Using the pHE data to measure the beam n e ’s from m + decay
description
Transcript of Using the pHE data to measure the beam n e ’s from m + decay
1
Using the pHE data to measure the beam e’s from + decay
David Jaffe and Pedro Ochoa
March 13th 2007
Introduction Antineutrino selection Feasibility study Systematics
2
Introduction David and Pedro proposed making this measurement with pME
data (minos-doc-2706). Getting that data seems complicated. 2 main reasons: Fear of moving target after previous experience. Some people feel physics case not strong enough.
Could we use the already existing pHE data taken after the shutdown? With pHE data expect:
Improvement since antineutrinos from + decay in pHE ((+)pHE) peak at higher energies (i.e. better separation with (+)LE).
Degradation since less POT (~2.0x1019) and higher systematics. Beginning of talk considers only statistics of available pHE data.
Without sufficient statistical precision would not proceed further.
3
Selection
Some features of PID in cedar not completely understood. For now treat as black box.
Use (at least for now) nubar-PID selection (minos-doc-2377):
Used daikon-cedar MC: 4.11x1018 POT of pHE and 1.07x1020 POT of LE.
CC CCNC
Use cut at nubar-PID > 0.9:Efficiency Purity
LE 56.2% 99.1%
pHE 51.3% 97.1%
LE-10 pHE
4
ParentK
+
Selection in LE configuration:
Background composition
Background
Selection vs. ErecoSelection vs. Etrue
Efficiency and Purity
5
ParentK
+
Selection in pHE configuration:
Background composition
Background
Selection vs. ErecoSelection vs. Etrue
Efficiency and Purity
6
(+) pHE
(+) LE
(,K-) pHE (,K-) LE
Background is problem in pHE. For now ignore. Make feasibility study with fitted spectra:
Scaled to 1x1020 POT
Feasibility study
very distinct
7Scaled to 2e19 POT Scaled to 2e19 POT
Fake experiment at 2e19 POT
in MCin feasibility
study
one fit
x parLE(+)pHE
(,K)pHE-(,K)LE
x parHE(+)LE
Good agreement for (,K)pHE-(,K)LE in MC and in feasibility study:
Note: Assume infinite MC and
LE statistics
Procedure: - fit pHE-LE with spectral shapes from MC. - scale (+)LE and (+)pHE by parameters parLE and parHE.
8
13% stat. uncertainty !
Assume we get (,K)pHE-(,K)LE exactly.
Results of 5,000 fits at 2.0x1020 POT of pHE data:
90% C.L. 68.3% C.L.
Less correlation between parameters than in pME case (c.f. minos-doc-2504)
(+)pHE peaking at higher energy really helps us.
However… (see next slide)
Fit done manually (described in minos-doc-2504)
9
Systematics Systematics are the key to this measurement. Mainly:
(,K)pHE-(,K)LE correction. Background in pHE.
Preliminary look at C = (,K)pHE-(,K)LE:
| Bias in parLE | | Bias in parHE |
C wrong by ± 50% ~64.5% 53.5%
C wrong by ± 30% ~38.1% ~32.1%
C wrong by ± 15% ~19.2% ~16.1%
Note: As pointed out by Stan, best way to look at C is not in percentage form. This is just to get an idea.
If want to know beam e’s to ~30%, need to know C to ~20% or better if it is the dominant systematic uncertainty.
From experience with pME cross-section shape uncertainties should not be big problem.
Maybe can absorb some of this uncertainty by adding another parameter that scales C. Will look into it.
10
Summary & Ongoing work
Measurement is possible to 13% from statistics point of view, using already existing pHE data.
Work in progress to understand the 2 main systematics:
(,K)pHE-(,K)LE correction
Background in pHE selection.
Goal is to incorporate this into e analysis with MCNN selection.
11
Backup
12
• Smooth spectra scaled to 1e18 POT
(+) pHE (+) LE
(,K-) pHE (,K-) LE
13
If get wrong(,K)pHE – (,K)LE by -50%:
14
If get wrong(,K)pHE – (,K)LE by +50%:
15
If get wrong(,K)pHE – (,K)LE by -30%:
If get wrong(,K)pHE – (,K)LE by +30%:
16
If get wrong(,K)pHE – (,K)LE by +15%:
If get wrong(,K)pHE – (,K)LE by -15%: