Emittance Paper Referees Meeting

11th April 2018 at 15:00 BST, meeting room will be CR23, 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.



Scott Berg
Paul Kyberd
Chris Hunt
Victoria Blackmore
Chris Rogers


"reconstruct the emittance" -> "reconstruct the distribution"
Add a phrase to indicate "not only can we do it, but we get it right"

Section 1:

Para 1: the e+ e- collider will require cooling or <some magic>; so we can be
more assertive

Para 2: phrasing of "is subsequently accelerated" is a bit mangled; improve wording

Concern: we don't make it clear that where the MC and data disagree, we need to
emphasise that the disagreement does not compromise the method. Response: it is
hard to justify things without just wildly speculating. Agree: Especially in the MICE
note we need to document why we are using a wrong energy beam, what the shortcomings are
and why we think its okay.

Para 3: again "reconstruct emittance" as per abstract

Section 2:

Add a reference to where its done in more detail.

Last para last sentence - needs straightening out

Para 2 just before eqn (1) normalised transverse emittance "is" -> "characterises/approximates"

Scott comments that section 2 is a bit light on detail/motivation.

Section 3:

Reference for diffuser please

The phrasing regarding "the most downstream surface of the scintillating-fibre plane closest to the absorber/focus coil module" is confusing - need to specify the most downstream plane of the upstream tracker. Add a line in Fig. 1?

Section 4:

title: Should be a "transfer line" or "beam line" but definitely not a "beam". Need agreement between Scott and Ken Long.

last para: 700 MeV/c -> MeV

last line: "uniform" -> "effectively uniform"

Section 5:

Mention 700 vs 800 MeV

Second paragraph second line 800 MeV not 800 MeV/c

"simulated using G4Beamline" -> "produced using G4Beamline"

be consistent with ToF vs TOF

Section 6:

Need more discussion of discrepancies between MC and data

Note discrepancy between MC and data; there is no glue in the MC (rather He)

Normalised Time-of-Flight bullet

  • Explain that MC vs data TOF01 has a different electron peak
  • "normalised" -> "calibrated"
  • "1 <= t_n01 <= 6" -> "1 <= t_n01 <= 6 ns". Explain purpose of the cut a bit better
Other bullets
  • Add a little more clarity on why there is a "single track reconstructed" cut
  • "Events for which... are ascribed to the passage of pions". Reference Table 2.
Plots (in general):
  • Font sizes need to be bigger
Figure 5:
  • Comment on y-distribution

Section 7:

Section 7.2

Fig. 8, Fig. 9: add some more text to discuss them
  • A bit more interpretation on Fig. 8
  • Specify that Fig. 9 justifies the momentum selection
    Juggle section 7.2; e.g. the paragraph on statistical uncertainty is a bit "out of nowhere"

Section 7.3

Propose put Fig. 13 (emittance) to "start things out" and then explain where the error bars come in
e.g. do the results; then do the statistical and systematic uncertainties

Section 7.3.1

Add a table showing - how much each cut was varied and the resultant change in emittance

Section 7.3.2

Split paragraph 1 into section on "p" and "x, px, y, py". Explicitly state which
line of Table 3 corresponds to which error.

Section 7.3.5

Add a reference to Holger presentation (or equivalent) for the COMSOL model.
Ensure Holger is on the author list of the paper.

last sentence para 1: what is the "known field model"? Explain that we have two
models; COMSOL and MAUS; and be explicit about what we are talking about.

para 3: what does the last sentence mean? Clarify.

para 4: "to the correct the emittance values" -> "to correct the emittance values"

Table 3: why is the +0.08 for 230 MeV/c diffuser so large?

Section 7.4

Fig. 13: the MC and data do no agree. Is this a problem?
  • KL: we will not show MC in the publication.

Explicitly say that the MC disagrees because the generated beam is not right, etc.

Fig. 14: "the residual emittance is approximately flat" -> quote a chi2

Consider removing the 180 MeV/c bin.
Quote the chi2 for Fig. 14

Para 1: dispute the assertion that Fig. 13 MC is flat between 195 and 225

Section 8

Comment on the rather large emittance uncertainty; how do we square that with the goals of MICE

"mean emittance of" -> "mean value of"
"apertures leading to" -> "aperture upstream of"

Agree: we will meet again with final draft of MICE note and first draft of paper; propose Monday 23rd April for next iteration of the paper.

Updated by Rogers, Chris about 6 years ago · 7 revisions