# Presentation: 616377

## MiniBooNENeutrino Oscillation Analyses

- H. Ray
- University of Florida

- June 13, 08

## Outline

- Introduction to neutrinos
- LSND and the great oscillation mystery
- MiniBooNE
- Neutrino oscillation review
**Combined oscillation analysis**
**World’s data joint analysis**

- June 13, 08

## Standard Model of Physics

- Three flavors of neutrinos associated with weak interactions
- Massless
- Only LH neutrinos (no RH partners)

- June 13, 08

## Neutrino Oscillations

**Distance from point of creation of neutrino beam to detection point **

****** ****Is the mixing angle**

******m****2  ****is the difference of the squared masses of the two neutrino states**

**E is the energy of the neutrino beam**

- June 13, 08

## LSND

- Significant excess of events                    best fit by a 2-neutrino                   oscillation hypothesis
- Different from other oscillation signals
- Higher m2, smaller mixing angle, much smaller probability (~0.3%)

**Fit to oscillation hypothesis**

**Backgrounds**

- June 13, 08

**Notes:**
87.9 +- 22.4 +- 6.0 (3.8 sigma) excess

## Current Oscillation Status

******m****ab****2 ****= m****a****2**** - m****b****2**

- If there are only 3 :
******m****ac****2**** = **
**	********m****ab****2**** + **
**	********m****bc****2**

- June 13, 08

## MiniBooNE

- June 13, 08

## MiniBooNE Beam

**Accelerator based Decay in Flight (DIF)**

**MiniBooNE Beam**

- Beam of protons + a target material (Be)
-  mesons (, K)
- Looking for  e : appearance analysis
- Mesons decay into the neutrino beam sampled by a detector
- K+ / +  + + 
- +  e+ + anti- +  e

- Flux paper arXiv:0806.1449

- June 13, 08

## MiniBooNE Detector

- 12.2 meter diameter sphere
**Pure**** **mineral oil
- 2 regions
- Inner light-tight region, 1280 PMTs (10% coverage)
- Optically isolated outer veto-region, 240 PMTs

- June 13, 08

**Notes:**
1st expt to use non-doped oil!
MB = 800 tons

## Observing  Interactions

- Passage of particles through matter leaves a distinct mark
**Cerenkov radiation / light**
**Scintillation light**

- June 13, 08

## Cerenkov and Scintillation Light

- Particles deposit energy in the medium
- Isotropic, delayed

- Particles with a velocity greater than the speed of light * in the medium* produce an E-M shock wave
-  v > c/n
- Similar to a sonic boom
-  Prompt light signature

- June 13, 08

## Neutrino Interactions

- Elastic Scattering
- Quasi-Elastic Scattering
- Single Pion Production
- Deep Inelastic Scattering

**MeV**
**GeV**

- June 13, 08

## Event Signature

- June 13, 08

## e Event Selection

- Looking for   e oscillations
- Use charged current interaction to identify e events
- Real e inherent in beam
- Mis-identified “electron-like” events
- NC 0, Radiative Delta decays, etc.

**Two backgrounds to the Oscillation search**

- June 13, 08

## e Event Selection

- 1 contained cluster of tank hits in beam time window
- Reconstructed interaction vertex within fiducial volume of detector
- # Veto Hits < 6, # Tank Hits > 200
- Removes cosmic rays, removes low E electrons from muon decays

**Precuts**

- June 13, 08

## e Event Selection

- Precuts

**Boosted Decision Tree**
**Analysis (BDT)**

**Track Based Analysis ****(TBA)**

- June 13, 08

## Track Based Analysis

- Separate muon events from electron events

- Separate pion events from electron events

- Monte Carlo

- Monte Carlo

- June 13, 08

**Notes:**
E-mu Separation is clean at 
high energies where 
muon-like  events are long.

## Boosted Decision Trees

- Use low level variables (hit timing, charge information, cerenkov cone) to create analysis variables

- Combine analysis variables to create one value which is is then cut on

-  *B.P. Roe, et. al :  physics/0408124, NIM A543 (2005) 577-584*

- June 13, 08

**Notes:**
Resolution :
Vertex = 24 cm
Direction = 3.8 degrees
Energy = 14%

## Final Event Composition

**Boosting Analysis**** **

**Track Based Analysis**

- intrinsic e
-  mis-id

- June 13, 08

**Notes:**
Predictions of these bgds = majority of errors
Dirt + ccqe + other numu = 578 + 492 + 126 vs + 17 + 24 + 15
Pi0 = 1096 vs 84
Delta = 135 vs 19
Kp = 334 vs 121
K0 = 86 vs 28
Mup  = 413 vs 160
Pip = other nue = 12 vs 5

