First MINOS Results from the NuMI Beam
description
Transcript of First MINOS Results from the NuMI Beam
1
First MINOS Results from the NuMI Beam
Marvin L. Marshak University of Minnesota
for the MINOS collaboration
SLAC, May 16, 2006
Introduction to the MINOS experiment• Overview of MINOS Physics Goals• The NuMI facility and the MINOS detectorsNear Detector and beam measurements• Selecting cc muon neutrino events• Near detector distributions and comparison with
Monte Carlo Far detector analysis• Selecting Beam neutrino candidates• Near-Far extrapolation of the neutrino flux• Oscillation Analysis with 0.931020 POT
Overview
3
735 km
(12 km)
The MINOS Experiment
• MINOS (Main Injector Neutrino Oscillation Search)– a long-baseline neutrino
oscillation experiment:– Neutrino beam provided
by 120 GeV protons from the Fermilab Main Injector.
– Near Detector at Fermilab to measure the beam composition and energy spectrum
– Far Detector deep underground in the Soudan Mine, Minnesota, to search for evidence of oscillations
4
The MINOS Collaboration
Argonne • Athens • Benedictine • Brookhaven • Caltech • Cambridge • Campinas College de France • Fermilab • Harvard • IIT • Indiana • ITEP-Moscow • Lebedev • Livermore
Minnesota-Duluth • Minnesota-Twin Cities • Oxford • Pittsburgh • Protvino • Rutherford Sao Paulo • South Carolina • Stanford • Sussex • Texas A&M • Texas-Austin
Tufts • UCL • Western Washington • William & Mary • Wisconsin
5
MINOS Physics Goals
• Verify mixing hypothesis and make a precise (<10%) measurement of the oscillation parameters m2 and sin2 2
• Search for sub-dominant e oscillations
• Rule out exotic phenomena (e.g. neutrino decay)
• Use magnetized MINOS Far Detector to study neutrino and anti-neutrino oscillations– Test of CPT violation
• Atmospheric neutrino oscillations– First MINOS paper:
hep-ex/0512036, forthcoming in Phys. Rev D
eν µν τ
⎛
⎝
⎜⎜
⎞
⎠
⎟⎟
=
Ue1 Ue2 Ue3
Uµ1 Uµ2 Uµ3
Uτ 1 Uτ 2 Uτ 3
⎛
⎝
⎜⎜
⎞
⎠
⎟⎟
ν 1
ν 2
ν 3
⎛
⎝
⎜⎜
⎞
⎠
⎟⎟
sin2 2θ23 = 4Uµ32 1 −Uµ3
2( )
ifΔm232 >> Δm12
2
ν e appearance
ν µ disappearance
3
Δm232
ν 2
ν 1
6
Current knowledge of atmospheric neutrino
oscillationsCurrent best measurements of
Δm2 and sin22θ fromSuper-Kamiokande (atmospheric neutrinos) andK2K (0.9 x 1020 POT)
The limits (at 90% C.L.) are:• sin22θ > 0.9• (1.9 < Δm2 < 3.0) 10-3 eV2
MINOS analysis is for 0.93 1020 POT, and should provide a competitive measurement of the mixing parameters
) / 267 . 1( sin 2 sin 1 ) (2 2 2
E L m P − = →
Allowed regions from Super-K and K2K
7
Look for a deficit of νμ events at Soudan
Unoscillated
Oscillated
νμ spectrum
Monte Carlo
Monte Carlo
Spectrum ratio
MINOS Methodology
P µ → µ( ) =1−sin2 223 sin2 1.267m232 L / E( )
8
• To perform the oscillation analysis, we need to predict the neutrino spectrum seen by the Far Detector in the absence of oscillations.
• Want to minimize uncertainties related to beam modeling and cross-sections (nominal values are built-in to our Monte Carlo.)
• Use the Near Detector data to correct the nominal Monte Carlo– beam spectrum– neutrino cross-sections
Overview of the Oscillation Measurement
9
The NUMI facility
• Design parameters:
– 120 GeV protons from the Main Injector
– Main Injector can accept up to 6 Booster batches/cycle,
– Either 5 or 6 batches for NuMI
– 1.867 second cycle time
– 4 x 1013 protons/pulse
– 0.4 MW
– Single turn extraction (~10ms)
10
The NuMI beamline
Primary proton line
Target hall Decay pipe
11
Producing the neutrino beam
• Single turn extraction• ~10 μs spill of 120 GeV protons every ~2 s• 0.25 MW average beam power• 2.5 1013 protons per pulse (ppp)
12
BeamTarget z
position (cm)FD Events per
1e20 pot
LE-10 -10 390
pME -100 970
pHE -250 1340
LE
pME
pHE
Events expected in fiducial volume
The NuMI neutrino beam
• Currently running in the LE-10 configuration• ~1.5 1019 POT in pME and pHE configurations early in the
run for commissioning and systematics studies
µ 92%
ν µ 6.5%
ν e + ν e 1.5%
13
Dataset used for the oscillation analysis
Observation of
neutrinos in Near
Detector! Start of LE running
1020 pot!
