fd events and fit considerations i intend to cover two topics in this talk: –fd beam events...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
FD events and fit considerations
• I intend to cover two topics in this talk:– FD beam events
• Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…– Event selection by topological cuts, data/MC comparison (Niki)
– Event scan, selection by topology/timing, data/MC comparison (David)
– Optimisation of fiducial volume for CC analysis, data and cosmic background rates (Andy C.)
– Beam energy decision & oscillation fit at 1e20 p.o.t• General considerations
– Reminder of 1e20 sensitivity & break-point between LE/ME sensitivity
• Fit procedure– my thoughts on data/mc match-up in ND
– ND/FD extrapolation – various approaches:
“Know nothing” extrapolation (Trish/Jenny)
Flux extraction from fit to ND data (Masaki)
D. A. Petyt – CC summary talk 15/10/05
![Page 2: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
FD event studies - goals
• Look at FD “spill” events (with blinding scheme imposed) to determine– Whether we observe neutrino interactions at roughly
the expected rate (i.e constant number of nu/pot)
– Whether the events look “OK” – both in terms of general appearance and reconstructed quantites
– What backgrounds exist and how to remove them
![Page 3: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Analysis #1 – FD event selection using topological cuts - Niki
• Event sample used – “Open” dataset from Jun 1- Aug 31, corresponding to 4.07e19 p.o.t.
This sample uses the same “beam” reconstruction config. as the neutrino events
This sample uses the “cosmic” reconstruction config – the cosmics in this sample won’t properly represent those in the “spill” sample, but can be used as a check
![Page 4: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Selection efficiency & background rejection
(from MC)
![Page 5: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
• Selected events were scanned and classified as signal or background
True neutrinos should be located in a 10us time window
![Page 6: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
• These are typical “junk” events – radioactive noise in the spill trigger window forming a single low energy shower
![Page 7: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Comparison of cuts and visual scan
![Page 8: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
![Page 9: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Analysis #2 – FD scan/selection cuts for events with tracks - David
• Scanned reconstructed FD “spill” files (with blinding applied) from Jun 1 – 19 Sept (LE-10 running, 5.1e19 p.o.t).
• 1348 events scanned and classified into the following categories:
• Comments on the scan:– Beam neutrino events are in general very distinctive and it is very easy to distinguish
them from background– The large number of “junk” events is dominated by radioactive noise in the spill trigger
window. These are also pretty distinctive although it may be difficult to separate these from the very lowest energy NC events
– There are a few LI events in the “spill” files, most (if not all) are accompanied by trigger PMT hits (a cut on this removes 15 or the 17 LI events). In any case, they are rather distinctive and do not look at all like neutrino interactions
– The “problem” events are typically small events that occur close to the edge of the detector
• Small showers that could be NC events or incoming junk• Short tracks where the directionality is not clear.
Nu Rock mu Cosmic Junk LI unknown Nu? Rock mu?
140 33 103 1037 17 6 9 3
![Page 10: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Cut #2: timing wrt FD spill prediction: –20us<t<30us
Junk event
![Page 11: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Cut #3: event must contain a reconstructed track
Vast majority of “junk” is 0 track + 1 shower…
![Page 12: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Cut #4: track direction cosine wrt beam >0.6
![Page 13: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Cut #5: track vertex r2<14 m2
Cosmics pile up around detector edge – expect uniform distribution for neutrinos
![Page 14: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Cut #6: track vtx z>0.2m from SM ends, z<28m
![Page 15: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Result of cut sequence
Cut Nu Rock mu Cosmic Junk LI unknown Nu? Rock mu?
NONE 140 33 103 1037 17 6 9 3
Litime<0 140 33 103 1037 2 6 9 3
-20<tfar<30 s 139 33 39 468 0 6 9 3
Ntrack>0 123 33 34 1 0 2 4 3
Dircosneu>0.6 118 33 7 1 0 2 4 3
Track fid cuts 88 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
• On the assumption that all 139 candidates are real neutrinos, the efficiency of the selection cuts is 88/139=63.3%.
![Page 16: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Effect of cuts on MC events
• Efficiency of cuts on MC: 81797/128631=63.6%, which agrees well with data (assuming scan efficiency is high of course…)
Cut Numu CC NC Nue CC
NONE 102361 26635 1516
Raw ph<500000 100712 (98.4%) 26466 1453
Ntrack>0 95315 (94.6%) 15443 1091
Dircosneu>0.6 92851 (97.4%) 14079 1021
Trk vtx r2<14 77610 (83.6%) 11703 868
Track z vtx cuts 70346 (90.6%) 10647 804
![Page 17: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Neutrinos vs time
• Ratio of neutrinos/pot seems pretty constant.
