Abstract
This chapter begins with an estimation of all the systematic uncertainties affecting the background and signal predictions. These are divided into uncertainties in the physics models and in the detector models, and are addressed respectively in Sects. 8.1.2 and 8.1.3. The contributions from each source of systematic error, as well as the total uncertainty in each component and in the totals, are calculated in Sect. 8.1.4. From this information it is possible to study the sensitivity to θ13, as done in Sect. 8.2.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Note that the Far–Near ratios are calculated as a function of energy. Consequently the prediction uncertainty in the last row of Table 8.1 cannot be obtained from the middle two rows, although their algebraic difference usually provides a reasonable estimate.
- 2.
For the beam \(\nu_e\) component the one-sigma error envelope only includes the error due to hadron production at the target. Following the recommendation from the beam systematics group, an additional 1.77% is added in quadrature to account for uncertainties in the beam-focusing elements.
- 3.
The Near Detector live time uncertainty is negligible. It is also important to note that while the POT counting process in the beamline is also considered to have a 1% uncertainty, it affects the two detectors identically and thus cancels out.
- 4.
As such, \(RCC^{k}\) includes the extrapolation to the Far Detector, the conversion from reconstructed to true energy, the spectral corrections due to the purity and efficiency of the \(\nu_\mu\,\text{CC}\) selection, the \(\nu_{\mu} \to k\) oscillation probability, and the ratio of \(\nu_\mu\,\text{CC}\) to \(k\) cross-sections. The details are explained in Sect. 7.1.2.
- 5.
Given that the error from the simulation already accounts for the fact that the hadronic showers are mismodeled, there is some double counting by also including the error in the selection efficiency as determined from the MRE procedure, as the MRE correction accounts precisely for the same effect. Due however to the fact that the total error on the beam \(\nu_e\) component on the order of 20%, it makes essentially no difference to remove it.
- 6.
The reader may notice that these numbers do not correspond exactly to the background predictions shown at Tables 7.2 and 8.13. This is because the background prediction is also affected by the value of \(\theta_{13}\) considered, although to a very small degree. The official signal and background predictions are calculated for a value of \(\theta_{13}\) at the CHOOZ limit. In the Feldman–Cousins contour generation however a new background and signal prediction is generated for each combination of the oscillation parameters.
References
J. Boehm, H. Gallagher, T. Yang, Hadronization model uncertainties for the \(\nu_{e}\) analysis, MINOS-doc-5392 (2008)
H. Gallagher, Hadronization model issues for GENIE 2.6.0, MINOS-doc-5317 (2008)
H. Gallagher, The NEUGEN neutrino event generator. Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 112, 188–194 (2002)
C. Andreopoulos, The GENIE universal, object-oriented neutrino generator. Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 159, 217–222 (2006)
C. Andreopoulos et al., Updated cross-section model uncertainties for the charged current analysis, MINOS-doc-2989 (2007)
S. Dytman, H. Gallagher, Changes to the determination of the mean free path of hadrons in nuclear matter in INTRANUKE, MINOS-doc-4358 (2008)
R. Ospanov, A measurement of muon neutrino disappearance with the MINOS detectors and NuMI beam, FERMILAB-THESIS-2008-04
G. Pawloski, T. Yang, Crosstalk tuning, MINOS-doc-5319 (2008)
MINOS Collaboration, Calibration position paper for pre-shutdown data, MINOS-doc-3941 (2008)
N. Tagg, Calibration plenary, MINOS-doc-5508 (2008)
A. Holin et al., Intensity effects in the nue analysis, MINOS-doc-5636 (2009)
R. Toner, \(\nu_e\) analysis preselection systematics, MINOS-doc-5257 (2008)
J. Nelson, Notes on the normalization systematic, MINOS-doc-2106 (2006)
P. Adamson et al., Measurement of neutrino oscillations with the MINOS detectors in the NuMI beam, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 131802 (2008)
J. Boehm, Measurement of electron neutrino appearance with the MINOS experiment, FERMILAB-THESIS-2009-17
T. Yang, A study of muon neutrino to electron neutrino oscillations in the MINOS experiment, FERMILAB-THESIS-2009-04
G.J. Feldman, R.D. Cousins, Unified approach to the classical statistical analysis of small signals, Phys. Rev. D 57(7), 3873–3889 (1998)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ochoa Ricoux, J.P. (2011). Systematic Errors and θ13 Sensitivity. In: A Search for Muon Neutrino to Electron Neutrino Oscillations in the MINOS Experiment. Springer Theses. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7949-0_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7949-0_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-7948-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-7949-0
eBook Packages: Physics and AstronomyPhysics and Astronomy (R0)