Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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.

Published by Modified over 9 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "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."— Presentation transcript:

1 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. iii)Used NuBarPID cut at 0.27 for antineutrino selection. Also required |horn-current| < 0.5 for the data as a safety check. 1) Horn off data vs. Horn off MC. NuBar-PID nu CC nubar CC NC (dashed) Cut gives efficiency 85.3% and purity 94.2% (efficiency does not include 73% of basic cuts) NuBar-PID selection “trained” with horn off data (performs a little better than with horns on).

2 Horn off data analyzed was 2.2546e18 POT (this is 81% of the horn off data sample… did not use the entire 100% set yet due to technical difficulties, but will soon). MC Data Scaled the MC to this same amount, and compared: Errors in MC are due to the amount of statistics used. Will use the entire MC sample soon.

3 So far, doesn’t look like discrepancy is going to be so big, although it looks like MC underestimates data in the peak. Besides working on using all available statistics (both data and MC), how to proceed from here? Taking the ratio of Data/MC we get: Errors may not be very correct since didn’t use any for data

4  true energy of true antineutrinos Horn off MC compared with Horn on MC: (L010185 compared with L010000) This plot is scaled to 0.1e20 POT 2) Mu+ contribution to the nubar flux.

5 If we separate the parent contribution to the nubar flux we get: Horn OFF Horn ON I confirm what you found, i.e. that the mu+ contribution is practically gone for the Horn OFF MC. The question is, are these mu+ being focused by the 2 nd horn?

6  In order to answer this, generated 1e7 POT of flux with horn 2 OFF  Looked at the flux in the ND: Normal LE010185 fluxHorn 2 OFF LE010185 flux These plots have been scaled to 5.0e5 POT Units in vertical axis give the ND flux per m2 per 5.0e5POT

7 Plotting the mu+ contributions one next to each other we get:  Conclusion: Not all mu+ are focused by the 2 nd horn, but only about ~3/5. The remaining mu+ must be focused by the 1 st horn. Normal Horn-2 OFF Mu+ contributions

Download ppt "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."

Similar presentations

CC Background Systematic 3 Philip Rodrigues Oxford Group Meeting 30/10/07.

CC Background Systematic 3 Philip Rodrigues Oxford Group Meeting 30/10/07.
Possible directions for NC sensitivity Philip Rodrigues April 2008 Minos collaboration meeting, Sussex.

Possible directions for NC sensitivity Philip Rodrigues April 2008 Minos collaboration meeting, Sussex.
Sabino Meola Charged kaon group meeting 12 October 2005 Status of analysis.

Sabino Meola Charged kaon group meeting 12 October 2005 Status of analysis.
Oct. Coll Meet. 20051 Late Activity Cuts Without Bias Thomas H. Osiecki University of Texas at Austin.

Oct. Coll Meet Late Activity Cuts Without Bias Thomas H. Osiecki University of Texas at Austin.
Expected Sensitivity of the NO A  Disappearance Analysis Kirk Bays (Caltech) for the NO A Collaboration April 14, 2013 APS DPF Denver Kirk Bays, APS DPF.

Expected Sensitivity of the NO A  Disappearance Analysis Kirk Bays (Caltech) for the NO A Collaboration April 14, 2013 APS DPF Denver Kirk Bays, APS DPF.
Low-p T Multijet Cross Sections John Krane Iowa State University MC Workshop Oct. 4 2002, Fermilab Part I: Data vs MC, interpreted as physics Part II:

Low-p T Multijet Cross Sections John Krane Iowa State University MC Workshop Oct , Fermilab Part I: Data vs MC, interpreted as physics Part II:
Anne Dabrowski Northwestern University Collaboration Meeting 22 nd February 2005 Update Kmu3 Branching Ratio measurement A. Dabrowski, February 22 2005.

Anne Dabrowski Northwestern University Collaboration Meeting 22 nd February 2005 Update Kmu3 Branching Ratio measurement A. Dabrowski, February
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.
Off-axis Simulations Peter Litchfield, Minnesota  What has been simulated?  Will the experiment work?  Can we choose a technology based on simulations?

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.

CC analysis progress This talk: –A first attempt at calculating CC energy sensitivity using the Far Mock data MC files with full reconstruction. –Quite.
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 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.
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.
 K K L  +.  + component, ME  + component, LE Difference.

 K K L  +.  + component, ME  + component, LE Difference.
SpillServer and FD neutrino events As part of my CC analysis studies, I have been attempting to isolate beam neutrino candidates in the FD using both scanning.

SpillServer and FD neutrino events As part of my CC analysis studies, I have been attempting to isolate beam neutrino candidates in the FD using both scanning.
(q/p) / (σ q/p) 0 < Planes < 3030

(q/p) / (σ q/p) 0 < Planes < 3030
MINOS 1 Beam e ’s from antineutrinos David Jaffe and Pedro Ochoa September 27 th 2007  Preliminaries  Data & MC  Expected sensitivities  Preliminary.

MINOS 1 Beam e ’s from antineutrinos David Jaffe and Pedro Ochoa September 27 th 2007  Preliminaries  Data & MC  Expected sensitivities  Preliminary.
1 First look at new MC files First look at reconstruction output from the newly- generated “mock-data” MC files. –These contain the following improvements:

1 First look at new MC files First look at reconstruction output from the newly- generated “mock-data” MC files. –These contain the following improvements:

Similar presentations

Ads by Google