First Year of Running
14
The MINOS Detectors
Detectors magnetised to 1.2 TGPS time-stamping to synch FD data to ND/Beam
Flexible software triggering in DAQ PCs: FD triggers from FNAL over IP
Coil
Veto Shield Far
Near
Plane installation fully completed on Aug 11, 2004
5.4 kt mass, 8830m 484 steel/scintillator planes Divided into 2 super modules
M16 multi-anode PMTs, VA chips
1 kt mass, 3.84.815m282 steel and 153 scintillator
planeFront 120 planes Calorimeter
Remaining planes SpectrometerM64 multi-anode PMTs, QIE chips
15
Scintillator strip
M64
M16
Detector Technology
MINOS Near and Far Detectors are functionally identical:
• 2.54 cm thick magnetized steel plates
• co-extruded scintillator strips
• orthogonal orientation on alternate planes – U,V
• optical fibre readout to multi-anode PMTs
16
Reconstruction of a MINOS event
17
Reconstruction of a MINOS event
18
νμ CC Event NC Event νe CC EventUZ
VZ
long μ track & hadronic activity at
vertex
short, with typical EM shower profile
short event, often diffuse
3.5m 1.8m 2.3m
Monte Carlo
Eμ = Eshower + pμ
55%/E/GeV 6% range, 10% curvature
Event topologies
19
Event selection cuts
CC-like events are selected in the following way:
1. Event must contain at least one good reconstructed track2. The reconstructed track vertex should be within the fiducial
volume of the detector:
3. The fitted track should have negative charge (selects ) [for now]4. Cut on likelihood-based Particle ID parameter which is used to
separate CC and NC events.
νCalorimeter SpectrometerNEAR:
1m < z < 5m (from detector front),R < 1m from beam centre.
FAR:z > 50 cm from front face, z > 2 m from rear face,z not in supermodule gap, R2 < 14 m2 from detector center.
20
• Help understand energy response to reconstruct Eν
Eν = pµ + Ehad
• Measured in a CERN test beam with a “mini-Minos”
• operated in both Near and Far configurations
• Study e/µ/hadron response of detector
• Test MC simulation of low energy interactions
• Provides absolute energy scale for calibration
E/%55
E/%23
Single particle energy resolution
beam
The MINOS Calibration Detector
21
• Calibration of ND and FD response using:
– Light Injection system (PMT gain)
– Cosmic ray muons (strip to strip and detector to detector)
– Calibration detector (overall energy scale)
• Energy scale calibration:
– 1.9% absolute error in ND
– 3.5% absolute error in FD
– 3% relative
MINOS Calibration system
22
Selecting CC events
Input variables for PDF based event selectionMonte Carlo
Events selected by likelihood-based procedure, with 3 input Probability Density Functions (PDFs)• event length in planes• fraction of event pulse height in the reconstructed track• average track pulse height per plane
Define Pμ (PNC) as the product of the three CC (NC) PDFs, at the values of these variables taken by the event
23
CC selection efficiencies
• Particle ID (PID) parameter is defined:
• CC-like events are defined by PID > −0.2 in the FD (> −0.1 in the ND)– NC contamination limited to low energy bins (below 1.5 GeV)– Selection efficiency is quite flat as a function of visible energy
CC-like (87%)
(97%)
Monte
Carlo
( ) ( )NClog logPID P Pì=− − + −
PDF PID parameter distribution PDF PID parameter distribution
24
Near Detector distributions
• We observe very large event rates in the Near detector (~107 events in the fiducial volume for 1020 POT)
• This provides a high statistics dataset with which we can study how well we understand the performance of the Near Detector and check the level to which our data agrees with our Monte Carlo predictions
Reconstructed x vertex (m)
Rec
on
stru
cted
y v
erte
x (m
)
Coil hole
Detector outline
Fiducial region
Partially instrumented planes
Area
normalised
Beam points down 3 degrees to reach Soudan
Reconstructed track angle with respect to verticalDistribution of reconstructed event vertices in the
x-y plane
25
Calorimeter/ spectrometer boundary
Event length Track PH per plane
Track PH fraction
Particle ID variables (LE-10 Beam)
26
PID parameter
PID cut to select CC-like events is at –0.1
LE-10 pME
pHE
27
• Overall agreement between data and MC• Data showers tend to be slightly shorter and more “dense”
than MC showers
Shower profiles – LE-10 beam
28
These distributions shown after xF, pT reweighting
Reconstructed Neutrino Energy (GeV)
Reconstructed Y =Eshw/(Eshw+Em)
LE-10 pME pHE
LE-10 pME pHE
Energy spectra & Y (CC-like events)
29
Agreement between data and Fluka05 Beam MC is mostly good, but by tuning the MC by fitting to hadronic xF and pT, improved agreement can be obtained.
