1. Summary of Results data-Fit/Scaled MC, E < E cut (candidates for  + decay) data-Fit/Scaled MC, E > E cut raw MC375.8±15.1(stat)79.5±9.2(stat) reweighed MC372.1±15.0(stat)106.8±11.0(stat) Scale method 11015.6-211.8 Scale method 21001.8-213.9 Scale method 3806.2-234.6 Scale method 41640.7-43.2 Scale method 5540.3-53.45 Fit method 1546.41.9 Fit method 2-283.2-138.9 Fit method 31395.4-265.4 Expected to be negative Should be ~0 if data/MC from horn-off is trust worthy in this region Should be 0 by construction Should be real nubars from  + all methods all methods (except fit method 2) from  + decay candidates

2.  In Scale Method 5 C(E) is approximated with: Main idea of scaling methods is: Overall method: Question is: how good is this approximation? Pol 4 th deg

3. Then we have: Let be the fraction of  + in the spectrum (Data) Let be the fraction of  + in the spectrum (MC) Clearly if then thus giving:

4. Conservative scenario: differs from by 100%: The data/MC horn-on ratio is then:

5. data Scaled MC, no  + data Scaled MC, no  + subtraction from  + candidates Proceeding with the analysis:

6. data-Fit/Scaled MC, E < E cut (candidates for  + decay) data-Fit/Scaled MC, E > E cut raw MC375.8±15.1(stat)79.5±9.2(stat) reweighed MC372.1±15.0(stat)106.8±11.0(stat) Scale method 5514.2±183.7(stat)±225.2(syst)83.7±143.7(stat)±138.2(syst) from  + candidates Stat from  + candidates Syst from  + raw MC

7.  K K L  +

12.  + component, ME  + component, LE

13. Difference between the two curves in previous slide

14. ME non-mu+ components – LE non-mu+ components