NC Energy Estimators Philip Rodrigues. Issues Need to choose what true E to estimate. Options are: –showerEnergy –trueVisibleE –y*E_nu Need to choose.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Mark Dorman UCL/RAL Hough Methods In The CC Analysis Of The Far Detector Mark Dorman Inclusion of Hough variables into PAN NC/CC discriminating power Obtaining.

Advertisements

Update on Data / MC Comparisons for Low Hadronic Energy CC-like Events Reminder of problem Fiducial studies with more MC statistics Effect of offset in.

Technische Universität München Status report on SADC feature extraction.

Data/Monte Carlo disagreement for Rustem’s Signal Fluctuation variable in the Far Detector (Working Title) Philip Rodrigues Oxford MINOS Group Meeting.

FD Crosstalk or A disappointing lack of pretty colours Philip Rodrigues Oxford MINOS Meeting 20 May 2008.

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.

NC Energy Estimators 2 Philip Rodrigues 27/03/2007.

CC background systematics or “Once more, this time with errors” Philip Rodrigues Oxford Group Meeting 6/11/07.

Transverse momentum of Z bosons in Zee and Zmm decays Daniel Beecher 12 December 2005.

STAR Status of J/  Trigger Simulations for d+Au Running Trigger Board Meeting Dec5, 2002 MC & TU.

Oct. Coll Meet Late Activity Cuts Without Bias Thomas H. Osiecki University of Texas at Austin.

13/02/20071 Event selection methods & First look at new PCB test Manqi Ruan Support & Discussing: Roman Advisor: Z. ZHANG (LAL) & Y. GAO (Tsinghua))

Status Analysis pp -> D s D s0 (2317) Overview Reconstruction Some QA plots Figure of merit First approach/strategy.

Off-axis Simulations Peter Litchfield, Minnesota  What has been simulated?  Will the experiment work?  Can we choose a technology based on simulations?

1 N. Davidson E/p single hadron energy scale check with minimum bias events Jet Note 8 Meeting 15 th May 2007.

CC analysis progress This talk: –A first attempt at calculating CC energy sensitivity using the Far Mock data MC files with full reconstruction. –Quite.

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.

Performance of a Water Cherenkov Detector for e Appearance Shoei NAKAYAMA (ICRR, University of Tokyo) November 18-19, 2005 International Workshop on a.

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.

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:

Page 1 Calculating the Beam Position at the Ecal for DESY Run (Independent of Tracking) Hakan Yilmaz.

Atmospheric Neutrino Event Reconstruction Andy Blake Cambridge University June 2004.

NuMI Offaxis Near Detector and Backgrounds Stanley Wojcicki Stanford University Cambridge Offaxis workshop January 12, 2004.

1 Hadronic In-Situ Calibration of the ATLAS Detector N. Davidson The University of Melbourne.

FD event selection and data/MC comparisons Motivation of this study –Look at FD events (with blinding scheme imposed) to determine Whether we observe neutrino.

M. Gallinaro, `` RunII Diffractive Results: Blessing'' - QCD meeting, March 7, Blessing of Run II Diffractive Results Introduction Data Selection.

1 CC analysis update Repeat of CC analysis with R1.9 ntuples –What is the effect of improved tracking efficiency? Alternative PID methods: likelihood vs.

1/16 MDC post-mortem redux Status as of last CC meeting: –True values of cross-section and oscillation parameters were used to reweight the ND and FD MC.

CC ANALYSIS STUDIES Andy Blake Cambridge University Fermilab, September 2006.

Statistical Analysis of Systematic Errors and Small Signals Reinhard Schwienhorst University of Minnesota 10/26/99.

P. Vahle, Fermilab Oct An Alternate Approach to the CC Measurement— Predicting the FD Spectrum Patricia Vahle University College London Fermilab.

Analysis Meeting vol Shun University.

W  eν The W->eν analysis is a phi uniformity calibration, and only yields relative calibration constants. This means that all of the α’s in a given eta.

FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…

K charged meeting 10/11/03 K tracking efficiency & geometrical acceptance :  K (p K,  K )  We use the tag in the handle emisphere to have in the signal.

Latest Results from the MINOS Experiment Justin Evans, University College London for the MINOS Collaboration NOW th September 2008.

ND/CC/FD: (Thursday, 13:15-15:15) Flux normalization (Mike Kordosky, 15 min) started 5 late, give 5 extra minutes, +5 Quasi-Elastics and Flux (Mark Dorman,

Ciro Bigongiari, Salvatore Mangano Results of the optical properties of sea water with the OB system.

1 A first look at the KEK tracker data with G4MICE Malcolm Ellis 2 nd December 2005.

N. Saoulidou, Fermilab, MINOS Collaboration Meeting N. Saoulidou, Fermilab, ND/CC Parallel Session, MINOS Collaboration Meeting R1.18.

Cedar and pre-Daikon Validation ● CC PID parameter based CC sample selections with Birch, Cedar, Carrot and pre-Daikon. ● Cedar validation for use with.