## Overlap of Events

**751**

**160**

**220**

**Track Based : 475 MeV < E********QE****< 1.250 GeV**

**Boosting     : 300 MeV < E********QE****< 1.60 GeV**

- June 13, 08

## Final Exclusion Curves

**TBA vs BDT analysis**

- Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 231801 (2007)

- Track Based Analysis more sensitive at high m2
- Boosted Decision Tree slightly more sensitive at low m2

- June 13, 08

## Observed Event Distribution

- Counting Expt :
- 475 MeV < EQE< 1.250 GeV
- 380 observed evts
- 358 ± 19 ± 35 expected events
**Excess over background : ****0.55******

- June 13, 08

**Notes:**
TB (EQE>475 MeV)  2 Probability of fit: 	99% 
BDT analysis  2 Probability of fit:	52% 

Fit errors 
for >475 MeV:
Normalization 9.6%
Energy scale: 2.3%

Best Fit (dashed):	 (sin22, m2) = (0.001, 4 eV2)

2 probability, 
null hypothesis: 93%

## Joint Analysis

- Combine data from 2 oscillation analyses to produce a more sensitive result in the region below ~2 eV2 in  m2
- Does not include low E excess
- Two different event reconstruction algorithms
- Different reconstructed neutrino energy, even for events common to both samples

- BDT

- TBA

- June 13, 08

## Joint Analysis

- Each analysis used  CCQE to constraint intrinsic e backgrounds
- Different reconstruction = different samples!
- Use same  CCQE sample for both analyses

- Use CCQE sample from xsec pub.   PRL 100, 032301 (2008)

- June 13, 08

**Notes:**
35% efficient, 74% purity of ccqe sample

## Joint Analysis

- In general, can reweight central MC to calculate systematic errors
- Don’t need to generate multiple million evt samples!
- Can’t do that for the optical response of detector!

- June 13, 08

## Joint Analysis

- Simultaneously vary all parameters within errors = 1 multisim
- Create 66 multisims
- Computing power = only produce data sized samples (vs central MC/other syst)

- June 13, 08

## Joint Analysis

- Data sized stat error built in to OM systematic
- Can use that as the stat error, or remove & explicitly add in data stat error
- TBA does the former
- BDT : former causes pathologies in output variable
- Fit 5th order poly to (multi/mc) before calculating error matrix
*Smoothing*, removes jitter associated with statistical fluctuations
- Causes *slight* overestimate of systematic

- June 13, 08

## Joint Analysis

- Smoothing degrades limit slightly in track based analysis
- Smoothing is more conservative, non-smoothing produces pathologies we can’t control
- Apply smoothing to both analyses

- TBA, smooth vs unsmooth

- June 13, 08

## Joint Analysis

- Some events common to both analyses
- Need to consider correlations in statistical error matrix!

- June 13, 08

## Joint Analysis

- Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 231801 (2007)

**Combining both analyses**

**Track-based vs Boosting analysis**

- Publication in progress

- Preliminary

- June 13, 08

## Global Data Analysis

- Determine if LSND excess is result of 2- osc, considering 3 null expts
- Combine data from Bugey, KARMEN2, LSND, MiniBooNE
*MB track-based analysis  > 475 MeV only!*

- arXiv:0805.1764, accepted by PRD

- Karmen 90% CL

- June 13, 08

## KARMEN(2)

- Located at ISIS neutron spallation source, Oxford
- 800 MeV p + tantalum/heavy H20
- July, 1990 to March, 2001
- Large volume segmented liquid scintillator detector, lined with PMTs
- Surrounded by shielding interspersed with scintillating veto counters

- June 13, 08

## Bugey

- Located at Bugey nuclear power plant
- Ran through mid 1990’s
- Modules of scintillating liquid, read out by PMTs
- Performed oscillation searches at 15m, 40m, 95m from reactor

- June 13, 08

## Global Data Analysis

- Compatibility
- How probable is it that all experimental results come from the same underlying 2- oscillation hypothesis?
- Allowed regions
- Indicate where oscillation parameters would lie, at a given CL, assuming all expt. results can arise in a framework of 2- osc.
- The compatibility is the metric for the validity of this assumption.

- June 13, 08

## Global Data Analysis

- Data provided as points on m2 - sin22 grid
- Each pt = agreement between data & 2- hypothesis at that point
- Data in ln(L), ln(L), 2 grids
- Not able to obtain absolute 2 (goodness  of fit) from all experiments!
- Must use 2 grids in this analysis

- June 13, 08

**Notes:**
Also use different ranges of dm2, sin22theta, different binning.  

## Two 2 Analyses

- 2-D grid uses global best fit point to calculate the 2 at each point
- Prob to observe all expt results if nature has 2- osc in this entire m2 region
- 1-D (Raster Scan) uses local best fit point at each m2 to produce 2
- Compatibility at each m2, if nature truly had   2- osc at that specific m2

- June 13, 08

## Input Data

- LSND
- DIF and DAR data
- MiniBooNE
- Most restrictive m2 range					upper sin22 limit						most coarse binning
- Used to set default grid
- KARMEN2
- Bugey
- Acero, Giunti, Laveder, hep-ph/0711.4222
- Data spans large region not covered by MB
- Convert into delta grid before put into MiniBooNE grid format to avoid bias

**Same binning, range of ********m****2**** - sin****2****2******** common to all expts used**

- June 13, 08

## Compatibility Calculation

- Construct a 2 grid for each expt.
- each pt = local value - best fit value
- Sum individual 2 grids
- Compatibility = 2 prob. of minimum of summed grid, using a reduced NDF
- (indep. ) - (# indep  estimated from data)
- ex : 2-D MB + LSND = 4 - 2 = 2 NDF

- Maltoni and Schwetz, Phys. Rev. D. 68, 033020 (2003)

- June 13, 08

## Allowed Region

- Each expt’s 2 grid converted into 2 prob grid using standard NDF (2, 1)
- Multiply prob grids together, produce pdf x
- Allowed regions = closed contours in space
- Exclusion bands = non-closed contours
- Values to R are excluded at a given CL

- Roe, Probability and Statistics in Experimental Physics, (2001)

- June 13, 08

## 2-D Results

| LSND | KARMEN2 | MB | Bugey | Max Compat (%) | m2 | sin22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| X | X | X |  | 25.36 | 0.072 | 0.256 |
| X | X | X | X | 3.94 | 0.242 | 0.023 |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  | X | X |  | 73.44 | 0.052 | 0.147 |
|  | X | X | X | 27.37 | 0.221 | 0.012 |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| X |  | X |  | 16.00 | 0.072 | 0.256 |
| X |  | X | X | 2.14 | 0.253 | 0.023 |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| X | X |  |  | 32.21 | 0.066 | 0.4 |

- June 13, 08

## LSND, MB, KAR2,  Bugey

- 25.36% compat at m2 = 0.072 eV2, sin22 = 0.256
- Area covered by Bugey!
- 3.94% compat at m2 = 0.242 eV2, sin22 = 0.023

- 0.01 to 0.4108 sin22

- 0.000317 to 0.4108 sin22

- June 13, 08

## LSND, MB, Bugey,  KAR2

- 2.14% vs 3.94%!
- Best fit point = 0.242 eV2, 0.023 sin22
- Including KARMEN2 increases the NDF used to calculate prob, but provides no increase in sensitivity!

- June 13, 08

**Notes:**
Allowed regions and compat with 3 expts, with 4 expts (25% vs 3%)

## MiniBooNE Collaboration

**MiniBooNE Collaboration**

- June 13, 08

## Low-Energy Excess

**Included 200 - 300 MeV bin**

**200 - 300 MeV bin dominated by dirt background**

- June 13, 08

## Understanding the Excess

- Excess is electron-like, seen by both analyses
- Backgrounds to the osc. analysis are mainly  induced at low E : NC0, radiative , dirt
- Double/triple checked various backgrounds
- Dirt or radiative  decays NO
- Pion or muon mis-id (including muon bremstrahluung) NO
- arXiv:0710.3897
- Refine hadronic model
- Added - radiative capture, photonuclear absorption

- June 13, 08

## The Low-E Excess

- Work in progress, expect W&C this summer
- Great interest in the community!
- Lorentz Violation
- Katori, Kostelecky, Tayloe, Phys. Rev. D74 (2006) 105009
- Anomaly-mediated photon production
- Harvey, Hill, and Hill, hep-ph0708.1281
- 3+2 + CP violation : MB excess + LSND, Karmen2, Nomad, appearance only data
- Maltoni and Schwetz, Phys. Rev. D76 (2007) 093005
- Sterile neutrino short-cuts in extra dimensions
- Päs, Pakvasa, Weiler, Phys.Rev. D72 095017, 2005
- e disappearance, deficit in Ga expts
- Giunti and Laveder, hep-ph 0707.4593
- New light gauge boson
- A. Nelson and J. Walsh, hep-ph/0711.1363

