Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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

Published by Modified over 9 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "MINOS 1 Beam e ’s from antineutrinos David Jaffe and Pedro Ochoa September 27 th 2007  Preliminaries  Data & MC  Expected sensitivities  Preliminary."— Presentation transcript:

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

2 MINOS 2 3) Fit resulting distribution (top right) using shapes from the MC scaled by parameters parHE and parLE: Preliminaries x parLE ( ,K) pHE - ( ,K) LE x parHE pHE - LE +C (simulated) 2) Apply a correction C for from   and   parents C=  pHE -  ) LE (  + ) pHE (  + ) LE  Goal is to measure the antineutrinos from  + decay (brothers of beam e ’s)  Antineutrinos from  + are the most affected when changing the beam configuration. The technique for the measurement is: 1) Scale pHE and LE DATA to same POT and subtract

3 MINOS 3  Measurement can also be done with pME data (minos-doc 2706)  Systematic error from background uncertainty is practically negligible on    LE  Errors in  + ) LE determination from horn & target systematics are in the order of ~5-10%  Systematic errors associated with hadron production uncertainties are yet to be determined. Some on this at the end.  Systematics were addressed in minos-docs 2909 & 3230. In particular: Preliminaries  More details on the method in minos-doc 2783  Statistical error with 1.6x10 19 POT of pHE data was expected to be ~15% (minos-doc 3230)

4 MINOS 4  Data & MC used:  DATA le010z185i runI: 2.46x10 19 POT  DATA le010z185i runII: 2.21x10 19 POT  DATA le250z200i runII: 1.41x10 19 POT  MC le010z185i: 4.44x10 19 POT  MC le250z200i: 1.19x10 19 POT Data & MC cedar_phy daikon-cedar  The le010z185i data used corresponds to the same data used in the latest CC analysis and is evenly distributed along that period (runI + beginning of runII)  Thanks to Tricia for these pans !  POT values for DATA are after “good beam” cuts. all available !

5 MINOS 5  Data & reweighted MC antineutrino spectra: le010z185i le250z200i All MC   parent   parent  L parent  + parent Background All MC   parent   parent  L parent  + parent Background le010z185i le250z200i data/MC (no SKZP) data/MC data/MC (no SKZP) data/MC Note: SKZP “PiMinus_CedarDaikon”, run I configuration (more details in slides 16-17)

6 MINOS 6 Expected sensitivities  Before fitting the data tested the routine with fake data.  Used smoothed MC histograms (shown in grey) to construct scenario. (  + ) pHE (  + ) LE (  -,K - ) LE (  -,K - ) pHE Background LE Background pHE  Fake data is produced by statistically fluctuating the histograms.  The fit is done “manually” (no Minuit)

7 MINOS 7 Wassup with the bias Χ 2 best fit = 28.6  Scenario 1: “best possible” LE DATA POTpHE DATA POTLE MC POTpHE MC POT ∞ 1.41x10 19 ∞∞ One fake experiment Best fit  Distribution of 1000 fake experiments: Best possible stat. error Accuracy of contour confirmed by distribution of fake experiments 90% C.L. 68% C.L.  This is the best measurement we can do with the current amount of pHE data:

8 MINOS 8  Scenario 2: “now” LE DATA POTpHE DATA POTLE MC POTpHE MC POT 4.67x10 19 1.41x10 19 4.4x10 19 1.19x10 19 Χ 2 best fit = 28.5 One fake experiment Best fit 90% C.L. 68% C.L.  Distribution of 1000 fake experiments:  This is the kind of measurement we expect to do now:

9 MINOS 9 Prob(25.4,28) = 60.6%  χ 2 =16.9 Preliminary results Χ2Χ2  Our results, with statistical uncertainties only: pHE(data) – LE(data) + C(MC) Best fit Nominal case (parLE=parHE=1) Best fit: parLE=1.525 ± 0.37 parHE=0.522 ± 0.19 90% C.L.68% C.L. Χ 2 best fit = 25.4 pHE(data) – LE(data) + C(MC) Prob(42.3,28) = 4.1%

10 MINOS 10 par LEpar HE χ 2 best fit Normal1.520.5225.4 No SKZP1.850.4222.8 No Bkgd substraction 1.520.7727.5 SKZP Consistent with expectation as described in minos-doc 2909 Preliminary results  Fit results in other conditions:  Difference with “No SKZP” case stems mainly from ~15% difference in low energy (< 10 GeV) region of C:  How much of this change is attributed to hadron production only by SKZP, and how much to other effects? ratio

11 MINOS 11 Outlook  How much more can the result be improved? (without taking more data) For an infinite amount of pHE MC, LE data and LE MC →max. goal  Contours calculated assuming same best fit value and 1.41x10 19 POT of pHE data: For an infinite amount of LE data and LE MC, with current amount of pHE MC (1.3x10 19 POT) LE data =2x10 20 POT LE MC =2.5x10 20 POT with current amount of pHE MC  LE data & MC POT of ~2x10 20 POT is already “infinite” for our purposes.  With ~5 times more pHE MC can get close to the max. goal LE data =2x10 20 POT LE MC =2.5x10 20 POT pHE MC = 7x10 19 POT

12 MINOS 12 Summary  Our preliminary results confirm the SKZP prediction of    to 1.4  (statistics only)  A couple of things left to do:  Run with more data & MC. Need ~5 times more pHE MC.  Assign a systematic error to our measurement  A much smaller systematic error could be obtained by doing the measurement with pME data, as shown in minos-doc 2706.

