1 / 22

0 nbb decay to the excited state 0 + of 130 Xe

0 nbb decay to the excited state 0 + of 130 Xe. Comparison of the GE and SC analyses. S. Di Domizio, December 2010. Part 1: comparison of the methods. In the following slides I will evaluate the efficiencies using the SC cuts with the GE and SC algorithms. Efficiency – scenario1 – SC – 536.

noble-parker
Download Presentation

0 nbb decay to the excited state 0 + of 130 Xe

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. 0nbb decay to the excited state 0+ of 130Xe Comparison of the GE and SC analyses S. Di Domizio, December 2010

  2. Part 1: comparison of the methods In the following slides I will evaluate the efficiencies using the SC cuts with the GE and SC algorithms

  3. Efficiency – scenario1 – SC – 536 e = (0.82 +/- 0.03)%

  4. Efficiency – scenario1 – SC – 734 e = (0.82 +/- 0.02)%

  5. Efficiency – scenario1 – SC – 1257 e = (0.80 +/- 0.03)%

  6. Efficiency – scenario2 – SC - 1257 e = (2.58 +/- 0.04)%

  7. Efficiency – scenario2 – SC – 1270 e = (2.56 +/- 0.03)%

  8. Efficiency – scenario3 – SC – 536 e = (1.72 +/- 0.03)%

  9. Efficiency – scenario3 – SC – 1991 e = (1.76 +/- 0.03)%

  10. GE – scenario1 - 1257 Using GE algorithms and SC cuts

  11. GE – scenario2 - 1270 Using GE algorithms and SC cuts

  12. GE – scenario3 - 1257 Using GE algorithms and SC cuts

  13. Part 2: comparison of the results In the following slides I will summarize the differences in the two approaches and will extract the half life limits

  14. Comparison statistics GE SC N·t = 9.11 x 1025 y N·t = 8.74 x 1025 y values reported in the note N·t = 9.50 x 1025 y N·t = 8.96 x 1025 y Forgot to include the three “dead” channels 2, 3 and 50 “My” evaluation with “SC” method efficiency Geometric only total (with psa, noise, etc.)‏ GE SC GE SC scenario1 0.60% 0.80% scenario1 0.48% 0.64% scenario2 2.29% 2.58% scenario2 1.93% 2.18% scenario3 1.41% 1.75% scenario3 1.19% 1.48%

  15. Result (GE)‏ G < 6.74 x 10-25 y-1 90%CL T1/2 > 1.03 x 1024 y 90%CL Posterior pdf for G

  16. Result (SC)‏ G < 5.98 x 10-25 y-1 90%CL T1/2 > 1.16 x 1024 y 90%CL Posterior pdf for G

  17. Part 3: the approach proposed by Frank In the following slides I will show the method and the results I obtained by treating the difference between GE and SC analysis as a systematic error

  18. Treating the differences as syst errors Use the approach discussed in Adam's internal note scenario efficiency 1 (0.56+/-0.08)% Statistics: N·t = (9.23 +/- 0.27) x 1025 y 2 (2.06+/-0.13)% 3 (1.34+/-0.15)%

  19. Result (combined)‏ G < 6.39 x 10-25 y-1 90%CL T1/2 > 1.09 x 1024 y 90%CL Posterior pdf for G

  20. Summary GE: T1/2 > 1.0 x 1024 y @90%CL SC: T1/2 > 1.2 x 1024 y @90%CL GE+SC: T1/2 > 1.1 x 1024 y @90%CL

  21. Method comparison Consider the limit case of an experiment with two crystals where one has 100% dead time and the other has 0 dead time. Since no coincidences can be recorded in these conditions, the number of signal and background counts will be zero. The SC approach would give a finite value for both the efficiency and the accumulated statistics, thus resulting in a non trivial limit for the half life of the process. The GE approach would give a finite value for the statistics and a null value for the efficiency, therefore nothing can be said about the half life of the process.

  22. Treating the differences as syst errors

More Related