1. 1 Latest CC analysis developments New selection efficiencies: –Based on C++ reco + PDFs rather than old (Fortran+reco_minos) cuts –Attempt to optimise PID cut 5 year plan: –Sensitivities calculated year by year Discrimination between osc. models –Standard oscillations vs nu decoherence D. A. Petyt May ‘03

2. 2 PDF-based CC/NC separation Idea is to replace old cut-based efficiencies with more modern/realistic values New selection uses likelihood method described at South Carolina Currently using simplest implementation – 3  1D pdfs. CC NC

3. 3 PID results (from SC) CC NC Cut on the PID parameter to distinguish between CC/NC – the precise value of this cut will be a trade-off between purity and efficiency

4. 4 Sample ‘CC-like’ distributions Visible energy (0-30 GeV) PID>-0.5 PID>0.1PID>-0.1 PID>-0.3 Key Perfect ID CC NC

5. 5 Optimising the PID cut Many possible ways to do this. The method I chose attempts to optimise the oscillation signal by examining –Overall significance of the effect (units of  –Size of the dip at oscillation maximum (units of  –Evidence for a rise at low energy (units of  Optimisation will depend on how well NC background is understood. –I assume that I can make a full subtraction of the mis-identified NC events, but assign an additional error that is proportional to the number of NC events in each bin of E vis Optimisation will be dependent on  m 2. –The plots I show here are for  m 2 =0.0025 eV 2 –Have looked at  m 2 =0.0016 eV 2. Optimum cut seems similar but statistical errors are large

6. 6 PID cut =-0.5,  m 2 =0.0025

7. 7 Finding the optimum Define a quality factor that is the product of these three quantities. Optimum selection between –0.1<PID<0.1 Optimium PID cut increases with increasing uncertainty on NC background I chose PID>–0.1 – try to maximise CC efficiency

8. 8 CC selection efficiencies as a fn. of true E and y True neutrino energy (0-30 GeV)

9. 9 NC inefficiencies Factor of 3 lower than previous cuts True neutrino energy (0-30 GeV)

10. 10 Comparison of old and new efficiencies Unoscillated CC spectra – No NC background

11. 11 5 year plan I have taken the numbers for the ‘default’ 5 year plan that was sent around several weeks ago and have calculated year-by-year sensitivities with the following inputs: –le and semi-me,he beams from NuMI-L-783 –Efficiencies based on PID cut –Assume “VLE=LE” –Ignore anti-neutrino running (don’t know fluxes) –Statistical errors only – recommendations for beam (and other) systematics? This is a literal interpretation of 5 yr plan: –Do we want more generic N  10 20 p.o.t plots instead/as well? Some of these were shown at SC.

12. 12

13. 13

14. 14

15. 15

16. 16

17. 17 Discriminating against exotic models Several exotic models of neutrino mixing exist which can provide a reasonable fit to the SK  -like data. Nu decay is ruled out by SK due to the non-observation of   sterile. Nu decoherence, which does not involve active  sterile transitions, is still a possibility.

18. 18 Oscillations vs decoherence This analysis motivated by hep-ph/0303064, which shows how well SK+K2K data can discriminate against the decoherence hypothesis General survival probability (osc+decoherence): –Comments: Pure oscillations:    Pure decoherence:  m 2  In pure decoherence scenario: P   I have performed a fit to these 3 parameters, assuming standard oscillations with  m 2 =0.0025 eV 2 and compared the results to those obtained for SK/K2K in hep-ph/0303064

19. 19 Fit result – 5 year plan, year 1 Shown are the three 2D projections of the 3- dimensional allowed volume SK allows  m 2  0 at 99% C.L. MINOS does not

20. 20 Fit result – 5 year plan, year 5

21. 21 Constraint on decoherence parameter 

22. 22 Plots for 5yr plan/response to PAC questions Two basic questions: –What plots are required? –What inputs (beams, systematics…) 5 year plan plots: –Specific run plans and/or generic sensitivity vs POT plots? –Low  m 2 scenario (using VLE beam, if available)? PAC questions: –Q1 – ‘5 sigma dip’: precise definition? Easy to do but implies low p.o.t. even for low  m 2 –Q2,3 – ‘95% exclusion of nu decay/3  preference of osc. over decay’:   between best-fit osc and best-fit decay? Probably also implies low p.o.t. (see decoherence results) Inputs: –More up-to-date spectra (esp. le) available? –Recommended systematic uncertainties on beam flux? –Treatment of mis-identified NC: assume perfect subtraction or full subtraction with some error. What error?