PRODUCTION AND PRSIM-ANALYSIS UPDATE

DUNE-PRISM WEEKLY 2018-03-05 LUKE PICKERING, J. CALCUTT

PRODUCTION STATUS▸ Fine-tooth-combed through post-G4 code. ▸ Have a load of validation plots to show on following

slides. ▸ I *think* I understand any oddities that came up before.

▸ Missing piece — No 2p2h in current production. ▸ Set up relevant xsec package using FNAL tools but it

still isn’t GENIE default model. ▸ Will run a new production this week, but hopefully

final-format versions of the previous files are available for FHC now and will be available for RHC soon (and Far det as well).

Luke Pickering

2017-03-05 2

SANITY: VERTEX POSITION.

Luke Pickering

2017-03-05 3

▸ Interaction positions for CC muon events in FV. ▸ Looks sensible

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

(cm)xVtxPos4000− 3500− 3000− 2500− 2000− 1500− 1000− 500− 0

(cm

)y

VtxP

os

200−

150−

100−

50−

0

50

100

150

200 vtx_pos_xyEntries 139524Mean x 624.5− Mean y 0.2848− RMS x 700.2RMS y 57.75

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

(cm)zVtxPos300− 200− 100− 0 100 200 300

(cm

)y

VtxP

os

200−

150−

100−

50−

0

50

100

150

200 vtx_pos_yzEntries 139524Mean x 0.4133− Mean y 0.2848− RMS x 115.4RMS y 57.75

INTERACTION KINEMATICS

Luke Pickering

2017-03-05 4

▸ Looks sensible enough.

Elasticity0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Cou

nt

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Ally

Entries 139524Mean 0.5742RMS 0.2632

All

HadrContained

MuContained

All

(GeV)restW1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Cou

nt

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200wrest

Entries 139524Mean 1.765RMS 0.5021

)2 (GeV2Q0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Cou

nt

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

q2Entries 139524Mean 1.09RMS 1.439

BUILDING ‘CALORIMETRIC’ EREC

Luke Pickering

2017-03-05 5

▸ Naively try E muon + E pions, gammas, kaons, others… + T nucleon ▸ Odd structure due to baryonic resonances and nucleon pair

production. ▸ Branch in output: ERecProxy_True ▸ May not be best for events with exiting muons

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

(GeV)µ + Enucl.

T∑ + Other

E∑ + γ

E∑ + π

E∑0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(GeV

)νE

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 efs_vs_enu_2DEntries 139524Mean x 2.864Mean y 2.871RMS x 2.012RMS y 1.992

Didn’t take away nucleon M from baryonic resonance

Ignored nucleon mass for PP nucleons in DIS

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

(GeV)µ + Enucm×baryonres - Nnucl.

T∑ + Other

E∑ + γ

E∑ + π

E∑0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(GeV

)νE

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 efs_vs_enu_2D_nobarres

Entries 139524Mean x 2.856Mean y 2.877RMS x 2.005RMS y 2.002

Taking one nucleon mass per lambda fixes this side

Cannot differentiate nucleon emission from PP

ENERGY SUMS

Luke Pickering

2017-03-05 6

(GeV)ν - Eµ + Enucl.

T∑ + Other

E∑ + γ

E∑ + π

E∑0.1− 0.08− 0.06− 0.04− 0.02− 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1

Cou

nt

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

QEefs_vs_enu_1D_QEEntries 39490Mean 0.03812RMS 0.02109

QEDISRES

QE

▸ Checking with Cris over what might go into an ‘ERec’. ▸ Distribution of missing energy is odd, but on order of binding energy. ▸ Missing momentum is also odd, not iso-tropic. ▸ I think investigating these oddities *too* closely is not neccessary, no

one believes that GENIE gets everything correct.

Two binding energy for QE?

RES/DIS distribution looks ~sensible for RFG+B-R high mom tail

0

50

100

150

200

250

)c| (GeV/ν

- pFS∑

= |pN,i

p0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

)N

,ipθ

cos(

1−

0.8−

0.6−

0.4−

0.2−

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1 miss_mom_p_ctEntries 139524Mean x 0.1741Mean y 0.04152− RMS x 0.1158RMS y 0.5917

Polar angle vs. magnitude of missing momentum ~initial state nucleon momentum if linear momentum is conserved…

CALOR VS. KINEMATIC

Luke Pickering

2017-03-05 7

(GeV)ν - Eµ + Enucl.

T∑ + Other

E∑ + γ

E∑ + π

E∑0.1− 0.08− 0.06− 0.04− 0.02− 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1

Cou

nt

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

QEefs_vs_enu_1D_QEEntries 39490Mean 0.03812RMS 0.02109

QEDISRES

QE

▸ Looked much ‘thinner’ than ERec bias plots that I am used to seeing. ▸ Protons are heavy, Fermi energy has much less effect on

calorimetric reco than Fermi momentum on kinematic reco. ▸ Check ERecQE: Looks as expected. I think the GENIE kinematics

are being tracked through fine.

- 1ν/EQEERec1.5− 1− 0.5− 0 0.5 1

Cou

nt

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

QEenuQERec_1D_QEEntries 39490Mean 0.02598− RMS 0.1671

QEDISRES

QE

PARTICLE DEPOSITS — MUON

Luke Pickering

2017-03-05 8

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

(GeV)lM×l + NlT0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(GeV

)l,p

rim.

EDep

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 primlep_eEntries 139524Mean x 1.913Mean y 0.3819RMS x 1.876RMS y 0.203

Muon deposits only — No Michel/Delta

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

(GeV)lM×l + NlT0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(GeV

)l+

desc

.ED

ep

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 primlep_e_and_descEntries 139524Mean x 1.913Mean y 0.4889RMS x 1.876RMS y 0.2813

Muon and all descendent deposits.

▸ More energy than ‘deposited’ is due to multi-lepton production. ▸ Will put non-primary leptons into ‘other’

branch ▸ Worse if you include the descendent particles. ▸ Primary muon edep and descendent edep

now separated in the output.

Muon leaves the detector cannot deposit more than ~1GeV along any path.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

(GeV)lM×l + NlT0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(GeV

)l,p

rim.

EDep

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 primlep_eEntries 139290Mean x 1.911Mean y 0.3817RMS x 1.874RMS y 0.2028

NLep==1

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

310×

(GeV)0πM×0π + N0πT0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(GeV

)0π

EDep

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 pi0_eEntries 200000Mean x 0.3759Mean y 0.3479RMS x 1.025RMS y 0.9493

PARTICLE DEPOSITS — OTHER

Luke Pickering

2017-03-05 9

▸ Here don’t ever get more energy than you put in.

0

20

40

60

80

100

310×

(GeV)±πM×±π + N±πT0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(GeV

)±π

EDep

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 pic_eEntries 200000Mean x 0.64Mean y 0.3787RMS x 1.336RMS y 0.8099

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

(GeV)neutronM×neutron + NneutronT0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(GeV

)ne

utro

nED

ep

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 neutron_e_nomEntries 139524Mean x 0.3099Mean y 0.1454RMS x 0.6483RMS y 0.3623

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

(GeV)protonM×proton + NprotonT0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(GeV

)pr

oton

EDep

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 proton_e_nomEntries 139524Mean x 0.3995Mean y 0.3042RMS x 0.6655RMS y 0.4355

Again due to DIS nucleon PP and excess mass removal

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

(GeV)νE0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(GeV

)FV

EDep

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 enu_vs_dep_FVEntries 139524Mean x 2.878Mean y 0.9763RMS x 2.002RMS y 0.8431

DEPOSITED EREC

Luke Pickering

2017-03-05 10

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

(GeV)νE0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(GeV

)de

tED

ep

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 enu_vs_depEntries 139524Mean x 2.878Mean y 1.317RMS x 2.002RMS y 0.9862Whole stop volume Just FV

DEPOSITED EREC — MUON CONTAINED

Luke Pickering

2017-03-05 11

▸ For contained muons, take deposited muon and descendent energy in whole stop volume (not just FV).

