1: \subsection{Quasi-Elastic Scattering}
2:
3: At the lowest neutrino energies relevant for future long baseline
4: efforts, it is the quasi-elastic scattering that dominates the charged
5: current interaction rate. As outlined in the \minerva\
6: proposal\footnote{see the discussion in Chapter 6 of the main
7: proposal}, there are some interesting physics issues to
8: be addressed in quasi-elastic neutrino scattering. The first of these is
9: understanding the impact of nuclear effects on the quasi-elastic
10: kinematics at low $Q^2$ which dominates the signal rate for
11: oscillation experiments. The second is understanding the axial
12: form-factor of the proton at high $Q^2$ which will contribute to the
13: blossoming body of new measurements on high $Q^2$ nucleon form-factors
14: where some surprises have already been seen in charged-lepton
15: scattering (see main proposal above).
16: Since the proposal, we have made significant progress in
17: simulating our expected analysis of quasi-elastics, focusing on the
18: important issues of maintaining high efficiency at low $Q^2$ and low
19: backgrounds at high $Q^2$.
20:
21: In $\nu n\to\mu^- p$, the outgoing proton carries a kinetic energy
22: that is approximately $Q^2/2M_N$. So for low $Q^2$, the challenge is
23: identifying events with a very soft recoil proton; for high $Q^2$,
24: this proton is high energy and may interact in the detector, making
25: particle identification more challenging. The main strategies of the
26: current analysis are:
27: \begin{itemize}
28: \item At low $Q^2$, accept quasi-elastic candidates with a single
29: (muon) track, and discriminate from background by requiring low
30: activity in the remainder of the detector
31: \item At high $Q^2$, reconstruct both the proton and the muon, and
32: require kinematic consistency with $x=1$ and $p_T=0$
33: \end{itemize}
34: Simple cuts deriving from these ideas allow for reasonable efficiency
35: with good purity, even at high $Q^2$.
36:
37: \subsubsection{Details of Quasi-elastic reconstruction}
38:
39: The analysis uses the NEUGEN generation and the hit level \minerva\
40: simulation and tracking package in order to simulate signal selection
41: and background processes.
42:
43: The initial event identification proceeds by requiring one or two
44: tracks in the active target. One of these tracks must be long range
45: ($400$~g/cm$^2$) and is the putative muon. If a second track forms a
46: vertex with this track, it is assumed to be the proton. No
47: other tracks are allowed to be connected with this event vertex. The
48: muon track momentum is reconstructed with a fractional uncertainty of
49: between $10$--$20\%$.
50:
51: \begin{figure}[tp]
52: \begin{center}
53: \epsfxsize=\textwidth
54: \mbox{\epsffile[0 0 566 530]{hits_q2l0.1_q2h1.0_dx2_pt2.eps}}\\
55: \end{center}
56: \caption[Fraction of Hits Associated with the Muon and Proton in
57: Quasi-Elastic Candidates]{The fraction of hits associated with
58: the muon and the proton tracks in quasi-elastic candidates.
59: The events for the plot may have have one or two vertex tracks,
60: pass additional kinematic requirement and are required to have
61: $0.1~GeV^2 < Q^2 < 1~GeV^2 $.}
62: \label{hits_q2l0}
63: \end{figure}
64: In the low $Q^2$ case, the proton track (if found) would be
65: effectively required to lose energy by range since only a limited
66: amount of detector activity not associated with the primary tracks is
67: allowed by the event selection. We attempt to recover some of the
68: lost efficiency at higher $Q^2$ due to this cut by allowing hits on
69: tracks near the proton track to be associated with the proton track
70: itself. Figure~\ref{hits_q2l0} shows the fraction of hits not
71: associated with the lepton or proton in the quasi-elastic events and
72: in expected background processes. For higher $Q^2$ events a similar
73: requirement could in principle be applied, but it is not particularly
74: effective nor efficient.
75:
76: The energy of the proton for the high $Q^2$ case (where the
77: proton almost always interacts) is reconstructed calorimetrically with
78: an expected fractional energy resolution that is well parameterized by
79: $35\%/\sqrt{E_{\textstyle proton}}$.
80:
81: Although muons are identified by requiring a single track with a long
82: range in the detector, no attempt is made in the analysis to improve
83: particle identification by requiring $dE/dx$ consistent with the muon
84: or proton tracks. This requirement is expected to be particularly
85: effective for protons of ${\cal O}(1)$~GeV momentum\footnote{see
86: Section 15.5.5 of the main proposal}, and such a
87: requirement can be optimized to improve the analysis in the future.
