| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Workshop Goals and Proposed Studies

Page history last edited by dytman 8 years ago

 

Definitions:

Raw sample: Generator samples according to flux generated for each experiment. No selection cuts, consistent versioning across each experimental setup.

 

Tagged sample: Raw sample include selection cut information according to specific analysis.

 

Q1:  What is the best way to access the QE physics, cc0pi or some other selection? What should be the standard definition of QE in neutrino-nucleus interactions: is selecting CC 0 pion the best way of tackling this physics?

  1.  Is there a good definition of CCQE-like that is unbiased across experiments? 
  2. Is it possible for high energy experiments (e.g. Minerva) to produce data that is directly comparable with lower energy expts (e.g. MiniBooNE, T2K)?
  3. Is it possible to get agreement on signal definition between scintillator/TPC and Cerenkov experiments?

 

Q1 Studies:

  1.  Confirm signal and background definitions and treatment assumed in each analysis. Use tagged samples. If definitions are not consistent, modify tagged samples to recreate a consistent signal (or background definition). How does this affect each analysis? Is there a common definitition, e.g. noPI, that can be interpreted similarly in each experiment?
  2. Use raw samples. Break down according to topology. Are the topologies significantly different for each analysis? Do for signal, control samples.
    1. Same but using tagged samples with selections.
  3. Use raw samples. Prepare a "perfect" i.e. truth selected sample for each topology. Apply that same "cut" across each experiment. Closure test, do we see consistency across experiments with the same underlying model/generator version used.
  4. Are there selection cuts which seem to be sensitive to the generator (regions of inefficiency or poor phase space which would be different under a different model? ) E.g. control sample focused on one region of phase space, but models quite different there and not covered by uncertainties?
    1. What is the role of MEC?  Is the definition in independent of MEC model?
    2. Are there regions of detector inefficiency (not from the model, but acceptance) in each experiment? How does this affect the measurement?
    3. What cuts seem to be especially sensitive to the models/phase space?

 

Q2: What is the role of the proton in QE scattering measurements?

  1. Protons come out of all CCQE inside nucleus, but FSI obscure the signal.  Is there an optimal kinematic region?

Q2 Studies:

  1. Look at no FSI/FSI samples for different generators/models with the raw samples. Is there a pattern?
  2. Are optimal cuts common for different experiments?

 

Q3 Studies: What is the best way to access the 1pi physics? How do experimental specific acceptances and selections affect our interpretation?  What is the role of the W cut on pion production measurements?

 

Q3 Studies:

  1.  Describe tagged sample(s) for each analysis.  Explore similarities and differences.  Is there a way to express cut selection in a way that applies to all experiments?
    1. What is the effect of W cut on pion KE spectrum?
    2. What is effect on efficiency/purity?
  2. Use raw samples. Break down according to topology. Are the topologies significantly different for each analysis? Do for signal, control samples.
    1. Same but using tagged samples with selections.
  3. Use raw samples. Prepare a "perfect" i.e. truth selected sample for each topology. Apply that same "cut" across each experiment. Do we see consistency across experiments with the same underlying model/generator version used.
  4. Use raw samples. Are there selection cuts which seem to be sensitive to the generator (regions of inefficiency or poor phase space which would be different under a different model? ) E.g. control sample focused on one region of phase space, but models quite different there and not covered by uncertainties?
    1. How much model dependence do we see in accounting for high W tail, e.g. beyond the W cut region for the Delta at MiniBooNE?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.