![Page 18: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
FidVol optimisation – Andy C.- Want to optimise the current analysis cuts (PID and
FidVol) and see if there are any differences between optimal cuts for best resolutions in sin22 and m2.
- Proposed new FidVol cuts for CC:
- 20cm distance to edge cut & 40cm inner radial cut
- 3 plane cut at front of SM1&2 and back of SM1
- 13 plane cut at the back of SM2
- If all optimal cuts are used improvement in resolution of 14.8% in sin22 and 10.2% in m2.
![Page 19: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Parameter measurement errors vs fiducial cut
• Increase in statistics over-compensates loss in resolution for radial cut – implication is to push this as far as you can before running into problems with background contamination
• Optimum z vtx cut –13 planes. There is a minimum here – as you go further downstream in z, the events become poorly measured and identified and the increase in statistics in offset by worse energy resolution
Radial cut End of SM 2 cut
![Page 20: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Potential Energy Bias
- There is some loss in shw energy for these new events, but the difference is only in the order of 3-4%, so as long as simulation of shw size is reasonable, should not be an issue.
- Can assume trk energy reconstruction will suffer no bias due to the use of the TrackFitter.
Event passing existing cuts : New events added by relaxing cuts
![Page 21: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Effect on cosmic MC- ~50,000 Full spectrum Cosmics (processed with SR beam config) corresponds to
~36hrs of exposure.
- Detector is ‘open’ to Cosmics for only 100s every spill, approx every 2.5s, so a total exposure time of 5.2s in 36hrs, so this sample corresponds to ~100 yrs spill data.
- Application of a cut on trk direction relative to beam and track dt/ds removes most of cosmic background with little impact on beam events
- Background with relaxed cuts =0.68 cosmic/yr in spill window
- Loss of beam MC acceptance ~4%
All cosmic Old fidvol cuts Relaxed fidvol cuts
![Page 22: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
FD Beam data-Looked at July, August and half of September R1_18 blinded spill data.
Applied sensible Beam info cuts:•PoT > 1.5E11•-2mm < hpos < 0mm•0mm < vpos < 2mm•-5000V < Magnet Voltage < -4500V•-179.5 kA < Horn Current < -178.5 kA•Target Position > 0
Also require reconstructed track, PID>-0.4 and LI_time < 0
-With existing Fidvol conditions:
- 34 events
- 32 Beam
- 1 Cosmic
-With relaxed Fidvol conditions:
- 45 events
- 43 Beam (34% increase)
- 1 Cosmic (0% increase)- From MC we expect increases of 27% and 349% in Beam and Cosmics
- Due to Beam cuts this represents ~1.5 months data taking, so would expect to see 0.3 cosmics for existing fidvol and 1.4 for relaxed fidvol.
![Page 23: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Problems #1: events occurring before FD spill time
• Niki found 6 of 106 neutrino events that occur (just) outside the 0-10 us spill timing window– A visual scan shows that the
events look OK– The time distribution of the
strips in the event relative to the trigger time (bottom plot) also looks reasonable
• The earliest strip in these events occurs >200ns before the spillserver prediction. Is there an understood mechanism for this?– GPS “error” quoted as 200
ns…
![Page 24: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Problems #2 – Events with “late” digits• Niki also noticed that the time width of
events (time of latest strip – time of earliest strip) was of the order of 10-50 us for almost ½ of the neutrino candidates, as opposed to the expected ~100ns time width
• This is caused by the reconstruction code picking up random noise hits in the spill trigger window and adding them to the event– Given the short time window, this should
not significantly affect reconstructed quantities
– These hits can (and should) be removed by applying some loose timing criteria in the event formation
![Page 25: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Problems #3 – Displaced event vertices
• Andy observed that the event vertex for cosmic events tends to be displaced whenever there is a reconstructed shower (brem, delta ray...) on the track– We think the vertex finder in the beam
config assumes the primary track and shower should originate at the same point, and computes an “average” vertex position if they do not
– The net result of this is that the event vertex of cosmic events can be within the fiducial volume, even though the primary track vertex is not
• Should therefore use track vertex for fiducial cuts if it is available– Josh is aware of this and improvements
will be made to the next software release
Track vertex
Shower vertex
shower
![Page 26: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Good CC candidate
![Page 27: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Good NC candidate
![Page 28: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Good anti-neutrino candidate
![Page 29: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Event characteristics and data/MC comparisons
• The next several slides show comparisons between basic distributions for selected data and MC events (with the same cuts applied)
• Because of blinding/oscillations, we don’t expect all distributions to agree– Physics distributions will be distorted, but we should at least be
able to check if there are any glaring pathologies (i.e. unphysical “spikes”)
– Lower level quantities (such as pulse height/plane) should be unaffected
– I have indicated the distributions that will be significantly affected by blinding/oscillations with the label “B”
– All plots are normalised to the same area.– I will show plots separately for Niki’s events (events with 0 and
1+ tracks) and my events (events with 1+ tracks only)
![Page 30: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Event vertices and track direction
![Page 31: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Track vertex x-y projection
• LHS plot should be uniform in x-y
• RHS plot should be focussed towards origin for numu events and defocussed for numu_bar events
![Page 32: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Track Vertices #2
Background could appear in these areas
Background could appear in these areas
![Page 33: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Numbers of reconstructed tracks & showers
![Page 34: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Track fit parameters
• Track fitting performance seems very similar between data and MC.
• Similar rate of failures <5% (slightly lower in data than MC)
• Track q/p distribution distorted by blinding/oscillations…
B
![Page 35: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Track variables
• Track length is (should be!) distorted.
• Track ph/plane variables should be largely invariant– Slight excess of
high ph/plane events in data?
• Track digits/plane slightly lower in data– Could be caused by
lower per plane tracking efficiency in the data
B
![Page 36: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Event length and ph variables
• Reasonable match-up given the statistics – track ph/plane looks a bit higher in data…
Event length (planes) Pulse height per plane
Track pulse height per planeShower pulse height
B
B
![Page 37: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Shower reconstruction
• Data showers tend to reconstruct more clusters with higher average energy– Could be an artifact
of blinding
• However shower pulse height per digit is also somewhat higher – this should be largely invariant to blinding/osc.
B
![Page 38: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
“Physics” quantities
• Most of these will be distorted by blinding and oscillations
• However, the general shape of the distributions seems reasonable – there are no glaring “pathologies”…
B B
B
![Page 39: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
BB
![Page 40: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Per-strip quantities
• Track and shower ph/strip seem slightly (~5%) lower in data than MC.
![Page 41: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Slight excess of NC/deficit of CC – blinding and/or oscillations!
BB
![Page 42: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Likelihood-based PDF
• Optimal cut to separate CC and NC (for R1.18) is PID>-0.2• Higher fraction of NC-like events in the data, which is largely due to the
shorter event length distribution. This could be due to oscillations and/or blinding…
B
![Page 43: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
FD event selection conclusions• Beam neutrino events are very distinctive and it is quite easy to
isolate them with either timing and/or topology cuts– The backgrounds appear to be small and can probably be reduced further.
This may allow us to use a larger fiducial region for the analysis– So far, the best selection efficiency we have achieved is 87%
• Short events at the edge of the detector tend to be the most problematic
– The rate of neutrino events observed follows the beam intensity well
• So far, the match-up of data and MC shows no large discrepancies:– At least as far as we can tell with these statistics and with
blinding/oscillations– There are some small differences in “invariant” quantities, which should
be investigated further, but no pathological effects have been observed– There are some minor timing/reco issues to be looked at further or fixed
(offset in true-predicted time, event vertex shift etc.)
![Page 44: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Some thoughts on 1e20 p.o.t analysis and opening the box…
• Our plan is to open the box once we have accumulated ~1e20 p.o.t. and make our first determination of the value of m2
• This should provide a check as to whether we are running at the right beam energy– Older calculations show the the cross-over
between LE and ME sensitivity is m2~0.005 eV2. Should be re-done for newer beam/reco, but I doubt that the cross-over value will change much
• Given the difference between the signals at m2 = 0.002 and 0.005, it’s clear that we should be able to tell them apart unless we have very major differences between data and MC
![Page 45: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Comments on ND data/MC match-up
• In order to write a paper on the 1e20 data, we will need to be able to demonstrate that we understand our near detector data at a level sufficient to predict the FD spectrum without significant bias in the oscillation measurement.
• At the moment, despite significant study, there are still fairly large data/MC differences– These could be detector/reco effects, physics (beam/x-sec) or both…
• How do we do the extrapolation in this case?– Ideally, we want to factorise detector-specific differences (which can be
modelled or fixed) and the remaining differences (which can be attributed to physics) should be within the systematic error envolope from beam/x-sec uncertainties
– However, there may be residual differences that won’t be understood on this timescale
![Page 46: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Alternate approach to ND/FD fits – Trish/Jenny
• Take what we measure in the ND, use the Far/Near ratio and selection efficiencies from the MC to predict what the FD spectrum should look like in the case of no oscillations and oscillations with given values of (delta m^2, sin^2(2theta)). Use Minuit to fit for sin^2(2theta) and delta m^2.
