A Measurement of Oscillation Parameters using Antifiducial Charged Current Events in MINOS

I completed my PhD thesis in September 2010. Here's a copy. You can have it optimized for one-sided printing or two-sided printing. (The only difference is that page content is shifted away from the inner margin for two-sided.)

It is additionally archived on the MINOS document database (no password required). It's also fermilab-thesis-2010-40. Here's the spires record. Aaaaand, it's on Proquest.

You can also have the LaTeX source (tar.gz) (bz2 | lz)

Commons License My thesis is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. (Here's a local copy of the license. A copy of this license may also be obtained by writing to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, CA 94105, USA.)


Z/A Matters

In table 12.3, the water content of sample 13 should be 2.04%, not 0.00%. Sample 7 should be 2.34%, not 0.00%. Four other samples should have slightly higher water content — I missed the contribution from "H2O" and only had included "H2O+". This modifies the average Z/A upwards by 0.05%: negligible. The revised table 7.1 is:

O (46.0 ± 0.5)%
Si (23.6 ± 0.2)%
Fe (8.4 ± 0.3)%
Al (7.9 ± 0.2)%
Ca (6.4 ± 0.3)%
Mg (3.9 ± 0.2)%
Na (2.0 ± 0.1)%
Ti (0.6 ± 0.1)%
K (0.4 ± 0.1)%
H (0.30 ± 0.02)%
C (0.2 ± 0.1)%
Mn (0.15 ± 0.01)%
P (0.05 ± 0.01)%

More seriously — but still not too serious — is the fact that the Z/A quoted on pages 58 and 122 has the value implemented in the Monte Carlo (0.498, or more precisely 0.4977 — actually the Monte Carlo has a list of elements and their fractional contributions to the mass of the rock so the Z/A isn't explicit), not the best value found from table 12.3, which is 0.4954 and, of course, not the value after making the above corrections: 0.4957. This difference wasn't accounted for in the analysis, but fortunately it is only half the error on Z/A. There should be a correction on the predicted normalization of rock events to account for this. From the effect of the systematic shift, we can estimate that it would push Δm2 up by about 0.01×10−3 eV2 (compared to a total error of 0.23×10−3 eV2).

A closer look at the sources of table 12.3 and a reanalysis of the best estimate for Z/A gives 0.4957±0.0037 (just an insignificant touch higher than above), or ±0.0041 after tacking on 10% as on page 122. This is the value and error I will recommend for the final MINOS analysis (assuming that our 2010 analysis wasn't already the final one).

Trivial fixes:


Reference 43 came out in 2011, not 2010. It is:

  month = {May},
  url = {http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.181801},
  publisher = {American Physical Society},
  author = {Adamson, P. and others},
  title = {Measurement of the Neutrino Mass Splitting and Flavor Mixing by MINOS},
  year = {2011},
  pages = {181801},
  journal = {Phys. Rev. Lett.},
  volume = {106},
  numpages = {6},
  doi = {10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.181801},
  issue = {18},
  collaboration = {MINOS Collaboration},
  eprint = {1103.0340},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  primaryClass = {hep-ex},
  SLACcitation = {%%CITATION = 1103.0340;%%}

Reference 92 (J.S. Mitchell's thesis) did indeed come out in 2011.

Help and References

Some documents that I have referenced are non-trivial to obtain, in particular the internal MINOS notes, but also some older and/or unpublished articles and so forth. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need a copy of any of these.

Until at least 2012, and quite possibly until the MINOS collaboration ceases activities, I can be reached at:

s t r a i t {AT} p h y s i c s {DOT} u m n {D0T} e d u

You can also try my new address, which may or may not have a longer lifetime:

s t r a i t {AT} h e p {D0T} u c h i c a g o {DOT} e d u

If stumbling upon this page in the distant future and finding neither works, you might try finding me via my SPIRES record.