MICE input beam weighting Dr Chris Rogers Analysis PC 05/09/2007.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 MICE Beamline: Plans for initial commissioning. Kevin Tilley, 16 th November. - 75days until commissioning Target, detectors, particle production Upstream.
Advertisements

1 Acceptance & Scraping Chris Rogers Analysis PC
PID Detector Size & Acceptance Chris Rogers Analysis PC
5/3/2015J-PARC1 Transverse Matching Using Transverse Profiles and Longitudinal Beam arrival Times.
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.
1 Angular Momentum from diffuser Beam picks up kinetic angular momentum (L kin ) when it sits in a field –Canonical angular momentum (L can ) is conserved.
Particle by Particle Emittance Measurement to High Precision Chris Rogers Imperial College/RAL 17th March 2005.
1 Emittance Calculation Progress and Plans Chris Rogers MICE CM 24 September 2005.
1 PID, emittance and cooling measurement Rikard Sandström University of Geneva MICE Analysis phone conference.
Changing the absorbers: how does it fit in the MICE experimental programme? Besides the requirement that the amount of multiple scattering material be.
1 PID Detectors & Emittance Resolution Chris Rogers Rutherford Appleton Laboratory MICE CM17.
PID Detector Size & Acceptance Chris Rogers Analysis PC
M.apollonioCM17 -CERN- (22/2 - 25/2 2007)1 Single Particle Amplitude M. Apollonio – University of Oxford.
A Few Words on Emittance Chris Rogers MICE vc 27/05/05.
1 Statistics Toy Monte Carlo David Forrest University of Glasgow.
K.Walaron Fermilab, Batavia, Chicago 12/6/ Simulation and performance of beamline K.Walaron T.J. Roberts.
Chris Rogers, MICE CM16 Wednesday Plenary Progress in Cooling Channel Simulation.
1 Losses in the Cooling Channel Malcolm Ellis PID Meeting 1 st March 2005.
MICE CM - Fermilab, Chicago - (11/06/2006) 1 A (short) history of MICE – step III M. Apollonio – University of Oxford.
Emittance Calculation Chris Rogers, Imperial College/RAL Septemebr
Beamline-to-MICE Matching Ulisse Bravar University of Oxford 2 August 2004 MICE performance with ideal Gaussian beam JUNE04 beam from ISIS beamline (Kevin.
Beam Parameter Study - preliminary findings Tim Carlisle.
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.
1 Emittance Calculation Progress and Plans Chris Rogers Analysis PC 18 August 2005.
1Malcolm Ellis - Software Meeting - 31st May 2006 Data Challenge Requirements  First list of requirements, based on Yagmur’s document: u
1 PID Detector Size & Acceptance Chris Rogers Analysis PC
TOF Resolution Required to measure bunch length ~ 0.5 ns RMS from RF Bucket size For 1e-3 emittance measurement resolution of TOF should be
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.
1 Emittance Exchange in MICE ● How would one measure emittance exchange? ● Build a cell of a cooling ring? ● Expensive ● Manpower-consuming ● Nice to demonstrate.
Chris Rogers, Analysis Parallel, MICE CM17 Progress in Cooling Channel Simulation.
1 Tracker Window & Diffuser Radius vs Scraping Aperture Chris Rogers Analysis PC 6th April 06.
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.
Diffuser Studies Chris Rogers, IC/RAL MICE VC 09 March 2005.
Critical Issues for MICE Chris Rogers MICE CM 15.
Analysis of MICE Chris Rogers 1 Imperial College/RAL Thursday 28 October, With thanks to John Cobb.
Introduction to Longitudinal Phase Space Tomography Duncan Scott.
Timothy Carlisle, Oxford CM 28. Step 3 Matching Step 3  Step 3 rematched for 830 mm spool piece  Calc. B(z) & BetaFn with the following:  Minimize.
01/24/05© 2005 University of Wisconsin Last Time Raytracing and PBRT Structure Radiometric quantities.
1 Optics/Analysis Update Chris Rogers MICE Software pc 28 April 05.
Emittance measurement: ID muons with time-of-flight Measure x,y and t at TOF0, TOF1 Use momentum-dependent transfer matrices iteratively to determine trace.
MICE pencil beam raster scan simulation study Andreas Jansson.
Optimising Cuts for HLT George Talbot Supervisor: Stewart Martin-Haugh.
Update Chris Rogers, Analysis PC, 13/07/06. State of the “Accelerator” Simulation Field model now fully implemented in revised MICE scheme Sanity checking.
Marco apollonio/J.CobbMICE coll. meeting 16- RAL - (10/10/2006) 1 Transmittance, scraping and maximum radii for MICE STEPVI M. Apollonio – University of.
MICE Analysis Code Makeover Chris Rogers 14th September 2004.
1 Statistics David Forrest University of Glasgow May 5 th 2009.
1M. Ellis - NFMCC - 31st January 2007 MICE Analysis.
3 June 2009J. H. Cobb 1 ANALYSIS SUMMARY CM24 Agenda for Analysis parallel session at CM Sunday 31 May 14:00.
1 PID Detector Size & Acceptance Chris Rogers Analysis PC
PID Detector Requirements for Emittance Measurement Chris Rogers, MICE PID Review, Thursday Oct 12.
26 Oct 2010PC Physics Requirements of Software from Chris R ~19 Oct. My.
Simulating the RFOFO Ring with Geant Amit Klier University of California, Riverside Muon Collaboration Meeting Riverside, January 2004.
1June 2 nd 2009MICE CM24 - RAL1 m. apollonio Beamline+( ,P) matrix.
Mark Rayner – Analysis SessionCM25, 4 November Beam characterization by the TOFs Mark Rayner The University of Oxford MICE CM25.
1June 1 st 2009MICE CM24 - RAL1 Beamline Optics m. apollonio.
Mark Rayner – Analysis SessionCM25, 4 November The TOF detectors: Beyond particle identification Mark Rayner The University of Oxford MICE CM25.
(one of the) Request from MPB
S TATUS OF THE P HYSICS A NALYSIS V. Blackmore MICE Project Board 29 th April, /30.
Marco apollonioAnalysis Meeting (9/12/2006)1 transmission vs amplitude with a finite size diffuser M. Apollonio – University of Oxford.
Step IV Physics Paper Readiness
C. Rogers, ASTeC Intense Beams Group Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
MICE at Step IV without SSD
Using MICE to verify simulation codes?
Muon Front End Status Chris Rogers,
Effect of Reduced Focus Coil Current on Step IV and Step VI
C. Rogers, ASTeC Intense Beams Group Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
How to turn on MICE Step IV
Presentation transcript:

MICE input beam weighting Dr Chris Rogers Analysis PC 05/09/2007

Overview Matching between beamline and MICE may be difficult Suggest reweighting algorithm to realign beam “offline” Apply continuous polynomial weighting Enables choice of beam moments at input to MICE => emittance, beta function, alignment, amplitude moment corr etc Discuss 1 dimension case Demonstrate extension to 2 dimensions (and more) Reweighting is necessary for ANY measurement of cooling Perhaps except at Step 4 (one absorber only) Amplitude analysis DOES NOT save us Analysis application for online analysis Histogramming (and graphing) of useful parameters GUI’d Cuts on useful parameters Reweighting using above algorithm to be implemented Online optimiser interfaces to many codes

Alignment Requirement Requirement on matching and alignment of beam As measured at the tracker reference plane Answer “how well matched should the beamline be to MICE” MICE note to be published soon Variable1% Cooling Requirement10% Cooling Requirement 2 mm6 mm 2 MeV/c6 MeV/c 2 MeV7 MeV 50 mm mm 2 Corr(x,p x )

Addendum - Solenoid/MICE alignment PRELIMINARY Fire a particle at z = mm with some px and x from beam axis Measure position at tracker reference plane What is the misalignment induced by traversing the solenoid fringe field? How well should the beamline be physically aligned to the tracker solenoid R [mm]Pt [MeV//c]

