Re: Sensitivity for the Baseline

  Thanks Jon, those are very interesting numbers! What livetime did you assume?
I think it'd be worth doing this for both a 1 year and 5 year run time.
What background shape uncertainties in particular are you worried about
with regard to the spectrum analysis?

  I'd also like to make the general point that I think it is a mistake
to discuss the capabilities of a combined counting+shape analysis very much.
The MUCH bigger deal is that we can look for this with 2 INDEPENDENT techniques
which have comparable sensitivity and we should stress our belief that
this is key. I very strongly believe this. This is the thing that fully
justifies our fiducial volume and is one of the important features that
sets us apart from a number of other experiments. As I said before, I
think that redundancy is the thing that will sell this project.

                                                  - Steve

Jonathan Link wrote:
>
> 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
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Name: sense_0.6.ps
> sense_0.6.ps Type: Postscript Document (application/postscript)
> Encoding: 7BIT
> Download Status: Not downloaded with message
>
> Name: sense_md.ps
> sense_md.ps Type: Postscript Document (application/postscript)
> Encoding: 7BIT
> Download Status: Not downloaded with message
Received on Wed Sep 8 07:11:55 2004