a preliminary estimate of the beam n e ’s from antineutrinos
DESCRIPTION
A preliminary estimate of the beam n e ’s from antineutrinos. David Jaffe, Pedro Ochoa. December 7 th 2006. Data and MC used. Data used: Horn-off: LE-10, Birch, 2.77x10 18 POT (couple of days Feb-2006) Horn-on: LE-10, Birch, 8.15x10 19 POT (Oct 2005 -Jan 2006) MC used: - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
A preliminary estimate of the beam e’s from antineutrinos
David Jaffe, Pedro Ochoa
December 7th 2006
2
Data used:
Horn-off: LE-10, Birch, 2.77x1018 POT (couple of days Feb-2006)
Horn-on: LE-10, Birch, 8.15x1019 POT (Oct 2005 -Jan 2006)
MC used:
Horn-off: LE010000, Carrot, 1.32x1019 POT
Horn-on: LE010185, Carrot, 4.17x1019 POT
Data and MC used
3
Preliminary results of from +:
from + decay
E < Ecut
data-(Fit or Scaled) MC, Ecut < E < 30 GeV
raw MC 1553.7 ± 55.1 (stat) 283.0 ± 23.0 (stat)
reweighed MC 1538.2 ± 54.8 (stat) 386.5 ± 32.4 (stat)
Scale method 1 4685.4 ± 367.4 (stat) -5914.9
Scale method 2 4628.8 ± 367.8 (stat) -5991.6
Stan’s method 3163.6 ± 1122.0 (stat) -243.5 ± 1169.1 (stat)
Scale method 3 3820.2 ± 374.5 (stat) 584.3 ± 339.5 (stat)
Scale method 4 6392.8 ± 355.1 (stat) 412.4± 341.4 (stat)
Fit method 1735.5 ± 380.3 (stat) -357.1 ± 351.8 (stat)
Note: talked with Zarko about using new neutrino-antineutrino combined fit in modified energy range for nubars. In progress.
Should be real nubars from + if
data/MC from horn-off is trust-
worthy in this region
Should be ~0 by construction
Should be real nubars from +
Expected to be highly
negative by construction
Details can be found in backup slides and in minos-docs 2421 and 2218).
4
Systematics
In addition, uncertainties when going from to e: from + selection efficiency: no systematic yet. ()/(e):
Error in fit: no current estimate for SKZP “a la Boston” with antineutrinos. Will have one with new fit.
How accurate is the Horn-off disagreement between data and MC to scale the Horn-on MC? No systematic yet
Purity of antineutrino sample: see minos-doc-2205
For the atmospheric paper, Hugh G. estimated 13.5 % uncertainty in ()/()
(see minos-doc-1424). Should be almost identical for ()/(e)
Main systematics for from + are:
Deconvolution to extract e spectrum: no systematic yet
ND-FD extrapolation: no systematic yet
Cross-section shape uncertainty: see talk tomorrow
Reconstruction efficiencies for and e’s: small effect (?)
5
Doing the numbers
e from +
e
from +, 0 < E < 30 GeV
Stan’s method 2920.1 ± 1677.2(all)
Fit method 1378.3 ± 532.8(stat)
Combination of scaling methods 1,2 and 4 gives:
5235.7 ± 629.6(stat) ± 818.5 (syst)
from +:
Necessary parameters from MC (all below 30 GeV):
With Stan’s method, at 1x1019 POT we get:
e’s from +, fid vol e’s from +
Stan’s method 3,391.1±2017,4 17,091±10,178.8
Raw MC 2,121.1±52.55(stat) 10,691.4±118.0(stat)
- Selection efficiency for from + is 31.38 % ± 1.9% (stat) - Ratio of e’s from + to ’s from + is 2.97±0.14(stat) ±0.40(syst) - Ratio of e’s from + in detector to those in fiducial volume is 5.04±0.14(stat)
(this is reconstructed e’s from +, not all e’s that go through the detector)
Assume we are dominated by statistics
6
Backup
7
Reweighting nubars from +
from m+, raw MC from m+, reweighted MC
8
Scaling method 1
9
Scaling method 2
10
Scaling method 3
11
Scaling method 3-alt (no fit to ratio)
12
Scaling method 4
13
Fit method
14
(Fit method 2 – discredited)
15
(Fit method 3 – discredited)