LE-10/185kA
pME/200kA
pHE/200kA
Weights applied as a function of hadronic xF and pT.
LE-10/Horns off
LE-10 eventsNot used in the fit
Hadron production tuning
30
• Reconstructed energy distributions agree to within statistical uncertainties (~1-3%)
• Beam is very stable and there are no significant intensity dependent biases in event reconstruction.
• June
• July
• August
• September
• October
• November
Typical proton intensity ranges from 1013 ppp - 2.8times1013 ppp Energy spectrum by
batchEnergy spectrum by Month
Stability of the energy spectrum & reconstruction
with intensity
31
• The agreement between low level quantities indicates that there are no obvious pathologies introduced by detector modeling and/or reconstruction.
• Agreement between high level quantities is within the expected systematic uncertainties from cross-section modeling, beam modeling and calibration uncertainties (initial agreement improved after applying beam reweighting on the xF and pT of parent hadrons in the Monte Carlo)
Summary of ND Data/MC agreement
32
Far Detector Beam Analysis
Oscillation analysis performed using data taken in the LE-10 configuration from May 20th 2005 – December 6th 2005
• Total integrated POT: 0.931020
• Excluded periods of “bad data” – coil and HV trips, periods without accurate GPS timestamps. The effect of these cuts are small (~0.7% of our total POT)
• POT-weighted live-time of the Far detector: 98.9%
33
Performing a blind analysis
• The MINOS collaboration decided to pursue a blind analysis policy for the first accelerator neutrino results– The blinding procedure hides an unknown fraction of
FarDet events based on their length and total energy deposition.
• No blinding was applied to NearDet data• Unknown fraction of Far Detector data was open
– performed extensive data quality checks.
• Unblinding criteria were:
– no problems with the FarDet beam dataset (missing events, reconstruction problems, etc.)
– Oscillation analysis (cuts and fitting procedures) pre-defined and validated on MC; no re-tuning of cuts allowed after box opening
34
Selecting beam induced events
• Time stamping of the neutrino events is provided by two GPS units (located at Near and Far detector sites).
– FD Spill Trigger reads out 100μs of activity around beam spills
• Far detector neutrino events easily separated from cosmic muons (0.5 Hz) using topology
Backgrounds estimated by applying selection algorithm on “fake” triggers taken in anti-coincidence with beam spills
In 2.6 million “fake” triggers, 0 events survived the selection cuts (upper limit on background in open sample is 1.7 events at 90% C.L. )
Neutrino candidates are in 10μs window
Time difference of neutrino interactions from beam spill
35
Predicting the unoscillated FD spectrum
• Directly use Near Detector data to perform extrapolation between Near and Far
• Use Monte Carlo to provide necessary corrections due to energy smearing and acceptance.
• Use our knowledge of pion decay kinematics and the geometry of our beamline to predict the FD energy spectrum from the measured ND spectrum
• This method is known as the Beam Matrix method.
f
to FarDetector
Decay Pipe
(soft)
(stiff)
n
target
ND
Flux ∝1L2
11+ γ2 2
⎛
⎝⎜⎞
⎠⎟E =
0.43E
1+ γ2 2
36
The “Beam Matrix” Method
Step 1: ENear CC−likeReconstructed ⇒ ENearCC
True
Correctionforpurity,Reconstructed⇒ True,Correctionforefficiency( )
Step2:ENearCCTrue ⇒ EFarCC
True
BeamMatrix( )
Step3:EFarCCTrue ⇒ EFarCC−like
Reconstructedi)Oscillation,True⇒ Reconstructed,correctionforefficiencytoobtain
ccoscillatedspectrum
ii)Unoscillated,True⇒ Reconstucted,UsepuritytoobtainNCbackground
37
)()( binNCtrueCCtrue
CCtruebinPurity
+=
)()( binCCallCCtrue
binEfficiency =
1
2
Correction for purity
Step A, Beam Matrix Method
Reconstructed =>True and Correction for efficiency
38
• Beam Matrix encapsulates the knowledge of pion 2-body decay kinematics & geometry.
• Beam Matrix provides a very good representation of how the Far Detector spectrum relates to the near one.
