Using MICE to verify simulation codes?

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The US 5 Year Muon Acceleration R&D Program To Boldly Go… MICE Collaboration Meeting Harbin January, 2009.
Advertisements

1 Simulation Status/Plans Malcolm Ellis Sci Fi Tracker Meeting Imperial College, 10 th September 2004.
Emittance definition and MICE staging U. Bravar Univ. of Oxford 1 Apr Topics: a) Figure of merit for MICE b) Performance of MICE stages.
FIGURE OF MERIT FOR MUON IONIZATION COOLING Ulisse Bravar University of Oxford 28 July 2004.
FODO-based Quadrupole Cooling Channel M. Berz, D. Errede, C. Johnstone, K. Makino, Dave Neuffer, Andy Van Ginneken.
RFQ CAD Model Tolerance Studies Simon Jolly 14 th December 2011.
1 Emittance Calculation Progress and Plans Chris Rogers MICE CM 24 September 2005.
1 26 Nov 2010 SOLID ABSORBERS Solid absorbers will provide first cooling demonstration –This is important for a number of reasons! Can use only solids.
Alain Blondel MICE: Constraints on the solenoids 2.Field Homogeneity: or ? this will be dictated by the detector requirements. TPG will be.
1 PID Detectors & Emittance Resolution Chris Rogers Rutherford Appleton Laboratory MICE CM17.
Sci Fi Simulation Status Malcolm Ellis MICE Meeting Osaka, 2 nd August 2004.
1 Chris Rogers Imperial College 18 May 2006 TOF II Justification.
M.apollonioCM17 -CERN- (22/2 - 25/2 2007)1 Single Particle Amplitude M. Apollonio – University of Oxford.
1 Statistics Toy Monte Carlo David Forrest University of Glasgow.
Chris Rogers, MICE CM16 Wednesday Plenary Progress in Cooling Channel Simulation.
Emittance Calculation Chris Rogers, Imperial College/RAL Septemebr
MICE input beam and weighting Dr Chris Rogers Analysis PC 05/09/2007.
MICE analysis meeting Alain Blondel 5 August MICE -- what running strategy? disclaimer: of course we will evolve the running strategy as problems.
1Malcolm Ellis - Software Meeting - 31st May 2006 Data Challenge Requirements  First list of requirements, based on Yagmur’s document: u
Bill Atwood - July 2002 GLAS T 1 A Kalman Filter for GLAST What is a Kalman Filter and how does it work. Overview of Implementation in GLAST Validation.
Mark Rayner, Analysis workshop 4 September ‘08: Use of TOFs for Beam measurement & RF phasing, slide 1 Use of TOFs for Beam measurement & RF phasing Analysis.
Chris Rogers, Analysis Parallel, MICE CM17 Progress in Cooling Channel Simulation.
1 Chris Rogers MICE Collaboration Meeting 11th Feb 2005 Tracking and Cooling performance of G4MICE.
M.apollonio/j.cobbMICE UK meeting- RAL - (9/1/2007) 1 Single Particle Amplitude M. Apollonio – University of Oxford.
Analysis of MICE Chris Rogers 1 Imperial College/RAL Thursday 28 October, With thanks to John Cobb.
PPR meeting - January 23, 2003 Andrea Dainese 1 TPC tracking parameterization: a useful tool for simulation studies with large statistics Motivation Implementation.
CM37 Alain Blondel step IV physics success 1 « STEP IV operations : Physics »
MICE pencil beam raster scan simulation study Andreas Jansson.
RFQ CAD Model Beam Dynamics Studies Simon Jolly 3 rd August 2011.
17 June 2008PC Analysis PC Schedule 2008 Tuesdays alternate weeks 29 April  13 May  27 May (1 week before CM21)  17 June 1 July (JC away – can.
MICE input beam weighting Dr Chris Rogers Analysis PC 05/09/2007.
1 EPIC SIMULATIONS V.S. Morozov, Y.S. Derbenev Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility A. Afanasev Hampton University R.P. Johnson Muons, Inc. Operated.
Update Chris Rogers, Analysis PC, 13/07/06. State of the “Accelerator” Simulation Field model now fully implemented in revised MICE scheme Sanity checking.
