CERN Accelerating science

Diagram of the layout and enumeration of the ICARUS TPCs. Not to scale. The wire plane orientations are mirrored in opposite TPCs. The East and West cryostats have the same layout.

Diagram of the layout and enumeration of the ICARUS TPCs. Not to scale. The wire plane orientations are mirrored in opposite TPCs. The East and West cryostats have the same layout.

Diagram of relevant track angles. $\gamma$, the angle of the the track to the direction perpendicular to the wire direction, determines the track pitch. $\phi$, the angle of the track to the drift electric field, controls any angular dependence in electron-ion recombination. $\theta_{xw}$, the angle of the track between the drift electric field direction and the direction perpendicular to the wire direction, controls the track ionization signal shape.

Diagram of relevant track angles. $\gamma$, the angle of the the track to the direction perpendicular to the wire direction, determines the track pitch. $\phi$, the angle of the track to the drift electric field, controls any angular dependence in electron-ion recombination. $\theta_{xw}$, the angle of the track between the drift electric field direction and the direction perpendicular to the wire direction, controls the track ionization signal shape.

Distribution of proton-like (left) and muon-like (right) particle identification (PID) variables in ICARUS NuMI neutrino + CORSIKA cosmic-ray Monte Carlo simulation. Distributions are shown after applying the topological cuts in section \ref{sec:protonselection}. The particle ID variables are computed by comparing the profile of $dE/dx$ along a track to the theoretical expectation for the proton and muon hypotheses.

Distribution of proton-like (left) and muon-like (right) particle identification (PID) variables in ICARUS NuMI neutrino + CORSIKA cosmic-ray Monte Carlo simulation. Distributions are shown after applying the topological cuts in section \ref{sec:protonselection}. The particle ID variables are computed by comparing the profile of $dE/dx$ along a track to the theoretical expectation for the proton and muon hypotheses.

Relative scale of charge reconstruction as a function of the track angle $\theta_{xw}$ (see figure \ref{fig:anglediagram}), determined in ICARUS data and Monte Carlo simulation. A systematic uncertainty of 0.2\% on the correction is assigned to cover the difference between data and Monte Carlo simulation.

Relative scale of charge reconstruction as a function of the track angle $\theta_{xw}$ (see figure \ref{fig:anglediagram}), determined in ICARUS data and Monte Carlo simulation. A systematic uncertainty of 0.2\% on the correction is assigned to cover the difference between data and Monte Carlo simulation.

Fits of measured MPV $dQ/dx$ to expected MPV $dE/dx$ for muons in the East cryostat (left) and the West cryostat (right). The two lines compare the Birks and modified box fits.

Fits of measured MPV $dQ/dx$ to expected MPV $dE/dx$ for muons in the East cryostat (left) and the West cryostat (right). The two lines compare the Birks and modified box fits.

Fits of measured MPV $dQ/dx$ to expected MPV $dE/dx$ for muons in the East cryostat (left) and the West cryostat (right). The two lines compare the Birks and modified box fits.

Fits of measured MPV $dQ/dx$ to expected MPV $dE/dx$ for muons in the East cryostat (left) and the West cryostat (right). The two lines compare the Birks and modified box fits.

Fits of measured MPV $dQ/dx$ to expected MPV $dE/dx$ for protons. The two lines compare the Birks and modified box fits.

Fits of measured MPV $dQ/dx$ to expected MPV $dE/dx$ for protons. The two lines compare the Birks and modified box fits.

Fits of measured MPV $dQ/dx$ to expected MPV $dE/dx$ for protons. The two lines compare the Birks and modified box fits.

Fits of measured MPV $dQ/dx$ to expected MPV $dE/dx$ for protons. The two lines compare the Birks and modified box fits.

Fits of measured MPV $dQ/dx$ to expected MPV $dE/dx$ for protons. The two lines compare the Birks and modified box fits.

Fits of measured MPV $dQ/dx$ to expected MPV $dE/dx$ for protons. The two lines compare the Birks and modified box fits.

Fits of measured MPV $dQ/dx$ to expected MPV $dE/dx$ for protons. The two lines compare the Birks and modified box fits.

Fits of measured MPV $dQ/dx$ to expected MPV $dE/dx$ for protons. The two lines compare the Birks and modified box fits.

Fits of measured MPV $dQ/dx$ to expected MPV $dE/dx$ for protons. The two lines compare the Birks and modified box fits.

Fits of measured MPV $dQ/dx$ to expected MPV $dE/dx$ for protons. The two lines compare the Birks and modified box fits.

Fits of measured MPV $dQ/dx$ to expected MPV $dE/dx$ for protons. The two lines compare the Birks and modified box fits.

Fits of measured MPV $dQ/dx$ to expected MPV $dE/dx$ for protons. The two lines compare the Birks and modified box fits.

