Attaching several sets of plots from data, as shown at the Optics Review.

-- See item #5 for "beam_parameter_summary.pdf" and "beam_centre_summary.pdf", as these will match the simulation ones in terms of colours, etc.

The same sub-set of plots, produced by the same analysis script, on a MAUS simulation produced by F. Drielsma using the OPERA field model (I think!).

• TOF from TOF0 to TOF1 between 27 and 40ns
• P-value of TKU reconstructed track > 0.05

Plots that show "Pz slices" are in 5MeV steps, from 160 to 240MeV (where a 'slice' is a hard acceptance cut on momentum between those values, say 160 to 165MeV)

.... and this time, the data plots with colours that match the simulation plots.

Blackmore, Victoria wrote:

The same sub-set of plots, produced by the same analysis script, on a MAUS simulation produced by F. Drielsma using the OPERA field model (I think!).

Cuts on these plots and those in #1 are:

• TOF from TOF0 to TOF1 between 27 and 40ns
• P-value of TKU reconstructed track > 0.05

Plots that show "Pz slices" are in 5MeV steps, from 160 to 240MeV (where a 'slice' is a hard acceptance cut on momentum between those values, say 160 to 165MeV)

I attach a set of residuals plots for extrapolation of the tracker tracks back to the TOFs. My procedure is:

1. Read in most upstream tracker trackpoint from TKU; assume muon hypothesis; use covariances from TKU as an estimate for initial covariance matrix
2. project centroid and covariances to TOF1
3. set time of tracker trackpoint so that time at TOF1 is 0
4. project to TOF0

I have the following material processes active:

1. moliere MCS (I use the pdg formula, ignoring the log term)
2. bethe bloch pdg formula, ignoring density effect
3. NO energy straggling or change in energy spread on passage through material

I have a user defined list of materials; at the moment I include BC600, POLYSTYRENE, AIR, POLYCARBONATE; I didn't include steel or Aluminium.

I plot residuals at TOF1 and TOF0 in x, y, time. I make two sets of plots

1. raw residuals (projected TKU - measured)
2. normalised residuals = raw residuals / (projected track error**2 + estimated measurement error**2)**0.5 i.e. I add the projected error from tracker to the error from TOF in quadrature

I did not yet apply the cuts - I couldn't read the ROOT file victoria attached to #1833 for some reason, it was making TBrowser crash.

I note that

1. The distributions are double peaked. Hopefully the second peak will disappear once the cuts are applied
2. The distribution RMS is greater than the estimated errors would suggest (looks like this is true even when cuts are applied); this is something to investigate

New revision of the TKU -> TOF extrapolation residuals.

• I fixed some bugs in backwards propagation (following useful abuse at CM44).
• I merged the latest version of MAUS trunk into my analysis branch, correcting the field in the tracker region.
• I downloaded the latest geometry, correcting the quad fields. The geometry ID is 137 (I will add this to the legend in the future).

(Thanks Francois for last two fixes).

Some features of the track extrapolation:

1. TOF1:
   1. All of the pulls are too wide. I use tracker estimated errors for the input, which we know is underestimating the track reconstruction errors. This may be the source.
   2. The mean TOF1 position is offset. SSU misalignment? As far as I am aware, the detector misalignments are in this analysis.
2. TOF0:
   1. as others have noted t is a bit inconsistent with tracker reco, at the 1-2 sigma level. It is also asymmetric. Straggling?
   2. The position residuals are very wide (300 mm RMS). This is just the effect of scattering in TOF1 I think.
   3. The x position residual is asymmetric and double peaked.
   4. Some of the tracks are probably extrapolating outside the quadrupole field region (presumably they scattered back in to the acceptance at TOF1, which my routines can't manage). I need to think about how to deal with that. Maybe the best thing is to apply a fiducial cut and see if it removes some of the features above? For discussion I think.

Chris suggested I add the attached residual file from my track matching propagation. TOF0 is matched by TOF0-1 delta t, TOF1, TOF2, and EMR by x & y position, KL by y position, and upstream and downstream tracks are matched together by a generous cut on beta_z (speed, not beta function) between TOF1 and TOF2. Note that the 2D histograms have logarithmic y axes. Red boxes in the TOF1/2 plots indicate the detector granularity.
The EMR axis labels are currently wrong because of an issue with the EMR error calculations that has just been fixed by Francois though. In the plot, the EMR residuals are in mm.
EMR matching doesn't look too great I think though I guess that is probably mostly due to scattering in the KL. TOF2 isn't nearly as good as TOF1 either so I'm wondering if there are perhaps still issues in the geometry in terms of residual fields downstream?

I attach some latex for the error propagation stuff I was working on - my analysis script is about half way through the data set, sorry, so I will have to make an update tomorrow when I get in. Nonetheless, I hope it is interesting and worthwhile to include (even if it doesn't quite confirm that everything is okay).

Attached updated version with full statistics...

For yingpeng...

Please build the MAUS branch at:

bzr+ssh://bazaar.launchpad.net/~chris-rogers/maus/tracking_errors/

You will need to download run 7469 data for MAUS-v2.3.1 from reco.mice.rl.ac.uk. Do

mkdir -p reco/MAUS-v2.3.1/07469
cd 07469
wget http://reco.mice.rl.ac.uk/MAUS-v2.3.1/07469_offline.tar
tar -xf 07469_offline.tar

Download the attached yingpeng.tar.gz

Do

tar -xzf yingpeng.tar.gz
cd 2016-05-06_fit-fields/
ln -s /path/to/reco tmp

When you have all that, let's collide and we can have a go at running the script