- June 13, 08

##  Disappearance Sensitivity

********** ****Disappearance Sensitivity**

- Work in progress, expect W&C this summer
**MiniBooNE data 90% CL sensitivity (**_**NOT**_** limit from data)**
- CDHS   CCFR  90% CL
- Combined analysis with SciBooNE data will significantly improve this sensitivity

- Preliminary

- June 13, 08

## Summary

- Combination of TBA, BDT results in a more restrictive exclusion band at low   m2
- TBA 475 MeV and up data set
- Joint analysis finds 3 null result experiments (KARMEN2, Bugey, MB) and LSND only 4% compatible with having come from 2 neutrino oscillations
- TBA 475 MeV and up data set only

- June 13, 08

## MiniBooNE Future

- Focus today on  mode oscillation analyses
- Many more papers/analyses just released & in the pipeline!
-  disappearance in  mode
-  mode xsec measurements : NCE, CC+, CCQE (PRL 100, 032301 (2008)), NC0 (arXiv:0803.3423, Phys. Lett. B. 664, 41 (2008))
- Anti- mode xsec measurements : CC+, CCQE, NC0
- Complete low-energy check in next few months
- Anti- oscillation analysis coming soon!

- June 13, 08

## Backup Slides

- June 13, 08

## Proposing the Neutrino

- 2 body alpha decay, E of decay products always the same
- 1913 - 1930 : beta decay = continuous spectrum of E
- E not conserved?
- P not conserved?
- “I have done something very bad today by proposing a particle that cannot be detected; it is something no theorist should ever do.” (Pauli, 1930)

- June 13, 08

## Superposition of Masses

-   e

- June 13, 08

## Neutrino Oscillations

********

******e**

**=**

**Weak state**

**Mass state**

******1**

******2**

**cos ******

**cos ******

**-sin ******

**sin ******

**|************(0)> = -sin ******** |********1****> + cos**** ******** |********2****> **

- June 13, 08

## Neutrino Oscillations

********

******e**

**=**

**Weak state**

**Mass state**

******1**

******2**

**cos ******

**cos ******

**-sin ******

**sin ******

**|************(t)> = -sin ******** |********1****> + cos**** ******** |********2****> **

**e****-iE1t**

**e****-iE2t**

- June 13, 08

## Neutrino Oscillations

**P****osc**** = |<********e ****| ************(t)>|****2**

- June 13, 08

## Neutrino Masses

- Electron neutrino < ~2 eV
- Tritium beta decay experiments
- Muon neutrino < few MeV
- Tau neutrino < few MeV

- June 13, 08

## Decay In Flight

- Advantage : more intense beam because mesons are focused (not isotropic)
- Advantage : can select neutrino, anti-nu beam
- Disadvantage : difficult to understand the flux (in content and in E)!

- June 13, 08

## Decay At Rest

- Advantage = Know timing of beam, lifetime of particles, use to greatly suppress cosmic ray background
- Advantage = extremely well defined flux
- Disadvantage = Low E limits choices of neutrino interaction signal
- Disadvantage = Beam is isotropic - no directionality
- Hard to make an intense isotropic beam

- June 13, 08

## The resulting  flux

- The resulting  flux

- BNB

- Comparing
- to other
- beams

- MiniBooNE is a precision experiment,
- We need to understand this flux well!

- Different from LSND, which was a beam dump flux
-     (neutrinos from stopped muon decay, ~30 MeV)

- June 13, 08

## Incorporate fits to  external data 

- e.g.   HARP (CERN)
- Data taken with
- 	MiniBooNE target slugs
- 8 GeV beam

- Incorporate fits to  external data
- for production cross sections
- in the Monte Carlo

*Nucl.Phys.B732:1-45,2006,*
*Eur.Phys.J.C52:29-53,2007*

*K**+** and K**L** fits are also performed to world data*

- How to know your flux: Part I

- June 13, 08

## To constrain the e from  decay :

-  Measure the  flux
-  Kinematics allows
- connection to the  flux

- E
- (GeV)

- E(GeV)

- E = 0.43 E

-   Once the  flux is known, the  flux is determined = constrains the e!