88: In addition, it may be possible to improve the efficiency by allowing
89: a lower range muon with a $dE/dx$ requirement without sacrificing
90: purity.
91:
92: If a quasi-elastic interaction is assumed, one can reconstruct the event
93: kinematics from only the momentum and direction of the final state
94: $\mu$. Neglecting the binding energy of the final state proton,
95: $$
96: E_\nu^{\textstyle QE} = \frac{M_N E_\mu - \frac{m_\mu^2}{2}}
97: {M_N - E_\mu+ p_\mu\cos\theta_\mu}.
98: $$ If a proton track is required and its angle and energy are
99: measured, one can additionally require consistency with the
100: quasi-elastic hypothesis. Two constraints are possible, one on the
101: $x$ of the reconstructed interaction and one on the $p_T$ of the
102: observed final state.
103:
104: \begin{figure}[tp]
105: \begin{center}
106: \epsfxsize=\textwidth
107: \mbox{\epsffile[0 0 566 534]{q2dif_q2l1_q2hi3.eps}}
108: \end{center}
109: \caption[$Q^2$ Difference Significance for Quasi-Elastic
110: Reconstruction]
111: {The significance of the
112: difference between $Q^2$ from the quasi-elastic hypothesis and $Q^2$
113: from the final state energy}
114: \label{q2dif_q2l1_q2hi3}
115: \end{figure}
116: If the interaction is truly quasi-elastic, then
117: $x=1$, and therefore $Q^2=2M_N\nu$ where
118: $\nu$ = $E_{had}$ - $M_{nucleon}$, and
119: $E_{had}$ is the energy of the hadronic final state.
120: In this analysis, we test
121: this by comparing $Q^2$ reconstructed from the lepton kinematics under
122: the quasi-elastic hypothesis to $2M_N\nu$ and forming
123: $(Q^2_{\mu}-2M_N\nu)/{\textstyle error}$ where the
124: dominant part of the calculated error for this term comes from the
125: smearing of hadronic final state energy.
126: Figure~\ref{q2dif_q2l1_q2hi3} shows this $Q^2$ difference significance
127: for two track quasi-elastic candidates with observed $1~GeV^2 <
128: Q^2 < 3~GeV^2$, for quasi-elastic,
129: resonance and DIS events. Note that this cut can be applied without
130: identifying a proton track if the visible energy, less the muon energy, is
131: assumed to be $\nu$.
132:
133: The $Q^2$ significance ($x$) cut does not use information on the
134: proton direction, and so we impose a second kinematic cut on the $p^T$
135: of the final state relative to the incoming neutrino direction. This
136: selection requires that a proton track is identified and we cut on the
137: significance of the difference from $p_T=0$. We impose a cut of
138: $p^T/{\textstyle error}<$2 except for $Q^2>3~GeV^2$, for which the cut is
139: 3. Note also that if we impose a $p^T$ cut first, the $Q^2$ difference
140: cut still improves the result, i.e. both cuts are needed.
141:
142: In summary, the selection requirements for quasi-elastic candidates
143: are:
144: \begin{itemize}
145: \item One or two tracks for $Q^2<1~GeV^2$ and two tracks for $Q^2>1~GeV^2$.
146: \item One track must have $400$~g/cm$^2$ range (muon).
147: \item $(Q^2_{\mu}-2M\nu)/({\textstyle error}) < 2 $.
148: \item $p_T/({\textstyle error}) < 2$ for $Q^2<3~GeV^2$ and
149: $p_T/({\textstyle error}) < 3$ for $Q^2>3~GeV^2$.
150: \item Hit fraction associated with muon and proton $> 0.9$, for
151: $Q^2 < 0.5~GeV^2$, or $>$ 0.85, for $0.5~GeV^2 < Q^2 < 1.0~GeV^2$.
152: \end{itemize}
153:
154: \subsubsection{Results}
155:
156: \begin{table}
157: \begin{center}
158: \begin{tabular}{|c|cc|cc|cc|cc|cc|}
159: \noalign{\vspace{-8pt}} \hline
160: & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{$\mu$} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\qdif} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{p$_T$ /err}& \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Hits} \\
161: $Q^2$ bin & Effic& Purity & Effic & Purity & Effic & Purity & Effic &Purity \\ \hline
162: 0.1-0.5 & 0.926& 0.246 & 0.918& 0.442 & 0.866& 0.559 & 0.775& 0.842 \\
163: 0.5 - 1 & 0.775& 0.199 & 0.765& 0.410 & 0.624& 0.486 & 0.528& 0.685 \\
164: 1 - 2 & 0.600& 0.199 & 0.541& 0.416 & 0.397& 0.555 & 0.338& 0.598 \\
165: 2 - 3 & 0.456& 0.146 & 0.400& 0.375 & 0.344& 0.554 & 0.278& 0.676 \\
166: 3 - 10 & 0.689& 0.123 & 0.600& 0.310 & 0.467& 0.420 & 0.311& 0.700 \\ \hline
167: \end{tabular}
168: \end{center}
169: \caption[Efficiency and Purity in $Q^2$ Bins for Quasi-Elastic
170: Candidates]{Efficiency and purity in $Q^2$ bins for quasi-elastic
171: candidates}
172: %The table gives the efficiency and purity for the different $Q^2$ bins.
173: %The value of the cuts are given in the text. For $Q^2 > 1~GeV^2$ the hits
174: %cut shown is Hits $> 0.8$, but we do not impose the Hits cut. For
175: % $Q^2 > 1~GeV^2$ the muon cut includes the 2 track cut.
176: % For $Q^2 > 1~GeV^2$, only 20\% of the events
177: %removed are tossed on the 2 track cut.
178: %For high $Q^2$, no events are tossed on the 2 track cut
179: \label{eff_purity}
180: \end{table}
181:
182: \begin{figure}[tp]
183: \begin{center}
184: \epsfxsize=4.0in
185: \mbox{\epsffile{f_a_log_mva.ps}}\\
186: \end{center}
187: \caption[Extraction of $F_A$ in \minerva]{Estimation of $F_{A}$ from a
188: sample of Monte Carlo neutrino quasi-elastic events recorded in the
189: \minerva\ active carbon target. Here, a pure dipole form for $F_{A}$ is
190: assumed, with $M_{A} = 1.014~\hbox{GeV}/c^2$.
191: The simulated sample and error bars correspond to four years of NuMI running.
192: Also shown is $F_A$ extracted
193: from deuterium bubble chamber experiments
194: using the $d\sigma/dq^2$ from the papers of FNAL 1983~\cite{Kitagaki_83}
195: BNL 1981~\cite{Baker:1981su}, and ANL 1982~\cite{Miller_82}}
196: \label{log:ps2}
197: \end{figure}
198:
199: \begin{figure}[tp]
200: \begin{center}
201: \epsfxsize=4.0in
202: \mbox{\epsffile{f_a_polar_mva.ps}}\\
203: \epsfxsize=4.0in
204: \mbox{\epsffile{f_a_cross_sect_mva.ps}}\\
205: \end{center}
206: \caption[\minerva\ sensitivity to $F_A/F_A(\hbox{Dipole})$]{
207: Extracted ratio $F_{A}$/$F_{A}$(Dipole) from \minerva\ active
208: target (4 NuMI-years) under two
209: scenarios for the true $F_{A}$.
210: {\bf (Top)} $F_{A}$/$F_{A}$(Dipole) is $G_E^p$/$G_E^p$(dipole) from
211: polarization transfer measurements.
212: {\bf (Bottom)} $F_{A}$/$F_{A}$(Dipole) is
213: $G_E^p$/$G_E^p$(dipole) from Rosenbluth separation technique.
214: Also shown is $F_A$ extracted
215: from deuterium bubble chamber experiments
216: using the $d\sigma/dq^2$ from the papers of FNAL 1983~\cite{Kitagaki_83}
217: BNL 1981~\cite{Baker:1981su}, and ANL 1982~\cite{Miller_82} }
218: \label{f_a_polar:ps2}
219: \end{figure}
220:
221: Table~\ref{eff_purity} shows the efficiency and purity of the
222: quasi-elastic sample for different $Q^2$ bins after each cut.
223: Using the calculated efficiency and purity, we have updated the
224: uncertainties on $F_A$ derived in the main
225: proposal which did not include efficiency or background
226: effects.
227:
228: Figure~\ref{log:ps2} shows the extracted values and errors on
229: $F_{A}$ in bins of $Q^{2}$ from a sample of simulated quasi-elastic
230: interactions in the \minerva\ active carbon target, for a four-year
231: exposure in the NuMI beam. Figure~\ref{f_a_polar:ps2} shows these
232: results as a ratio of $F_{A}$/$F_{A}$(Dipole), demonstrating
233: \minerva's ability to distinguish between different models of $F_A$.
234: Note that resolution effects are still not included in this extraction
235: of $F_A$; however, the typical $Q^2$ resolution for quasi-elastic
236: events at high $Q^2$ is $\stackrel{<}{\sim}0.2$~GeV$^2$ which is
237: smaller than the bin size.
238:
239:
240:
241:
242:
243:
244:
245:
246:
247:
248:
249:
250:
251: