Changes between Version 61 and Version 62 of ExperimentFlux

Timestamp:

Oct 30, 2016, 7:54:36 PM (8 years ago)

Author:

Clarence Wret

Comment:

--

ExperimentFlux

@@ -13 +13 @@
 Some experiments determine fluxes solely by simulating the beamline, target interaction and subsequent meson decays; others add in muon monitors after the target to provide additional flux information; others fit selected events (often CCQE) and assume perfect modelling to go from an event rate to a flux. Many experiments have used all these methods to get realistic flux uncertainties, others haven't. Historical neutrino fluxes should always be taken with a pinch of salt.
 
+=== Precursor ===
 '''Beware of experiments using only CCQE events to estimate the neutrino flux:''' In attempting to resolve the CC1pi+1p cross-section discrepancy between ANL and BNL, Wilkinson and Rodrigues (arXiv:1411.4482v1) corrected the CC1pi+1p cross-section by using the experiments' CC1pi+1p/CCQE ratio and multiplying it by the CCQE cross-section in GENIE. The CC1pi+1p/CCQE ratio should cancel most of the flux uncertainties, and so comparing the (CC1pi+1p/CCQE)*(GENIE CCQE) cross-section to the reported CC1pi+1p cross-section could provide an estimate of how accurate the flux calculation was at the experiment. Note the CC1pi+/CCQE ratio agrees well between ANL and BNL. 
 
 W&R found that the BNL total cross-section correction was large compared to ANL. BNL used a MA_CCQE fit to CCQE events to estimate their flux, which assumes an understood CCQE interaction model and an understanding of deuterium effects, whereas ANL ''seem'' to have used a more sophisticated simulation and a fit.
 
-Graczyk & Sobczyk (arXiv:0908.2175) and others have resolved the problem in similar ways, often introducing a varying normalisation parameter to the ANL and BNL cross-section distributions separately. Additionally,the normalisation parameters can be correlated between the experiments. This approach does not allow for shape changes in the cross-section, which Wilkinson & Rodrigues does.
+Graczyk & Sobczyk (arXiv:0908.2175) and others have resolved the problem in similar ways, often introducing a varying normalisation parameter to the ANL and BNL cross-section distributions separately. Additionally,the normalisation parameters can be correlated between the experiments. This approach does not allow for shape changes in the cross-section, which W&R does.
 
 
@@ -24 +25 @@
 ANL had two runs in which it took data. A period of 1 horn running, another of 2 horns running. The final publications combine the result from the 1 horn and 2 horn running, but do not provide a joint average flux. ANL made both fluxes available but did not specify how much of the 1 horn flux was used in final analyses. Hence the truth PROBABLY lays somewhere in between the 1 horn and 2 horn fluxes.
 
-=== Neutrino mode ===
+ === Neutrino mode ===
 
   * J. Campbell et al, ''Study of the Reaction \nu p \rightarrow mu- pi+ p'', Physical Review Letters, Volume 30, Number 8, 19 Februrary 1973, 325
@@ -34 +35 @@
   * Barish et al., ''Study of neutrino interactions in hydrogen and deuterium: Description of the experiment and study of the reaction \nu + d \rightarrow mu- + p + p_s'', Physical Review D, Volume 16, Number 11, 1 December 1977, 3103
    * Has 1 horn and 2 horn simulations, and shows breakdown by parent meson (e.g. neutrino flux from pion and from kaon)
+
    * 1 horn: [[Image(ANL_flux_CCQE_1horn_1977.png, 400px, center)]] 
 
    * 2 horn: [[Image(ANL_flux_CCQE_2horn_1977.png, 400px, center)]]
 
-=== Anti-neutrino mode ===
- * Haven't found any yet
+
+ === Anti-neutrino mode ===
+
+ * Haven't found any fluxes yet
+
 
 == BNL ==