150 likes | 236 Views
Recap of research topics discussed at the ND Sessions, including calibration methods, energy distribution shifts, beam effects, and data analysis for neutrino and muon reco. Findings and conclusions from various studies presented.
E N D
Mike Kordosky UCL Ely, 2005 ND Sessions Summary II
Debdatta: DIS event selection nu nu-bar LE beam nu ME beam nu-bar reco energy (0-50 GeV)
Masaki: Track Angle • Supression of small angle tracks in ME,HE data • Possibly due to poor DIS model at low x • New DIS model may fix LE ME HE Muon track cosine
Debdatta & Donna: X-section Before After F2(x,Q2) Q2 (1-1000 GeV2)
M.K.: Intranuke • Intranuke makes large difference • But not silver bullet
Tricia: BMPT reweighting Peak Position Best Fit Best Fit • Tried to modify BMPT parameterization to fit data • Large modifications cause little change in peak Data Nominal MC ~1% Best Fit Reco Neutrino Energy (GeV) Trial #
Tricia: pT & energy spectra Data=black, MC=red LE LE-10 pion pT 0 - 0.09 GeV/c 0.09 – 0.4 GeV/c 0.4+ GeV/c HE ME reco neutrino energy (0-30 GeV)
Mark QE, Niki clean CC Niki: Clean CC ME Data Mark: ~70% QE ME MC reco. neutrino energy (GeV) reco. muon energy (GeV)
K2K Mark: Low Q2 suppression ME MC Q2 (0-2 GeV2) ME Data ~70% Pure QE MiniBoone Q2 (0-2 GeV2) Q2 (0-3 GeV2)
Niki/David NC/CC PID variables Niki Dave PID parameter
Conclusions • Lots of work being done understanding beam scan • Shift in energy distribution seen in many samples • Many things to think about: • reconstruction (Niki's talk) • physics effects (intranuke... but consider QE too) • calibration • beam effects (pT & energy, not BMPT “tuning”) • Fairly good agreement in shower shape variables (Nue group) • Low Q2 suppression in QE sample? • NC/CC PID variables reasonably agree between data and MC • Glad we did the beam scan!