(Left) Modified box fit in each proton angle bin. (Right) Ratio of $\beta(\phi)$ measurements in the modified box fit to the value in the $80^\circ < \phi < 85^\circ$ bin. This ratio is compared to three models of the angular dependence, as described in the text. All three models are normalized to match the data in the $80^\circ < \phi < 85^\circ$ bin.

(Left) Modified box fit in each proton angle bin. (Right) Ratio of $\beta(\phi)$ measurements in the modified box fit to the value in the $80^\circ < \phi < 85^\circ$ bin. This ratio is compared to three models of the angular dependence, as described in the text. All three models are normalized to match the data in the $80^\circ < \phi < 85^\circ$ bin.

(Left) Modified box fit in each proton angle bin. (Right) Ratio of $\beta(\phi)$ measurements in the modified box fit to the value in the $80^\circ < \phi < 85^\circ$ bin. This ratio is compared to three models of the angular dependence, as described in the text. All three models are normalized to match the data in the $80^\circ < \phi < 85^\circ$ bin.

(Left) Modified box fit in each proton angle bin. (Right) Ratio of $\beta(\phi)$ measurements in the modified box fit to the value in the $80^\circ < \phi < 85^\circ$ bin. This ratio is compared to three models of the angular dependence, as described in the text. All three models are normalized to match the data in the $80^\circ < \phi < 85^\circ$ bin.

Correlation matrix of the uncertainties in the ellipsoid modified box (EMB) recombination measurement.

Correlation matrix of the uncertainties in the ellipsoid modified box (EMB) recombination measurement.

Comparison of the modified box recombination model fit between this measurement and the ArgoNeuT result \cite{NEUTRecomb}. The two fits are not completely comparable because the ArgoNeuT result allowed the $\alpha$ parameter to be different in the different angular bins. Beyond this limitation, the measurements appear consistent.

Comparison of the modified box recombination model fit between this measurement and the ArgoNeuT result \cite{NEUTRecomb}. The two fits are not completely comparable because the ArgoNeuT result allowed the $\alpha$ parameter to be different in the different angular bins. Beyond this limitation, the measurements appear consistent.

Comparison of the modified box recombination model fit between this measurement and the ArgoNeuT result \cite{NEUTRecomb}. The two fits are not completely comparable because the ArgoNeuT result allowed the $\alpha$ parameter to be different in the different angular bins. Beyond this limitation, the measurements appear consistent.

Comparison of the modified box recombination model fit between this measurement and the ArgoNeuT result \cite{NEUTRecomb}. The two fits are not completely comparable because the ArgoNeuT result allowed the $\alpha$ parameter to be different in the different angular bins. Beyond this limitation, the measurements appear consistent.

Scatter plot of calibrated energy depositions from selected stopping muons and protons in ICARUS data.

Scatter plot of calibrated energy depositions from selected stopping muons and protons in ICARUS data.

Monte Carlo simulation to data comparison of the \upid score applying the angular independent ArgoNeuT modified box-based calibration (left) and with the angular dependent EMB-based calibration (right). Tracks are selected as detailed in section \ref{sec:ParticleID}. The data is taken with the NuMI beam. The cosmic-triggered component of the data is subtracted with off-beam data.

Monte Carlo simulation to data comparison of the \upid score applying the angular independent ArgoNeuT modified box-based calibration (left) and with the angular dependent EMB-based calibration (right). Tracks are selected as detailed in section \ref{sec:ParticleID}. The data is taken with the NuMI beam. The cosmic-triggered component of the data is subtracted with off-beam data.

Comparison of calorimetric energy ($E_\text{calo}$) and range energy ($E_\text{range}$) reconstruction (as defined in section \ref{sec:protonenergy}) for selected protons in ICARUS data (top) and Monte Carlo simulation (bottom). The comparison is made in data for the ArgoNeuT modified box-based calibration (top-left) and the EMB-based calibration (top-right). The Monte Carlo simulation applies the ArgoNeuT modified box model for both simulating recombination and correcting for it. The data points are fit to a sum of two Gaussian distributions with centers ($\mu_1$, $\mu_2$) and standard deviations ($\sigma_1$, $\sigma_2$). The ratio of the amplitudes of the Gaussian distributions is quoted as $N_1/N_2$.

Comparison of calorimetric energy ($E_\text{calo}$) and range energy ($E_\text{range}$) reconstruction (as defined in section \ref{sec:protonenergy}) for selected protons in ICARUS data (top) and Monte Carlo simulation (bottom). The comparison is made in data for the ArgoNeuT modified box-based calibration (top-left) and the EMB-based calibration (top-right). The Monte Carlo simulation applies the ArgoNeuT modified box model for both simulating recombination and correcting for it. The data points are fit to a sum of two Gaussian distributions with centers ($\mu_1$, $\mu_2$) and standard deviations ($\sigma_1$, $\sigma_2$). The ratio of the amplitudes of the Gaussian distributions is quoted as $N_1/N_2$.

