First tried to reproduce Jeff’s cuts described in his talk at Oxford (minos-doc 1409): For this, used tracks in fiducial volume (1m<vtxz<5m & vtxr < 1.0m),

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

1 Methods of Experimental Particle Physics Alexei Safonov Lecture #21.

Advertisements

N. Saoulidou Fermilab 1 Update on track reconstruction in the Near Detector N. Saoulidou, Fermilab

The Geometric Distributions Section Starter Fred Funk hits his tee shots straight most of the time. In fact, last year he put 78% of his.

Alessandro Fois Detection of  particles in B meson decay.

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

CC analysis progress This talk: –A first attempt at calculating CC energy sensitivity using the Far Mock data MC files with full reconstruction. –Quite.

Beam e background with antineutrinos Lots of discussion recently; does not look like getting needed amount of pME running will happen (or not easily at.

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.

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.

Update on NC/CC separation At the previous phone meeting I presented a method to separate NC/CC using simple cuts on reconstructed quantities available.

(q/p) / (σ q/p) 0 < Planes < 3030

1 First look at new MC files First look at reconstruction output from the newly- generated “mock-data” MC files. –These contain the following improvements:

Atmospheric Neutrino Event Reconstruction Andy Blake Cambridge University June 2004.

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

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

C&A 8 May 06 1 Point Source Localization: Optimizing the CTBCORE cut Toby Burnett University of Washington.

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

CC/NC SEPARATION STUDY Andy Blake Cambridge University Friday February 23 rd 2007.

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.

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?

FD event selection and data/MC comparisons Motivation of this study –Look at FD events (with blinding scheme imposed) to determine Whether we observe neutrino.

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.

 Expand feasibility study to include background: Beam e measurement from antineutrinos Background in pHE and LE samples obtained with the nubar-PID cut.

Far Detector Fiducial Volume Study Andy Blake Cambridge University Thursday December 7 th 2006.

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.

Identification of neutrino oscillations in the MINOS detector Daniel Cole

CC ANALYSIS STUDIES Andy Blake Cambridge University Fermilab, September 2006.

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

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.

NOTES The Normal Distribution. In earlier courses, you have explored data in the following ways: By plotting data (histogram, stemplot, bar graph, etc.)

880.P20 Winter 2006 Richard Kass Binomial Probability Distribution For the binomial distribution P is the probability of m successes out of N trials. Here.

Exponential Functions Graphing. Exponential Functions  Graphing exponential functions is just like graphing any other function.  Look at the graph.

1 Cosmic Muon Analysis: Current Status Stuart Mufson, Brian Rebel Argonne March 18, 2005.

N. Saoulidou Fermilab 1 Status & Update of track reconstruction in the Near Detector N. Saoulidou, Fermilab

Some investigations on Shower in Aug11 DST Szymon Harabasz Version: 15 November 2015.

Anne Dabrowski 26 February Semileptonic Analysis from Low Intensity Run Anne Dabrowski Northwestern University NA48 Collaboration Meeting 26 February.

Background Subtraction and Likelihood Method of Analysis: First Attempt Jose Benitez 6/26/2006.

Flavour break-up July7th 2008 Our aim was modest: 1)To alter fc=0.15 to fc=0.09 following investigations of the charm fraction 2)To take into account the.

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.

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

Optimization of Analysis Cuts for Oscillation Parameters Andrew Culling, Cambridge University HEP Group.

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.

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.

CHAPTER 3: The Normal Distributions

Update on Diffractive Dijets Hardeep Bansil University of Birmingham 12/07/2013.

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,

QM2004 Version1 Measurements of the  ->     with PHENIX in Au+Au Collisions at 200 GeV at RHIC PPG016 Figures with Final Approval Charles F. Maguire.

1 D *+ production Alexandr Kozlinskiy Thomas Bauer Vanya Belyaev

Mark Dorman UCL/RAL MINOS ANL Meeting March 05 Dr. Quasi-Elastic (or... How I learned to stop worrying and love the Hough transform) Mark Dorman ● Update.

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.

By: Daniel Coelho Matthew Szydagis Robert Svoboda Improving Electron / Gamma Separation LBNE Software Fermilab, ILFebruary 1, 2013.

I have 6 events (Nch>=100) on a background of ?

Neutral Current Interactions in MINOS Alexandre Sousa, University of Oxford for the MINOS Collaboration Neutrino Events in MINOS Neutrino interactions.

