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

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Mark Dorman UCL/RAL Hough Methods In The CC Analysis Of The Far Detector Mark Dorman Inclusion of Hough variables into PAN NC/CC discriminating power Obtaining.

Advertisements

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.

Impact parameter studies with early data from ATLAS

Neutrinos from kaon decay in MiniBooNE Kendall Mahn Columbia University MiniBooNE beamline overview Kaon flux predictions Kaon measurements in MiniBooNE.

Soudan 2 Peter Litchfield University of Minnesota For the Soudan 2 collaboration Argonne-Minnesota-Oxford-RAL-Tufts-Western Washington  Analysis of all.

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

11-September-2005 C2CR2005, Prague 1 Super-Kamiokande Atmospheric Neutrino Results Kimihiro Okumura ICRR Univ. of Tokyo ( 11-September-2005.

LHCb PatVeloTT Performance Adam Webber. Why Upgrade?  Currently we de-focus the beams o LHCb Luminosity ~ 2x10 32 cm -2 s -1 o ~ 1 interaction per bunch.

June 6 th, 2011 N. Cartiglia 1 “Measurement of the pp inelastic cross section using pile-up events with the CMS detector” How to use pile-up.

Muon Identification Antoine Cazes Laboratoire de l’ Accelerateur Lineaire OPERA Collaboration Meeting in Frascatti Physics coordination meeting. October.

Atmospheric Neutrino Software Update Andy Blake Cambridge University Thursday 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?

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

Andy Blake Cambridge University Wednesday June 13 th 2007 Combined Atmospheric Analysis: Study of 6 Month’s Data.

MINOS Feb Antineutrino running Pedro Ochoa Caltech.

Performance of a Water Cherenkov Detector for e Appearance Shoei NAKAYAMA (ICRR, University of Tokyo) November 18-19, 2005 International Workshop on a.

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.

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.

Searching for Atmospheric Neutrino Oscillations at MINOS Andy Blake Cambridge University April 2004.

First Observations of Separated Atmospheric  and  Events in the MINOS Detector. A. S. T. Blake* (for the MINOS collaboration) *Cavendish Laboratory,

Atmospheric Neutrino Event Reconstruction Andy Blake Cambridge University June 2004.

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

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

Multiple Muons at the Far Detector Andy Blake Cambridge University Fermilab, December 2006.

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

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.

Partially Contained Atmospheric Neutrino Analysis Andy Blake + John Chapman Cambridge University January 2004.

Reconstruction of neutrino interactions in PEANUT G.D.L., Andrea Russo, Luca Scotto Lavina Naples University.

Identification of neutrino oscillations in the MINOS detector Daniel Cole

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

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.

NEW RESULTS FROM MINOS Patricia Vahle, for the MINOS collaboration College of William and Mary.

The Number of Light Neutrino Families ● Physics motivation for measurement ● Direct / indirect searches for ● Analysis methodology for ● Single photon.

5/1/20110 SciBooNE and MiniBooNE Kendall Mahn TRIUMF For the SciBooNE and MiniBooNE collaborations A search for   disappearance with:

Preliminary Study of CC-Inclusive Events in the P0D using Global Reconstruction Rajarshi Das (w/ Walter Toki) Nu-Mu Prelim. Meeting Dec 2010 CSU.

Monte Carlo Comparison of RPCs and Liquid Scintillator R. Ray 5/14/04  RPCs with 1-dimensional readout (generated by RR) and liquid scintillator with.

Recent results from the K2K experiment Yoshinari Hayato (KEK/IPNS) for the K2K collaboration Introduction Summary of the results in 2001 Overview of the.

The Earth Matter Effect in the T2KK Experiment Ken-ichi Senda Grad. Univ. for Adv. Studies.

Progress on BR(K L  p + p - ) using a double-tag method A. Antonelli, M. Antonelli, M. Dreucci, M. Moulson CP working group meeting, 25 Feb 2003.

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

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

Detection of electromagnetic showers along muon tracks Salvatore Mangano (IFIC)

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

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.

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.

N. Saoulidou, Fermilab, MINOS Collaboration Meeting N. Saoulidou, Fermilab, ND/CC Parallel Session, MINOS Collaboration Meeting R1.18.

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

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.

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.

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

Medium baseline neutrino oscillation searches Andrew Bazarko, Princeton University Les Houches, 20 June 2001 LSND: MeVdecay at rest MeVdecay in flight.

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

Progress Report on GEANT Study of Containerized Detectors R. Ray 7/11/03 What’s New Since Last Time?  More detailed container description in GEANT o Slightly.

Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the MINOS detectors and NuMI neutrino beam GdR Saclay – 11/04/08 Magali Besnier hep-ex – v3.

A different cc/nc oscillation analysis Peter Litchfield  The Idea:  Translate near detector events to the far detector event-by-event, incorporating.

Measuring Oscillation Parameters Four different Hadron Production models  Four predicted Far  CC spectrum.

September 10, 2002M. Fechner1 Energy reconstruction in quasi elastic events unfolding physics and detector effects M. Fechner, Ecole Normale Supérieure.

