h1. System Performance Paper Draft - Meeting 3

< [[System_Performance_Paper_Draft_2| Last meeting]] | [[System_Performance_Paper_Draft_4| Next meeting]] >

We will have another review meeting on Thursday June 11th at 14:00 BST. 

Zoom information below (if you can't get in, let Chris Rogers know)

[[computing-software:MICE_zoom_info]] - login required

Links:

* Performance of the MICE diagnostic system, second draft: *attachment:Systems-performance_Draft-2.pdf*

h2. Notes

Present:

Alan Bross

Ludovico Tortora

Paolo Franchini

Paul Kyberd

Ken Long

Chris Rogers

PF:

3 outstanding items

* Table summarising PID

* Merging of 3 sections

* Ckov

We discussed Ckov - Paolo described slides

* ABr comments that the beta gamma plot (slide 6) looks nice; recommends we don't put on the fit line.

* LT: how much can we increase stats? PF: probably factor 4; CR: make the frame fill dark blue so 0 stats bins are consistently coloured

Otherwise comments have been implemented

ABr - happy to move to a paper, subject to these actions

LT - I sent some additional comments a couple of days ago, where are they? PF: I will implement them in version 3

LT - subject to corrections, happy to move to a paper

CR - PF will implement outstanding actions; send back to LT and ABr; they will approve via email (we hope) and if okay we send through to Maurizio for Editorial Board sign off. Then some more effort to get wording, axis labels, etc correct. Reconvene referees before sending to the collaboration.

ABr notes that some of the axis labels are illegible; need work. CR notes that also need to add the usual MICE boilerplate text to the figures.

CR - the note that we have been reviewing should be made into a MICE note; and then we adjust for publication.

---

h3. Ludovico comments:

Line 62  :  … with 200 ps resolution …. but in Ref 12 is quoted ~ 100 ps   as in Table 7 . Coherent statements for TOF resolution.

Line 105 :  “naive quadrature addition of slab DT….” should regard RMS and the result is 170 ps … why  RMS/2  in Chris comment ?

Fig. 3 and 4  :  RMS or Sigma  both

Fig. 8 and 9  : Ther'is redundancy, I agree , but they are two complementary view of KL response:

- at given energy for e-mu-pion

- for e-mu-pion at various energies

with efficiencies summarized in Table 1 as result of combined measurement with TOF. 

Line 247 :  ….This is due BOTH to an increase in decay probability between

TOF2 and the EMR AND a decrease in the number of muons that cross the KL to reach the EMR.

- Could we produce “equivalent” table for EMR as combined measurement with tracker ?  (i.e. as done for KL on Table 1 and Trackers on Table 2 and 3) 

- Memo from Draft 1 : I'd quote the calculated liquid-hydrogen density first, at line 423, and the computation of his uncertanty after, at line 425

Table 7 :  Extend and detail the global information producing an efficiency/resolution table of subdetectors vs muon momentum ?

---