Erik Devetak Oxford University 18/09/2008

A PID based approach for antineutrino selection

Marco Incagli – INFN Pisa

Two Interpretations of What it Means to Normalize the Low Energy Monte Carlo Events to the Low Energy Data Atms MC Atms MC Data Data Signal Signal Apply.

Checks of TOF Fiducial Cuts

Current Status of the VTX analysis

Presentation transcript:

First tried to reproduce Jeff’s cuts described in his talk at Oxford (minos-doc 1409): For this, used tracks in fiducial volume (1m<vtxz<5m & vtxr < 1.0m), and: 1) q/p > 0 2) Fit.pass + chi2<ndf <10 + UVasym < 6 3)|(q/p)/(σ q/p)|<0.3 4) Prob(chi2,ndf)>0.1 5) Dave’s PID > 0.4 1) Jeff’s cuts Jeff’s cuts of Oxford Results in next slide…

All neutrinos Selected as antineutrinos Background Background composition Overall efficiency: % Overall purity: 98.21%

Jeff’s cuts work very good but for our analysis we cannot tolerate the background.  Worked on improving the NuBarPID ! The first improvement came out by noticing that separation is better for longer events: 2) Our selection (q/p) / (σ q/p) 0 < Planes < 3030 <= Planes < 6060 <= Planes < <= Planes < <= Planes < 153

 So tried the following 2D PDFs for the NuBarPID (in addition to #planes, y, and dcosz) neutrinosantineutrinos Note: Every “row”, or slice of planes (for instance from 0 to 30) is normalized to unity, as seen in previous slide. This is to keep the effect of the #planes PDF separate (and not be E dependent)

 An improvement is observed ! After Before After Purity Efficiency nu nubar Some events are really well separated ! Here the efficiency does not include the basic cuts.

In addition, David J. found out that cutting on the difference between the momentum from curvature and the momentum from range can help us reduce the background.  Tried this as an extra cut in the NuBarPID: Used NuBarPID with 4PDFs: 1) the 2D q/p/(σ q/p) vs. planes histogram 2) planes 3) y 4) cosz The pdfs were made with no cuts required, except the basic ones: At least 1 track Trk.fit.pass==1 U-V asym < 6 /ndf < 20 Plots of Purity vs. Efficiency were made. The efficiency now includes all cuts (including the basic track quality ones, and the one). In other words, efficiency is measured with respect to all CC nubar events.

NuBarPID and - No extra cut - x=1.0 - x=0.5 - x=0.3 - x=0.15 An improvement is seen, but it’s not enough !

NuBarPID and: - No extra cut - x=0.15 cut - Prob(chi2,ndf)>0.1 cut Among other attempts, tried combining the NuBarPID with one of Jeff’s cuts, the Prob(,ndf) > 0.1 one:  BINGO !

Interesting ! Separation looks different when calculating doing the PDFs with and without the fit significance cut: nu nubar In both cases the fit significance cut is applied. The difference is whether or not the PDFs were calculated with it or not. At the end, not much difference in separation even if shape above is so different PDFs done with fit sig. cut PDFs done without fit sig. cut NuBarPID PDFs done without fit sig. cutPDFs done with fit sig. cut nu nubar Purity Efficiency

Tried combining NuBarPID + fit significance cut + cut: Purity Efficiency NuBarPID nu nubar NuBarPID + fit sig. + prange cut NuBarPID + fit sig. It actually works slightly worse ! Will stick to NuBarPID + fit significance. Note: PDFs were calculated with all corresponding cuts included.

From now on always included fit significance cut (among all others) when calculating the PDFs.  Now, need to see what happens as a function of energy. Make a NuBarPID cut at 0.7 and see what happens: NuBarPID > 0.7 puts you here Purity Efficiency

If make cut at NuBarPID>0.7 find: Overall efficiency: 50.21% Overall purity: 99.48% All neutrinos Selected as antineutrinos Background

 How does this cut at 0.7 compare to Jeff’s cuts? Jeff’s cuts NuBarPID + fit sig. cut at 0.7 Purity Efficiency What if we crank it up a little more? See next slides…

If make cut at NuBarPID=0.75 find: Overall efficiency: 48.52% Overall purity: 99.63% All neutrinos Selected as antineutrinos Background

If make cut at NuBarPID=0.80 find: Overall efficiency: 46.67% Overall purity: 99.73% All neutrinos Selected as antineutrinos Background