13 MINOS 13 Backup

14 MINOS 14 le010z185i le250z200i  Data & raw MC antineutrino spectra: All MC   parent   parent  L parent  + parent Background All MC   parent   parent  L parent  + parent Background le010z185i le250z200i data/MC

15 MINOS 15  Applied SKZP to the MC: All MC   parent  L parent   parent  + parent Background raw MC SKZP MC le010z185i ratio

16 MINOS 16 le250z200i bkgd (Reweighted for runI) le250z200i bkgd (Reweighted for runII)  difference  Reweighting in runI or in runII modality does not change the antineutrinos at all.  What about the background (made mostly of CC  ’s)?  Difference between the plots above is tiny !  Reweighted everything for runI. → What about the two running periods?

17 MINOS 17  Scale   component by best fit values and compare with data: Preliminary results le010z185i le250z200i All MC   parent   parent  L parent  + parent Background All MC   parent   parent  L parent  + parent Background le010z185i le250z200i data/MC (before) data/MC (after scaling) data/MC (before) data/MC (after scaling)

18 MINOS 18  χ 2 =35.2  Preliminary results (no SKZP) Real data Best fit Real data Nominal case (parLE=parHE=1) Best fit: parLE = 1.85 parHE = 0.44

19 MINOS 19 parLE = 1.495 ± 0.37 parHE = 0.502 ± 0.19  Χ 2 = 1.0 contour

20 MINOS 20 Max goal With 1.41x1019 POT of le250z200i data, stat error in only le250z200i data-MC With 1.41x1019 POT of le250z200i data, 2x1020 POT of le010z185i MC and 2.5x1020 POT of le010z185i Data With 1.41x1019 POT of le250z200i data, 2x1020 POT of le010z185i MC and 2.5x1020 POT of le010z185i Data, and 4x1019 POT of le250z200i MC Outlook

21 MINOS 21 With 1.41x1019 POT of le250z200i data, 2x1020 POT of le010z185i MC and 2.5x1020 POT of le010z185i Data, and 7x1019 POT of le250z200i MC With 1.41x1019 POT of le250z200i data, 2x1020 POT of le010z185i MC and 2.5x1020 POT of le010z185i Data, and 1x1020 POT of le250z200i MC With 1.41x1019 POT of le250z200i data, 2x1020 POT of le010z185i MC and 2.5x1020 POT of le010z185i Data, and 1.5x1020 POT of le250z200i MC

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

Similar presentations

Some answers to the questions/comments at the Heavy/Light presentation of March 17, 2005. Outline : 1) Addition of the id quadrant cut (slides 2-3); 2)

Some answers to the questions/comments at the Heavy/Light presentation of March 17, Outline : 1) Addition of the id quadrant cut (slides 2-3); 2)
A. Dabrowski, June 08 2005 Ratio(ke3/pipi0) 1 Final Results Γ(Ke3)/ Γ(pipi0) Anne Dabrowski Northwestern University NA48/2 Collaboration Meeting 08 June.

A. Dabrowski, June Ratio(ke3/pipi0) 1 Final Results Γ(Ke3)/ Γ(pipi0) Anne Dabrowski Northwestern University NA48/2 Collaboration Meeting 08 June.
1 A preliminary estimate of the beam e ’s from antineutrinos David Jaffe, Pedro Ochoa December 7 th 2006.

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

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 6 th September 2007 C.P. Ward Sensitivity of ZZ→llνν to Anomalous Couplings Pat Ward University of Cambridge Neutral Triple Gauge Couplings Fit Procedure.

1 6 th September 2007 C.P. Ward Sensitivity of ZZ→llνν to Anomalous Couplings Pat Ward University of Cambridge Neutral Triple Gauge Couplings Fit Procedure.
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.

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.

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 28 20061 Antineutrino running Pedro Ochoa Caltech.

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.
Jan 17, 2007 Measuring Mass Difference using soft τ P T Slope 1 Measuring Mass Difference at LHC using soft τ P T Slope Alfredo Gurrola in collaboration.

Jan 17, 2007 Measuring Mass Difference using soft τ P T Slope 1 Measuring Mass Difference at LHC using soft τ P T Slope Alfredo Gurrola in collaboration.
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.

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.
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.

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.
le010z185i le100z200i from  -,K - : from  + from  -,K - : from  + qe res dis coh qe res dis coh qe res dis coh qe res dis coh Different components.

le010z185i le100z200i from  -,K - : from  + from  -,K - : from  + qe res dis coh qe res dis coh qe res dis coh qe res dis coh Different components.
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 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.
With new systematics: Horn 1 shift 1mm Horn 1 angle 0.2mr Horn current ±1%

With new systematics: Horn 1 shift 1mm Horn 1 angle 0.2mr Horn current ±1%
1 Latest CC analysis developments New selection efficiencies: –Based on C++ reco + PDFs rather than old (Fortran+reco_minos) cuts –Attempt to optimise.

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 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, 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?

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?

Similar presentations

Ads by Google