1 / 38

Sci Fi Performance

Sci Fi Performance. Malcolm Ellis MICE Collaboration Meeting Feburary 11 th 2005. Outline. Reconstruction status Data production since last collaboration meeting Miscellaneous studies: Momentum resolution vs Magnetic Field Helium gas versus Vacuum Emittance calculation and correction

crwys
Download Presentation

Sci Fi Performance

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Sci Fi Performance Malcolm Ellis MICE Collaboration Meeting Feburary 11th 2005

  2. Outline • Reconstruction status • Data production since last collaboration meeting • Miscellaneous studies: • Momentum resolution vs Magnetic Field • Helium gas versus Vacuum • Emittance calculation and correction • Tracker performance • Resolution (X,PX, etc...) • Transverse (4D) Emittance resolution • Longitudinal (2D) Emittance resolution • Conclusions

  3. Reconstruction Status • Problems were found in the field map implemented since November meeting. For the moment, the field is still assumed to be constant in the Reconstruction. • Navigation bug in Kalman found and temporary fix applied to remove error in calculation of MCS covariance matrix. • dE/dx model tuned, but still far from optimal. • Results presented are from a stable, tested version, but do not represent the ultimate physics performance possible, hence show the worst-case. Future improvements will likely improve the performance by a small amount.

  4. Data Production • One large and numerous smaller productions run since November: • 10 million events – matched beams (narrow PZ) transverse emittance between 0.5 and 9.5 p mm rad. • 1 million events – matched 2.5 p mm rad beam, with 510 ns and 25 MeV RMS longitudinally – used for tracker performance and longitudinal emittance studies. • 0.5 million events – various matched beams at different tracker solenoid fields • ~250k – studies for global PID and matching, He gas vs vacuum, varying physics processes to study pulls, etc...

  5. Momentum Resolution vs B • Prediction by John Cobb that for a matched beam, the resolution in P would go approximately as 1/sqrt(B). • Two separate beams were simulated each at 2T, 3T, 4T, 5T and 6T: • One beam matched for the particular field (red points) • Another beam that is matched at 4T (blue points). • In both cases the beam is 2.5 p mm rad. • Conclusion: • No strong effect in PT resolution, however PZ resolution does improve with increasing B...

  6. Beams vs B Red points : beams matched to the particular magnetic field 2T, 3T, etc. Blue points : beams matched for 4T but simulated going through 2T, 3T, etc.

  7. Resolution vs B Red points : beams matched to the particular magnetic field 2T, 3T, etc. Blue points : beams matched for 4T but simulated going through 2T, 3T, etc.

  8. Tracker Performance Specification • In order to determine if a given tracker can measure the emittance with sufficient precision, a figure of merit has been determined based on the resolution of the tracker in each measured parameter and the RMS of the true parameter. • If, in the ith variable, the RMS spread of the beam is sitrue and the RMS resolution of the tracker is sires. The RMS spread of the measured distribution is then given by:

  9. Specification continued • The uncertainty in the measurement causes a bias in the measured width of the beam. • To estimate the size of this bias, the previous equation can be re-arranged, and using the binomial expansion:

  10. Specification from Bias • In order that the bias induced by the measurement error be less than 1%, it follows that: • The figure of merit chosen, that the ratio above be less than 10%, thus satisfies this condition. • In this analysis, correlations between measurement uncertainties and the measured values have been ignored as have correlations between the measured parameters themselves.

  11. Correcting the Emittance • A measurement of emittance will always be biased by the measurement error, the amount depending on the resolution of the tracker. • In 2 x n dimensions, the true normalised emittance is given by: • is the true covariance matrix of the 2n muon-beam phase-space parameters and is the mass of the muon. • The covariance matrix elements are given by:

  12. Measurement Error • The measured value mi of a true value wi has the relation: • Where di is a small increment. • The expression for Vtrue can then be written in terms of the measured parameters: • The covariance matrix of the errors on the measured track parameters can be defined: • And the correlation matrix between the measured coordinates and the errors in the measurements: • Vtrue can then be written:

  13. Transverse (4D) Emittance • The transverse emittance is determined from the four track parameters (X,PX,Y,PY). • The resolution of the tracker as a ratio of the RMS of the beam at equillibrium (2.5 p mm rad) is presented, followed by the results from the emittance calculation.

  14. X Position

  15. Y Position

  16. X Momentum

  17. Y Momentum

  18. Transverse Resolution • The difference between the resolution in X and Y momentum is partially due to the addition of the dE/dx correction necessary for accurate reconstruction of the total momentum. This correction needs further work (hence my earlier comment about this being a “worst case” presentation). • All measured parameters are better than 14% RMS/RMS and only one is (just) outside the 10% criteria.

  19. Uncorrected 4D Emittance

  20. Corrected 4D Emittance

  21. Cooling Measurement

  22. Longitudinal (2D) Emittance • The longitudinal emittance is determined by the Energy measured in the tracker and the time from the TOF stations. • In the absence of a mature simulation and reconstruction of the TOF and matching to the SciFi tracker, the resolution in time at the tracker reference surface was varied from 30 ps to 110 ps by smearing the Monte Carlo truth times with a gaussian distribution. • Reminder: the longitudinal characteristics of the beam are sE = 25 MeV and st = 510 ps.

  23. E

  24. Uncorrected Emittance: st = 50 ps Upstream Tracker – 50k Events per bin Downstream Tracker – 50k Events per bin

  25. Bias vs Resolution

  26. Corrected Emittance: st = 50 ps Upstream Tracker – 50k Events per bin Downstream Tracker – 50k Events per bin

  27. Emittance Resolution vs st

  28. Tracker Performance Table

  29. He gas vs Vacuum • Simulation of tracker changed to replace vacuum with 1 atm He. • Tracker performance compared with baseline case, results included in summary table. • Conclusion: • no significant difference in tracker performance. • Next steps: • What are the safety/engineering implications for the rest of MICE? • Review the implications for the tracker (the tracker group will review this at the end of March in KEK).

  30. Summary • RMS/RMS for parameters used in emittance calculation (X,PX,Y,PY,E) is greater than 10% in some cases, but less than 14%. • A correction procedure has been developed and shown to: • remove bias • give resolution better than 0.1% for 200k events • Issues: • Understand use/resolution of TOF • Derive correction matrices from “data” in MICE III • He vs Vacuum • Study station spacing

  31. Conclusions • The tracker group feels that the spirit (if not the exact letter) of the tracker validation requirements have now been met.

  32. Tracker Performance Plots for parameters not directly used in the emittance calculations

  33. PT

  34. PZ

  35. X’

  36. Y’

  37. T’

More Related