1. 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 least) 2 main causes: -Fear of moving target after previous experience -Physics case not sufficiently strong (there is another method to measure this background by reweighting the pion flux).  Important to see what we can do with the pHE data already available. Expect: -Improvement since (  + ) spectrum in pHE higher energy -Deterioration since less POT and higher systematics In this talk just first try with only statistics to see if it’s even worth looking into it further. First have to adapt selection to daikon (new MC) and cedar (new reco)…

2. Selection on L010185 daikon cedar Cut at nubarPID > 0.9 gives Eff=51.26%, Purity=97.05% Selection on L250200 daikon cedar Cut at nubarPID > 0.9 gives Eff=56.18%, Purity=99.13%

3. Selection on L010185 daikon cedar K+K+

4. Selection on L250200 daikon cedar K+K+

5. For now ignore background; get smooth spectra by fitting: (  + ) pHE (  + ) LE (  ,K - ) pHE (  ,K - ) LE

6. Smooth spectra scaled to 1e18 POT (  + ) pHE (  + ) LE (  ,K - ) pHE (  ,K - ) LE

7.  ( ,K) pHE – ( ,K) LE in MC and in our smooth scenario: Scaled to 2e19 POT  Fit with two parameters parLE and parHE: Fake data at 2e19 POT x parLE x parHE (  + ) pHE (  + ) LE ( ,K) pHE - ( ,K) LE in MC in smooth scenario

8.  Results of 5,000 fits at 2.0x10 19 POT of pHE data (in tape):  Systematics are non-negligible though; Mainly:  Difference in non mu+ spectra (i.e. ( ,K) pHE – ( ,K) LE )  Background in selection is this a mistake? (always a possibility; will check)

9.  If get wrong  ( ,K) pHE – ( ,K) LE by -50%:

10.  If get wrong  ( ,K) pHE – ( ,K) LE by +50%:

11.  If get wrong  ( ,K) pHE – ( ,K) LE by -30%:  If get wrong  ( ,K) pHE – ( ,K) LE by +30%: