1. 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 MC. ● Low hadronic energy CC event distributions with Cedar. ND Phone Meeting (18 th Oct.) Mark Dorman UCL / RAL

2. Cuts and Reweighting ● Pre-selection cuts differ (slightly) from standard CC analysis: ● Data must pass standard beam quality cuts and the special horn current runs are excluded. ● CC-like events are then selected with CC PID > -0.1. ● The label 'tuned MC' refers to MC that has been weighted using the 12 parameter SKZP2 beam and hadron production weights and the MODBYRS3 generator weights. All MC in this talk is tuned. ● I have not used any of the EnergyCorrections functions in creating PANs for the Cedar MC or Data. Event has 1 well reconstructed track and is in the 'Pittsburgh' fiducial volume If muon momentum is measured from curvature then the fractional error on this measurement is not more than 30% Zero or negative muon charge sign (anti-neutrino cut) Track starts at least 0.5m inside the detector (rock muon cut) Either there is no event within 50ns of the current event or the current event has at least 95% of the PH of itself and the nearest event (runt event cut)

3. Data Sets, PoTs and Selected CC Event Numbers ● I have used the following LE-10 data sets: ● With the cuts listed on the previous page to select CC events I get the following reconstructed event rates per 1e19 PoTs and ratios: Birch MC: 2.623e19 PoTs (2554 files) Cedar MC: 1.352e19 PoTs (1316 files) Birch Data: 7.118e19 PoTs Cedar Data: 5.033e19 PoTs Birch MC: 80703 events Cedar MC: 90311 events Birch Data: 82742 events Cedar Data: 96162 events Cedar MC / Birch MC = 1.119 Cedar Data / Birch Data = 1.162 Birch Data / Birch MC = 1.025 Cedar Data / Cedar MC = 1.065

4. Reconstructed Neutrino Energy

5. Reconstructed Shower Energy

6. Reconstructed Muon Angle

7. Shower Energy < 250 MeV CC-like Events

8. Reconstructed Neutrino Energy (Ehad Cut)

9. Reconstructed Muon Angle (Ehad Cut)

10. Shower Energy = 0 CC-like Events

11. Reconstructed Neutrino Energy (Ehad=0)

12. Reconstructed Muon Angle (Ehad=0)

13. Conclusions ● I see more reconstructed events in Cedar data and MC as compared to Birch data and MC to the tune of 12% (MC) and 16% (data). ● This excess is fairly independent of energy, angle etc... ● The data/MC ratio for CC-like events in Cedar is higher than for Birch (1.065 v.s. 1.025). ● As such the low hadronic energy CC sample discrepancies seen in Birch are not resolved and actually get a little worse. ● The Ehad=0 neutrino energy data/MC comparisons look good but the discrepancy in the muon angle is still present with Cedar. ● Some (most?) of the Cedar CC sample excesses as compared to Birch can probably be accounted for by changes in the CC PID distribution and track finding efficiency. I could look at all reconstructed events as well as just the CC-like ones.

14. Backup Slides

15. Reconstructed Q^2 (Whole CC Sample)

16. Reconstructed W^2 (Whole CC Sample)

17. Reconstructed y (Whole CC Sample)

18. Reconstructed x (Whole CC Sample)