1: \subsection{Cross Section Ratio Extraction}
2: \label{subsec:analysis1_corrections}
3:
4: The MC events in the four samples are divided based on the interaction type. The interaction types considered are CCQE, CC1$\pi^{+}$, and other nonQE, where `other' refers to nonQE interactions other than CC1$\pi^{+}$. In addition, MC events are divided based on true neutrino energy so that an energy-dependent measurement of CC1$\pi^{+}$ interactions can be performed. Data and MC are then binned in $p_{\mu}$ bins of size 0.2 GeV/$c$ and $\theta_{\mu}$ bins of size 10 degrees. The momentum $p_{\mu}$ ranges from 0 to 4 GeV/$c$, and the angle $\theta_{\mu}$ ranges from 0 to 90 degrees. Thus, there are a total of 180 bins in the $p_{\mu}$ vs. $\theta_{\mu}$ distributions. Figure \ref{fig:pmu} shows the muon momentum ($p_{\mu}$) distribution for each sample for data and MC, and Figure \ref{fig:qmu} shows the muon angle ($\theta_{\mu}$) distribution for each sample for data and MC. For the MC, the contributions from CCQE, CCp$\pi^{+}$, CCn$\pi^{+}$, and other nonQE interactions are shown separately.
5:
6: \begin{figure}[htp]
7: \begin{center}
8: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/p_1trk.eps}
9: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/p_qe.eps}
10: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/p_nqepi.eps}
11: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/p_nqepro.eps}
12: \end{center}
13: \caption{\label{fig:pmu} (Color online) Muon momentum distributions for each of the four data samples used in this analysis.}
14: \end{figure}
15:
16: \begin{figure}[htp]
17: \begin{center}
18: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/q_1trk.eps}
19: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/q_qe.eps}
20: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/q_nqepi.eps}
21: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/q_nqepro.eps}
22: \end{center}
23: \caption{\label{fig:qmu} (Color online) Muon angle distributions for each of the four data samples used in this analysis.}
24: \end{figure}
25:
26: Only bins that are expected to have enough statistics are used in the fit. The requirement for a bin to be used in the fit is that the nominal MC (normalized to data) predicts at least three events in that bin. Of the 180 bins in each $p_{\mu}$ vs. $\theta_{\mu}$ distribution, 66, 42, 43, and 37 bins satisfy this requirement in the 1-track, 2-track QE, 2-track nonQE pion, and 2-track nonQE proton samples, respectively.
27:
28: We use the method of maximum likelihood for the fit. For Poisson statistics, maximizing the likelihood ratio is equivalent to minimizing the quantity~\cite{Yao:2006px}
29: \begin{equation}
30: \label{eqn:F}
31: F = 2\sum_{i,j} \left[ N^{exp}_{i,j} - N^{obs}_{i,j} + N^{obs}_{i,j}\ln\frac{N^{obs}_{i,j}}{N^{exp}_{i,j}} \right],
32: \end{equation}
33: where $N^{exp}_{i,j}$ and $N^{obs}_{i,j}$ are the number of expected events and number of observed events in $p_{\mu}$ vs. $\theta_{\mu}$ bin $i$ ($i$=1,...,180) for sample $j$ ($j$=1,...,4), respectively.
34:
35: The number of expected events in a given bin is a function of the nominal MC and the fitting parameters, as shown in Equation \ref{eqn:nexp},
36: \begin{align}
37: \label{eqn:nexp}
38: N^{exp}_{i,j} = ~ &\alpha [N^{CCQE}_{i,j} + \sum_{k} (R^{CC1\pi^{+}}_{k} N^{CC1\pi^{+}}_{i,j,k}) ~~ + \notag\\
39: &R^{OtherNonQE} N^{OtherNonQE}_{i,j}],
40: \end{align}
41: where $k$ represents a bin of true neutrino energy, $N^{CCQE}_{i,j}$ ($N^{OtherNonQE}_{i,j}$) is the number of CCQE (other nonQE) events in bin $i$ in sample $j$ for the nominal MC, and $N^{CC1\pi^{+}}_{i,j,k}$ is the number of CC1$\pi^{+}$ events in bin $i$ in sample $j$ for true neutrino energy bin $k$ in the nominal MC.
