1 / 20

Flux Error Analysis

Flux Error Analysis. Žarko Pavlović For Beam Systematics Group. Systematic Uncertainties. Goal of the study was to produce an “error-band” for neutrino flux Effects considered Uncertainty on number of protons on target Misaligned angle of horn 1 & horn 2

aida
Télécharger la présentation

Flux Error Analysis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Flux Error Analysis Žarko Pavlović For Beam Systematics Group MINOS Collaboration Meeting, 10-15-05

  2. Systematic Uncertainties • Goal of the study was to produce an “error-band” for neutrino flux • Effects considered • Uncertainty on number of protons on target • Misaligned angle of horn 1 & horn 2 • Misalignment offset of horn 1 & horn 2 • Uncertainty on the location of the chase shielding blocks • Incorrect calibration of horn current • Incorrect description of horn current in the inner conductor of the horns (skin depth effect) • Proton beam scraping on the baffle • Hadron production model • Used old MC studies and PBEAM to estimate how much of an effect these uncertainties cause MINOS Collaboration Meeting, 10-15-05

  3. Protons on Target • Old beam MC was off in scale by 4.8%. This had 2 contributions: • The toroids TOR101 and TORTGT were miscalibrated. Disagreement with Main Injector Toroid (called I:BEAM) at the level of ~4% has been known for some time. • The full NuMI beam does not hit the target. On average, 0.6% misses to the left and right and goes to the hadron absorber. • The net result of these two effects is that the beam MC was too high by 4.8%. • Since the toroids were calibrated net uncertainty on POT is ~1%. Will use this value for an error band. MINOS Collaboration Meeting, 10-15-05

  4. Fraction of beam on Target • The proton beam size increases as we go to higher intensity. Also varies from day-to-day (“bad” quality beam). • We directly measure the size at (near) the target, so can correct for any fraction missing the target. • Must look at this repeatedly throughout our analyses. • Through July 1, ~0.6% of beam misses the target and goes down the aperture between the target and baffle. target size s=1.2mm PMTGT (1 spill) p beam profile MINOS Collaboration Meeting, 10-15-05

  5. Horn Offsets & Angles • Bob Zwaska performed beam-based alignment. • www.hep.utexas.edu/numi/beamMC/ • Net outcome of his work: • Horns are not on the exact same line as the target by (0.5-1.0) 0.2 mm • The horns make angles with respect to the primary beam at the (0.1-0.2)0.1mrad level. • To be conservative we take an uncertainty of 1mm (offset) and 0.2mrad (angle) MINOS Collaboration Meeting, 10-15-05

  6. Incorrect Horn Current calibration • GNuMI-v17 MC (used in R1.18) used nominal values for Horn Current • Jim Hylen measured the current and found the true current to be 1.60.5% lower than the nominal values • New GNuMI-V18 MC run with true values • Assume ~1% uncertainty on Horn Current MINOS Collaboration Meeting, 10-15-05

  7. Skin Depth Effect Current on inner sheet of IC • Field between conductors is known and can be measured but the field in the inner conductor is worrisome • Can model if we know the skin depth of the current • Difficult since the conductor will change as it heats and is irradiated. • This plot (shown at Ely ’04) gives GNUMI calculation if d=0 or if d= (latter closer to truth) • Variation shown here probably overstates the uncertainty on the flux from this effect. • To get uncertainty, we modeled • Current uniformly distributed throughout the IC (d= ) • Current exponentially falling as a function of radius with d=6mm (cf J. Hylen). Current fills IC M. Messier MINOS Collaboration Meeting, 10-15-05

  8. Baffle Scraping • Collimating baffle can also act as a target. • Halo of proton beam scrapes on the baffle. • We measure the halo using PMTGT (<1%, ) G3NuMI Monte Carlo G3NuMI Monte Carlo M. Messier MINOS Collaboration Meeting, 10-15-05

  9. (Almost) Final Uncertainties: LE Beam Uncertainty on ND Spectrum Uncertainty on F/N Extrapolation • All effects excluding Hadron Production! Focusing Peak Focusing Peak MINOS Collaboration Meeting, 10-15-05

  10. (Almost) Final Uncertainties: LE(-10) Beam Uncertainty on ND Spectrum Uncertainty on F/N Extrapolation • All effects excluding Hadron Production! Focusing Peak Focusing Peak MINOS Collaboration Meeting, 10-15-05

  11. (Almost) Final Uncertainties: pME Beam Uncertainty on ND Spectrum Uncertainty on F/N Extrapolation • All effects excluding Hadron Production! Focusing Peak Focusing Peak MINOS Collaboration Meeting, 10-15-05

  12. (Almost) Final Uncertainties: pHE Beam Uncertainty on ND Spectrum Uncertainty on F/N Extrapolation • All effects excluding Hadron Production! Focusing Peak Focusing Peak MINOS Collaboration Meeting, 10-15-05

  13. Hadron Production Uncertainties • Spread of models is not the same as uncertainty • Correlated models (eg. Kaon content). • Some models known to have ‘flaws’ at certain kinematic regions • Assumed 8-15% error on near spectrum coming from hadron production See NuMI-B-768 Figure from F. Yumiceva MINOS Collaboration Meeting, 10-15-05

  14. Hadron Production & F/N Semi-ME Beam Semi-HE Beam Nominal LE Beam • To estimate the error on F/N coming from hadron production used older cocktail of MARS, BMPT and Malensek • We implement some ‘smoothing’ to the above curves: • Clearly statistical fluctuations in the MC. • Remove GFLUKA effect at high energies Estimated Uncertainty Estimated Uncertainty Estimated Uncertainty See NuMI-B-768 MINOS Collaboration Meeting, 10-15-05

  15. Final Uncertainties:ND Spectrum LE Beam LE(-10) Beam • All effects including Hadron Production! pHE Beam pME Beam Box height indicates magnitude of systematic uncertainty MINOS Collaboration Meeting, 10-15-05

  16. Final Uncertainties:F/N Ratio • All effects including Hadron Production! LE Beam LE(-10) Beam Box height indicates magnitude of systematic uncertainty pME Beam pHE Beam MINOS Collaboration Meeting, 10-15-05

  17. NuMI-BooNE Flux • Flux at MiniBooNE from pi/K decay-in-flight • Working on the error band on flux at MiniBooNE coming from NuMI beam • Expect small errors on flux p+ decays LE-10 K+ decays Figure from Alexis Aguilar Arevalo MINOS Collaboration Meeting, 10-15-05

  18. LE & LE-10 Flux LE Beam LE-10 Beam • Biggest contribution to the error comes from: • Uncertainty of neutrino interaction location • Hadron production (10% for pi and 15% for K?) MINOS Collaboration Meeting, 10-15-05

  19. pME & pHE Flux pME Beam pHE Beam MINOS Collaboration Meeting, 10-15-05

  20. Summary • Uncertainties from a variety of effects have been investigated for LE, LE(-10), pME, and pHE beams. • Vectors of uncertainties now are available for the G3NUMI beam MC: http://www.hep.utexas.edu/numi/beamMC • Flux at MiniBooNE is not sensitive to any misalignment or the uncertainties considered in this study gives opportunity to measure hadron production MINOS Collaboration Meeting, 10-15-05

More Related