• Approach different from David's method—provides an independent check
• Doesn't assume differences between data and MC in the ND spectrum are parameterizable
• Uses bin by bin differences between data and MC in the ND as basis for errors on the FD spectrum
• Minimization technique using Minuit is fast – Doesn't need multiple loops over nuisance parameters – Allows for 1000's of pseudo-experiments
![Page 47: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Calculating errors on the FD spectrum prediction
1. Find the relative difference between Data/MC in ND for each bin of reco energy.
2. Determine the error in bins of true energy by histogramming the true energy for each bin of reco energy, weighted by 1+/- the relative error from step 1, then add up these histograms.
3. Determine relative error for each bin of true neutrino energy.4. Relative errors on the true energy applied to the true energy in
the FD. 5. Add Beam syst. errors from F/N ratio (linearly)6. Histogram reco energy in FD for each bin of true energy,
weighted by 1+/- the relative error of step 4. Sum histograms. Half the spread between the 1+error and 1-error histograms is taken as the error in each bin of reconstructed energy in the FD.
![Page 48: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Computing the FD error envelope
Far/near
Error bars on FD prediction are +/- 1 sigma systematic
![Page 49: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Example results
Systematics dominated here – doesn’t scale as sqrt(N)
![Page 50: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Potential Pitfalls at 1e20
0.0022eV2
0.005eV2
Fits are more stable at high dmsq…
![Page 51: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Calibration +5% • Difference between
ND and FD calibration can be studied
• Effects worse at low m2
• Extra fit parameter can alleviate this problem
![Page 52: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Using ND data to estimate neutrino flux - Masaki
• motivation MdEEEEN )()()(
Fluxcross-section
efficiency
Fiducial mass
Parameters measure by the ND data
• procedure
2
2
22
22 ))1((
MCData
MCjiData NfN
True ET
rue
yE (10%) and Eshw (10%) are also considered in fit
32 CC + 8 NC parameters
![Page 53: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Select CC enriched sample (PID by David)
pMELE pHE
Data (March)
Data
MC
Data
MC
Data
MC
NCanti-
CC
R1.18
NC
CC efficiency
NC miss-ID
#events/1017POT before and after PID cut (CC fraction %)
-9.3%
-16.1%
-14.2%
LE data (March) 511.1+/-11.0 384.3+/-9.5LE data 486.7+/-2.4 365.6+/-2.1LE MC 537.1+/-4.4(86.3%) 423.9+/-3.9(95.8)
pME data 911.8+/-13.3 655.3+/-11.3pME MC 1022.7+/-8.6 (85.0) 781.1+/-7.5 (96.4)
pHE data 1395.8+/-9.4 988.7+/-7.9pHE MC 1521.8+/-12.5 (83.9) 1151.8+/-10.9
(96.8)
Pid shifted to lower values
![Page 54: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
ND distributions before & after fit
Reco. y < 0.1
Reco. y > 0.8
0.1 < y < 0.2
0.5 < y < 0.6
0.4 < y < 0.5
0.3 < y < 0.4
0.6 < y < 0.8
0.2 < y < 0.3
Reconstructed E2 = 919.2/152d.o.f.
Reco. y < 0.1
Reco. y > 0.8
0.1 < y < 0.2
0.5 < y < 0.6
0.4 < y < 0.5
0.3 < y < 0.4
0.6 < y < 0.8
0.2 < y < 0.3
Reconstructed E2 = 136.6/152d.o.f.
Data: black MC: red (normalized by POT) Best fit: blue
![Page 55: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Result of the fit
Constrained fit – sigma(f)=20% Unconstrained fit
-0.1
0.18
Best-fit parameters
NC
CC
E=+5%, Eshw=-13%
-0.5
0.3
2 = 107.2/112 d.o.f.
NC
CC
Best-fit parameters
E=+5%, Eshw=-13%
Fit wants more low E, low y events…
![Page 56: FD events and fit considerations I intend to cover two topics in this talk: –FD beam events Selecting events, signal and backgrounds, event characteristics…](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070410/56649f255503460f94c3c3ff/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Comments & summary
• Matching up data/MC in the ND and understanding all the differences may take some time.– We will probably have to live with some level of disagreement for
the 1e20 measurement
• How good is “good enough”?– What bias is introduced in the FD fit if we assume all the ND
differences are due to detector/reco effects and not physics?• Given the statistics, this probably won’t shift things much…
• We are unlikely to fool ourselves for the purposes of the beam decision…
• Higher threshold for writing a paper of course.
• Jeff will now talk about the procedure and timescale for opening the box for the 1e20 measurement…