PAC questions and Simulations Peter Litchfield, August 27 th Extent to which MIPP/MINER A can help estimate far detector backgrounds by extrapolation.

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.

Neutrino Oscillation Results from MINOS Alexandre Sousa Oxford University (for the MINOS Collaboration) 30 th International Cosmic Ray Conference - ICRC.

Neutrino Interaction measurement in K2K experiment (1kton water Cherenkov detector) Jun Kameda(ICRR) for K2K collaboration RCCN international workshop.

 reconstruction and identification in CMS A.Nikitenko, Imperial College. LHC Days in Split 1.

 CC QE results from the NOvA prototype detector Jarek Nowak and Minerba Betancourt.

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

M. Kuhn, P. Hopchev, M. Ferro-Luzzi

A PID based approach for antineutrino selection

Presentation transcript:

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

Overview Andy Blake, Cambridge UniversityFiducial Volume Study, slide 2 Fiducial volume optimization encompasses the following:

All Showers Showers <2 GeV Previous study by Andy Culling (see, for example, doc-db #1136). – Studied bias in reconstructed shower energy close to detector edges. – Studied sensitivity to oscillation parameters as function of fiducial cuts. Previous Study [A. Culling] Andy Blake, Cambridge UniversityFiducial Volume Study, slide 3

Fiducial Volume Study Andy Blake, Cambridge UniversityFiducial Volume Study, slide 4 Study following four fiducial containment parameters: – radial edge of detector. – front/back plane of detector – coil hole. COIL HOLE radial cut coil cut back Z cutforward Z cut  COIL HOLE SM1SM2 forward Z cutback Z cut N.B: For purposes of this study, same fiducial cuts applied to both super-modules.

Fiducial Volume Study Andy Blake, Cambridge UniversityFiducial Volume Study, slide 5 Use “Cedar” beam MC ntuples for this study. – contained interactions (approx. 800 x PoTs). – rock interactions (approx. 100 x PoTs). Optimize fiducial cuts by studying the following: Track containment – compare tracks from contained and rock  CC interactions. – study bias in reconstructed muon energy close to detector edges. Shower containment – study bias in reconstructed shower energy close to detector edges. – measure visible energy escaping through detector edges. Oscillation sensitivity – vary each of the fiducial parameters in turn. – calculate sensitivity in  m 2 and sin 2 2 .

Track Containment: Front Edge Andy Blake, Cambridge UniversityFiducial Volume Study, slide 6 rock  CC events contained  CC events. Rock muons can sneak into the detector: – up to ~10 cm through the detector edge. – up to ~4 planes through the front plane.

Track Containment: Back Edge Andy Blake, Cambridge UniversityFiducial Volume Study, slide 7 Bias in reconstructed muon momentum for tracks exiting through end of detector

Shower Extent : Transverse Andy Blake, Cambridge UniversityFiducial Volume Study, slide 8 Transverse extent of showers:

Shower Extent: Longitudinal Andy Blake, Cambridge UniversityFiducial Volume Study, slide 9 BACKFORWARD Longitudinal extent of showers:

Shower Energy Bias Andy Blake, Cambridge UniversityFiducial Volume Study, slide 10 Calculate mean energy bias as function of radial vertex position. – Only use events where vertex is >20 planes from front and back planes. Distance to detector edgeDistance to centre of coil hole

Calculate mean energy bias as function of vertex Z position. – Only use events where vertex is >50cm from edge and >40 cm from centre. Distance to back face of detectorDistance to forward face of detector Shower Energy Bias Andy Blake, Cambridge UniversityFiducial Volume Study, slide 11

Shower Energy Loss Andy Blake, Cambridge UniversityFiducial Volume Study, slide 12 Create a fake detector edge to study shower containment. – Calculate the proportion of visible energy contained inside the fake detector volume as a function of the position of the visible shower edge.

Shower Energy Loss Andy Blake, Cambridge UniversityFiducial Volume Study, slide 13 Distance to detector edge

Shower Energy Loss Andy Blake, Cambridge UniversityFiducial Volume Study, slide 14 Distance to forward face of detectorDistance to back face of detector

Oscillation Sensitivity Andy Blake, Cambridge UniversityFiducial Volume Study, slide 15 Calculate sensitivity as function of fiducial cuts. – Vary each cut in turn, holding the others constant. Initial Event Selection. – Reconstructed muon track (must pass track fitter). – Use standard PID with cut placed at PID>0.0. Mechanics of Oscillation Fit. – Purely statistical (ignore all systematic errors). – Fit to overall reconstructed neutrino energy spectrum. E (GeV) = [ 0, 30 ] (60 bins) + 1 bin overflow. – Perform oscillation fit on 120 x 120 grid.  m 2 (10 -3 eV 2 ) = [ 1.5, 4.5 ], Sin 2 2  = [ 0.7, 1.0 ]. – True Oscillation Parameters:  m 2 = 3 x eV 2, Sin 2 2  = 1.0. – True Normalization: 2.5 x PoTs. – Simulate 20 experiments at each grid point.

