Michael H. Shaevitz

Determination of the strange quark content of the nucleon from a next-to-leading order QCD analysis of neutrino charm production

AbstractWe present the first next-to-leading-order QCD analysis of neutrino charm production, using a sample of 6090νμ− and

Precision measurements with high-energy neutrino beams

\bar \nu _\mu

The LSND and MiniBooNE Oscillation Searches at High Δm2

-induced opposite-sign dimuon events observed in the CCFR detector at the Fermilab Tevatron. We find that the nucleon strange quark content is suppressed with respect to the non-strange sea quarks by a factor κ=0.477−0.053+0.063, where the error includes statistical, systematic and QCD scale uncertainties. In contrast to previous leading order analyses, we find that the strange seax-dependence is similar to that of the non-strange sea, and that the measured charm quark mass,mc=1.70±0.19 GeV/c2, is larger and consistent with that determined in other processes. Further analysis finds that the difference inx-distributions betweenxs(x) and

Comparisons and Combinations of Reactor and Long-Baseline Neutrino Oscillation Measurements

x\bar s{\text{(}}x{\text{)}}

Measuring muon momenta with the CCFR neutrino detector

is small. A measurement of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix element |Vcd|=0.232−0.020+0.018 is also presented.

Charm and dilepton production by neutrinos and antineutrinos

We investigate adding two sterile neutrinos to resolve the apparent tension existing between short-baseline neutrino oscillation results and CPT-conserving, four-neutrino oscillation models. For both (3+1) and (3+2) models, the level of statistical compatibility between the combined dataset from the null short-baseline experiments Bugey, CHOOZ, CCFR84, CDHS, KARMEN, and NOMAD, on the one hand; and the LSND dataset, on the other, is computed. A combined analysis of all seven short-baseline experiments, including LSND, is also performed, to obtain the favored regions in neutrino mass and mixing parameter space for both models. Finally, four statistical tests to compare the (3+1) and the (3+2) hypotheses are discussed. All tests show that (3+2) models fit the existing short-baseline data significantly better than (3+1) models.