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.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

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

Advertisements

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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 Scaling methods Main idea of scaling methods is: Overall method: C(E) is obtained in 5 different ways: From horn-off data, E cut < E < E high From horn-off.

2015/6/23 1 How to Extrapolate a Neutrino Spectrum to a Far Detector Alfons Weber (Oxford/RAL) NF International Scoping Study, RAL 27 th April 2006.

25 April Antineutrino selection for constraining the e beam Goal: extract component of  rate from  + decays Requirement: High purity at low neutrino.

1 Beam e ’s from antineutrinos using the pME and LE beams David Jaffe, Pedro Ochoa December 8 th 2006  Part 1: Reminder and update  Part 2: Change in.

1) Horn-on selection (L010185) Tightening the NuBarPID cut NuBarPID Purity vs. Efficiency nu nubar.

CC/NC SEPARATION STUDY Andy Blake Cambridge University Friday February 23 rd 2007.

With new systematics: Horn 1 shift 1mm Horn 1 angle 0.2mr Horn current ±1%

1 Latest CC analysis developments New selection efficiencies: –Based on C++ reco + PDFs rather than old (Fortran+reco_minos) cuts –Attempt to optimise.

April 1, Beam measurement with -Update - David Jaffe & Pedro Ochoa 1)Reminder of proposed technique 2)Use of horn-off data 3)Use of horn2-off data?

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.

1 Using the pHE data to measure the beam e ’s from  + decay David Jaffe and Pedro Ochoa June 14 th 2007  Reminder  Updated Statistical error  Horn.

1 N. Davidson Calibration with low energy single pions Tau Working Group Meeting 23 rd July 2007.

First tried to reproduce Jeff’s cuts described in his talk at Oxford (minos-doc 1409): For this, used tracks in fiducial volume (1m

 Expand feasibility study to include background: Beam e measurement from antineutrinos Background in pHE and LE samples obtained with the nubar-PID cut.

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.

Identification of neutrino oscillations in the MINOS detector Daniel Cole

1 Beam e ’s from antineutrinos – Update – David Jaffe, Pedro Ochoa November 13 th 2006  Part 1: from  + reweighing  Part 2: New ideas.

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

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.

Outline: (1) The data sample (2) Some news on the analysis method (3) Efficiency revised (4) Background revised (5) Data: spectrum + “phi-curve”

1 2vtx tagged diBjets mass cross section measurement Univeristy of Notre Dame Hong Luo Mar 3 th 2005.

Preliminary Results from the MINER A Experiment Deborah Harris Fermilab on behalf of the MINERvA Collaboration.

Mass production (Super-K) Setup of jnubeam – 3 horn 250 kA – 30-GeV proton beam of Gaussian distribution (  x,y = cm) – On center, parallel beam.

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,

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.

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.

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.

1 of 14 NuMI Beam Flux Sacha E. Kopp University of Texas at AustinUniversity of Texas at Austin – 41 University of Southern California – 38.

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.

T2K muon measurement 2014 Momentum module A.Ariga, C. Pistillo University of Bern S. Aoki Kobe University 1.

October 2011 David Toback, Texas A&M University Research Topics Seminar1 David Toback Texas A&M University For the CDF Collaboration CIPANP, June 2012.

1 A study to clarify important systematic errors A.K.Ichikawa, Kyoto univ. We have just started not to be in a time blind with construction works. Activity.

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

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

Kalanand Mishra February 23, Branching Ratio Measurements of Decays D 0  π - π + π 0, D 0  K - K + π 0 Relative to D 0  K - π + π 0 decay Giampiero.

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

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.

LNF 12/12/06 1 F.Ambrosino-T. Capussela-F.Perfetto Update on        Dalitz plot slope Where we started from A big surprise Systematic checks.

 CC QE results from the NOvA prototype detector Jarek Nowak and Minerba Betancourt.

Mark Dorman UCL/RAL MINOS WITW June 05 An Update on Using QE Events to Estimate the Neutrino Flux and Some Preliminary Data/MC Comparisons for a QE Enriched.

Precision Measurement of Muon Neutrino Disappearance with T2K Alex Himmel Duke University for the The T2K Collaboration 37 th International Conference.

I have 6 events (Nch>=100) on a background of ?

The MiniBooNE Little Muon Counter Detector

A PID based approach for antineutrino selection

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.

Presentation transcript:

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).

Horn off data analyzed was e18 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.

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

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

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?

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

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