Oscillation Sensitivity Andy Blake, Cambridge UniversityFiducial Volume Study, slide 16 Input Data. – Use BOTH rock interactions AND contained events. Sensitivity Calculation. – Determine best fit  m 2 along line of sin 2 2  =1.0. Calculate 99% confidence interval in  m 2. – Determine best fit sin 2 2  along line of best fit  m 2. Calculate 99% confidence interval in sin 2 2 . Fiducial cut parameters. Fiducial CutDefaultRange Radial Edge0.3 m m Coil Hole0.4 m m Back Face0.5 m m Forward Face1.5 m m

Oscillation Sensitivity: Radial Cut Andy Blake, Cambridge UniversityFiducial Volume Study, slide 17  m 2 sensitivity (99% confidence)sin 2 2  sensitivity (99% confidence)

Oscillation Sensitivity: Coil Cut Andy Blake, Cambridge UniversityFiducial Volume Study, slide 18  m 2 sensitivity (99% confidence)sin 2 2  sensitivity (99% confidence)

Oscillation Sensitivity: Back Edge Andy Blake, Cambridge UniversityFiducial Volume Study, slide 19  m 2 sensitivity (99% confidence)sin 2 2  sensitivity (99% confidence)

Oscillation Sensitivity: Forward Edge Andy Blake, Cambridge UniversityFiducial Volume Study, slide 20  m 2 sensitivity (99% confidence)sin 2 2  sensitivity (99% confidence)

What are the optimal fiducial cuts ? Andy Blake, Cambridge UniversityFiducial Volume Study, slide 21 Radial EdgeCoil HoleBack PlaneForward Plane Track containment >10 cm> 25 cm> 100 cm Shower energy bias > 20 cm> 40 cm> 60 cm Shower energy loss > 20 cm> 10 cm> 80 cm Oscillation sensitivity < 30 cm< 180 cm require minimal contamination from rock muons. mean track momentum bias must be less than 500 MeV. mean shower energy bias must be less than 100 MeV. visible energy loss must be less than 10%. require optimal sensitivity for oscillation parameters. Criteria Optimal?> 20 cm> 40 cm> 25 cm> 100 cm i.e. must not be more than double the bias observed for highly contained events.

Energy-Dependent Fiducial Cuts Andy Blake, Cambridge UniversityFiducial Volume Study, slide 22 reco shower energy could relax fiducial cuts for lowest energy showers

Energy-Dependent Fiducial Cuts Andy Blake, Cambridge UniversityFiducial Volume Study, slide 23 Various schemes for energy-dependent fiducial cuts. – Shower Edge Cuts Cut on position of shower edge relative to detector edge. Need to define position of shower edge, plus size of cut. – Fiducial Activity Cuts Cut on amount of shower activity close to detector edge. Need to optimize size of edge region, plus allowed charge. – Apply in addition to, or instead of, fixed fiducial cuts? Apply energy-dependent cuts to all events? Just use these cuts to recover events around detector edge? Example: shower edge cut. – Find closest distance of shower to detector edges. – apply cut at  r > 10 cm and  z > 15 cm.

Shower Edge Cut Andy Blake, Cambridge UniversityFiducial Volume Study, slide 24 >10 cm (2 strips)>15 cm (2 planes) Distance to forward face of detectorDistance to radial edge of detector

Shower Edge Cut Andy Blake, Cambridge UniversityFiducial Volume Study, slide 25 Distance to forward face of detectorDistance to radial edge of detector After edge cut All showers After edge cut All showers

Oscillation Sensitivity Plots Andy Blake, Cambridge UniversityFiducial Volume Study, slide 26 Radial Edge Coil Hole Back Face Forward Face (1) Fixed Fiducial Cuts det.edge - evt.vtx > 20 cm> 40 cm> 25 cmdet.edge - evt.vtx > 100 cm (2) Shower Edge Cuts det.edge - evt.vtx > 10 cm OR det.edge - shw.edge > 10 cm > 40 cm> 25 cmdet.edge - shw.edge > 15 cm (2a) = (1) || (2) (1) || (2) (3) Fiducial Activity Cuts det.edge - evt.vtx > 10 cm OR <10% shw.ph 10cm from edge > 40 cm> 25 cm<10% shw.ph 15cm from edge (3a) = (1) || (3) (1) || (3)

Oscillation Sensitivity Plots Andy Blake, Cambridge UniversityFiducial Volume Study, slide 27 99% confidence limits (1) Fixed fiducial cuts (2) Shower edge cuts (2a) = (1) || (2) (3) Fiducial activity cuts (3a) = (1) || (3) Confidence limits are Similar in all cases. Fixed fiducial cuts give best sensitivity contour. – but energy-dependent cuts aren’t optimized. Rescuing events around edge of detector makes sensitivity worse. – needs careful optimization to make sensitivity better. Energy-dependent cuts push contour down. true oscillations

Summary Andy Blake, Cambridge UniversityFiducial Volume Study, slide 28 Homing in on optimal fiducial cuts. – studies of biases in reconstructed muon and shower energy. – optimization of sensitivity to oscillation parameters. Current results in good agreement with previous study. Future work: – re-do oscillation fits with finer binning and higher statistics. – study optimization of fiducial cuts at supermodule boundary. – study optimization of energy-dependent fiducial cuts.