PhD Thesis -- TWIST Data
-RPM 07.12.18

CHAPTER COMMENTS

Shouldn't be a particularly long chapter.

I feel like I really don't need to go into a lot of detail.  Probably
because the differences between the sets shouldn't impact me much.

Might make sense to put this after the analysis and simulation
chapters, so that I can discuss the specifics of the simulations to
match the data.  I can also mention the number of events in the final
fiducial for each set, if I like.

I think I can leave out the alignment data etc.  Focus on data we
actually grouped into sets.

What information do I need about each set?

- General description

- Total events (approx).  (Can probably do (evts/run)*(#runs).)

  - Instead should I use # Events in Fiducial?  Probably better to
    give a fraction in the table caption or similar.

  - Events in matching sim?  Or should I leave that for a table in the
    sim chapter?

- Do I need to mention # runs?  I'd say only if there's space in the
  table.

- Totals for all "physics" sets (i.e. excluding 33 & 34).

- Total space (~4 TB) -- mention that in the text, along with the
  total number of events.

- I don't think I need to mention the gas degrader settings, except
  perhaps as overall approximations, since we regulated the stopZ
  directly (and tuned MC by stopZ, not gad degrader setting).

- I don't think I need to mention the dipole settings for each set.
  Just mention them in the overall Beamline Settings table, and
  mention there that all sets used these except where noted in the
  Description table.


CHAPTER OUTLINE

Overview (no heading)

- Run period.

  - Point out that this same data was analyzed by Blair for PmuXi.
    Although this means the current analysis is not truly "blind", he
    did not study the rho/delta systematics (or corrections), and I'm
    using a different analysis and simulation than he did, so
    blindness is largely maintained.

- Philosophy (multiple data sets under varying conditions)

- Mention standard data sets, plus US and DS Stops (33 and 34), with
  back-ref to Simulation Validation section where US Stops are
  described in detail.

  - Mention that the DS Stops set was deemed too small to be useful.

  - Total of ~4 TB of data (N muon decays) taken for Physics analysis,
    plus specialized studies.

Description of Data Sets

- Description of base data sets from 2004.  

- Standard beamline settings (magnet currents, slit/jaw settings)

- Brief description of matching simulations.  

  - Set rate, temperature & pressure, etc to match data conditions.
    (Made an error in the rate setting for set38.)

  - Tuned GABS to match the stopping position.

    - Needed different GABS setting than in data, because of "missing
      material".

  - Used appropriate TEC profiles for beams.

  - Include "anal1" vs "anal2", that sort of thing, as well as a table
    of stats.  Probably use a single table showing the set, the gen,
    and both their total events, or something like that.

  - Don't list gens produced explicitly for systematics or other
    tests; just state those in the appropriate systematics etc
    sections.

Data quality

- This section should probably include forward refs to the Systematics
  chapter.

- Online Monitoring

  - List some of the relavent variables monitored over the course of
    the data taking.  (Skim through the systematics for relavent
    variables.)

    - Proton beam, M13 elements, Rate, Pressure, Temperature, StopZ,
      foilbulge

  - Slow Control feedback regulation

    - Mention the variables controlled by feedback regulation: B1, B2,
      and stopZ.

    - Chamber differential pressures were also held fixed, at the gas
      system level.  Had to set the initial values, but after that
      they were kept stable, up to the effects of slow leaks
      contaminating the pressure sense lines and affecting the diff
      measurements.  (Don't need to go into detail, as the important
      result is the foil bulge, which was measured directly.)

- Consistency Checks

  - Show consistency check results for rho and delta.

    - See what consistency checks I did pre-box-opening.  I know there
      was the plot of all the data-MC fits, showing that the chi2 of a
      constant fit to them is good.  Anything else?