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

(GeV)νE0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(GeV

)ha

dr +

ED

epµ

= E

Dep

rec

E

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 enu_vs_erec_mu_contEntries 29563Mean x 1.687Mean y 1.213RMS x 1.35RMS y 0.9814

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

(GeV)νE0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(GeV

)ha

dr +

ED

epµ

= E

Dep

rec

E

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 enu_vs_erec_mu_cont_hadr_cont

Entries 9589Mean x 0.8656Mean y 0.6696RMS x 0.4821RMS y 0.4121

No Hadr Shower cut Contained Hadr shower

DEPOSITED EREC — MUON EXITS

Luke Pickering

2017-03-05 12

▸ For exiting muons, take true whole primary lepton energy.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

(GeV)FV

EDep0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(GeV

)ha

dr +

ED

epµ

= E

rec

E

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 enu_vs_erec_mu_exitEntries 108266Mean x 3.278Mean y 2.875RMS x 2.029RMS y 1.784

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

(GeV)FV

EDep0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(GeV

)ha

dr +

ED

epµ

= E

rec

E

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 enu_vs_erec_mu_exit_hadr_cont

Entries 30340Mean x 2.401Mean y 2.298RMS x 1.51RMS y 1.492

No Hadr Shower cut Contained Hadr shower

DEPOSITED EREC — SUMMARY

Luke Pickering

2017-03-05 13

▸ For muon contained events, deposited energy peaks at underestimating the neutrino energy. ▸ Lost energy to muon decay neutrino.

- 1ν/ErecE1− 0.8− 0.6− 0.4− 0.2− 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Cou

nt

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

LepExit_AllHadrerec_bias_mu_exitEntries 108266Mean 0.1209− RMS 0.1189

LepExit_AllHadr

LepCont_AllHadr

LepExit_HadrCont

LepCont_HadrCont

LepExit_AllHadr

PRISM-ANALYSIS▸ Implemented VALOR NDTF model: ▸ Caveat: With RooTracker output that we are using,

impossible to determine pre-FSI hadronic state. ▸ Currently implemented post-FSI — I don’t think that

this matters ‘too’ much, but will update with the new production where I can use the GHEP output as well.

▸ Currently just 1-sigma variations, but can use the same covmat as Guang has and ROOT has all the tools to be throwing from it quickly. ▸ Then just need to condense into a covmat in bins of

ERec (right?). ▸ Can we get the blackboard picture.

Luke Pickering

2017-03-05 14

VALOR 1 SIGMA VARIATION VALIDATION

Luke Pickering

2017-03-05 15

▸ Seems to be working…

)2 (GeV2Q0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Cou

nt

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600q2_p1_QE

Entries 39490Mean 0.4911RMS 0.4149

)2 (GeV2Q0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Cou

nt

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2 q2_p1_QEEntries 4872Mean 1.045RMS 0.5617

)2 (GeV2Q0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Cou

nt

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

q2_p1_RESEntries 41918Mean 0.5599RMS 0.457

)2 (GeV2Q0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Cou

nt

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2 q2_p1_RESEntries 7547Mean 1.04RMS 0.5684

QE RES

FLUX UNCERTAINTIES▸ Have been using three largest focussing uncertainties

so far. ▸ Makes standard procedure of condensing into a

covmat and then pulling out most important eigenvector variations a bit pointless as there are far fewer ‘parameters’ than ‘bins’.

▸ Have started up email contact about hadronisation uncertainties, so aiming to build the covmat functionality all the same.

▸ Sorry for late-ness, but will send ‘1 sigma’ variations for the three parameter tweaks after the meeting.

Luke Pickering

2017-03-05 16

EFFICIENCY CORRECTIONS▸ The efficiency corrections need to be applied to the data in a

standard DUNE-PRISM analysis as it answers the question — I saw this many events with some properties in my small ND, how many would I have seen in the full FD? (and what ERec does it have) ▸ Must be projectable onto observables. ▸ Need to be model independent. ▸ Easy for muon in non-magnetic, homogenous volume: Energy

and ToWall. ▸ But needs more investigation for the hadronic system.

▸ Ideas… @ < 20 days to go, this worries me the most. ▸ EHadrDepFV and muon ToWall rotated 180o around beam

axis? ▸ …

Luke Pickering

2017-03-05 17

THANK YOU

WE APOLOGISE FOR ANY INCONVENIENCE