Re: Sensitivity for the Baseline

Thanks, Jon,

this is a very useful and succinct compilation.
The additional error reduction from cross calibration is impressive.

The cost of doing the moves is probably not very high.
We have to move the detectors down the shafts at least once in the
beginning;
a small number of additional move event will cost far less than one detector
would cost.
As Steve points out, correctly in my view, the credibility of the results is
of paramount importance,
and is achieved by measuring things in different ways.
The cross calibration of the detectors by moving them eliminates a lot of
potential systematic worries (by us and by the community).

Hans

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Link" <link@fnal.gov>
To: <braidwood@hep.uchicago.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 12:59 AM
Subject: Sensitivity for the Baseline

> Hi All,
>
> Here are the new numbers for the sensitivity of the baseline
> experimental setup. I'm also attaching ps files showing the sensitivity
> as a function of delta m^2 and sin^2 2 theta_13. Sensitivities are shown
> at the 90% CL.
>
> 1) Assuming 0.6% relative normalization error (i.e. no sensitivity gain
> from movable detectors). This is the official baseline scenario. The
> corresponding ps file is sense_0.6.ps.
>
> Delta m^2 (eV^2)
> 0.0015 0.0020 0.0025 0.0030
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Counting Only 0.0175 0.0124 0.0106 0.0104
> Shape Only 0.0155 0.0133 0.0124 0.0098
> Counting+Shape 0.0112 0.0087 0.0078 0.0070
>
> 2) Assuming cross calibration with movable detectors for 8% of the run
> (0.26% relative normalization error). The corresponding ps file is
> sense_md.ps.
>
> Delta m^2 (eV^2)
> 0.0015 0.0020 0.0025 0.0030
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Counting Only 0.0113 0.0080 0.0069 0.0068
> Shape Only 0.0158 0.0136 0.0126 0.0101
> Counting+Shape 0.0086 0.0064 0.0056 0.0053
>
> A few comments... The shape analyses still make optimistic assumptions
> about our knowledge of the background spectra shapes. This does not
> affect the Counting analysis. Therefore we should use the sensitivity
> of the Counting analysis as the upper limit of sensitivity and the
> Counting+Shape analysis as the lower limit on sensitivity. We know that
> we can do better than the counting analysis but the Counting+Shape
> sensitivity is perhaps too optimistic.
>
> Enjoy,
> Jon
>
Received on Wed Sep 8 09:32:15 2004