Update on diffuse extraterrestrial neutrino flux search with 2000 AMANDA-II data Jessica Hodges, Gary Hill, Jodi Cooley This version of the presentation.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
London Collaboration Meeting September 29, 2005 Search for a Diffuse Flux of Muon Neutrinos using AMANDA-II Data from Jessica Hodges University.
Advertisements

Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe in der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft NDACC H2O workshop, Bern, July 2006 Water vapour profiles by ground-based FTIR Spectroscopy:
Off-axis Simulations Peter Litchfield, Minnesota  What has been simulated?  Will the experiment work?  Can we choose a technology based on simulations?
EHE Neutrino Search with the IceCube Aya Ishihara The University of Wisconsin - Madison for the EHE Verification working group.
Sean Grullon For the IceCube Collaboration Searching for High Energy Diffuse Astrophysical Neutrinos with IceCube TeV Particle Astrophysics 2009 Stanford.
1 G4MICE studies of PID transverse acceptance MICE video conference Rikard Sandström.
M. Kowalski Search for Neutrino-Induced Cascades in AMANDA II Marek Kowalski DESY-Zeuthen Workshop on Ultra High Energy Neutrino Telescopes Chiba,
A Search for Point Sources of High Energy Neutrinos with AMANDA-B10 Scott Young, for the AMANDA collaboration UC-Irvine PhD Thesis:
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:
Atmospheric Neutrino Event Reconstruction Andy Blake Cambridge University June 2004.
Atmospheric Neutrino Event Reconstruction Andy Blake Cambridge University September 2003.
Gary C. Hill, CCAPP Symposium 2009, Ohio State University, October 12th, 2009 Photograph: Forest Banks Gary C. Hill University of Wisconsin, Madison for.
Bill Atwood - July 2002 GLAS T 1 A Kalman Filter for GLAST What is a Kalman Filter and how does it work. Overview of Implementation in GLAST Validation.
In order to acquire the full physics potential of the LHC, the ATLAS electromagnetic calorimeter must be able to efficiently identify photons and electrons.
An offline look at TIF data David Stuart UC Santa Barbara May 2, 2007.
Atmospheric Neutrino Oscillations in Soudan 2
IceCube 40Point Source AnalysisResultsConclusions Search for neutrino point sources with the IceCube Neutrino Observatory Menlo Park, California TeVPA.
Monte Carlo Comparison of RPCs and Liquid Scintillator R. Ray 5/14/04  RPCs with 1-dimensional readout (generated by RR) and liquid scintillator with.
Mean Charged Multiplicity in DIS, Michele Rosin U. WisconsinZEUS Monday Meeting, Apr. 18th Preliminary Request: Mean Charged Multiplicity in DIS.
W+jets and Z+jets studies at CMS Christopher S. Rogan, California Institute of Technology - HCP Evian-les-Bains Analysis Strategy Analysis Overview:
A statistical test for point source searches - Aart Heijboer - AWG - Cern june 2002 A statistical test for point source searches Aart Heijboer contents:
AMANDA Per Olof Hulth The Wierdest wonder Is it good or is it bad?
Data collected during the year 2006 by the first 9 strings of IceCube can be used to measure the energy spectrum of the atmospheric muon neutrino flux.
Study of neutrino oscillations with ANTARES J. Brunner.
Study of neutrino oscillations with ANTARES J. Brunner.
IC59 Cascade Filter Comparison between the recos for (HLC+SLC) and (HLC only) pulses Part I Mariola Lesiak-Bzdak LBNL 1 Cascade Phone Call, Nov. 8, 2010.
The AMANDA-II Telescope - Status and First Results - Ralf Wischnewski / DESY-Zeuthen for the AMANDA Collaboration TAUP2001, September.
