Pion multiplicity study update Seb Jones Department of Physics - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶

Jan 21, 2023 178 likes •357 views

Pion multiplicity study update Seb Jones Department of Physics & Astronomy University College London December 16, 2019 S. Jones (UCL) DUNE LBL December 16, 2019 1 16 Recap Aim is to use gas TPC samples (seperated by pion multiplicty)

SLIDE 1

Pion multiplicity study update

Seb Jones

Department of Physics & Astronomy University College London

December 16, 2019

S. Jones (UCL)

DUNE LBL December 16, 2019 1 16

SLIDE 2

Recap

Aim is to use gas TPC samples (seperated by pion multiplicty) along with NuWro fake data to see if the HPgTPC can be used to determine issues with our interaction model Gas TPC samples use pseudo-reconstruction based upon GEANT4 energy deposits NuWro fake data generated through reweighting process in CAFAna

S. Jones (UCL)

DUNE LBL December 16, 2019 2 16

SLIDE 3

Updates to samples / reconstruction

Previously, saw some kind of bias within the gas true vs reco distributions – suggested that this may be caused by lack of fiducial cut Now a fiducial cut for the samples – event vertex must have r < 200 cm and |x| < 200 cm

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Eν,true/GeV 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Eν,reco 1 10 102 103 Events

Reconstructed vs. true neutrino energy for CC1π

S. Jones (UCL)

DUNE LBL December 16, 2019 3 16

SLIDE 4

Updates to samples / reconstruction

Turns out that FV is not the cause of this Peak in true - reco distribution is at π± mass Caused by high energy pions (Preco > 1.5 GeV/c) being mis-ID’d as protons Leads to mπ mistakenly being added back in

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Eν,true/GeV 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Eν,reco 1 10 102 103 Events

Reconstructed vs. true neutrino energy for CC1π

S. Jones (UCL)

DUNE LBL December 16, 2019 4 16

SLIDE 5

Updates to samples / reconstruction

Additonally, now have samples defined by reconstructed pion multiplicity rather than true Reconstruction requires minimum track length For π0s, require that decay photons do not overlap with

ne another
0.5

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 Nπ,true

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 Nπ,reco 1 10 102 103 104 105 Reconstructed vs true π multiplicity in HPgTPC

S. Jones (UCL)

DUNE LBL December 16, 2019 5 16

SLIDE 6

Fitting efforts - FD only

dmsq32NHscaled th13 ssth23 delta(pi) rho

Parameter 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Value = 6.404

χ Oscillation parameters, FD only.

Reproducing an FD only fit with full systematics leads to biased

scillation parameters but a low χ2 – hard to detect that we have

the wrong answer Red is true values of oscillation parameters while black shows the post-fit constraints