Reweighting The beamline cannot produce what we require Need amplitude momentum correlation for 6D cooling Will need to reweight input beam This is true for bunch emittance and particle amplitude analyses Reweighting in 6D is difficult No real way to measure particle density in a region Binning algorithms break down as phase space density is too sparse in high-dimensional spaces FT/Voronoi type algorithms seem to become analytically challenging in > 3 dimensions If I can’t measure density I can’t calculate weight needed to get a particular pdf Propose a reweighting algorithm based around beam moments Beam optics can be expressed purely in terms of moments of the beam Weight using a polynomial series

Reweighting Principle Say we have some (1D) input distribution f(x) with known raw moments like f, f etc Say we have some desired output distribution g(x) with known raw moments like g, g etc Apply some weighting w(x) to each event so that Then the a i can be found using the simultaneous equation Say we calculate coefficients up to a n Then n is the largest moment that we can choose in the target distribution Then we need to invert an nxn matrix And we need to calculate a 2n th moment from input distribution

Reweighting effects For 10,000 events, N=12 Input gaussian with: Variance 1 Mean 0.1 Output gaussian with moments: MomentTargetActual input (Line) Parent pdf (Hist) Unweighted events Output (Line) Expected analytical Pdf (Hist) Weighted events Mean = 0.1 Mean = 0.0 Variance = 1 Variance = 0.9

Extension to Many Dimensions It is possible to extend the technique to many dimensions For position variables x i and N dimensions If we calculate input moments V i…i f and choose output moments V i…i g then a i…I can be calculated using the relation This is just a big(!) simultaneous equation which can be solved using a big~n N matrix inversion where N is the largest moment and n is the number of dimensions

Implemented Prototype ND Code Consider uncorrelated 2D distribution Introduce a correlation Technique works to machine precision For 2nd moments anyway Maximum order moment I can choose? Largest offset in moment I can introduce? How does it affect statistical error? This is gorgeous! Unweighted m=2 (choose means & covariances) m=4 (choose 1st through 4th moments)

Covariance Matrix Look! Magic! Means: (0.029, ) Covariances: Means: (1e-17, ) Covariances:

11 Emittance at TRPs +/- error Measure x, y, px, py, E at TRPs Choose beam at upstream TRP Upstream PID Measure beam at downstream TRP Calculate true covariances Measure/calc t at TRPs Downstream PID TRP = tracker reference plane ? ? ? ? Analysis Roadmap

12 Emittance at TRPs +/- error Measure x, y, px, py, E at TRPs Choose beam at upstream TRP Upstream PID Measure beam at downstream TRP Calculate true covariances Measure/calc t at TRPs Downstream PID TRP = tracker reference plane ? ? ? Analysis Roadmap

Conclusions A powerful reweighting algorithm Looks very encouraging Given a reasonable input distribution of muons, we can Choose input emittance to machine precision Choose input , , angular momentum, etc to machine precision Choose amplitude momentum correlation to machine precision What is a reasonable input distribution? How far can we push this algorithm? Fire a reweighted beam down the beamline? What are the effects on statistical error? Next step Full analysis of MICE step VI or IV Perhaps excluding PID? Using realistic beam Aim is to be ready to publish as soon as we have muons!

Online GUI Online Analysis GUI

FINISH END

Technique goes awry for large N Largest coefficient calculated is a N As I ramp up N the technique breaks down Numerical errors creeping in Can compare output calculated moment with target moment to find when the technique breaks down Output N=16 Output N=12

Failure vs n Consider output moment/target moment “Relative error” See a clear transition at N=12 What is the cause of the failure? Calculation of moments? May be a better way Inversion of matrix? I am using CLHEP for linear algebra Better linear algebra libraries exist But who needs 14 th moments anyway This is a very successful technique In principle this technique can be extended to 6D phase space Matrix becomes larger But inverting a matrix is easy?