Searching for a Diffuse Flux of Neutrinos with AMANDA-II Jessica Hodges November 5, 2004 Prelim Exam.
Cosmic Ray Workshop May 15, Cosmic Ray Detector Kit.
N. Saoulidou, Fermilab, MINOS Collaboration Meeting N. Saoulidou, Fermilab, ND/CC Parallel Session, MINOS Collaboration Meeting R1.18.
1 Raghunath Ganugapati(Newt) Preliminary Exam 08/27/04 Strategies for the search for prompt muons in the downgoing atmospheric muon flux with the AMANDA.
Cedar and pre-Daikon Validation ● CC PID parameter based CC sample selections with Birch, Cedar, Carrot and pre-Daikon. ● Cedar validation for use with.
Search for High-Mass Resonances in e + e - Jia Liu Madelyne Greene, Lana Muniz, Jane Nachtman Goal for the summer Searching for new particle Z’ --- a massive.
Update on Diffractive Dijet Production Search Hardeep Bansil University of Birmingham Soft QCD WG Meeting 29/04/2013.
Update on Rolling Cascade Search Brennan Hughey UW-Madison
Charged Particle Multiplicity, Michele Rosin U. WisconsinQCD Meeting May 13, M. Rosin, D. Kçira, and A. Savin University of Wisconsin L. Shcheglova.
Review of Ice Models What is an “ice model”? PTD vs. photonics What models are out there? Which one(s) should/n’t we use? Kurt Woschnagg, UCB AMANDA Collaboration.
Progress Report on GEANT Study of Containerized Detectors R. Ray 7/11/03 What’s New Since Last Time?  More detailed container description in GEANT o Slightly.
1 EMCAL Reconstruction in Pass pp 900 GeV 29/03/2010 Gustavo Conesa Balbastre.
Search for a Diffuse Flux of TeV to PeV Muon Neutrinos with AMANDA-II Detecting Neutrinos with AMANDA / IceCube Backgrounds for the Diffuse Analysis Why.
E. Robutti Enrico Robutti I.N.F.N. Genova HEP 2003 Europhysics Conference July 17-23, Aachen, Germany Recent BABAR results in Charmonium and Charm Spectroscopy.
Search for UHE Neutrinos with AMANDA Stephan Hundertmark University of California, Irvine Methodical Aspects of Underwater/Ice Neutrino Telescopes Hamburg,
1M. Ellis - MICE Tracker PC - 1st October 2007 Station QA Analysis (G4MICE)  Looking at the same data as Hideyuki, but using G4MICE.  Have not yet had.
AMANDA Per Olof Hulth The Wierdest wonder Is it good or is it bad?
Comparison of reconstruction strategies in IceCube Lake Geneva, April 2007.
First All-Sky Measurement of Muon Flux with IceCube IceCube REU Summer 2008 Kristin Rosenau Advisor: Teresa Montaruli.
IC-22 Point Source Analysis with Unbinned Maximum Likelihood C. Finley, J. Dumm, T. Montaruli 2008 May 2.
I have 6 events (Nch>=100) on a background of ?
analisys: Systematics checks
Jessica Hodges University of Wisconsin – Madison
Signal and Background MonteCarlo generation
Two Interpretations of What it Means to Normalize the Low Energy Monte Carlo Events to the Low Energy Data Atms MC Atms MC Data Data Signal Signal Apply.
Signal ,Background Simulation and Data
HARPO Analysis.
(2001) Data Filtering: UPDATE
Mieke Bouwhuis on behalf of the ANTARES collaboration
Data Analysis in Particle Physics
IC22 Unbinned GRB Search Utrecht Collaboration Meeting
Newt Ganugapati & Paolo Desiati
FLUCTUATIONS OF MUON ENERGY LOSSES
Rolling Search For a GRB Cascade Signal
J. Braun, A. Karle, T. Montaruli
J. Braun, A. Karle, T. Montaruli
2000 Diffuse Analysis Jessica Hodges, Gary Hill, Jodi Cooley
Using Single Photons for WIMP Searches at the ILC
Unfolding performance Data - Monte Carlo comparison
Search for Narrow Resonance Decaying to Muon Pairs in 2.3 fb-1
Preliminary Request: Mean Charged Multiplicity in DIS
IC59 muon Level3 investigations Mike Baker Muon call April 12, 2010
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Presentation transcript:

Update on diffuse extraterrestrial neutrino flux search with 2000 AMANDA-II data Jessica Hodges, Gary Hill, Jodi Cooley This version of the presentation has been expanded to include work done after the meeting – where part of the nch problem was found to be related to no cross-talk cleaning in the cascade fit

Review of previous work Jodi Cooley’s thesis work – presented Mons October 2003  Basic quality cuts  2-D cut against coincident muons  2-D cut against nch>50 and positive smoothness – likelihood ratio track/shower vs ldirc  2-D on cogz versus l.r. track/shower  model rejection potential optimised on nch

Review of previous work  Cuts developed on 50% of data  After nch>80 cut – 6 events on atmospheric background of 3.3  Second 50% of data yielded 4 events  Combined 100% data  nch>87 – 9 events on atmospheric background of 4.5  One event believed to be a coincident muon  What does this excess mean?

New developments  Reinvestigation of coincident muons using new dcorsika simulations  Discovery that the nch>50, positive smoothness cut isn’t justified (which was suggested by others earlier!)  Very recently started checking things with second 50% data, but only for nch less than 80 (less than where the cut would be)

The 50<nch<80, positive smoothness problem  Jodi noticed a bump in the nch distribtion above 50 channels

The 50<nch<80, positive smoothness problem  nch>50, big excess at positive smoothness

The 50<nch<80, positive smoothness problem  nch>50, big excess at positive smoothness

First half of data set ldirc versus l.r. track/shower

First half of data set ldirc versus l.r. track/shower

Second half of data set ldirc versus l.r. track/shower

Second half of data set ldirc versus l.r. track/shower

Summary of the 50<nch<80, positive smoothness problem  Expect 14.1 atmospheric neutrinos  First half data – 35 events  Second half data – 15 events  After cut – expect 8.2 atmos  First half data – 9 events  Second half data – 7 events

Summary of the 50<nch<80, positive smoothness problem DataAtmospheric neutrinos TotalPassFailTotalPassFail F

Summary of the 50<nch<80, positive smoothness problem DataAtmospheric neutrinos TotalPassFailTotalPassFail F

Summary of the 50<nch<80, positive smoothness problem  26 events on 5.9 is quite a fluctuation  34 events on 10.8 is as well….  ….even accounting for all the plots I’ve looked at in my life

Second half nch plot

First half nch plot

Full year nch plot Still a bump in the full year

Full year smoothness plot Still an excess at positive smoothness

Examine the 34 events  Look at distributions, both 1 and 2 dimensional  See if any of the events lie in “bad” corners of the cut space – indicative of background

line fit velocity Excess at slow velocities

smoothness, ndirc Excess at largest smoothness Excess at largest ndirc!

likelihood ratios, up/down, track/shower Maybe trend to lower ratios Tendency to lower ratios as seen already

ldirc, ldirb Nothing obviously bad

Cosine zenith, nch Maybe less vertical than expected Higher nch as observed already

Distributions of the 34 events Looks ok

Distributions of the 34 events Maybe a pileup toward low speed and high smoothness

Distributions of the 34 events No obvious disagreement

My conclusions about nch>50, positive smoothness  Some of the 34 events are some kind of unsimulated background, some are good track events  The difference between the two data halves is certainly a fluctuation on these underlying distributions  Hard to imagine a periodic signal that just happens to coincide with our data separation by file numbers

My conclusions about nch>50, positive smoothness  Some of these events are very nice tracks with long direct lengths  Eliminate the original cut – maybe look at cutting on line fit velocity vs smoothness  Tighten other cuts  Good events will survive to higher levels  Bad events will get eliminated elsewhere  See what happens in subsequent years

Passing rates with tightened cuts  Start with cuts just described  Tighten gradually until events disappear  Examine passing rates of data and simulation

Passing rates with tightened cuts  l.r. up to zenith-weighted downgoing fit - jkchi(12)-jkchi(11) =  ldirb(11) =  ndirc(11) =  | smootallphit(11) | =  10 cut sets defined ( )

First half data vs cut level

Second half data vs cut level

Total data vs cut level

Limit setting potential versus cut level E 2  (E) < 2.35  GeV -1 cm -2 s -1 sr -1

The cut against coincident muons  Original cut: slope 18  New cut: slope 4

The cut against coincident muons  Original cut: slope 18  MRF :

The cut against coincident muons  New cut: slope 4  MRF :

Outlook for the 2000 diffuse analysis  Some sort of weird effect was seen in the 1 st 50%, but not in the 2 nd  Eliminate the problematic cut  Tighten cut against coincident muons

Explanation of one part of the nch>50, positive smoothness problem  Clue (Doug Cowen) – cascade fit is very sensitive to noise hits  If the Monte Carlo and data have slightly different noise, then a cascade fit comparison might not make sense

The cascade fit was performed before the cross talk filter was applied!  Cascade fits on data have been done with all the cross talk present  Monte Carlo contains no cross talk  Likelihood ratios based on different hit selections make no sense

track/shower l.r. before nch>50 cut Dramatic improvement in the agreement of this variable!

Bump in nch, correlates with excess at positive smoothness

track/shower l.r., ldirc vs t/s l.r. for nch>50, positive smoothness

Same plots, with consistent cross talk cleaning

Data and simulation now agree! (in shape)

Where they did not before

Place a new cut – data and atmos neutrinos are now both split about 50:50 about this cut

Place a different cut – excess now shows up in corner, but that’s where the E -2 is more prevalent…

Examine the 22 events in the corner

Scanning of the events inside the green circle reveals some indication of residual cross talk – a classic “string 9/10 event”

New conclusions  Once the cascade fit is correctly performed using the cross talk filtering selection, the excess of events at nch>50 and positive smoothness moves to the low l.r. / low ldirc corner of the 2D plot - which could be indicative of background  However, this is the region where the E -2 signal prediction is expected to cluster  We cannot cut this region away!