1. DOE review slide 1 MINOS Software and Data Analysis Peter Litchfield, U. of Minnesota DOE Review, 28 th August 2003  Progress on Offline Software  Detector Performance – Offline Analysis  Data Analysis: Goals and Efforts

2. DOE review slide 2 Overview  The MINOS far detector is completed. One supermodule has been taking atmospheric neutrino and cosmic ray muon data for almost one year. The second is about to start data taking.  The first 6 months of data was processed on the Fermilab farm and has provided an informative first look at the data.  Reprocessing of this data plus the new data is about to start with major upgrades to the reconstruction algorithms.  A “five year plan” for the operation of the NUMI beam and MINOS detectors was recently presented to the Fermilab PAC. It showed the expected performance of MINOS with the currently promised beam fluxes and demonstrated the improvements that increased fluxes would provide.  Physics analysis groups have been formed and are studying the reconstruction and analysis methods required to produce physics results

3. DOE review slide 3 Core Software  Jon Urheim is software coordinator for the whole of the off-line software.  The Minnesota group has made important contributions to the software design and implementation.  Database coordinator – Pete Border  Input/output system for raw data and for data summary – Sue Kasahara  Jon Urheim has led the Monte Carlo task force.  System administrator at Soudan – Ben Speakman  DCS – Erik Beall

4. DOE review slide 4 Data verification and analysis  Data quality checks – Ben Speakman  Run by run analysis to verify data prior to production processing  Shield verification – Jeremy Gogos  Detector alignment – Bernie Becker  Use field off, straight muons  Fit to straight lines and calculate the average plane residuals  Adjust plane positions and refit BeforeAfter

5. DOE review slide 5 Physics Analysis Groups  MINOS has set up five physics analysis groups to organize and coordinate the physics output of the experiment. Each group has three coordinators. Minnesota provides four of the fifteen coordinators.  Charged current – David Petyt, Jeff Nelson  Neutral current – Leon Mualem  Atmospheric neutrinos – Peter Litchfield

6. DOE review slide 6 CC working group  Analysis by David Petyt for the document submitted to the Fermilab PAC updating the potential MINOS sensitivity to the oscillation parameters. 1.For the currently promised beam flux, 7.4x10 20 p.o.t 2.For the intensity obtainable with modest beam upgrades, 16x10 20 p.o.t 3.For an aggressive program of beam upgrades, 25x10 20 p.o..t  The figure shows the ratio of unoscillated to oscillated neutrino energies and the 90% and 99% confidence allowed regions of the parameters compared with the latest Super-K 90% confidence limit

7. DOE review slide 7 NC working group  Plot from David Petyt, based on his event selection algorithms, giving the 90% confidence limits on the oscillation parameters from the ratio of

8. DOE review slide 8 Atmospheric neutrino working group  Atmospheric neutrino data is being taken now. By the time beam comes on we will have an exposure approximately equivalent to that taken in Soudan 2.  MINOS measures charge and thus can distinguish between neutrinos and anti-neutrinos. It is the first detector to be able to do this.  Atmospheric neutrinos will be the thesis topic for the first generation of graduate students  Bernie Becker - CPT effects  Ben Speakman - e appearance  Jeremy Gogos -  oscillation analysis  The main problem is the separation of signal from background due to cosmic ray muons. It requires improvements to the reconstruction programs and the selection procedures and integration of the veto shield into the analysis which are in progress.

9. DOE review slide 9 Atmospheric neutrino working group  Peter Litchfield has developed an unbinned likelihood analysis based on the Feldman-Cousins prescription to analyze the oscillation data from Soudan 2  This will be adapted to the MINOS data and will be ready to analyze this by the end of next year when sufficient data has been collected.  MINOS has the advantage of being more sensitive to the higher energy events which show more oscillation effects.

10. DOE review slide 10 Summary  The MINOS software is available to analyze MINOS data, constant improvement in the algorithms is taking place.  The Minnesota group has made significant contributions to the core software effort  The MINOS physics working groups are up and running. The Minnesota group has much more than its share of group coordinators and is providing much of the effort for the MINOS sensitivity analyses.  The Minnesota software and analysis group will continue its present program with the objectives of; 1.Having a preliminary atmospheric neutrino analysis by mid to end 2004 2.Having reconstruction and analysis code and procedures ready for first beam data in early 2005  Work has started on software analysis of an off-axis detector