42:
43: The goal is to simultaneously fit for the contributions of CCQE, CC1$\pi^{+}$, and other nonQE to the data distributions in each sample. In Equation \ref{eqn:nexp}, the fitting parameters are $P_{sc}$, $R^{CC1\pi^{+}}_{k}$, and $R^{OtherNonQE}$. $R^{CC1\pi^{+}}_{k}$ scales the fraction of CC1$\pi^{+}$ events depending on the true energy. (For the energy-independent fit, all CC1$\pi^{+}$ events are scaled the same regardless of the true energy, and the subscript $k$ is not used.) $R^{OtherNonQE}$ scales the overall fraction of other nonQE events in the sample. The nominal values of $R^{OtherNonQE}$ and $R^{CC1\pi^{+}}_{k}$ are 1. All three interaction types are scaled by the data to MC normalization, $\alpha$. $\alpha$ is not constant; it is adjusted at each iteration of the fit so that $\displaystyle \sum_{i,j} N^{exp}_{i,j} \equiv \sum_{i,j} N^{obs}_{i,j}$, i.e. the total number of expected events in the four samples is fixed to the observed number.
44:
45: For the energy-dependent fit, the scaling for the CC1$\pi^{+}$ fraction is energy-dependent. However, this is not true for CCQE. We estimate the overall fraction of CCQE events, and we fix the energy dependence of the CCQE cross section to the MC prediction because it has been accurately measured by previous experiments (\cite{Barish:1977qk,Bonetti:1977cs,ggm,Belikov:1983kg}). The uncertainty in the $Q^2$ dependence of the CCQE cross section is considered as a systematic error. Similarly, we estimate the overall fraction of other nonQE events and assume that the energy dependence of the other nonQE cross section is correctly described by our MC simulation.
46:
47: The muon momentum scale, $P_{sc}$, does not appear explicitly in Equation \ref{eqn:nexp}, but it is a free parameter in the fit. The purpose of $P_{sc}$ is to allow shrinking or stretching of the distributions along the $p_{\mu}$ axis; in this way we account for a systematic difference in the energy scale between data and MC. The first step in each iteration of the minimization is rescaling the $p_{\mu}$ vs. $\theta_{\mu}$ distributions for the nominal MC by $P_{sc}$. This means that $N^{CCQE}_{i,j}$, $N^{OtherNonQE}_{i,j}$, and $N^{CC1\pi^{+}}_{i,j,k}$ change slightly from their nominal MC predictions due to shifting of events among bins. The nominal value of $P_{sc}$ is 1.
48:
49: There is an additional term added to the minimization function shown in Equation \ref{eqn:F}. The systematic error in the muon momentum scale is estimated to be 2.7\%, dominated by uncertainties of muon energy reconstruction in the MRD (see Section \ref{subsubsec:MRD}). $P_{sc}$ is a free parameter, but its fit value is constrained by the estimated systematic error. The following term is added to the minimization function to accomplish this:
50: \begin{equation}
51: F_{Psc} = \frac{(P_{sc}-1)^{2}}{(0.027)^{2}}.
52: \end{equation}
53:
54: The CC1$\pi^{+}$ contribution to the selected sample for true neutrino energy in bin $k$ is changed from the nominal MC prediction by a factor of $R^{CC1\pi^{+}}_{k} \times (\alpha/\alpha_{nominal})$, where $\alpha$ is the normalization at best fit and $\alpha_{nominal}$ is the normalization for the nominal MC. The other nonQE contribution to the selected sample is changed by a factor of $R^{OtherNonQE} \times (\alpha/\alpha_{nominal})$, and the CCQE contribution to the selected sample is changed by a factor of $\alpha/\alpha_{nominal}$.
55:
56: Tables \ref{tab:fit_1enubin} and \ref{tab:fit_4enubins} show the best fit values of $P_{sc}$, $R^{CC1\pi^{+}}_{k}$, $R^{OtherNonQE}$, and the normalization $\alpha$ relative to the nominal normalization for the energy-independent and energy-dependent fits, respectively. The best fit value of $P_{sc}$, though significantly different from 1, is consistent with previous K2K measurements.