S. Jones (UCL)

DUNE LBL December 16, 2019 6 16

SLIDE 7

Fitting efforts - FD only

flux Nov17 0 flux Nov17 1 flux Nov17 2 flux Nov17 3 flux Nov17 4 flux Nov17 5 flux Nov17 6 flux Nov17 7 flux Nov17 8 flux Nov17 9 flux Nov17 10 flux Nov17 11 flux Nov17 12 flux Nov17 13 flux Nov17 14 flux Nov17 15 flux Nov17 16 flux Nov17 17 flux Nov17 18 flux Nov17 19 EnergyScaleFD UncorrFDTotSqrt UncorrFDTotInvSqrt UncorrFDHadSqrt UncorrFDHadInvSqrt UncorrFDMuSqrt UncorrFDMuInvSqrt UncorrFDNSqrt UncorrFDNInvSqrt UncorrFDEMSqrt UncorrFDEMInvSqrt EScaleMuLArFD ChargedHadUncorrFD NUncorrFD EMUncorrFD MuonResFD EMResFD ChargedHadResFD NResFD FDRecoNumuSyst FDRecoNueSyst FVNumuFD FVNueFD RecoNCSyst FVNumuND MaCCQE VecFFCCQEshape MaCCRES MvCCRES MaNCRES MvNCRES Theta Delta2Npi AhtBY BhtBY CV1uBY CV2uBY FrCEx pi FrElas pi FrInel pi FrAbs pi FrPiProd pi FrCEx N FrElas N FrInel N FrAbs N FrPiProd N CCQEPauliSupViaKF E2p2h A nu E2p2h B nu E2p2h A nubar E2p2h B nubar NR nu n CC 2Pi NR nu n CC 3Pi NR nu p CC 2Pi NR nu p CC 3Pi NR nu np CC 1Pi NR nu n NC 1Pi NR nu n NC 2Pi NR nu n NC 3Pi NR nu p NC 1Pi NR nu p NC 2Pi NR nu p NC 3Pi NR nubar n CC 1Pi NR nubar n CC 2Pi NR nubar n CC 3Pi NR nubar p CC 1Pi NR nubar p CC 2Pi NR nubar p CC 3Pi NR nubar n NC 1Pi NR nubar n NC 2Pi NR nubar n NC 3Pi NR nubar p NC 1Pi NR nubar p NC 2Pi NR nubar p NC 3Pi BeRPA A BeRPA B BeRPA D C12ToAr40 2p2hScaling nu C12ToAr40 2p2hScaling nubar nuenuebar xsec ratio nuenumu xsec ratio

Parameter

0.5 1 1.5 σ

Systematic constraints (FD only)

Systematics remain close to their nominal values (σ = 0) Together with oscillation parameters they’re able to ‘absorb’ the difference introduced by the shift to NuWro

S. Jones (UCL)

DUNE LBL December 16, 2019 7 16

SLIDE 8

LAr ND samples

2 4 6 8 10

Eν,reco(GeV )

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 ×103

Events ND LAr νµ FHC 0 < yreco < 0.1

ND LAr νµ FHC 0 < yreco < 0.1 ND LAr νµ FHC (NuWro) 0 < yreco < 0.1

2 4 6 8 10

Eν,reco(GeV )

500 1000 1500 2000 ×103

Events ND LAr νµ FHC 0.1 < yreco < 0.2

ND LAr νµ FHC 0.1 < yreco < 0.2 ND LAr νµ FHC (NuWro) 0.1 < yreco < 0.2

Shown here are the 1D projections of the ND analysis bins with both the nominal sample and with the NuWro reweights At low values of yreco relatively small discrepancies between GENIE and NuWro

S. Jones (UCL)

DUNE LBL December 16, 2019 8 16

SLIDE 9

LAr ND samples

2 4 6 8 10

Eν,reco(GeV )

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 ×103

Events ND LAr νµ FHC 0.2 < yreco < 0.3

ND LAr νµ FHC 0.2 < yreco < 0.3 ND LAr νµ FHC (NuWro) 0.2 < yreco < 0.3

2 4 6 8 10

Eν,reco(GeV )

500 1000 1500 ×103

Events ND LAr νµ FHC 0.3 < yreco < 0.4

ND LAr νµ FHC 0.3 < yreco < 0.4 ND LAr νµ FHC (NuWro) 0.3 < yreco < 0.4

Begin to see greater discrepancies as we move to more inelastic interactions

S. Jones (UCL)

DUNE LBL December 16, 2019 9 16

SLIDE 10

LAr ND samples

2 4 6 8 10

Eν,reco(GeV )

1000 2000 3000 ×103

Events ND LAr νµ FHC 0.4 < yreco < 0.6

ND LAr νµ FHC 0.4 < yreco < 0.6 ND LAr νµ FHC (NuWro) 0.4 < yreco < 0.6 2 4 6 8 10

Eν,reco(GeV )

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 ×103

Events ND LAr νµ FHC 0.6 < yreco < 1

ND LAr νµ FHC 0.6 < yreco < 1 ND LAr νµ FHC (NuWro) 0.6 < yreco < 1

Begin to see greater discrepancies as we move to more inelastic interactions

S. Jones (UCL)

DUNE LBL December 16, 2019 10 16

SLIDE 11

Comparison with exclusive samples in HPgTPC – CC1π

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Eπ,lead(GeV ) 100 200 300 ×103 Events Lead π energy, CC1π

Lead π energy, CC1π Lead π energy, CC1π (NuWro)

For events with a low pion multiplicity, leading π energy distribution looks quite similar across generators

S. Jones (UCL)

DUNE LBL December 16, 2019 11 16

SLIDE 12

Comparison with exclusive samples in HPgTPC – CC2π

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Eπ,lead(GeV ) 20000 40000 60000 Events Lead π energy, CC2π

Lead π energy, CC2π Lead π energy, CC2π (NuWro)

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Eπ,sub−lead(GeV ) 50 100 150 200 250 ×103 Events Sub-leading π energy, CC2π

Sub-leading π energy, CC2π Sub-leading π energy, CC2π (NuWro)

For higher 2π events we see a significant divergence between the GENIE and NuWro samples

S. Jones (UCL)

DUNE LBL December 16, 2019 12 16

SLIDE 13

Comparison with exclusive samples in HPgTPC – CC3π

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Eπ,lead(GeV ) 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 Events Lead π energy, CC3π

Lead π energy, CC3π Lead π energy, CC3π (NuWro)

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Eπ,sub−lead(GeV ) 20000 40000 60000 80000 Events Sub-leading π energy, CC3π

Sub-leading π energy, CC3π Sub − leadingπenergy, CC3π(NuWro)

Similarly, for CC3π events there is a significant divergence in the distributions of both the leading and sub-leading pion energy

S. Jones (UCL)

DUNE LBL December 16, 2019 13 16

SLIDE 14

Comparison with exclusive samples in HPgTPC – CC> 3π

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Eπ,lead(GeV ) 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Events Lead π energy, CC > 3π

Lead π energy, CC > 3π Lead π energy, CC > 3π (NuWro)

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Eπ,sub−lead(GeV ) 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 Events Sub-leading π energy, CC > 3π

Sub-leading π energy, CC > 3π Sub-leading π energy, CC > 3π (NuWro)

For events at very high multiplicity the divergences appear to once again not be so obvious However, one can see that by using just some of the exclusive HPgTPC samples it would quickly become obvious that there was an issue with out interaction model if our data was like NuWro

S. Jones (UCL)

DUNE LBL December 16, 2019 14 16

SLIDE 15

Backup

S. Jones (UCL)

DUNE LBL December 16, 2019 15 16

SLIDE 16

Backup

Kinematic distributions within HPgTPC

1 2 3 4 5 6 W 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 ×103 Events GAr ND CC νµ events for various π multiplicities

0π 1π 2π 3π > 3π

1 2 3 4 5 6 W 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 ×103 Events

GAr ND CC νµ events for various π multiplicities (NuWro shifts)

1 2 3 4 5 6 W 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Fraction GAr ND CC νµ events 1 2 3 4 5 6 W 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Fraction GAr ND CC νµ events (NuWro shifts)

Reconstructed W

1 2 3 4 5 6 Q2 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 ×103 Events GAr CC νµ events for various π multiplicities

0π 1π 2π 3π > 3π

1 2 3 4 5 6 Q2 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 ×103 Events

GAr CC νµ events for various π multiplicities (NuWro shifts)

1 2 3 4 5 6 Q2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Fraction GAr ND CC νµ events 1 2 3 4 5 6 Q2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Fraction GAr ND CC νµ events (NuWro shifts)

Reconstructed Q2

S. Jones (UCL)

DUNE LBL December 16, 2019 16 16

SLIDE 17

Backup

Kinematic distributions within HPgTPC

2 4 6 8 10 Eν,reco(GeV ) 50 100 150 200 250 ×103 Events

Reconstructed energy spectra in HPgTPC

0π 1π 2π 3π > 3π 2 4 6 8 10 Eν,reco(GeV ) 50 100 150 200 ×103 Events

Reconstructed energy spectra in HPgTPC (NuWro shifts)

0π 1π 2π 3π > 3π

S. Jones (UCL)

DUNE LBL December 16, 2019 17 16