Muon cooling with Li lenses and high field solenoids V. Balbekov, MAP Winter Meeting 02/28-03/04, 2011 OUTLINE  Introduction: why the combination of Li.
V.Balbekov, 12/09/08 HCC simulation with wedge absorbers V. Balbekov, Fermilab Muon Collider Design Workshop December 8-12, 2008 JeffersonLab, Newport.
MICE at STFC-RAL The International Muon Ionization Cooling Experiment -- Design, engineer and build a section of cooling channel capable of giving the.
MCTF Andreas Jansson MUTAC Meeting 8-10 April MCTF EXPERIMENTAL ACTIVITES - towards demonstrating 6D cooling.
FSI and Mw(qqqq) 1 FSI and Mw(qqqq) Marie Legendre, Djamel Boumediene, Patrice Perez, Oliver Buchmüller … an alternative approach … PFCUT and PCUT update.
MICE Analysis Code Makeover Chris Rogers 14th September 2004.
March 2, 2011 TJRPhysics Processes Missing from our Current Simulation Tools 1 Tom Roberts Muons, Inc. This is the current list − Please help us to complete.
1 Statistics David Forrest University of Glasgow May 5 th 2009.
FETS RFQ Beam Dynamics Simulations for RFQSIM, CST and Comsol Field Maps Simon Jolly 2 nd June 2010.
3 June 2009J. H. Cobb 1 ANALYSIS SUMMARY CM24 Agenda for Analysis parallel session at CM Sunday 31 May 14:00.
PID Detector Requirements for Emittance Measurement Chris Rogers, MICE PID Review, Thursday Oct 12.
Timing measurements at the MICE experiment – 1 The analysis of timing measurements at the Muon Ionization Cooling Experiment Mark Rayner The University.
26 Oct 2010PC Physics Requirements of Software from Chris R ~19 Oct. My.
2005 Unbinned Point Source Analysis Update Jim Braun IceCube Fall 2006 Collaboration Meeting.
Simulating the RFOFO Ring with Geant Amit Klier University of California, Riverside Muon Collaboration Meeting Riverside, January 2004.
Nufact02, London, July 1-6, 2002K.Hanke Muon Phase Rotation and Cooling: Simulation Work at CERN new 88 MHz front-end update on cooling experiment simulations.
Beam-Beam simulation and experiments in RHIC By Vahid Ranjbar and Tanaji Sen FNAL.
Tau31 Tracking Efficiency at BaBar Ian Nugent UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA Sept 2005 Outline Introduction  Decays Efficiency Charge Asymmetry Pt Dependence.
MICE Step IV Lattice Design Based on Genetic Algorithm Optimizations Ao Liu on behalf of the MICE collaboration Fermilab Ao Liu on behalf of the MICE collaboration.
(one of the) Request from MPB
Muons, Inc. Feb Yonehara-AAC AAC Meeting Design of the MANX experiment Katsuya Yonehara Fermilab APC February 4, 2009.
1 6D Cooling Chris Rogers, ASTeC-STFC Topical Workshop 23 Oct 2007.
Uncertainties in Cooling Simulations R.C. Fernow BNL Synergy Workshop FNAL 13 June 2008.
Marco apollonioAnalysis Meeting (9/12/2006)1 transmission vs amplitude with a finite size diffuser M. Apollonio – University of Oxford.
Brunel University London Field-off LiH Energy Loss Rhys Gardener CM45 – July 28th.
Mike Hildreth – XC Meeting
M. Sullivan Apr 27, 2017 MDI meeting
MICE Step IV Lattice Design Based on Genetic Algorithm Optimizations
Computation of Eigen-Emittances (and Optics Functions!)
M. Migliorati, C. Vaccarezza INFN - LNF
Misalignment Study David Forrest University of Glasgow
Tom Roberts Muons, Inc. Illinois Institute of Technology
Design of the MANX experiment
C. Rogers, ASTeC Intense Beams Group Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Physics Processes Missing from our Current Simulation Tools
Weighted Least Squares Fit
Section 2.2: Statistical Ensemble
Presentation transcript:

Using MICE to verify simulation codes? Andreas Jansson

Intro Recently, there has been a lot of discussion about what the follow-up cooling channel experiment should be. I have come to the conclusion that to answer this question, we need to do some studies that could also benefit MICE. In particular, I am interested in the question whether MICE (or any other cooling channel experiment) can actually test simulation codes. If MICE can’t do it, not clear that it will be easier in the follow-up. 2/10/2009 MICE analysis meet

Possible follow-up experiments MICE rebuilt as FOFO snake (Alexahin) MANX w LHe, no RF (Muons Inc) Mag. ins. Guggenheim section (Palmer) HCC w. HP H2 RF (Palmer) LiH wedge as MICE phase III (Rogers) MICE analysis meet 2/10/2009

R&D goals Three types of goals for a cooling channel experiment Demonstrate that the simulated cooling channel conditions can be created in reality. Demonstrate cooling (emittance out < emittance in) Experimentally validate simulation codes and models. Note that If A and C are achieved, in principle this implies B. Achieving B does not imply C (or A). MICE will do A and B, can it do C? In fact, can C be done in any cooling channel experiment? MICE analysis meet 2/10/2009

How to “Demonstrate cooling”? MICE method: Measure single tracks and form a beam off-line. Calculate emittance in and out of this beam. A particular challenge is to make sure the off-line generated beam is properly matched Bad matching can easily mask the small cooling effect. Need a method to assign weights to the tracks, and make sure there are no voids in the initial distribution. Significant progress on this recently, although perhaps not yet a done deal. The method developed for MICE can probably be adapted for used in any future 6D cooling channel experiment. 2/10/2009 MICE analysis meet

How to “Verify simulations” Stochastic process -> simple track-by-track comparison not possible. Look at distributions of ensembles of tracks with similar (identical) initial values, and compare to these to MC of representative ensembles Information about alignment errors, field errors, average energy loss in absorbers will appear as deviations in the mean values. Information about energy straggling, tails of scattering distribution will appear as deviations in the distributions (sigmas or even shape) How to select the ensembles? Implies binning tracks with similar initial 6D phase space coordinates For good resolution, bin size should be small compared to the effect to be measured (distribution of the ensembles at exit). 6D means a very large number of bins. For decent statistics (say ~500 tracks per bin), need a huge number of measured tracks. Many orders of magnitude more than to accurately measure cooling. Even with large data set, sensitivity might not be high enough to resolve effect. 2/10/2009 MICE analysis meet

A comparison recipe First, need a good recipe for how to compare to simulations (the following comes from a discussion with Chris Rogers) For each measured track, run a MC of ~1000 particles with identical initial conditions (measured initial 6D phase space coordinates). Calculate the difference between the measured exit coordinates and the mean of the MC distribution. Normalize the deviation using the 6D covariance matrix of the MC tracks. Calculate the average deviation and the distribution of normalized deviations in each 6D bin. Distribution should have r.m.s=1, no correlations, and predictable tails. The idea of this recipe is to minimize the effect of the bin size Each track is compared to its own MC, rather than a representative MC or the bin (e.g. evenly distributed tracks or tracks starting in the bin center) 2/10/2009 MICE analysis meet

MANX example: ensemble transmission Transmission for different input phase space coordinates 2/10/2009 MICE analysis meet

MANX example: ensemble exit mean values Exit mean values for particles starting on the xy plane 2/10/2009 MICE analysis meet

MANX example: ensemble exit emittance Exit emittance for different initial phase space coordinates 2/10/2009 MICE analysis meet

The next step/Conclusions Would like input from you. Is there a better way to do this type of analysis? Would you be interested in working on it (perhaps someone already is)? Would like to implement this recipe for MICE and run a MC study of the sensitivity using “planted errors”. This should tell us something about whether it is realistic to achieve such a test in a follow-up experiment. Even if the sensitivity is not good enough to measure e.g. dE/dx, this type of analysis might help to understand (and fix) alignment and field errors. 2/10/2009 MICE analysis meet