Photon reconstruction and matching Prokudin Mikhail.

P. Vahle, Oxford Jan F/N Ratio and the Effect of Systematics on the 1e20 POT CC Analysis J. Thomas, P. Vahle University College London Feburary.

PID Detector Requirements for Emittance Measurement Chris Rogers, MICE PID Review, Thursday Oct 12.

Optimization of Analysis Cuts for Oscillation Parameters Andrew Culling, Cambridge University HEP Group.

Beam Extrapolation Fit Peter Litchfield  An update on the method I described at the September meeting  Objective;  To fit all data, nc and cc combined,

A bin-free Extended Maximum Likelihood Fit + Feldman-Cousins error analysis Peter Litchfield  A bin free Extended Maximum Likelihood method of fitting.

Mark Dorman UCL/RAL MINOS Collaboration Meeting Fermilab, Oct. 05 Data/MC Comparisons and Estimating the ND Flux with QE Events ● Update on QE event selection.

Study of the ND Data/MC for the CC analysis October 14, 2005 MINOS collaboration meeting M.Ishitsuka Indiana University.

22 January 2009 David1 Look at dead material and fake MET in Jx samples mc08 10 TeV simulations, release J0 to J6 are tag s479_r586, ‘ideal geometry’

QCD Background Estimation From Data Rob Duxfield, Dan Tovey University of Sheffield.

Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the MINOS detectors and NuMI neutrino beam GdR Saclay – 11/04/08 Magali Besnier hep-ex – v3.

MINOS Coll Meet. Oxford, Jan CC/NC Data Cross Checks Thomas Osiecki University of Texas at Austin.

Search for active neutrino disappearance using neutral-current interactions in the MINOS long-baseline experiment 2008/07/31 Tomonori Kusano Tohoku University.

P. Ochoa, September Using Muon Removed files to assess the purity of the nubar-PID selection Pedro Ochoa MINOS Collaboration Meeting September 2006.

Status of QEL Analysis ● QEL-like Event Selection and Sample ● ND Flux Extraction ● Fitting for MINOS Collaboration Meeting FNAL, 7 th -10 th December.

Measuring Oscillation Parameters Four different Hadron Production models  Four predicted Far  CC spectrum.

Comparison of MC and data Abelardo Moralejo Padova.

Systematics in Hfitter. Reminder: profiling nuisance parameters Likelihood ratio is the most powerful discriminant between 2 hypotheses What if the hypotheses.

PAC questions and Simulations Peter Litchfield, August 27 th Extent to which MIPP/MINER A can help estimate far detector backgrounds by extrapolation.

Extrapolation Techniques  Four different techniques have been used to extrapolate near detector data to the far detector to predict the neutrino energy.

Mark Dorman UCL/RAL MINOS ANL Meeting March 05 Dr. Quasi-Elastic (or... How I learned to stop worrying and love the Hough transform) Mark Dorman ● Update.

A Study on Leakage and Energy Resolution

Neutral Current Interactions in MINOS Alexandre Sousa, University of Oxford for the MINOS Collaboration Neutrino Events in MINOS Neutrino interactions.

A PID based approach for antineutrino selection

Muon momentum scale calibration with J/y peak

Zenith dependence in various Log nergy bins

Problems with the Run4 Preliminary Phi->KK Analysis

Presentation transcript:

NC Energy Estimators Philip Rodrigues

Issues Need to choose what true E to estimate. Options are: –showerEnergy –trueVisibleE –y*E_nu Need to choose what reco variable to use. Options galore. Once chosen, calibrate it. –For true NC only, or for background too?

Method Hedge my bets: –Run with different E_true –Run with/without CC bg –Run with different E_reco 1.Plot (E_reco-E_true)/E_true 2.Fit gaussian to peak 3.Scale E_reco until fit peaks at 0 All ND MC so far, until fixed FD MC becomes available

Distributions - Uncalibrated E_reco=event.energyGeV. NC selected by Tom’s cuts Fiducial, high mult clean Fitting peak biases towards calibrating NC True CC events selected as NC tend to have energy overestimated

Distributions – calibrated for NC Fit gaussian to NC selected, true NC True NC well fit, slight bias in background

Choice of E_reco RMS after calibration as measure of width EstimatorTrue NC only+True CC event.energyGeV reco.nuEnergy= reco.nuEnergyCC reco.showerEnergyCC reco.showerEnergyNC shower.deweightCCGeV shower.deweightNCGeV = reco.nuEnergyNC shower.linearCCGeV shower.linearNCGeV

True NC vs all selected: How big is the difference? Phill uses E_true=E_shw + E_mu Scale factors for different choices: deweightNCGeVlinearNCGeV -True CC, -E_mu True CC, -E_mu True CC, +E_mu True CC, +E_mu

Which E_true to use? Not much difference

What next? Performance of estimators as a function of energy Far detector Other ideas?