1. First MiniBooNE ν e Appearance Results Georgia Karagiorgi, MIT FNAL – December 11, 2008

2. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&C Outline 1. Motivation for ν e appearance search 2. MiniBooNE Experiment 3. MiniBooNE ν e analysis 4. Results Oscillation fits Implications for low energy excess observed in neutrino mode 5. Future prospects and conclusions Y.Liu, D.Perevalov, I.Stancu University of Alabama S.Koutsoliotas Bucknell University E.Hawker, R.A.Johnson, J.L.Raaf University of Cincinnati T. L. Hart, R.H.Nelson, M.Tzanov, M.Wilking, E.D.Zimmerman University of Colorado A.A.Aguilar-Arevalo, L.Bugel, L.Coney, Z. Djurcic, K.B.M.Mahn, J.Monroe, D.Schmitz M.H.Shaevitz, M.Sorel Columbia University D.Smith Embry Riddle Aeronautical University L.Bartoszek, C.Bhat, S.J.Brice B.C.Brown, D. A. Finley, R.Ford, F.G.Garcia, C. Green, P.Kasper, T.Kobilarciik, I.Kourbanis, A.Malensek, W.Marsh, P.Martin, F.Mills, C.D.Moore, E.Prebys, A.D.Russell, P.Spentzouris, R.J.Stefanski, T. Williams Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory D.C.Cox, T.Katori, H.Meyer, C.C.Polly, R.Tayloe Indiana University H.Ray, B. Osmanov, J. Grange, J. Mousseau University of Florida G.T.Garvey, A.Green, C.Green, W.C.Louis, G.McGregor, G.B.Mills, V.Sandberg, R.Schirato, Z. Pavlovic R.Van de Water, D.H.White, G.P.Zeller Los Alamos National Laboratory R.Imlay, J.A. Nowak, W.Metcalf, S.Ouedraogo, M. Sung, M.O.Wascko Louisiana State University J.M.Conrad, G. Karagiorgi, V. Nguyen Massachusetts Institute of Technology J.Cao, Y.Liu, B.P.Roe, H.J.Yang University of Michigan A.O.Bazarko, E. M. Laird, P.D.Meyers, R.B.Patterson, F.C.Shoemaker, H.A.Tanaka Princeton University P.Nienaber Saint Mary's University of Minnesota J. M. Link Virginia Polytechnic Institute C.E Anderson, A.Curioni, B.T.Fleming,S.K. Linden, M. Soderberg Yale University ~80 physicists from ~18 institutions

3. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi3 Appearance search @ LSND beam excess p(ν μ  ν e e + )n p(ν e e + )n other Collected data from 1993 to 1998 Liquid scintillator (Cherenkov) detector lined with PMT’s Detected ν e from stopped pion source: π +  μ +  ν μ observed excess: 87.9 ± 22.4 ± 6.0 ν e events (3.8σ) __ _

4. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi4 Appearance search @ LSND Collected data from 1993 to 1998 Liquid scintillator (Cherenkov) detector lined with PMT’s Detected ν e from stopped pion source: π +  μ +  ν μ observed excess: 87.9 ± 22.4 ± 6.0 ν e events (3.8σ) Possible interpretation: 2-neutrino mixing with beam excess p(ν μ  ν e e + )n p(ν e e + )n other P(ν μ  ν e ) = sin 2 (2θ) sin 2 ( ) = 0.245 ± 0.067 ± 0.045 % 1.27 L Δm 2 E _ __

5. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi5 Appearance search @ LSND Collected data from 1993 to 1998 Liquid scintillator (Cherenkov) detector lined with PMT’s Detected ν e from stopped pion source: π +  μ +  ν μ observed excess: 87.9 ± 22.4 ± 6.0 ν e events (3.8σ) Possible interpretation: 2-neutrino mixing with P(ν μ  ν e ) = sin 2 (2θ) sin 2 ( ) = 0.245 ± 0.067 ± 0.045 % 1.27 L Δm 2 E _ __

6. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi6 Appearance search @ LSND However, under this oscillation interpretation:  requires new physics beyond the standard three-neutrino mixing scenario ~1 eV 2 Δm 2 solar ~ 8 x 10 -5 eV 2 Δm 2 atm ~ 2.7 x 10 -3 eV 2 vs. Δm 2 solar + Δm 2 atm ≠ Δm 2 LSND

7. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi7 LSND interpretation Sterile neutrino models –3+1 Δm 2 21 = Δm 2 32 = Δm 2 31 = 0 Δm 2 41 = Δm 2 ~ 0.1-100 eV 2 At least 4 mass eigenstates  at least 4 flavors But measured Γ(Z→ ν ν)  only 3 different active neutrinos  1 sterile neutrino ν1ν1 ν2ν2 ν3ν3 ν4ν4 νeνe νμνμ ντντ νsνs 2-ν approximation:

8. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi8 LSND interpretation Sterile neutrino models –3+1 Δm 2 21 = Δm 2 32 = Δm 2 31 = 0 Δm 2 41 = Δm 2 ~ 0.1-100 eV 2 ν1ν1 ν2ν2 ν3ν3 ν4ν4 Oscillation probability: νeνe νμνμ ντντ νsνs P(ν μ  ν e ) = 4|U μ4 | 2 |U e4 | 2 sin 2 (1.27Δm 2 41 L/E) = sin 2 2θ sin 2 (1.27Δm 2 L/E) 2-ν approximation:

9. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi9 Outline 1. Motivation for ν e appearance search 2. MiniBooNE Experiment 3. MiniBooNE ν e analysis 4. Results Oscillation fits Implications for low energy excess observed in neutrino mode 5. Future prospects and conclusions

10. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi10 MiniBooNE experiment LSND test: 2-neutrino approximation  testing simplest interpretation (+1 sterile neutrino) P( ν μ →ν e ) = sin 2 2θsin 2 (1.27Δm 2 L[m]/E[MeV]) Run in neutrino mode: incredible statistics! Place detector to preserve LSND L/E: MiniBooNE: 500 m / 800 MeV LSND: 30 m / 50 MeV [Change detection method and systematics] νeνe νμνμ ντντ νsνs Δm 2 21 = Δm 2 32 = Δm 2 31 = 0 Δm 2 41 = Δm 2 ~ 0.1-100 eV 2

11. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi11 MiniBooNE experiment 800 ton mineral oil Cherenkov detector 12 m in diameter (450 ton fiducial volume) lined with 1280 inner PMT’s, and 240 outer veto PMT’s [ arXiv: 0806.4201[hep-ex], accepted by NIM A ]

12. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi12 MiniBooNE experiment Appearance experiment: it looks for an excess of electron neutrino events in a predominantly muon neutrino beam neutrino mode: ν μ → ν e oscillation search antineutrino mode: ν μ → ν e oscillation search [Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 231801 (2007)] NEW RESULTS! ν mode flux ~6% ν~18% ν __

13. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi13 MiniBooNE ν e appearance search (ν mode) Sensitivity and limit to ν μ → ν e oscillations [Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 231801 (2007)] MiniBooNE has ruled out (to 98%CL) the LSND result interpreted as ν μ →ν e oscillations described with standard L/E dependence, which assumes two- neutrino oscillations, and no CP or CPT violation.

14. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi14 E>475 MeV E>200 MeV Null fit χ 2 (prob):9.1(91%) 22.0(28%) Best fit χ 2 (prob):7.2(93%) 18.3(37%) MiniBooNE ν e appearance search (ν mode) At the same time, an unexpected excess of ν e -like events was observed at lower neutrino energies (200 MeV < E ν QE < 475 MeV) [See Aug. 1, 2008 W&C talk by C. Polly…] After thorough investigation, excess still persists at the 3.0σ level, and its source remains unknown… This excess is incompatible with LSND under a two-neutrino oscillation hypothesis. [paper to be submitted to PRL]

15. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi15 LSND interpretation? Sterile neutrino models –3+2  next minimal extension to 3+1 models Δm 2 21 = Δm 2 32 = Δm 2 31 = 0 Δm 2 41 ~ 0.1-100 eV 2 ν1ν1 ν2ν2 ν3ν3 ν4ν4 ν5ν5 Δm 2 51 ~ 0.1-100 eV 2 2 independent Δm 2 4 mixing parameters 1 Dirac CP phase νeνe νμνμ ντντ νsνs P( ν μ  ν e ) = 4|U μ4 | 2 |U e4 | 2 sin 2 x 41 + 4|U μ5 | 2 |U e5 | 2 sin 2 x 51 + + 8 |U μ5 ||U e5 ||U μ4 ||U e4 |sinx 41 sinx 51 cos(x 54 ±φ 45 ) (―) Oscillation probability: 3+2 models favorable by fits to appearance data, including MiniBooNE neutrino mode result! [hep-ph/0705.0107]

16. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi16 LSND interpretation? Sterile neutrino models –3+2  next minimal extension to 3+1 models Δm 2 21 = Δm 2 32 = Δm 2 31 = 0 Δm 2 41 ~ 0.1-100 eV 2 ν1ν1 ν2ν2 ν3ν3 ν4ν4 ν5ν5 Δm 2 51 ~ 0.1-100 eV 2 2 independent Δm 2 4 mixing parameters 1 Dirac CP phase νeνe νμνμ ντντ νsνs P( ν μ  ν e ) = 4|U μ4 | 2 |U e4 | 2 sin 2 x 41 + 4|U μ5 | 2 |U e5 | 2 sin 2 x 51 + + 8 |U μ5 ||U e5 ||U μ4 ||U e4 |sinx 41 sinx 51 cos(x 54 ±φ 45 ) (―) Oscillation probability: …and appealing due to possibility they offer for CP violation in leptonic sector! [hep-ph/0305255]

17. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi17 MiniBooNE low energy excess? Several possible explanations have been put forth by the physics community, attempting to reconcile the MiniBooNE neutrino mode result with LSND and other appearance experiments… –3+2 with CP violation [Maltoni and Schwetz, hep-ph0705.0107 ; G. K., NuFACT 07 conference] –Anomaly mediated photon production [Harvey, Hill, and Hill, hep-ph0708.1281] –New light gauge boson [Nelson, Walsh, Phys. Rev. D 77, 033001 (2008)] –… Some of them have fairly concrete predictions for a MiniBooNE antineutrino mode running

18. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi18 Need a direct test of LSND and another handle on the low energy excess First antineutrino results shown today correspond to 3.386E20 POT ! Big thanks to the accelerator division for record-high 0.121e20 POT delivered last week!!! Fall 2007: approval for extended MiniBooNE antineutrino running to collect data for a total of 5.0e20 POT

19. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi19 Need a direct test of LSND and another handle on the low energy excess MiniBooNE E>200MeV 90% CL sensitivity to ν μ  ν e oscillations _ _ Recall, ν mode: test of LSND in antineutrino mode Direct test in antineutrino mode:

20. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi20 MiniBooNE and the νSM Exploring new territories, far beyond the νSM ! –Sterile neutrinos/CP violation [ hep-ph/0305255 ] –Neutrino decay [ hep-ph/0602083 ] –Extra dimensions [ hep-ph/0504096 ] –CPT/Lorentz violation [ PRD(2006)105009 ] More standard… More extreme…

21. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi21 Outline 1. Motivation for ν e appearance search 2. MiniBooNE Experiment 3. MiniBooNE ν e analysis 4. Results Oscillation fits Implications for low energy excess observed in neutrino mode 5. Future prospects and conclusions

22. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi22 MiniBooNE ν e appearance analysis Same blind analysis chain as for neutrino mode… [ See Aug. 1, 2008 W&C talk by C. Polly… ] …but different background, and different systematics… Beam Flux Prediction Cross Section Model Optical Model Event Reconstruction Particle Identification Simultaneous Fit to ¯ μ and ¯ e events Start with a Geant 4 flux prediction for the spectrum from  and K produced at the target Use track-based event reconstruction Predict interactions using the Nuance event generator Pass final state particles to Geant 3 to model particle and light propagation in the tank Fit reconstructed energy spectrum for oscillations Use hit topology and timing to identify electron- like or muon-like Cherenkov rings and corresponding charged current neutrino interactions ― νν _ _

23. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi23 Same blind analysis chain as for neutrino mode… [ See Aug. 1, 2008 W&C talk by C. Polly… ] …but different background, and different systematics… MiniBooNE ν e appearance analysis Beam Flux Prediction Cross Section Model Optical Model Event Reconstruction Particle Identification Simultaneous Fit to ¯ μ and ¯ e Events Start with a Geant 4 flux prediction for the spectrum from  and K produced at the target Use track-based event reconstruction Predict interactions using the Nuance event generator Pass final state particles to Geant 3 to model particle and light propagation in the tank Fit reconstructed energy spectrum for oscillations Use hit topology and timing to identify electron- like or muon-like Cherenkov rings and corresponding charged current neutrino interactions ― νν Track-Based Analysis (TBA) _ _

24. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi24 Same blind analysis chain as for neutrino mode… [ See Aug. 1, 2008 W&C talk by C. Polly… ] …but different background, and different systematics… MiniBooNE ν e appearance analysis Beam Flux Prediction Cross Section Model Optical Model Event Reconstruction Particle Identification Simultaneous Fit to ¯ μ and ¯ e Events Start with a Geant 4 flux prediction for the spectrum from  and K produced at the target Use point-source event reconstruction Predict interactions using the Nuance event generator Pass final state particles to Geant 3 to model particle and light propagation in the tank Fit reconstructed energy spectrum for oscillations Use reconstructed quantities such as time, charge likelihoods as inputs to boosted decision tree algorithms, trained on simulated signal events ― νν also a Boosted-Decision-Tree analysis (BDT) as a cross-check [Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 231801 (2007)] _ _

25. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi25 What we want ν e charged-current quasi-elastic events ν e + p → e + + n e π0π0 μ γ (shower)

26. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi26 e π0π0 μ What we want beam dominated by ν μ which interact mainly though charged current quasi-elastic (CCQE) channels… ν μ + p → μ + + n (μ decay  second subevent) don’t ^ γ (shower)

27. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi27 e γ (shower) π0π0 μ What we want …but some times through neutral current channels, and can therefore be mis-identified as ν e ’s… For example, NC π 0 : ν μ + n/p → n/p + π 0 + ν μ π 0 → γγ …“γ” looks like “e” in a Cherenkov detector don’t ^

28. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi28 MiniBooNE ν e appearance analysis Background composition for ν e appearance search (3.386e20 POT): N events 200-475 MeV475-1250 MeV intrinsic ν e 17.7443.23 from π ± /μ ± 8.4417.14 from K ±, K 0 8.2024.88 other ν e 1.111.21 mis-id ν μ 42.54 14.55 CCQE 2.861.24 NC π 0 24.607.17 Δ radiative 6.582.02 Dirt 4.691.92 other ν μ 3.822.20 Total bkgd 60.2957.78 LSND best fit 4.3312.63 ―

29. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi29 MiniBooNE ν e appearance analysis Background composition for ν e appearance search (3.386e20 POT): ― W+W+ p   n μ + can… …capture on C …decay too quickly …have too low energy N events 200-475 MeV475-1250 MeV intrinsic ν e 17.7443.23 from π ± /μ ± 8.4417.14 from K ±, K 0 8.2024.88 other ν e 1.111.21 mis-id ν μ 42.54 14.55 CCQE 2.861.24 NC π 0 24.607.17 Δ radiative 6.582.02 Dirt 4.691.92 other ν μ 3.822.20 Total bkgd 60.2957.78 LSND best fit 4.3312.63

30. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi30 MiniBooNE ν e appearance analysis Background composition for ν e appearance search (3.386e20 POT): ― Z A    N events 200-475 MeV475-1250 MeV intrinsic ν e 17.7443.23 from π ± /μ ± 8.4417.14 from K ±, K 0 8.2024.88 other ν e 1.111.21 mis-id ν μ 42.54 14.55 CCQE 2.861.24 NC π 0 24.607.17 Δ radiative 6.582.02 Dirt 4.691.92 other ν μ 3.822.20 Total bkgd 60.2957.78 LSND best fit 4.3312.63 Coherent π 0 production A γ γ

31. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi31 MiniBooNE ν e appearance analysis Background composition for ν e appearance search (3.386e20 POT): ― Z p    N events 200-475 MeV475-1250 MeV intrinsic ν e 17.7443.23 from π ± /μ ± 8.4417.14 from K ±, K 0 8.2024.88 other ν e 1.111.21 mis-id ν μ 42.54 14.55 CCQE 2.861.24 NC π 0 24.607.17 Δ radiative 6.582.02 Dirt 4.691.92 other ν μ 3.822.20 Total bkgd 60.2957.78 LSND best fit 4.3312.63 Resonant π 0 production  p γ γ

32. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi32 MiniBooNE ν e appearance analysis Background composition for ν e appearance search (3.386e20 POT): ― Z p    N events 200-475 MeV475-1250 MeV intrinsic ν e 17.7443.23 from π ± /μ ± 8.4417.14 from K ±, K 0 8.2024.88 other ν e 1.111.21 mis-id ν μ 42.54 14.55 CCQE 2.861.24 NC π 0 24.607.17 Δ radiative 6.582.02 Dirt 4.691.92 other ν μ 3.822.20 Total bkgd 60.2957.78 LSND best fit 4.3312.63 …and some times… Δ radiative decay  p

33. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi33 MiniBooNE ν e appearance analysis Background composition for ν e appearance search (3.386e20 POT): ― shower dirt N events 200-475 MeV475-1250 MeV intrinsic ν e 17.7443.23 from π ± /μ ± 8.4417.14 from K ±, K 0 8.2024.88 other ν e 1.111.21 mis-id ν μ 42.54 14.55 CCQE 2.861.24 NC π 0 24.607.17 Δ radiative 6.582.02 Dirt 4.691.92 other ν μ 3.822.20 Total bkgd 60.2957.78 LSND best fit 4.3312.63 MiniBooNE detector

34. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi34 MiniBooNE ν e appearance analysis Background composition for ν e appearance search (3.386e20 POT): ― N events 200-475 MeV475-1250 MeV intrinsic ν e 17.7443.23 from π ± /μ ± 8.4417.14 from K ±, K 0 8.2024.88 other ν e 1.111.21 mis-id ν μ 42.54 14.55 CCQE 2.861.24 NC π 0 24.607.17 Δ radiative 6.582.02 Dirt 4.691.92 other ν μ 3.822.20 Total bkgd 60.2957.78 LSND best fit 4.3312.63 LSND best-fit ν μ  ν e (Δm 2, sin 2 2θ)=(1.2,0.003) __ [note: statistical-only errors shown]

35. 35 MiniBooNE ν e appearance analysis Background systematic uncertainties Source E ν QE range (MeV)200-475475-1100200-475475-1100 Flux from π + /μ + decay 0.40.71.82.2 Flux from π - /μ - decay 3.32.20.10.2 Flux from K + decay 2.34.91.45.7 Flux from K - decay 0.51.1-- Flux from K 0 decay 1.55.70.51.5 Target and beam models 1.93.01.32.5 ν cross section 6.412.95.911.9 NC π 0 yield 1.71.61.41.9 Hadronic interactions 0.50.60.80.3 External interactions (dirt) 2.41.20.80.4 Optical model 9.82.88.92.3 Electronics & DAQ model 9.73.05.01.7 Total (unconstrained)16.316.212.314.2 ― ν mode uncer. (%) Come from propagating uncertainties from the HARP experiment using a spline interpolation of the HARP data [ arXiv: 0806.1449 [hep-ex], submitted to PRD ] _

36. 36 MiniBooNE ν e appearance analysis Background systematic uncertainties Source E ν QE range (MeV)200-475475-1100200-475475-1100 Flux from π + /μ + decay 0.40.71.82.2 Flux from π - /μ - decay 3.32.20.10.2 Flux from K + decay 2.34.91.45.7 Flux from K - decay 0.51.1-- Flux from K 0 decay 1.55.70.51.5 Target and beam models 1.93.01.32.5 ν cross section 6.412.95.911.9 NC π 0 yield 1.71.61.41.9 Hadronic interactions 0.50.60.80.3 External interactions (dirt) 2.41.20.80.4 Optical model 9.82.88.92.3 Electronics & DAQ model 9.73.05.01.7 Total (unconstrained)16.316.212.314.2 ― ν mode uncer. (%) [ arXiv: 0806.1449 [hep-ex], submitted to PRD ] _ Come from propagating uncertainties from Feynman Scaling to the world's K+ production data.

37. 37 MiniBooNE ν e appearance analysis Background systematic uncertainties Source E ν QE range (MeV)200-475475-1100200-475475-1100 Flux from π + /μ + decay 0.40.71.82.2 Flux from π - /μ - decay 3.32.20.10.2 Flux from K + decay 2.34.91.45.7 Flux from K - decay 0.51.1-- Flux from K 0 decay 1.55.70.51.5 Target and beam models 1.93.01.32.5 ν cross section 6.412.95.911.9 NC π 0 yield 1.71.61.41.9 Hadronic interactions 0.50.60.80.3 External interactions (dirt) 2.41.20.80.4 Optical model 9.82.88.92.3 Electronics & DAQ model 9.73.05.01.7 Total (unconstrained)16.316.212.314.2 ― ν mode uncer. (%) [ arXiv: 0806.1449 [hep-ex], submitted to PRD ] _ Come from propagating the uncertainties from Sanford Wang to the world K0L production data.

38. 38 MiniBooNE ν e appearance analysis Background systematic uncertainties Source E ν QE range (MeV)200-475475-1100200-475475-1100 Flux from π + /μ + decay 0.40.71.82.2 Flux from π - /μ - decay 3.32.20.10.2 Flux from K + decay 2.34.91.45.7 Flux from K - decay 0.51.1-- Flux from K 0 decay 1.55.70.51.5 Target and beam models 1.93.01.32.5 ν cross section 6.412.95.911.9 NC π 0 yield 1.71.61.41.9 Hadronic interactions 0.50.60.80.3 External interactions (dirt) 2.41.20.80.4 Optical model 9.82.88.92.3 Electronics & DAQ model 9.73.05.01.7 Total (unconstrained)16.316.212.314.2 ― ν mode uncer. (%) [ arXiv: 0806.1449 [hep-ex], submitted to PRD ] _ Determined by special runs of the beam Monte Carlo where all the beam uncertainties not coming from meson production by 8 GeV protons are varied one at a time. These variations are treated as 1σ excursions and propagated into a final error matrix.

39. 39 MiniBooNE ν e appearance analysis Background systematic uncertainties Source E ν QE range (MeV)200-475475-1100200-475475-1100 Flux from π + /μ + decay 0.40.71.82.2 Flux from π - /μ - decay 3.32.20.10.2 Flux from K + decay 2.34.91.45.7 Flux from K - decay 0.51.1-- Flux from K 0 decay 1.55.70.51.5 Target and beam models 1.93.01.32.5 ν cross section 6.412.95.911.9 NC π 0 yield 1.71.61.41.9 Hadronic interactions 0.50.60.80.3 External interactions (dirt) 2.41.20.80.4 Optical model 9.82.88.92.3 Electronics & DAQ model 9.73.05.01.7 Total (unconstrained)16.316.212.314.2 ― ν mode uncer. (%) _ Come from propagating the uncertainties on a number of neutrino cross-section parameters (e.g. M A )… …many of which come from fits to (high statistics) MiniBooNE ν μ data. See, e.g., [ Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 032301 (2008) ]

40. 40 MiniBooNE ν e appearance analysis Background systematic uncertainties Source E ν QE range (MeV)200-475475-1100200-475475-1100 Flux from π + /μ + decay 0.40.71.82.2 Flux from π - /μ - decay 3.32.20.10.2 Flux from K + decay 2.34.91.45.7 Flux from K - decay 0.51.1-- Flux from K 0 decay 1.55.70.51.5 Target and beam models 1.93.01.32.5 ν cross section 6.412.95.911.9 NC π 0 yield 1.71.61.41.9 Hadronic interactions 0.50.60.80.3 External interactions (dirt) 2.41.20.80.4 Optical model 9.82.88.92.3 Electronics & DAQ model 9.73.05.01.7 Total (unconstrained)16.316.212.314.2 ― ν mode uncer. (%) _ Come from propagating the error matrix produced by MiniBooNE's π 0 rate measurement. [ Phys. Lett. B664, 41 (2008) ]

41. 41 MiniBooNE ν e appearance analysis Background systematic uncertainties Source E ν QE range (MeV)200-475475-1100200-475475-1100 Flux from π + /μ + decay 0.40.71.82.2 Flux from π - /μ - decay 3.32.20.10.2 Flux from K + decay 2.34.91.45.7 Flux from K - decay 0.51.1-- Flux from K 0 decay 1.55.70.51.5 Target and beam models 1.93.01.32.5 ν cross section 6.412.95.911.9 NC π 0 yield 1.71.61.41.9 Hadronic interactions 0.50.60.80.3 External interactions (dirt) 2.41.20.80.4 Optical model 9.82.88.92.3 Electronics & DAQ model 9.73.05.01.7 Total (unconstrained)16.316.212.314.2 ― ν mode uncer. (%) _ Come from propagating the uncertainties in a number of hadronic processes, mainly photonuclear interaction final state uncertainties.

42. 42 MiniBooNE ν e appearance analysis Background systematic uncertainties Source E ν QE range (MeV)200-475475-1100200-475475-1100 Flux from π + /μ + decay 0.40.71.82.2 Flux from π - /μ - decay 3.32.20.10.2 Flux from K + decay 2.34.91.45.7 Flux from K - decay 0.51.1-- Flux from K 0 decay 1.55.70.51.5 Target and beam models 1.93.01.32.5 ν cross section 6.412.95.911.9 NC π 0 yield 1.71.61.41.9 Hadronic interactions 0.50.60.80.3 External interactions (dirt) 2.41.20.80.4 Optical model 9.82.88.92.3 Electronics & DAQ model 9.73.05.01.7 Total (unconstrained)16.316.212.314.2 ― ν mode uncer. (%) _ Come from propagating the uncertainty in MiniBooNE's dirt rate measurement.

43. 43 MiniBooNE ν e appearance analysis Background systematic uncertainties Source E ν QE range (MeV)200-475475-1100200-475475-1100 Flux from π + /μ + decay 0.40.71.82.2 Flux from π - /μ - decay 3.32.20.10.2 Flux from K + decay 2.34.91.45.7 Flux from K - decay 0.51.1-- Flux from K 0 decay 1.55.70.51.5 Target and beam models 1.93.01.32.5 ν cross section 6.412.95.911.9 NC π 0 yield 1.71.61.41.9 Hadronic interactions 0.50.60.80.3 External interactions (dirt) 2.41.20.80.4 Optical model 9.82.88.92.3 Electronics & DAQ model 9.73.05.01.7 Total (unconstrained)16.316.212.314.2 ― ν mode uncer. (%) _ These are uncertainties in light creation, propagation, and detection in the Tank. They are assessed though a set of 130 MC “multisims” that have been run where all these parameters are varied according to their input uncertainties.

44. 44 MiniBooNE ν e appearance analysis Background systematic uncertainties Source E ν QE range (MeV)200-475475-1100200-475475-1100 Flux from π + /μ + decay 0.40.71.82.2 Flux from π - /μ - decay 3.32.20.10.2 Flux from K + decay 2.34.91.45.7 Flux from K - decay 0.51.1-- Flux from K 0 decay 1.55.70.51.5 Target and beam models 1.93.01.32.5 ν cross section 6.412.95.911.9 NC π 0 yield 1.71.61.41.9 Hadronic interactions 0.50.60.80.3 External interactions (dirt) 2.41.20.80.4 Optical model 9.82.88.92.3 Electronics & DAQ model 9.73.05.01.7 Total (unconstrained)16.316.212.314.2 ― ν mode uncer. (%) _ These are uncertainties in our knowledge of the detector. A set of “unisim” variations are run and a matrix results from propagating these variations, treating them as 1σ variations.

45. 45 MiniBooNE ν e appearance analysis Background systematic uncertainties Source E ν QE range (MeV)200-475475-1100200-475475-1100 Flux from π + /μ + decay 0.40.71.82.2 Flux from π - /μ - decay 3.32.20.10.2 Flux from K + decay 2.34.91.45.7 Flux from K - decay 0.51.1-- Flux from K 0 decay 1.55.70.51.5 Target and beam models 1.93.01.32.5 ν cross section 6.412.95.911.9 NC π 0 yield 1.71.61.41.9 Hadronic interactions 0.50.60.80.3 External interactions (dirt) 2.41.20.80.4 Optical model 9.82.88.92.3 Electronics & DAQ model 9.73.05.01.7 Total (unconstrained)16.316.212.314.2 ― ν mode uncer. (%) _ Similar systematics as for neutrino appearance search, but Antineutrino appearance search is more statistics limited!

46. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi46 Fit method The high-statistics ν μ CCQE sample (78% ν μ, 22% ν μ ) is well understood. Total number of ν μ CCQE data events after selection cuts: 14,193 ν μ disappearance search! See Oct. 31, 2008 W&C talk by K. Mahn… [paper to be submitted to PRL] (after tuning)

47. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi47 Fit method The following three distinct samples are used in the oscillation fits, obtained using the same selection requirements used in neutrino mode analysis: 1.Background to ν e oscillations 2.ν e Signal prediction (dependent on Δm 2, sin 2 2θ) 3.ν μ CCQE sample, used to constrain ν e prediction (signal+background) N events E ν QE bins (MC prediction not to scale) ― ― ― 1,…, N νeνe νeνe CCQE ν μ N events E ν QE bins (Data prediction not to scale) 1,…, N νeνe CCQE ν μ ― (E ν QE scale repeats)

48. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi48 Fit method The following three distinct samples are used in the oscillation fits, obtained using the same selection requirements used in neutrino mode analysis: 1.Background to ν e oscillations 2.ν e Signal prediction (dependent on Δm 2, sin 2 2θ) 3.ν μ CCQE sample, used to constrain ν e prediction (signal+background) ― ― ―― χ 2 calculated using both datasets ( ν e and ν μ CCQE), and corresponding covariance matrix __

49. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi49 Fit method Fitting to the ν μ CCQE and ν e spectra simultaneously takes advantage of strong correlations between ν e signal, background, and the ν μ CCQE sample in order to reduce systematic uncertainties and constraining intrinsic ν e from muon decay π - → μ - + ν μ μ - → e - + ν μ + ν e R(ν μ ) = Φ(ν μ ) x σ(ν μ ) x ε(ν μ ) R(ν e ) = Φ(ν e ) x σ(ν e ) x ε(ν e ) Kinematic distributions of π + contributing to ν μ and ν e flux (ν mode) Example: θ π+ (radians) p π+ (GeV/c) θ π+ (radians) p π+ (GeV/c)

50. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi50 Fit method This improves sensitivity and provides a stronger constraint to oscillations  Effect of ν μ CCQE constraint on sensitivity Fitting to the ν μ CCQE and ν e spectra simultaneously takes advantage of strong correlations between ν e signal, background, and the ν μ CCQE sample in order to reduce systematic uncertainties and constraining intrinsic ν e from muon decay 90% CL sensitivity E ν QE > 200 MeV with ν μ CCQE constraint without ν μ CCQE constraint

51. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi51 MiniBooNE sensitivity to ν μ → ν e Given neutrino mode results, two fits were considered for ν e candidate events with TBA: E ν QE > 475 MeV E ν QΕ > 200 MeV For BDT analysis: E ν QΕ > 500 MeV MiniBooNE sensitivity for 3.386E20 POT ――

52. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi52 MiniBooNE sensitivity to ν μ → ν e Effect of E ν QE threshold on sensitivity: E ν QE > 475 MeV E ν QΕ > 200 MeV 90% CL MiniBooNE sensitivity for 3.386E20 POT P ~ sin 2 ( 1.27 Δm 2 [ eV 2 ] L[ m ] / E[ MeV ] )  fitting to lower energy increases sensitivity for lower Δm 2 ―― ~ Δm 2 /E ~ 1 for maximum sensitivity

53. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi53 MiniBooNE ν e appearance analysis Several cross-checks have been performed: M A, κ checks, neutrino component in antineutrino (WS) measurement New π 0 measurement New dirt fraction extracted Data quality checks (different periods of running, R/E vis distributions) BDT analysis ―

54. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi54 Outline 1. Motivation for ν e appearance search 2. MiniBooNE Experiment 3. MiniBooNE ν e analysis 4. Results Oscillation fits Implications for low energy excess observed in neutrino mode 5. Future prospects and conclusions

55. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi55 Results: Fits to E ν QE > 200 MeV ν e data vs. background distribution (3.386e20 POT): low energy regionsignal region χ 2 null (dof) = 24.51 (19) χ 2 -probability = 17.7% (calculated using error matrix at null) data statistical uncertainty MC unconstrained systematic uncertainty

56. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi56 Fit summary χ 2 null (dof)χ 2 null (dof) * χ 2 best-fit (dof) * χ 2 LSND best-fit (dof) χ 2 -probχ 2 -probχ 2 -probχ 2 -prob 24.51(19)20.18(17)18.18(17)20.14(19) 17.7%26.5%37.8%38.6% 22.19(16)17.88(14)15.91(14)17.63(16) 13.7%21.2%31.9%34.6% E ν QE fit > 200 MeV > 475 MeV E ν QE > 200 MeV and E ν QE > 475 MeV fits are consistent with each-other. No strong evidence for oscillations in antineutrino mode. (3.386e20 POT) ( * Covariance matrix approximated to be the same everywhere by its value at best fit point)

57. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi57 MiniBooNE limit to ν μ  ν e oscillations 1-sided raster limit: No strong evidence for oscillations  MB limit (3.386e20 POT) E>200 MeV

58. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi58 MiniBooNE limit to ν μ  ν e oscillations 1-sided raster limit: No strong evidence for oscillations  MB limit (3.386e20 POT) E>475 MeV

59. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi59 Oscillation fits to E ν QE > 200 MeV χ 2 best-fit (dof) = 18.18 (17) χ 2 -probability = 37.8% Excess distribution and comparison with possible signal predictions: MiniBooNE best-fit: (Δm 2, sin 2 2θ) = (4.4 eV 2, 0.004) (E>200MeV)

60. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi60 Complementary information: E visible Excess distribution as a function of E visible and comparison with possible signal predictions: Error bars indicate data statistical and constrained bkgd systematic uncertainty

61. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi61 Events summary (constrained syst + stat uncertainty) E ν QE range (MeV) ν mode ν mode (3.386e20 POT)(6.486e20 POT) 200-300 300-475 200-475 475-1250 Excess Deficit Data24232 MC ± sys+stat (constr.)27.2 ± 7.4186.8 ± 26.0 Excess (σ)-3.2 ± 7.4 (-0.4σ)45.2 ± 26.0 (1.7σ) Data37312 MC ± sys+stat (constr.)34.3 ± 7.3228.3 ± 24.5 Excess (σ)2.7 ± 7.3 (0.4σ)83.7 ± 24.5 (3.4σ) Data61544 MC ± sys+stat (constr.)61.5 ± 11.7415.2 ± 43.4 Excess (σ)-0.5 ± 11.7 (-0.04σ)128.8 ± 43.4 (3.0σ) Data61408 MC ± sys+stat (constr.)57.8 ± 10.0385.9 ± 35.7 Excess (σ)3.2 ± 10.0 (0.3σ)22.1 ± 35.7 (0.6σ) [paper to be submitted to PRL]

62. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi62 Implications for low energy excess How consistent are excesses in neutrino and antineutrino mode under different underlying hypotheses as the source of the low energy excess in neutrino mode? Data61544 MC ± sys+stat (constr.)61.5 ± 11.7415.2 ± 43.4 Excess (σ)-0.5 ± 11.7 (-0.04σ)128.8 ± 43.4 (3.0σ) 200-475 MeV νν _ –Scales with POT –Same NC cross section for neutrinos and antineutrinos –Scales as π 0 background –Scales with neutrinos (not antineutrinos) –Scales with background –Scales as the rate of Charged-Current interactions –Scales with Kaon rate at low energy

63. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi63 Implications for low energy excess Data61544 MC ± sys+stat (constr.)61.5 ± 11.7415.2 ± 43.4 Excess (σ)-0.5 ± 11.7 (-0.04σ)128.8 ± 43.4 (3.0σ) 200-475 MeV Performed 2-bin χ 2 test for each assumption Calculated χ 2 probability assuming 1 dof The underlying signal for each hypothesis, S, was allowed to vary (thus accounting for the possibility that the observed signal in neutrino mode was a fluctuation up, and the observed signal in antineutrino mode was a fluctuation down), and an absolute χ 2 minimum was found. Three extreme fit scenarios were considered: –Statistical-only uncertainties –Statistical + fully-correlated systematics –Statistical + fully-uncorrelated systematics νν _

64. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi64 Implications for low energy excess Eg.: scales with POT (e.g. K 0L,…) Antineutrino POT: 3.386e20Antineutrino POT Neutrino POT: 6.486e20 Neutrino POT One would expect a ν excess of ~(128.8 events)*0.52 = ~67 events Data61544 MC ± sys+stat (constr.)61.5 ± 11.7415.2 ± 43.4 Excess (σ)-0.5 ± 11.7 (-0.04σ)128.8 ± 43.4 (3.0σ) 200-475 MeV Obviously this should be highly disfavored by the data, but one could imagine a scenario where the neutrino mode observed excess is a fluctuation up from true underlying signal and the antineutrino mode excess is a fluctuation down, yielding a lower χ 2 … = 0.52 νν _

65. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi65 Implications for low energy excess Eg.: Same NC cross section for neutrinos and antineutrinos (e.g., HHH axial anomaly) Expected rates obtained by integrating flux across all energies for neutrino mode, and antineutrino mode Data61544 MC ± sys+stat (constr.)61.5 ± 11.7415.2 ± 43.4 Excess (σ)-0.5 ± 11.7 (-0.04σ)128.8 ± 43.4 (3.0σ) 200-475 MeV νν _ [Harvey, Hill, and Hill, hep-ph0708.1281]

66. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi66 Implications for low energy excess Eg.: Scales as π 0 background (same NC ν and ν cross-section ratio) Expected rates obtained by integrating flux across all energies for neutrino mode, and antineutrino mode Mis-estimation of π 0 background? Or other Neutral-Current process? For π 0 background to fully account for MB ν mode excess, it would have to be mis-estimated by a factor of two… …but we have measured MB π 0 event rate to 5%! Data61544 MC ± sys+stat (constr.)61.5 ± 11.7415.2 ± 43.4 Excess (σ)-0.5 ± 11.7 (-0.04σ)128.8 ± 43.4 (3.0σ) 200-475 MeV νν _ [ Phys. Lett. B664, 41 (2008) ] _

67. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi67 Implications for low energy excess Eg.: Scales with neutrinos (in both running modes) In neutrino mode, 94% of flux consists of neutrinos In antineutrino mode, 82% of flux consists of antineutrinos, 18% of flux consists of neutrinos Predictions are allowed to scale according to neutrino content of the beam Data61544 MC ± sys+stat (constr.)61.5 ± 11.7415.2 ± 43.4 Excess (σ)-0.5 ± 11.7 (-0.04σ)128.8 ± 43.4 (3.0σ) 200-475 MeV νν _

68. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi68 Implications for low energy excess Same ν and ν NC cross-section (HHH axial anomaly), POT scaled, Low-E Kaon scaled: strongly disfavored as an explanation of the MiniBooNE low energy excess! The most preferred model is that where the low-energy excess comes from neutrinos in the beam (no contribution from anti-neutrinos). Currently in process of more careful consideration of correlation of systematics in neutrino and antineutrino mode… results coming soon! Stat OnlyCorrelated SystUncorrelated Syst Same ν,ν NC 0.1%0.1%6.7% NC π 0 scaled3.6%6.4%21.5% POT scaled0.0%0.0%1.8% Bkgd scaled2.7%4.7%19.2% CC scaled2.9%5.2%19.9% Low-E Kaons0.1%0.1%5.9% ν scaled38.4%51.4%58.0% Maximum χ 2 probability from fits to ν and ν excesses in 200-475 MeV range Preliminary _ _ _

69. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi69 Outline 1. Motivation for ν e appearance search 2. MiniBooNE Experiment 3. MiniBooNE ν e analysis 4. Results Oscillation fits Implications for low energy excess observed in neutrino mode 5. Future prospects and conclusions

70. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi70 Future MiniBooNE Analyses Combined ν e and ν e appearance analysis (with CP violation) for stronger constraints on oscillations

71. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi71 Future MiniBooNE Analyses Combined ν e and ν e appearance analysis (with CP violation) for stronger constraints on oscillations Combined ν e and ν e analysis for low energy events with systematic correlations properly folded in, for testing various low energy excess interpretations

72. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi72 Future MiniBooNE Analyses Combined ν e and ν e appearance analysis (with CP violation) for stronger constraints on oscillations Combined ν e and ν e analysis for low energy events with systematic correlations properly folded in, for testing various low energy excess interpretations Combined MiniBooNE-NuMI ν e appearance analysis

73. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi73 Conclusion 1.We have performed a blind analysis to ν μ  ν e oscillations: ν e data in agreement with MonteCarlo background prediction as a function of E ν QE.

74. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi74 Conclusion 2.So far, no strong evidence for oscillations in antineutrino mode (although currently limited by statistics). (3.386e20 POT) Joint KARMEN + LSND 90%CL allowed region MB limit

75. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi75 Conclusion 3.Interestingly, no evidence of significant excess at low energy in antineutrino mode. This has already placed constraints to various suggested low energy excess interpretations. Stat OnlyCorrelated SystUncorrelated Syst Same ν,ν NC 0.1%0.1%6.7% NC π 0 scaled3.6%6.4%21.5% POT scaled0.0%0.0%1.8% Bkgd scaled2.7%4.7%19.2% CC scaled2.9%5.2%19.9% Low-E Kaons0.1%0.1%5.9% ν scaled38.4%51.4%58.0% Preliminary _

76. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi76 Conclusion 4.In process of collecting more data aiming for a total of 5.0e20 POT. This will improve sensitivity to oscillations, and allow further investigation of low energy excess. Joint KARMEN + LSND 90%CL allowed region Preliminary Projected MiniBooNE 90% CL sensitivity for 5.0e20 POT Preliminary

77. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi77 Thank you!

78. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi78 Backup slides

79. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi79 2-subevent structure of ν μ CCQE events Multiple hits within a ~100 ns window form “subevents” from stopped μ  e ν μ ν e

80. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi80 Q 2 shape-only fit using ν μ CCQE sample: higher axial form factor (M A ) new nuclear effect parameter, κ, introduced to model Pauli suppression or other effects at low Q 2 [Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 032301 (2008).] ν mode: M A = 1.23 ± 0.20 GeV κ = 1.019 ± 0.011 Q 2 = -m μ 2 + 2 E ν ( E μ – p μ cosθ μ ) M A, κ fits ν μ CCQE sample in neutrino mode world M A MC after tuning

81. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi81 Q 2 shape-only fit using ν μ CCQE sample: higher axial form factor (M A ) new nuclear effect parameter, κ, introduced to model Pauli suppression or other effects at low Q 2 [Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 032301 (2008).] ν mode (apply M A, κ, from ν mode): M A = 1.23 ± 0.20 GeV κ = 1.019 ± 0.011 Q 2 = -m μ 2 + 2 E ν ( E μ – p μ cosθ μ ) M A, κ fits ν μ CCQE sample in antineutrino mode _ _ good agreement with data

82. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi82 M A, κ fits ν μ CCQE sample in antineutrino mode _ Also good agreement in other kinematic variables ν mode (apply M A, κ, from ν mode): M A = 1.23 ± 0.20 GeV κ = 1.019 ± 0.011 _

83. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi83 Bigger fraction of wrong signs in antineutrino running than in neutrino running Need to determine the fraction of ν μ (wrong sign component), as opposed to ν μ, in the beam  use angular distribution of outgoing muons Wrong-Sign (WS) measurement in antineutrino mode _

84. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi84 NC π 0 fits in antineutrino mode Sample of ~2700 events after cuts first measurement at 1 GeV NC π 0 measurement  constrains misidentified ν e like events: – π 0 background – Δ radiative decay _

85. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi85 Rejection of “dirt” events (background) Dirt backgrounds tend to come from gamma that sneak through the veto and convert in the tank  pile up at high radius They don't carry full ν energy   pile up at low visible energy Apply R-to-wall vs. E visible (2D) cut: (distance back to wall along reconstructed track) Rejects ~80% of dirt backgrounds Evis RED: CCQE Nue BLACK: Background R-to-wall distance [cm]

86. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi86 Absorber studies 3.386e20 POT 0 absorber: 2.205e20 POT 1 absorber: 0.569e20 POT 2 absorber: 0.612e20 POT consistency between absorber periods absorber: 0 1 2 absPOT (e20): 2.205 0.569 0.612 ν e obs. events absPOT = x 0.66x 0.61x _ (stat-only errors shown) Events rates in 3 absorber periods consistent with each-other

87. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi87 Fit method The following three distinct samples are used in the oscillation fits, obtained using the same selection requirements used in neutrino mode analysis: 1.Background to ν e oscillations 2.ν e Signal prediction (dependent on Δm 2, sin 2 2θ) 3.ν μ CCQE sample, used to constrain ν e prediction (signal+background) ― ― signalbkgdν μ CCQE signal bkgd ν μ CCQE Syst+stat block-3x3 covariance matrix in E ν QE bins ( in units of events 2 ) for all 3 samples ―― ― ― collapsed to block-2x2 matrix (ν e and ν μ CCQE) for χ 2 calculation __ Matrix is actually 53x53 (in E ν QE bins) !

88. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi88 Joint KARMEN + LSND 90%CL allowed region Need a direct test of LSND and another handle on the low energy excess MiniBooNE 90% CL sensitivity to ν μ  ν e oscillations _ _

89. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi89 MiniBooNE sensitivity to ν μ → ν e MiniBooNE sensitivity for 3.386E20 POT ―― 3.386e20 POT MB sensitivities for TBA and BDT Overlaid on joint KARMEN+LSND 90% CL allowed region

90. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi90 10e20? MiniBooNE will be collecting antineutrino data until June 15 th (scheduled shutdown), with a goal of collecting data for a total of 5.0e20 POT. (Current POT projections estimate a total of 5.3e20 POT will be delivered by that point) MiniBooNE TBA sensitivity E ν QE >200MeV Relatively small gain in sensitivity for 5e20POT to 10e20POT to justify extra running

91. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi91 Results: Fits to E ν QE > 200 MeV 2D global fit (iterative):

92. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi92 2D global fit (iterative): Results: Fits to E ν QE > 475 MeV Consistent with fits to E ν QE > 200 MeV

93. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi93 MiniBooNE limit to ν μ  ν e oscillations 1-sided raster limit: MB E ν QE >200MeV limit (3.386e20 POT) No strong evidence for oscillations 

94. 12/11/2008 FNAL W&CG. Karagiorgi94 MiniBooNE limit to ν μ  ν e oscillations 1-sided raster limit: MB E ν QE >475MeV limit (3.386e20 POT) No strong evidence for oscillations 