- How to know your flux: Part II

- June 13, 08

## K  e e

- K  e e

-  K 

- Constrain the e from aon decay

- Because the K is about
- 4x more massive than the 
- its decay can produce
- higher energy neutrinos

- Dominated by
-  decay

- Dominated by
- K decay

- Use the high energy
- events to constrain
- the neutrinos from Ks!

- How to know your flux: Part III

- June 13, 08

## Predicted Flux

- 

- anti-

- e

- CCQE

- NCE

- CC

- NC

- other

- June 13, 08

## Sources of Errors

- Data collection
- Proton beam + Be target models
- Pion and kaon production
- +, -, K+, K0
- Neutrino cross sections / interaction rates
- Dirt, NC0, neutrino cross sections
- Detector response to these interactions
- OM

- June 13, 08

## Systematic Errors

- Use Multisims to calculate systematic errors
- In each MC event vary all parameters at once, according to a full covariance matrix
- Ex : Feynman scaling of K+ varies 8 params simultaneously
- Vary full set of parameters many times per event
- OM = 70 multisims.  All other errors = 1000
- Use this information to form an error matrix

**Central Value MC**

- #evts in 1 E bin

- # multisims

- K+ error

- June 13, 08

## Systematic Errors

| Error | Track vs Boosting (%) | Checked or Constrained by data |
| --- | --- | --- |
| DAQ | 7.5 / 10.8 |  |
| Target/Horn | 2.8 / 1.3 |  |
| + Flux | 6.2 / 4.3	 |  |
| K+ Flux | 3.3 / 1.0 |  |
| K0 Flux | 1.5 / 0.4 |  |
| Dirt | 0.8 / 3.4  |  |
| NC 0 yield | 1.8 / 1.5 	 |  |
| Neutrino Xsec | 12.3 / 10.5 |  |
| OM | 6.1 / 10.5 |  |

- June 13, 08

**Notes:**
Daq/target/horn : skin depth, horn currenet, nucl inelastic xsec,
Nuc qe xsec, nuc tot xsec, pion inel & qe & tot xsec

## Systematic Errors

| source of uncertainty on e background | TBL
 syst. error (%) | constrained 
by
MB data? | Further reduced by relating  e to  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Flux from +/+ decay | 6.2 | Y | Y |
| Flux from K+ decay | 3.3 | Y |  |
| Flux from K0 decay | 1.5 | Y |  |
| Target/Beam model | 2.8  | Y | Y  |
|  cross section | 12.3 | Y | Y  |
| NC 0 yield | 1.8 | Y |  |
| Out of tank events | 0.8 | Y |  |
| Optical Model | 6.1 | Y | Y |
| DAQ electronics model | 7.5 | Y |  |

- June 13, 08

## Internal Constraints

- NC0 data
- Constrains NC0 and Radiative Delta xsections
-   CCQE
- Constrains flux of e flux from    
- Constrains CC mis-id backgrounds
- Constrains xsec errors
- High E events
- Constrains e flux from Kaons
- High R events
- Constrains dirt backgrounds / xsections

- June 13, 08

##  CCQE Constraint on e

- E (GeV)

- E (GeV)

- Kinematic correlation allows tight constraint on     e

- June 13, 08

**Notes:**
Enu to Epi relation ~linear

## High Energy Constraint

- Predicted range for signal = 300 MeV to 1.5 GeV
- At high E,  and e - like events due to K decay
- Both analyses use high-E evts to constrain e bgd

- m2=0.4 eV2
- m2=0.7 eV2
- m2=1.0 eV2

- Neutrino Energy (GeV)

- June 13, 08

## External Events

- Cosmic  ray events measured with beam-off data
- 2 events expected in oscillation analysis

** ** interactions outside of the detector
-  Measured using high R events

- June 13, 08

## e Event Selection

- A 19.2 s beam trigger window encompasses the 1.6 s spill
- Multiple hits within a ~100 ns window form “subevents”

******e**** Event Selection**

-  Charged Current Quasi-Elastic

- 

- e

- June 13, 08

## Sideband Regions

- Look at full mass range for electron-like events
- Signal-like in mass, background like in L ratio

- June 13, 08

## Choosing the Default Analysis

**Choosing the Default Analysis**

- June 13, 08

## Final Results vs Design Goal

**Final Results vs Design Goal**

**Sensitivity goal for 5E20 POT**

- June 13, 08

## Step 1

- Perform fit from 300 MeV to 3 GeV, for both analyses
- Found Track Based visible E had a 2 Probability= 1%
- Stopped the unblinding process
- ** still fully blind **

**Boosting**

**Boosting**

- June 13, 08

## Step 1

- We felt that we had checked everything to our full ability, and to our best knowledge could not further constrain processes
- MC studies of potential LSND oscillation signals  indicated we could tighten the E requirement with a negligible loss in sensitivity
- Prior to unblinding, we agreed to also examine events with EQE > 300 MeV in the Track Based analysis

- June 13, 08

## Observed Event Distribution

- Counting Expt :
- 475 MeV < EQE< 1.250 GeV
- 380 observed evts
- 358 ± 19 ± 35 expected events
**Excess over background : ****0.55******

- June 13, 08

**Notes:**
TB (EQE>475 MeV)  2 Probability of fit: 	99% 
BDT analysis  2 Probability of fit:	52% 

Fit errors 
for >475 MeV:
Normalization 9.6%
Energy scale: 2.3%

Best Fit (dashed):	 (sin22, m2) = (0.001, 4 eV2)

2 probability, 
null hypothesis: 93%

## Observed Event Distribution

**Observed Event Distribution**

- Counting Expt :
- 300 MeV < EQE< 1.60 GeV
- 971 observed evts
- 1070 ± 33 ± 225 expected events
**Excess over background : ****-****0.38******

- June 13, 08

**Notes:**
Fit prob = 62%
.001, 4 = best fit point

## Observed Event Distribution

- Counting Expt :
- 300 MeV < EQE< 1.250 GeV
- 749 observed evts
- 631 ± 25 ± 45 expected events
**Excess over background : ****2.3******

**Background-subtracted**

**475 MeV to 3 GeV**

- June 13, 08

## Observed Event Distribution

**Background-subtracted**

**475 MeV to 3 GeV**

- June 13, 08

**Notes:**
96 ± 17 ± 20 events
above background,
for 300<EQE<475MeV

## Observed Event Distribution

**Background-subtracted**

**300 MeV to 3 GeV**

- Only 4% Compatible w/LSND

- 2 Probability: 18%, Null Hypothesis= 3%

- June 13, 08

## Observed Event Distribution

**Background-subtracted**

**300 MeV-3 GeV**

- 2 Probability: 18%, Null Hypothesis= 3%

- June 13, 08

## Photonuclear Background

- SM effect = absorption of s through photonuclear interaction
- Not included in Geant3, has small effect on low E excess

- Published excess

- Addition to MC

- June 13, 08

## Global Data Analysis

- All analyses use m2 0.0488 to 51.13 eV2
- No Bugey : 0.000317 to 0.4108 sin22
- With Bugey : 0.01 to 0.4108 sin22

- June 13, 08

## LSND Input Data

- DIF and DAR data
- 0.0098 to 101.16 eV2, 0.000313 to 1.01 sin22
- Best fit point : 0.0025 sin22, 1.226 eV2
- Arbitrary offset to all points to force maximum value to 25 units
- Published 2-D global scan

- June 13, 08

## KARMEN2 Input Data

- 0.01 to 100 eV2, 0.000316 to 1 sin22
- Published 2-D global scan
- Provided as ln(L), not given absolute value of global best fit point

- June 13, 08

## Bugey Input Data

- Collaborators refused multiple requests for data
- Carlo Giunti provided us with the grid
- Hep-ph/0711.4222
- 0.01 to 100 eV2, 0.01 to 1 sin22
- Convert into delta grid before put into MiniBooNE grid format to avoid bias
- Data spans large region not covered by MB
- Published 1-D Raster scan

- June 13, 08

## MiniBooNE Input Data

- 0.0488 to 51.13 eV2, 0.0001 to 0.4108 sin22
- Most restrictive m2 range, upper sin22 limit, most coarse binning
- Used to set the default grid/binning
- Published 1-D Raster scan

- June 13, 08

## Global Data Analysis

- All analyses use m2 0.0488 to 51.13 eV2
- No Bugey : 0.000317 to 0.4108 sin22
- With Bugey : 0.01 to 0.4108 sin22

- June 13, 08

## Track Based Analysis

- Advanced track reconstruction fitting algorithm
- Each event is characterized by 7 track parameters
- vertex (x,y,z), time, energy, and direction (,)(Ux, Uy, Uz)
- Use ratio of likelihood variables to identify particles/event type

- June 13, 08

**Notes:**
Resolution :
Vertex = 22 cm
Direction = 2.8 degrees
Energy = 11%