(********************************************************)
(* Experiment B has been run at beam energy 0.09, with
sensitivity factor k=100, threshold function beta^3, and
has observed 0 events.*)
kb=100
ebb=0.09
v=Sqrt[1-(m/ebb)^2]
lambda= kb*v^3
lik=Exp[-lambda]
norm=NIntegrate[lik, {m, 0, ebb}]
fb=lik/norm
avb = NIntegrate[m*fb, {m, 0, ebb}]
Plot[fb, {m, 0.07, ebb}, PlotRange->{0, 600},
AxesLabel -> {m, f}]
fbmax=fb/.m->ebb
f2b=If[m<ebb, fb, fbmax]
Plot[f2b, {m,0.07,0.15}, PlotRange->{0, 600},
AxesLabel -> {m, f}]
(* The conclusions from A + B are, with and without the condition m<ebeam,
respectively (remember that the latter is improper): *)
fcom1ab=fa*fb/NIntegrate[fa*fb, {m, 0, eba}]
avab = NIntegrate[m*fcom1ab, {m, 0, eba}]
Plot[fcom1ab, {m, 0.07, eba}, PlotRange->{0, 600},
AxesLabel -> {m, f}]
fcom2ab=f2a*f2b
(* Experiment C has been run at beam energy 0.1, with sensitivity factor k=10,
threshold function beta^3 and, has observed 0 events. *)
kc=10
ebc=0.1
v=Sqrt[1-(m/ebc)^2]
lambda= kc*v^3
lik=Exp[-lambda]
norm=NIntegrate[lik, {m, 0, ebc}]
fc=lik/norm
Plot[fc, {m, 0.07, ebc}, PlotRange->{0, 100},
AxesLabel -> {m, f}]
avc = NIntegrate[m*fc, {m, 0, ebc}]
fcmax=fc/.m->(ebc-0.000001)
f2c=If[m<ebc, fc, fcmax]
Plot[f2c, {m,0.07,0.15}, PlotRange->{0, 100},
AxesLabel -> {m, f}]
(********************************************************)
The combination of the result is done in the usual way, multiplying
the likelihoods or the final p.d.f.'s, if these were obtained from a uniform distribution.
We only see the combination of the three experiments, shown
in Fig.
. Finally, the indirect
determinations are also included.
(********************************************************)
(* Conclusions from A + B + C , with and without the condition m<ebeam,
respectively (remember that the latter is improper): *)
fcom1abc=f2a*f2b*fc/NIntegrate[f2a*f2b*fc, {m, 0, ebc}]
avabc=NIntegrate[m*fcom1abc, {m, 0, ebc}]
Plot[fcom1abc, {m, 0.07, ebc}, PlotRange->{0, 150},
AxesLabel -> {m, f}]
fcom2abc=f2a*f2b*f2c
(* Now we add independent determinations of m,
deriving from normal likelihoods,
and assuming uniform prior *)
g1=1/sigma1/(Sqrt[2*Pi])*Exp[-(m-mu1)^2/2/sigma1^2]
g2=1/sigma2/(Sqrt[2*Pi])*Exp[-(m-mu2)^2/2/sigma2^2]
mu1=0.09
sigma1=0.04
mu2=0.15
sigma2=0.04
(* The two overall (improper) priors may be a uniform,
or 1/m, i.e. flat in ln(m), to express initial
uncertainty on the order of magnitude of m *)
p1=1
p2=1/m
final1=fcom2abc*g1*g2*p1/NIntegrate[fcom2abc*g1*g2*p1, {m, 0, 10}]
mean1=NIntegrate[m*final1, {m, 0, 10}]
std1=Sqrt[NIntegrate[m^2*final1, {m, 0, 10}]-mean1^2]
Plot[final1, {m, 0.0, 0.25}, PlotRange->{0, 20},
AxesLabel -> {m, f}]
final2=fcom2abc*g1*g2*p2/NIntegrate[fcom2abc*g1*g2*p2, {m, 0, 10}]
mean2=NIntegrate[m*final2, {m, 0, 10}]
std2=Sqrt[NIntegrate[m^2*final2, {m, 0, 10}]-mean2^2]
Plot[final2, {m, 0.0, 0.25}, PlotRange->{0, 20},
AxesLabel -> {m, f}]
(********************************************************)
Finally, the two extra pieces of information enable us
to constrain the mass also on the upper side and to arrive at a
proper distribution
(see Fig. From the final distribution we can evaluate, as usual, all the quantities that we find interesting to summarize the result with a couple of numbers. For a more realistic analysis of this problem see Ref. [26].