Emittance Paper Referees Meeting

15th January 2018 at 12:00 GMT in the MICE meeting room, or phone :

UK Freephone: 08082380274
US Toll free: 631.621.5253

Caller PIN: 177 933 9517


The outcome of the meeting should be a set of specific actions to create additional plots, tables, etc that the referees feel are required to support the paper.



fix "reports" repetition line 13-14

Section 1

line 20: Cooling optimises luminosity in collider; yield in neutrino factory

line 23: decaying is redundant

line 35: note that some collective effects e.g. beam loading of cavities are current-dependent; space charge is important for
low emittance portion of muon collider; "for most of the cooling channel intensity effects are irrelevant"

line 37: Need to emphasise that we are sampling the data based on upstream quantities; not taking all available data

Section 2

Need to add some more qualitative discussion of "why is emittance important"

Just stick with 4 dimensional phase space; or use time and energy as the longitudinal coordinates; dont use z and pz (as z is the independent variable).

line 38: emittance is area of the RMS phase space ellipse, not really RMS spread. Mention that it is a volume in phase space

line 43: phase space coordinates is are

Section 3

line 48: produced at by

line 48 and elsewhere: use "transfer line" not "beam line"

line 51: collects and transports the momentum-selected beam -> collects, selects the momentum and transports the beam

line 56 and elsewhere: only define acronyms that you use; try to trim the number of acronyms

line 60: cooling cell has not been defined

line 61: mention that the uniform field is part of the spectrometer solenoid defined line 57; move word solenoid from 57 to 61

Fig. 1: coil labels need to be easier to read

line 62: define tracker reference plane here ("entrance and exit")

line 63: mention TOF; be clearer about what different detectors are being used for

line 67: remove reference to RF

Section 4

Title: it is not a beam, it is a beam line! propose "Transfer line"

Line 83: For the paper "Remove in pion->muon mode or muon mode"; it opens more questions without adding anything. Agreed to add a paragraph for the technical note explaining the muon modes but skip it for the paper

Line 85: there is only and will only be one LiH absorber

Line 90: Remove "in muon mode" for the paper

Line 92: Be specific that SSU M2 M1 were unpowered

Section 5

Line 102: Remove "adequately".

General: Mention that G4beamline beam was used as input to MAUS

General: Mention that pion production model is a parameterised target model - it is important later on

Section 6

We focussed on the figures rather than wording here

General: use "reconstructed data" and "reconstructed mc" not "data" and "recon mc"

General: Axis labels should be bigger

Line 159: use "material" or "support material" rather than "inactive"

Fig. 3

(top left and top right) the z axis label has trimmed; axes should be integer; remove stats box

(top left caption) caption "number of space-points in TOF0 plotted against the number of space-points in TOF1", not the other way around

(top right caption) is not a distribution of t_{01};

(middle) tighten the cut at high t end

(bottom left) citation for chi2 per dof; Add chi2 per dof function overlaid on plot?

Discussion why is chi2 per dof different? CH -> perhaps tracker alignment/uniformity issue

Fig. 4

Remove the stats box; use "upstream reference plane" not TKU in axis label.

SB quote the beam impurity? VB: Less than 10^-4 pion impurity, estimated from MC, and no electron impurity

Section 7.1

line 164: "reference surface" should be defined earlier

line 164: add comma after p_\perp

Fig. 6:

Add the plots for one slice e.g. just the 200 MeV/c slice

Move the pz plots to a different figure

Highlight the fact that dispersion exists in the caption (emphasise the point of the pz plots)

Discussion of binning; should we bin by pz? or p? Victoria agrees to try binning by p and see what happens

Section 7.2

Fig. 7:

Same horizontal scale on all 4 plots; check the bins in each plot are the same

(top left) missing point at 150 MeV/c

Explain that clipping in the tracker happens to strengthen the justification for the momentum cut.

Fig. 8:

Why is sigma(p_x) and sigma(p_y) apparently not consistent i.e. larger than sigma(p_perp)? Need to explain

Consider making larger bins at higher pz? e.g. keep pz/sigma_pz constant

May need to add resolution plots for total momentum (depending on discussion of binning above)

Remove the joining line from plots

Fig. 9:

Efficiency/purity plots are redundant as shown. Plot something like 1-efficiency or 1-purity.

Define purity and efficiency (e.g. using an equation).

Line 201: remove "34237"

Section 7.3

Work in progress

Define what "Correlated" means (i.e. correlated with pz)

Section 7.4

Fig. 10:

(left plot) why is there the jump at 225 MeV/c in MC? Why at 230 in data? -> throw more MC at the analysis? VB waiting on new MC/data.

(right plot) Explain what is plotted. Add stats errors.

General: Fig. 10 is the key result; so worth putting some more text and spending time to really understand it

Emit-Note.pdf - DRAFT version 0.3 (1020 KB) Rogers, Chris, 08 January 2018 09:29