Beam Matrix Method : Near to Far extrapolation
39
Predicted true FD spectrum
• higher than nominal FD MC in high energy tail
• expected, given that the ND visible energy spectrum is also higher than the nominal MC in this region
Predicted spectrum
Nominal MC
0.931020 POT
Predicted FD true spectrum from the Matrix
Method
40
Vertex distributions of selected events
• 296 selected events with a track – no evidence of background contamination.
• Distribution of selected events consistent with neutrino interactions
Full dataset
Area normalised
41
Track Length Track Pulse Height per Plane
Particle IdentificationParameter
Track quantities & PID parameter
CC-like
42
Notice that beam is pointing 3 degrees up at Soudan!
X Y
Z
Track angles
43
y = Eshw/(Eshw+Pµ)
Muon Momentum (GeV/c) Shower Energy (GeV)
Physics distributions
44
• We observe a 33% deficit of events between 0 and 30 GeV with respect to the no oscillations expectation.
– Numbers are consistent for sample and for the -only sample
• The statistical significance of this effect is 5 standard deviations
Data sample observed expected ratio significance
All CC-like events ( 204 29815 0.69 4.1
only (<30 GeV) 166 24914 0.67 4.0
only (<10 GeV) 92 17711 0.52 5.0
Numbers of observed and expected events
45
Cut Events efficiency
All events in fiducial volume 331 -
Events with a track 296 89.1%
Track quality cuts 281 95.3%
PID cut (CC-like) 204 72.9%
Track charge sign cut (negative muons only)
186 91.2%
Reconstructed energy < 30 GeV 166 89.2%
Breakdown of selected events
46
Best-fit spectrum
χ 2 Δm232 ,sin2 2θ23( ) = 2 ei − oi( ) + 2oi ln oi / ei( ) ei exp ected
oi observed
i=1
nbins
∑
47
Data
Best-fit
Ratio of Data/MC
48
Allowed regions
49
Systematic errors
Systematic shifts in the fitted parameters have been computed with MC “fake data” samples for Δm2=0.003 eV2, sin22θ=0.9 for the following uncertainties:
Uncertainty m2 shift (eV2) Sin22 shift
Normalization +/- 4% 0.63e-4 0.025
Muon energy scale +/- 2% 0.14e-4 0.020
Relative Shower energy scale +/- 3% 0.27e-4 0.020
NC contamination +/- 30% 0.77e-4 0.035
CC cross-section uncertainties 0.50e-4 0.016
Beam uncertainty 0.13e-4 0.012
Intranuclear re-scattering 0.27e-4 0.030
Total (sum in quadrature) 1.19e-4 0.063
Statistical error (data) 6.4e-4 0.15
50
Summary and Conclusions
• In this talk we have presented the first accelerator neutrino oscillation results from a 0.931020 pot exposure of the MINOS far detector.
• Our result disfavors no disappearance at 5 and is consistent with oscillations with the following parameters:
• The systematic uncertainties on this measurement are well under control and we should be able to make significant improvements in precision with a larger dataset.
– Our total exposure to date is 1.41020 pot.
m232 = 3.05−0.55
+0.60 stat( ) ± 0.12 syst( )⎡⎣ ⎤⎦×10−3eV 2
sin2 2θ23 = 0.88−0.15+0.12 stat( ) ± 0.06 syst( )
51
Next Steps
• Continue to study other Near/Far extrapolation methods
• Analyze additional data already collected (~40% more data)
• Relax fiducial and other cuts to achieve greater efficiency in analysis of events
• Collect new data beginning in June with continued increases in beam intensity
52
Δm2 = 0.003 eV2
Outlook
• Study neutrino/anti-neutrino oscillations • Search for/rule out exotic phenomena:
– Sterile neutrinos, Neutrino decay
Improve this measurement:Sensitivity at 16 x 1020 POT
Search for sub-dominant
νμ νe oscillations
53
Future of NuMI Beam
• NOA Detector to observe e appearance
• Continued intensity upgrades; possible Proton Driver(?)
• Second Maximum Detector(?), Megaton Neutrino and Proton Decay Detector [Liquid Argon]?
• Interaction with possible Deep Underground Laboratory
54
Canada
United States
Duluth
International Falls Ash River
Orr-Buyck
Soudan-Lake Vermilion
Mine Centre
55
Summary and Conclusions
• In this talk we have presented the first accelerator neutrino oscillation results from a 0.931020 pot exposure of the MINOS far detector.
• Our result disfavors no disappearance at 5 and is consistent with oscillations with the following parameters:
• The systematic uncertainties on this measurement are well under control and we should be able to make significant improvements in precision with a larger dataset.
– Our total exposure to date is 1.41020 pot.
m232 = 3.05−0.55
+0.60 stat( ) ± 0.12 syst( )⎡⎣ ⎤⎦×10−3eV 2
sin2 2θ23 = 0.88−0.15+0.12 stat( ) ± 0.06 syst( )