1. Step IV.0  EMR analysis  Integration with Global PID?  Step IV.0 shakedown analysis  Make sure we’re ready to take data and do something with it before we run.  Step IV(.0+) analysis script storage  Ensure reproduction of analysis is possible  Best beam line settings found and simulated  Tracker (and general detector) alignment simulations ready  Analysis routines prepared  (Optional) Diffuser scattering feasibility study complete  (Optional) No-field multiple scattering feasibility study complete Step IV.1+  Step IV.0 analysis  SS1, SS2 & FC map analysed and included in geometry  Effect of reduced magnet currents studied  Matched beams found and simulated  Step IV.1+ run plans formed and simulated. Readiness for Step IV.0 (and onwards) Step V  VI  RF questions answered  Requires ‘experts’ from analysis group and RF group  Step V vs Step VI physics comparison (see later)  Plus, I expect, many more items from Step IV Need a in every box before we can say we’re ready! 1/11

2. SS1SS2FC CKOVs EMR TOF0TOF1TOF2KL Diffuser Tracker planesEmpty absorber 7.5—8m OK Not OK OK Step IV.0 B = 0  “Straight” tracks, diffuser open: Align experiment, check PID  Limitations and challenges:  Low particle rate  Tolerance to multiple scattering 2/11

3. x x x x x xx x x xxx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx x x Bad OK? 1 2 3 Reality probably not simple  1. Muon hits outer diffuser and scatters into Hall.  Clearly a ‘bad’ muon  2. Muon has small scatters in air/tracker volume, then larger scatters in absorber windows.  Scatters bring muon back to tracker volume #2  Doesn’t help us align trackers, but would we realise that?  3. Muon has small scatters at all components  Small overall effect (though distances are large)?  Limits ability to align detectors/reconstruct tracks  Input from tracker cosmic muon analysis? ? More from Melissa Uchida ? 3/11

4. x x x x x xx x x xxx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx x x Bad OK? 1 2 3 Alignment requirements More from Melissa Uchida  Particles!  Does species matter? Are decays useful for alignment (particle 4)? Is there a preferred momenta?  Ideally discard particles that hit diffuser (exterior) and magnets (best veto?)  Particle rate to EMR currently low (without DS)  Need to maximise useful particle rate through cooling channel  Requires G4BL or MAUS simulations to come up with Q4—9 magnet settings  Does depend on preferred particle species for alignment  Simulations!  Can’t turn off multiple scattering in the experiment: Need to understand it  Can’t mis-align/align parts of the tracker on purpose to understand our limits OK? 4 4/11

5. x x x x x xx x x xxx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx x x Bad OK? 1 2 3 Alignment simulation requirements More from Melissa Uchida  Need Step IV geometry, with empty absorber and no magnetic fields, in MAUS  Need best Q4—9 settings to optimise beam down channel  Visualisation of simulations/tracks  With these...  Simulate the passage of an on-axis, paraxial (pure/mixed) muon/pion beam. Can use this to predict overall scale of multiple scattering interference in alignment  Simulate the optimised (pure/mixed) muon/pion beam through Step IV.0 with and without multiple scattering (and energy loss!) turned on. Compare overall scale of scattering with on-axis simulation.  Difference due to magnet body material etc.  With same input beam, fake a detector/tracker plane offset/rotation OK? 4 5/11

6. Alignment simulation requirements Optimising beam for Step IV.0  G4BL is our “traditional” beam optimising tool  What are the benefits over MAUS?  Need settings that maximise beam through an approx 0.4m diameter, 8m long cylinder  Risks:  Time consuming. Need answer sooner rather than later  May be no better than our existing beam settings!  Mitigation:  Divide beam line optimisation between different people (e.g. mu, pi, pz=200MeV, pz=240MeV)  Assume “standard” MICE beams and estimate transmission and time to gather data. Will this “worst case” scenario work? Simulating beam for Step IV.0  Take optimised G4BL settings and make a suitable input beam for MAUS  Generate required on-axis beams for multiple scattering studies  Use Step I data as a benchmark for the “worst case” scenario opposite  Co-ordinate with G4BL optimisation Maria Leonova co-ordinating: volunteers needed! More from John Nugent 6/11

7. Analysis This way up Software This way up Particle ID Which box? Both? Tracker alignment requires PID PID requires tracker alignment  Important that we avoid this loop: PID Requires input from Ian Taylor/Celeste Pidcott 7/11

8. Useful (to MICE) physics? TBD (volunteers?)  Step IV with fields beam matching relies on correct modelling of the diffuser  Measure multiple scattering through diffuser with first tracker?  Without diffuser, measure range of trajectories seen by tracker 1  Add diffuser, range of trajectories should increase due to multiple scattering  Can compare overall measured angular distribution of tracks to simulation  Good enough to confirm Step IV (with field) beam settings?  Particle-by-particle is harder (Q789 between TOF0 and TOF1)  Could attempt to track particle (Rayner-like) between TOF0 and TOF1 and estimate its un-scattered trajectory*:  Measure trajectory in tracker 1:  Can make use of “bad” particles that cross the magnet material.  Requires beam time, otherwise synergises with tracker analysis...  Allows us to react to unexpected beam behaviour before Step IV.1 1)2) 8/11 *There are several caveats to doing this...

9. Good preparation for Step IV.2 More from Ed Santos (?)  Step IV.2 will use a liquid hydrogen absorber  Unlikely to have this possibility during Step IV.0  One goal of Step IV.2 is to measure multiple scattering distributions as well as cooling  Why? Because we can and it hasn’t been done over the range of low-Z materials we have at our disposal!  Can measure multiple scattering in principle with fields on  Easier to measure with fields off  So measure multiple scattering before turning on field  E.g. Can do this during a shakedown run to test data taking and analysis routines still OK after long shutdown  Synergy with Step IV.0 data (this is the background scattering without liquid hydrogen)  Requires feasibility study... B != 0 Liquid hydrogen Step IV.1 is empty absorber + magnetic field 9/11

10. Draft Step IV.0 run plan  Survey TOFs/Ckovs/Magnets/EMR  Trackers inside SS1 and SS2, surveyed w.r.t. magnets  Use optimised currents in Q4—9  Need list of settings for muon and pion beams  Also need best proton absorber settings  Check expected particle rate vs. actual particle rate seen in all detectors.  Calibrate TOFs (EMR?)  Collect X particle triggers per beam setting  X must be determined prior to running  Gives estimate of shift time and/or number of shifts required  On-the-run analysis (if we see something unexpected, what do we do about it?) SpeciesNo. Triggers at TOF1 (or TOF2?) Diffuser Setting Proton absorber I (Q1)I (Q2)I (Q3)I (D1)I (DS)I (D2)I (Q4)I (Q5)I (Q6)I (Q7)I (Q8)I (Q9) Mu+>100’0000?? ON?? Pi+>100’0000?? We must fill in this table (and have simulated all entries): 10/11

11. One final, important, thing...  Step V vs. Step VI  In addition to RF-related analysis questions  PRY needs modifying for each MICE Step  If we only get one choice, which Step would give us the best physics (and by what margin)  Need to start simulating Steps V and VI and making the comparison. We must have this in hand by CM38!  Worry #1: This must not interfere with our efforts for Step IV  Worry #2: Can we simulate this yet? Step V Step VI 11/11 A NALYSIS