57:
58: \input{tables/bestfit.tex}
59: \input{tables/bestfit2.tex}
60:
61: The minimum of the fitting function (Equation \ref{eqn:F}) follows a $\chi^2$ distribution and can be used to estimate the goodness of the fit ~\cite{Yao:2006px}. The $\chi^2$/d.o.f before the fit is 283/187 = 1.51. The $\chi^2$/d.o.f. at best fit is 229/185 = 1.24 and 228/182 = 1.25 for the energy-independent and energy-dependent fits, respectively. (The $\chi^2$ including all systematic uncertainties is given in Section \ref{subsec:discusssyst}). For the energy-independent fit, the predictions for the number of CCQE and CC1$\pi^{+}$ events in the sample are consistent with the nominal MC within fitting errors. For the energy-dependent fit, the prediction for the number of CCQE events is consistent with the nominal MC within fitting errors, and the predictions for the number of CC1$\pi^{+}$ events in each neutrino energy bin are consistent with the nominal MC within fitting errors except in the first neutrino energy bin.
62: In addition, we find that the ratio of other nonQE interactions to CCQE interactions in our data is larger than this ratio in the nominal MC by 31\% $\pm$ 12\% (38\% $\pm$ 14\%) for the energy-independent (energy-dependent) fit, where the uncertainty is due to fitting only and does not include systematic uncertainties.
63: As a cross-check, we further imposed the condition $R_{k}^{CC1\pi^{+}} = R^{OthernonQE} \equiv R^{nQE}, (k=0,1,2,3)$ in the fit function given in Equation \ref{eqn:nexp} to extract the relative weighting of all CC nonQE events to CCQE events, as done in~\cite{Ahn:2006zz}. With this assumption, we obtain $\chi^2$/d.o.f = 231/185 = 1.25 and $R^{nQE} =
64: 1.151 \pm 0.057$, to be compared with the 1.194 $\pm$ 0.092 value quoted in~\cite{Ahn:2006zz}.
65:
66: In this analysis, we fully take into account correlations among fit parameters. Figure \ref{fig:Contour} shows the best fit point and the 1-, 2-, and 3-sigma contour lines for parameters $R^{CC1\pi^{+}}$ and $R^{OtherNonQE}$ for the energy-independent fit. The correlation between $R^{CC1\pi^{+}}$ and $R^{OtherNonQE}$ is -0.539; for the energy-dependent fit, the correlation of $R^{CC1\pi^{+}}_{0}$, $R^{CC1\pi^{+}}_{1}$, $R^{CC1\pi^{+}}_{2}$, and $R^{CC1\pi^{+}}_{3}$ with $R^{OtherNonQE}$ is -0.644, -0.158, -0.312, and -0.216, respectively.
67:
68: \begin{figure}[htp]
69: \begin{center}
70: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figures/contour.eps}
71: \end{center}
72: \caption{\label{fig:Contour} 1-, 2-, and 3-sigma contours for parameters $R^{CC1\pi^{+}}$ and $R^{OtherNonQE}$ for the energy-independent fit.}
73: \end{figure}
74:
75: The CC1$\pi^{+}$ to CCQE cross section ratio for neutrino energy bin $k$, $R_{k}$, can be calculated under the assumption that the efficiencies for detecting CCQE and CC1$\pi^{+}$ interactions in the selected sample are the same in data and MC.
76: \begin{align}
77: R_{k} &= \frac{\sigma^{CC1\pi^{+}}_{k}}{\sigma^{CCQE}_{k}}\notag\\
78: &= \frac{N^{CC1\pi^{+}}_{k}(data)}{N^{CC1\pi^{+}}_{k}(MC)} \times \frac{N^{CCQE}_{k}(MC)}{N^{CCQE}_{k}(data)} \times R_{MC,k},
79: \end{align}
80: where $N^{CC1\pi^{+}}_{k}$ and $N^{CCQE}_{k}$ are the numbers of CC1$\pi^{+}$ and CCQE events, respectively, in neutrino energy bin $k$ in the selected sample and $R_{MC,k}$ is the MC prediction for the cross section ratio in neutrino bin $k$. The data values in the above equation are obtained from the best fit MC.
81:
82:
83:
84:
85:
86: