experiment at the LHC S. Marcellini, INFN Bologna – Italy on behalf of the CMS collaboration.

I'm concerned that the OS requirement for the signal is inefficient as the charge of the TeV scale leptons can be easily mis-assigned. As a result we do.

LNF 12/12/06 1 F.Ambrosino-T. Capussela-F.Perfetto Update on        Dalitz plot slope Where we started from A big surprise Systematic checks.

Mark Dorman UCL/RAL MINOS WITW June 05 An Update on Using QE Events to Estimate the Neutrino Flux and Some Preliminary Data/MC Comparisons for a QE Enriched.

Upsilon production and μ-tagged jets in DØ Horst D. Wahl Florida State University (DØ collaboration) 29 April 2005 DIS April to 1 May 2005 Madison.

Referee Report on Open charm production results for summer conferences, 2010 Peter Clarke Marcel Merk “Observations” and “Comments” The referees thank.

The MiniBooNE Little Muon Counter Detector

A PID based approach for antineutrino selection

° status report analysis details: overview; “where we are”; plans: before finalizing result.. I.Larin 02/13/2009.

A brief update on b-tagging of High P jets

Presentation transcript:

April 1, Beam measurement with -Update - David Jaffe & Pedro Ochoa 1)Reminder of proposed technique 2)Use of horn-off data 3)Use of horn2-off data? 4)Effect of correcting for KL3 branching fractions and matrix elements 5)Summary & Ongoing work

April 1, ) Brief reminder ● Concept: Measurement of low energy can be used to constrain the flux, since: So look for whose father is a ! True energy of true at the ND No from  above this energy (Ecut) E cut ● The technique is: where The most critical aspect of this measurement lies in the uncertainty of the correction factor C. (doc-1663, doc-1605)

April 1, ) Use of Horn-off data We made a first pass at C by studying its energy dependence: C(E). So the procedure we followed was to: Step 1) Calculate C(E) from the horn-off data and MC. Step 2) Test C(E) on the horn-on data and MC for E > E cut =10GeV. Ansatz: C(E) is the same for horn-off and horn-on data. This may actually be true if the differences between data and MC lie only in things that affect both situations (horns on & off) the same, like cross-sections. How? Horn-off data gives us a direct handle: Horn Off no mu+

April 1, Step 1: Obtaining C(E) from horn-off data First, two words on antineutrino selection: ● Selected events that satisfy some “basic” cuts: At least 1 track Track passes fit UV asym < 6 / ndf < 20 PID > -0.2 ● Used “NuBar-PID” cut at 0.27 (ref. doc-1657): Evaluating the selection on the horn-off MC gives 94.6% purity and 61.2% overall efficiency. Horn-off MC ● Selected events in fiducial volume: 1<vtxz<5 & vtxr < 1.0m Background composition

April 1, Horn-off data and MC comparison for antineutrinos: ● Used all available MC and data (2.77e18 POT, taken in February). MC was scaled to the data. ● Uncertainty is dominated by data statistics. The right plot is our estimate of C(E). Step 2 is to test it ! Data MC data/MC Horn-off Please note that (ref. slide 3) and therefore that, with infinite MC statistics, we have

April 1, ● Used 1.9e19 POT of R data (January 2006). MC was scaled to the data. ● Observe similar deficit of MC with respect to data, like in the horn-off case. Data MC data/MC Horn-on ● Used same cuts as for horn-off data. Evaluation in horn-on MC gives 86.6% purity and 61.2% efficiency (including all cuts). ● Checked efficiency and purity as a function of energy to make sure that we are not affected by background at high energies (E > E cut ) Step 2: Testing C(E) in horn-on data straight line !

April 1, Tried 3 different approaches when “fitting” C(E) and scaling MC: Data Scaled MC 1) 5 th degree pol. 2) 2 constants Data Scaled MC 3) Bin by bin Data Scaled MC Horn-on Horn-off data/ Scaled MC C(E) apply C(E) apply C(E) apply C(E) take ratio take ratio take ratio

April 1, We observe that: ● The 3 fits perform similarly at E < E high ~ 16 GeV and the results are encouraging in that region. Furthermore, C(E) seems to be consistent with a constant from E cut < E < E high. Need to understand why this is. ● This suggests the following methods for estimating C: i) Estimate C = C H for the horn-on or horn-off data/MC: where H denotes events with Ecut < E < Ehigh. ii) Similarly, estimate C L with the horn-off data: where L denotes events with 0 < E < Ecut. iii) The degree of agreement between the 3 estimates (C H (on), C H (off) and C L (off)) provides an estimate of the systematic uncertainty in C with a statistical uncertainty of a few percent from the horn-off data statistics of 2.77e18 POT. MC H HHC  /  ● ME & HE data may be very useful in understanding C, since the mu+ component should be the only one focussed.

April 1, Normal Horn-2 off Normal Horn-2 off component all other components (π,K) ● It seems that the second horn focuses about ~3/5 of the mu+, but the rest is done by the first horn. This is less than we expected. ● The spectrum’s disruption is too severe for the non-mu+ components to use this data. 3) Horn-2 OFF Flux Generation ● Idea was brought up by Milind that the mu+ may be getting focused mainly by the second horn. If so, horn2-off data can be an extra tool for constraining C(E). ● In order to answer this, generated 1e7 POT of horn2-off flux: Units are flux per m2 per 5e5 POT.

April 1, Negligible systematic effect of Kl3 corrections on C(E) and method to extract the  flux from  O(5%) effect on total  e flux of corrections for Kl3 Br and ME _ 4) Corrections for Kl3 matrix elements and branching fractions ● In doc-1652, Stan noted that Kl3 matrix elements were not implemented correctly in gnumi. Implications of correcting for Kl3 Br and ME were analyzed:

April 1, Summary & Ongoing Work Preliminary check with horn-off data is encouraging: C(E) appears to be the same for horn-on/off for the region Ecut < E < Ehigh Comparison of C from the different data sets will provide an estimate of the systematic uncertainty in C. Use of ME, HE should improve understanding. Need to take NC and neutrino bkgd into account in estimation of C. No motivation for Horn2-off running in this analysis. Kl3 corrections do not appear to have significant impact on extraction of  component of    flux. There appears to be a modest effect on the beam e flux. Need corrected gnumi (or equivalent) for definite conclusions. Improving the purity of the low energy  sample is difficult. Current work on nubar selection: (Alternative: Measure purity with decays of stopped muons? doc-1571) Which one of these tools is/are most suited for high purity at low energy?