CC0pi/CC-inclusive Data Comparisons Patrick Stowell Introduction - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

CC0pi/CC-inclusive Data Comparisons Patrick Stowell

Introduction • Learnt from the previous round of NIWG fits that there are tensions within our current models between the external data sets. • Work since then has been trying to understand what causes some of these problems. • Aim: Find a cross-section model that is capable of explaining a broad range of the published datasets and try to relieve the tensions. - 10/07/2016 2 Patrick Stowell

Updated PGoF Fits • Recap: MiniBooNE and MINERvA joint fits show a disagreement on best fit model parameters. NEUTs model cannot describe both simultaneously. • MINERvA updated their flux which helped a little bit, but there are still issues! MINERvA Flux Update After and Before Joint Fits PGoF • PGOF Results: - 12/07/2016 3 Patrick Stowell

XSecFitter: Generic Fitting Framework • Takes a long time to implement new models into generators, easier to take advantage of what is already setup in generators. • Want to make comparisons/tunings of these different generators in a completely consistent and reliable way. • Fitter Callum initially developed for NIWG NEUT fits provides a framework to allow new dataset comparisons and tunings to be added very quickly. • Restructured the code to turn it into a generic generator fitting package. • Contains a broad range of implemented data/MC comparisons. Name is a work in progress! Suggestions welcome! - 12/07/2016 4 Patrick Stowell

ReWeight Dial Tuning • Fake data study tools. • Multiple inputs: • NEUT • NuWro • GENIE • NUANCE – Coming Soon… • GiBUU – Coming Soon… • Interface with generator reweight utilities to do tuning. • Moving to spline reweighting soon to allow for more rigorous model testing. - 12/07/2016 5 Patrick Stowell

Systematic Analysis • Lots of fitter development ongoing, added options to generate systematic throws from an arbitrary covariance. Ratio NIWGMEC_Norm_Other DATA NIWG 2015 MC stat. 1.8 NIWG2014a_Eb_Pb208 1 NIWG2014a_Eb_Fe56 NIWG2014a_pF_Pb208 NIWG2014a_pF_Fe56 NIWG2012a_ncotherE0 0.8 1.6 NIWG2012a_nccohE0 NIWG2012a_cccohE0 NIWG2012a_cccohE0 NIWG2012a_dismpishp 0.6 NIWG2012a_ccnueE0 1.4 NXSec_BgSclCCRES NXSec_MaNFFRES NXSec_CA5RES 0.4 NIWG2014a_Eb_O16 NIWGMEC_Norm_O16 1.2 NIWG2014a_pF_O16 NIWG2014a_Eb_C12 NIWGMEC_Norm_C12 0.2 NIWG2014a_pF_C12 NXSec_MaCCQE 1 NCasc_FrCExHigh_pi NCasc_FrCExLow_pi 0 NCasc_FrAbs_pi NCasc_FrPiProd_pi NCasc_FrInelHigh_pi 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 NCasc_FrInelHigh_pi NCasc_FrInelHigh_pi NCasc_FrInelHigh_pi NCasc_FrPiProd_pi NCasc_FrAbs_pi NCasc_FrCExLow_pi NCasc_FrCExHigh_pi NXSec_MaCCQE NIWG2014a_pF_C12 NIWGMEC_Norm_C12 NIWG2014a_Eb_C12 NIWG2014a_pF_O16 NIWGMEC_Norm_O16 NIWG2014a_Eb_O16 NXSec_CA5RES NXSec_MaNFFRES NXSec_BgSclCCRES NIWG2012a_ccnueE0 NIWG2012a_dismpishp NIWG2012a_cccohE0 NIWG2012a_cccohE0 NIWG2012a_nccohE0 NIWG2012a_ncotherE0 NIWG2014a_pF_Fe56 NIWG2014a_pF_Pb208 NIWG2014a_Eb_Fe56 NIWG2014a_Eb_Pb208 NIWGMEC_Norm_Other Reconstructed Bjorken x Ratio Ratio 1.6 1.4 DATA NIWG 2015 MC stat. NIWG 2015 MC stat. DATA 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.2 1 1.1 0.9 1 0.8 0.9 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 Reconstructed Bjorken x Reconstructed Bjorken x • Should be shown as a standard for any model tuning so users can judge whether the fit parameters are actually appropriate for their analysis. - 11/07/2016 6 Patrick Stowell

Experimental Collaboration • Working to release this as publicly available software soon. • Fitter tools will be freely available to use. • Interested in more direct correspondence with experiments so we can properly test our cross-section models. You get a You get a You all get a comparison! comparison! comparison! - 12/07/2016 7 Patrick Stowell

Using NuWro • Included NuWro as a possible input. This opens up a range of extra models aswell as providing a nicer C++ interface to prototype model changes. • LFG Model • Alternative Form Factors • Marteau MEC • Alternative FSI Model • NC TEM MEC tunings • NuWro reweight module developed to allow systematic studies to be performed. • • Myself, Luke Pickering, and Jan Sobczyk, working to get this released soon! NuWro ReWeight Validation L. Pickering - 10/07/2016 8 Patrick Stowell

NuWro LFG Fits • Want to see whether the fitter inflating M A and reducing MEC normalization is just a result of the stitched together RFG+Nieves model in NEUT. • Compare 3 models: • NEUT RFG + RPA + Nieves • NuWro LFG + RPA + Nieves Found to be the best fit to MINERvA • NuWro RFG + TEM CCQE data in original data release. • In each model fit 2 free parameters: • Axial Mass Removed pF dial as NuWro RW • MEC Normalisation doesn’t have this yet. - 12/07/2016 9 Patrick Stowell

Fit Results MINERvA NUMU MINERvA NUMUBAR 39 − × 10 − 39 × 10 ) 2 20 ) Data 16 /GeV 2 Data /GeV 18 MC NuWro LFG+RPA+Nieves 14 MC NuWro LFG+RPA+Nieves 16 2 (cm 2 MC NuWro RFG+TEM (cm MC NuWro RFG+TEM 12 14 MC NEUT RFG+RPA+Nieves MC NEUT RFG+RPA+Nieves QE 10 12 QE 2 2 /dQ /dQ Area Normalized Area Normalized 10 8 σ σ 8 d d 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2 2 Q (GeV ) 2 2 Q (GeV ) QE QE -1.0<cos θ <0.0 0.0<cos θ <0.3 0.3<cos θ <0.6 -1.0<cos θ <0.0 0.0<cos θ <0.3 0.3<cos θ <0.6 MB NUMU − 39 − 39 − 39 MB NUMUBAR − 42 − 39 − 39 × 10 × 10 × 10 × 10 × 10 × 10 /GeV) /GeV) /GeV) /GeV) /GeV) /GeV) 6 4.5 80 1 1 0.5 4 2 2 2 2 70 2 2 5 (cm (cm (cm (cm (cm (cm Data Data 3.5 0.8 0.8 60 0.4 µ µ µ µ µ µ θ θ θ 4 θ θ θ 3 dcos dcos dcos dcos dcos dcos 50 MC NuWro LFG+RPA+Nieves MC NuWro LFG+RPA+Nieves 0.6 2.5 0.6 0.3 µ µ µ 3 µ µ µ 40 /dT /dT /dT /dT /dT /dT 2 MC NuWro RFG+TEM MC NuWro RFG+TEM σ 0.4 σ σ σ 30 σ 0.2 σ 0.4 2 2 2 1.5 2 2 2 2 d d d d d d 20 1 0.2 0.1 0.2 MC NEUT RFG+RPA+Nieves 1 MC NEUT RFG+RPA+Nieves 10 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 T (GeV) T (GeV) T (GeV) T (GeV) T (GeV) T (GeV) µ µ µ µ µ µ 0.6<cos θ <0.7 0.7<cos θ <0.8 0.8<cos θ <0.9 0.9<cos θ <1.0 0.6<cos θ <0.7 0.7<cos θ <0.8 0.8<cos θ <0.9 0.9<cos θ <1.0 − 39 − 39 − 39 − 39 − 39 − 39 − 39 − 39 × 10 × 10 × 10 × 10 × 10 × 10 × 10 × 10 /GeV) /GeV) /GeV) /GeV) /GeV) /GeV) /GeV) /GeV) 25 4 6 22 22 20 9 12 20 20 18 3.5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 (cm (cm (cm (cm (cm (cm 5 (cm (cm 18 18 20 16 10 3 7 16 16 µ µ µ µ µ µ µ µ θ 14 θ θ θ θ θ θ θ 4 dcos dcos dcos dcos dcos dcos dcos 6 dcos 14 14 2.5 8 15 12 12 12 5 µ µ µ µ µ 2 µ 3 µ µ 10 /dT /dT /dT /dT /dT /dT /dT /dT 6 10 10 4 10 8 σ σ σ σ σ 1.5 σ σ σ 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 d d d d d d d d 4 6 6 6 1 2 4 5 4 4 1 2 0.5 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 T (GeV) T (GeV) T (GeV) T (GeV) T (GeV) T (GeV) T (GeV) T (GeV) µ µ µ µ µ µ µ µ - 10/07/2016 10 Patrick Stowell

NuWro LFG Fits NuWro LFG Nieves Correlations Correlation Pars Covariance 1 M A MEC 0.95 0.58 1.00 kNuwro_MECNorm 0.582366 1.01511 0.9 • Fit results from NuWro with an LFG are quite 0.85 0.8 similar to NEUT RFG model. 0.75 0.7 1.00 0.58 kNuwro_Ma_CCQE 1.00043 0.582366 0.65 0.6 • Still have problem where M A is being inflated kNuwro_Ma_CCQE kNuwro_MECNorm Pars NEUT RFG Nieves Correlations and MEC normalization is being driven down. Correlation Pars 1 Covariance 0.95 0.62 1.00 MECTwkDial_Norm_C12 M A MEC 0.622241 1.00743 0.9 • MEC and the Axial Mass are positively 0.85 0.8 correlated at the best fit point. 0.75 1.00 0.62 MaCCQE 1.00519 0.622241 0.7 0.65 MaCCQE MECTwkDial_Norm_C12 M A MEC Pars - 10/07/2016 11 Patrick Stowell

Is our High Q 2 Error Appropriate? • Deuterium bubble chamber data can be used to place a constraint on the free nucleon cross-section. Data is statistically limited at high Q 2 . • If the model has a limited shape, like the simple dipole, the uncertainty on the bare CCQE cross-section can be underestimated in this region. • Evaluating the free nucleon cross-section uncertainties also very recently done in: Phys. Rev. D 93, 113015 (2016) • They use Z-expanstion formalism for F A. - 12/07/2016 12 Patrick Stowell