Comparison of calorimetric energy ($E_\text{calo}$) and range energy ($E_\text{range}$) reconstruction (as defined in section \ref{sec:protonenergy}) for selected protons in ICARUS data (top) and Monte Carlo simulation (bottom). The comparison is made in data for the ArgoNeuT modified box-based calibration (top-left) and the EMB-based calibration (top-right). The Monte Carlo simulation applies the ArgoNeuT modified box model for both simulating recombination and correcting for it. The data points are fit to a sum of two Gaussian distributions with centers ($\mu_1$, $\mu_2$) and standard deviations ($\sigma_1$, $\sigma_2$). The ratio of the amplitudes of the Gaussian distributions is quoted as $N_1/N_2$.

Comparison of calorimetric energy ($E_\text{calo}$) and range energy ($E_\text{range}$) reconstruction (as defined in section \ref{sec:protonenergy}) for selected protons in ICARUS data (top) and Monte Carlo simulation (bottom). The comparison is made in data for the ArgoNeuT modified box-based calibration (top-left) and the EMB-based calibration (top-right). The Monte Carlo simulation applies the ArgoNeuT modified box model for both simulating recombination and correcting for it. The data points are fit to a sum of two Gaussian distributions with centers ($\mu_1$, $\mu_2$) and standard deviations ($\sigma_1$, $\sigma_2$). The ratio of the amplitudes of the Gaussian distributions is quoted as $N_1/N_2$.

Comparison of calorimetric energy ($E_\text{calo}$) and range energy ($E_\text{range}$) reconstruction (as defined in section \ref{sec:protonenergy}) for selected protons in ICARUS data (top) and Monte Carlo simulation (bottom). The comparison is made in data for the ArgoNeuT modified box-based calibration (top-left) and the EMB-based calibration (top-right). The Monte Carlo simulation applies the ArgoNeuT modified box model for both simulating recombination and correcting for it. The data points are fit to a sum of two Gaussian distributions with centers ($\mu_1$, $\mu_2$) and standard deviations ($\sigma_1$, $\sigma_2$). The ratio of the amplitudes of the Gaussian distributions is quoted as $N_1/N_2$.

Comparison of calorimetric energy ($E_\text{calo}$) and range energy ($E_\text{range}$) reconstruction (as defined in section \ref{sec:protonenergy}) for selected protons in ICARUS data (top) and Monte Carlo simulation (bottom). The comparison is made in data for the ArgoNeuT modified box-based calibration (top-left) and the EMB-based calibration (top-right). The Monte Carlo simulation applies the ArgoNeuT modified box model for both simulating recombination and correcting for it. The data points are fit to a sum of two Gaussian distributions with centers ($\mu_1$, $\mu_2$) and standard deviations ($\sigma_1$, $\sigma_2$). The ratio of the amplitudes of the Gaussian distributions is quoted as $N_1/N_2$.

Comparison of calorimetric energy ($E_\text{calo}$) and range energy ($E_\text{range}$) reconstruction for selected muons in ICARUS data (left) and Monte Carlo simulation (right). The EMB-based calibration is applied. The calorimetric energy applies the ``Q-tip" energy reconstruction and a correction for missing hits along the track. The data points are fit to a sum of two Gaussian distributions with centers ($\mu_1$, $\mu_2$) and standard deviations ($\sigma_1$, $\sigma_2$). The ratio of the amplitudes of the Gaussian distributions is quoted as $N_1/N_2$.

Comparison of calorimetric energy ($E_\text{calo}$) and range energy ($E_\text{range}$) reconstruction for selected muons in ICARUS data (left) and Monte Carlo simulation (right). The EMB-based calibration is applied. The calorimetric energy applies the ``Q-tip" energy reconstruction and a correction for missing hits along the track. The data points are fit to a sum of two Gaussian distributions with centers ($\mu_1$, $\mu_2$) and standard deviations ($\sigma_1$, $\sigma_2$). The ratio of the amplitudes of the Gaussian distributions is quoted as $N_1/N_2$.

Comparison of calorimetric energy ($E_\text{calo}$) and range energy ($E_\text{range}$) reconstruction for selected muons in ICARUS data (left) and Monte Carlo simulation (right). The EMB-based calibration is applied. The calorimetric energy applies the ``Q-tip" energy reconstruction and a correction for missing hits along the track. The data points are fit to a sum of two Gaussian distributions with centers ($\mu_1$, $\mu_2$) and standard deviations ($\sigma_1$, $\sigma_2$). The ratio of the amplitudes of the Gaussian distributions is quoted as $N_1/N_2$.

Comparison of calorimetric energy ($E_\text{calo}$) and range energy ($E_\text{range}$) reconstruction for selected muons in ICARUS data (left) and Monte Carlo simulation (right). The EMB-based calibration is applied. The calorimetric energy applies the ``Q-tip" energy reconstruction and a correction for missing hits along the track. The data points are fit to a sum of two Gaussian distributions with centers ($\mu_1$, $\mu_2$) and standard deviations ($\sigma_1$, $\sigma_2$). The ratio of the amplitudes of the Gaussian distributions is quoted as $N_1/N_2$.