Near detectors and systematics IDS-NF plenary meeting at TIFR, Mumbai October 13, 2009 Walter Winter...
-
Upload
brittney-anthony -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Near detectors and systematics IDS-NF plenary meeting at TIFR, Mumbai October 13, 2009 Walter Winter...
Near detectors and systematics
IDS-NF plenary meetingat TIFR, MumbaiOctober 13, 2009
Walter WinterUniversität Würzburg
2
Contents
Initial IDS-NF questions Beam and detector geometry Systematics Results for high energy NuFact Results for low energy NuFact Near detectors for new physics (examples) Answers to initial questions Systematics requirements (for simulation) Summary of new physics requirements
3
Introduction: Initial questions
What is the potential of near detectors to cancel systematical errors?(implies: need to address what kind of systematics …)
When do we need a near detector for standard oscillation physics?
What (minimal) characteristics do we require? (technology, number, sites, etc.)
What properties do near detectors need for new physics searches?
4
Geometry of decay ring
Need two near detectors, because +/- circulate in different directions
For the same reason: if only std. oscillations, no CID required, only excellent flavor-ID; caveat: background extrapolation
(Tang, Winter, arXiv:0903.3039)
5
Geometry of the beam
Beam diameter ~ 2 x L x
We use two beam angles: Beam opening
angle:
Beam divergence: contains 90% of total flux (arXiv:0903.3039)
Beam divergence
Beam opening angle
6
Geometry of the detectors?
(ISS detector WG report)
What are the physics requirements forthe geometry of the detectors?
7
Geometry: Extreme cases
Far detector limit:The spectrum is the same as the on-axis spectrum, i.e., the detector diameter D < 2 x L x , where is the beam opening angle, for any point of the decay straight
NB: Point source approximation d >> s (size of source) not required for this limit. The extension of the source can be desribed by
Near detector limit:The detector catches almost the whole flux, i.e., the detector diameter D > 2 x L x , where is the beam divergence, for any point of the decay straight
8
Assumptions for NDs
Only muon neutrino+antineutrino inclusive CC event rates measured (other flavors not needed in far detectors for IDS-NF baseline)
No charge identification At least same characteristics/quality (energy
resolution etc.) as far detectors No explicit BG extrapolation Fiducial volume cylindrical No systematical errors considered, which are
potentially uncorrelated among ND and FD (they are present, but they cannot be improved on with the NDs)
9
Different ND versions?
Near detectors described in GLoBES by (E)=Aeff/Adet x on-axis flux and
Some ND versions:Near detector limit
Far detector limit SciBar-size Silicon-vertexsize?
OPERA-size
Hypothetical
Nearest point
Farthest point
Averaged
=1: FD limitDashed: ND limit
(Tang, Winter, arXiv:0903.3039)
11
Systematics treatment
Cross section errors: Fully correlated among all channels, detectors etc. measuring the same cross section, fully uncorrelated among bins and neutrinos-antineutrinos (30% cons. estimate)
Flux errors: Fully correlated among all detectors in the same straight and all bins, but uncorrelated among polarities, storage rings (2.5% for no flux monitoring to 0.1%)
Background normalization errors: as IDS-NF baseline (20%)
12
Systematics, qualitatively
Near detectors important forLeading atmospheric and CPV measurements
Flux monitoring (by NDs or other means) important for CPV measurement
Almost no impact for 13 and MH discovery (background limited)
(arXiv:0903.3039)
13
Relevance of statistics
Event rates (10 years) extremely large
Physics is limited bystatistics in FD, notspectrum in ND
Near detector locationand size not relevant(caveat: elastic scattering for flux monitoring)
However, for new physics searches, such as e ->
s, es, size
matters!
(arXiv:0903.3039)
14
Atmospheric parameters
Atmospheric parameters measured at L=4000km:
At L=4000km+7500km no impact of NDs!
Unfilled: 30% XSec-errors, no NDFilled: Near detectors
(Tang, Winter, arXiv:0903.3039)
sin2213 = 0.08, CP=0
16
Low-E NuFact
„High statistics“ setup from (Bross, Ellis, Geer, Mena, Pascoli, arXiv:0709.3889)
E=4.12 GeV, L=1290 km 5 1020 useful decays per
polarity and year, 10 years, 20 kt mass x efficiency
Reference: 2% system. Our ND3 with IDS-NF-like
storage ring PROBLEM: We need
decay ring geometry for some applications!
(Tang, Winter, arXiv:0903.3039)
17
Low-E versus high-E NuFact
(Tang, Winter, arXiv:0903.3039)
Low-E NuFact: Systematics estimate seems quite accurateNear detectors mandatory!
High-E NuFact: Qualitatively different, since two far detectorsNeed something like Double Chooz/Daya Bay systematics?
18
NDs for new physicsExample: SBL e disappearance
Two flavor short-baseline searches useful to constrain sterile neutrinos etc.
e disppearance:
Also some interest in CPT-invariance test (neutrino factory ideal!)
Averaging over straight important (dashed versus solid curves)
Pecularity: Baseline matters, depends on m31
2
Magnetic field if (Giunti, Laveder, Winter, arXiv:0907.5487)
90% CL, 2 d.o.f.,No systematics,
m=200 kg
19
SBL systematics
Systematics similar to reactor experiments:Use two detectors to cancel X-Sec errors
(Giunti, Laveder, Winter, arXiv:0907.5487)
10% shape
error
arXiv:0907.3145
20
Summary: Answers to initial questions
What is the potential of near detectors to cancel systematical errors?
Cancels X-section errors; possibly useful for flux monitoring etc. When do we need a near detector to cancel cross
section errors? If we only operate one baseline for sure! Mainly needed for leading
atmospheric and CP violation searches. What (minimal) characteristics do we require?
(technology, number, sites, etc.) Two near detectors; at least as good as far detectors for ; not
necessarily magnetic field, site and size hardly important (statistics high) What properties do near detectors need for new
physics searches? Also e, detection; as large as possible (statistics matters!); magnetic
field; site application-dependent; maybe more sites Near detector characteristics driven by new physics requirements?
21
Systematics requirements For a more accurate simulation, PPEG needs to know
systematics treatment The simulation results depend not only on the numbers
for some systematical errors, but also the implementation of systematics (cf., Double Chooz, Daya Bay!)
What systematical errors (and how large) are there correlated/uncorrelated among Bins Detectors Storage rings Channels at the same detector Channels measuring the same X-secs …
Possible alternative (discussed via mailing list some time ago): Show also curve with „no systematics“?
22
Summary of (new) physics requirements
Number of sitesAt least two (neutrinos and antineutrinos), for some applications four (systematics cancellation)
Exact baselinesNot relevant for source NSI, NU, important for oscillatory effects (sterile neutrinos etc.)
FlavorsAll flavors should be measured
Charge identificationIs needed for some applications (such as particular source NSI); the sensitivity is limited by the CID capabilities
Energy resolutionProbably of secondary importance (as long as as good as FD); one reason: extension of straight leads already to averaging
Detector sizeIn principle, as large as possible. In practice, limitations by beam geometry or systematics.
Detector geometryAs long (and cylindrical) as possible (active volume)
Aeff < Adet Aeff ~ Adet
23
What we need to understand(for new physics)
How long can the baseline be for geometric reasons (maybe: use „alternative locations“)?
What is the impact of systematics (such as X-Sec errors) on new physics parameters
What other kind of potentially interesting physics with oscillatory SBL behavior is there?
How complementary or competitive is a near detector to a superbeam version, see e.g.http://www-off-axis.fnal.gov/MINSIS/