System Performance Paper Draft 1¶
| Next Meeting >
Review meeting will be on Thursday 14th May at 15:00 BST. Zoom information below (if you can't get in, let Chris Rogers know)
[[computing-software:MICE_zoom_info]] - login requiredAgenda:
- Quick summary of paper (Paolo)
- Comments - section by section. Please keep comments to technical issues, stylistic issues will follow.
- Performance of the MICE diagnostic system Systems-performance.pdf
- Doodle poll https://doodle.com/poll/byb9kefqphkbtptv
- Publication policy: http://micewww.pp.rl.ac.uk/attachments/download/3509
Paolo Franchini (PF)
Ludovico Tortora (LT)
Alan Bross (AB)
Ken Long (KL)
Paul Kyberd (PK)
Chris Rogers (CR)
Summary of actions¶AB/LT:
- send detailed comments on style/etc to Paolo by Friday 22nd
- Add a sentence and table summarising the PID performance of each detector.
- Remove statement promising "The integration of the instrumentation
in a comprehensive diagnostic system will also be described." from abstract
- Add lH2 absorber to fig.1
- Reduce level of detail on ToF readout to be consistent with other detectors
- Propose revised Ckov plots
- Ensure fig. 7, 9 and 10 are cohesive with section 4.
- Revise spelling of KLOE-lite.
- Describe reason for worsening tracker efficiency in Dec 2017
- Put helical and straight track efficiency plots on same scale.
- Try merging section 6, 7 and 8.
PF summarised the status and intention of the paper. CR sought general comments. LT noted that the paper is quite complete. He asked for a section showing global efficiency/background. AB suggested a sentence and table would be sufficient (action). KL noted that this could be a summary of what is in the paper, with no new analysis. LT pointed out that the abstract proposes some discussion of integration which is missing. CR agreed, noting the abstract should be changed (action).
Figure 1 was discussed. LT noted that the absorber was not labelled. KL agreed that we should add it (action).
Section 2 was discussed. LT noted that ToF has lots of detail e.g. describing the readout electronics, but other detectors do not have this level of detail. Would be better to be more even handed. KL suggested that the tracker has been described in great detail in tracker-specific technical contribution, and that perhaps ToF has also been described. LT noted this was also the case for the ToF, and agreed that reducing the level of detail on the ToF was appropriate course of action (action). AB agrees.
Section 3 was discussed. KL raised the issue of Fig. 6 (ckov NPE vs momentum). PF highlighted discussion in the analysis meeting on this topic, noting substructure and discrepancy between fit and data; analysis group discussed plotting light yield versus velocity rather than momentum. PF proposed to bring new plots to next meeting and then decide how to progress (action).
Section 4 was discussed. LT noted that Fig. 7 should be lower down the page and move up Fig. 9 and 10 to keep cohesion of Section 44 (action). AB noted american english would yield KLOE-lite rather than KLOE-light.
There were no comments on Section 5
Section 6 fig. 16 was discussed. Noted that the efficiency gets worse in Dec 2017 and a sentence should be added to mention ingress of water into electronics following thermal cycling (action). AB asked to use the same scale for helical efficiencies as straight efficiencies (action).
LT proposed that section 7 and 8 should be merged into section 6, as the study is principally tracker alignment. PF agreed to try it (action).
CR said J.Inst. was preferred publication.
Agreed that referees would deliver detailed comments on style etc before the end of next week (22nd May). Paolo would produce a new draft in good time for discussion on Wednesday following.
Next meeting Wednesday 27th 14:30 BST.