21
ITTF Review, September 23, 2002 Manuel Calderón de la Barca Sánchez Efficiency Comparisons Efficiency Comparisons

Hit and Tracking

  • Upload
    shlomo

  • View
    38

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Hit and Tracking. Data set used: Hijing MinBias simulations Usually, absolute value of efficiency is too ideal … comparisons between current code & IT Approach First look at bulk with loose cuts… - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: Hit and Tracking

ITTF Review,September 23, 2002

Manuel Calderón de la Barca Sánchez

Efficiency ComparisonsEfficiency Comparisons

Page 2: Hit and Tracking

2

Hit and Tracking Data set used: Hijing MinBias simulations

Usually, absolute value of efficiency is too ideal… comparisons between current code & IT

ApproachFirst look at bulk with loose cuts…

All multiplicities, fit Points > 9, |eta|<1.5, no dca cut (3 cm implicit for primaries), look only at pi+

Then look in finer detail with realistic cuts 3 multiplicity bins, fit Points>23, |eta|<.5,

dca<1.5

Page 3: Hit and Tracking

3

Hit Efficiency vs Multiplicity

Hit Efficiency = #hits in common / #MC hits

o Current Tracker• Integrated Tracker

Page 4: Hit and Tracking

4

Hit Efficiency vs pT

o Current Tracker• Integrated Tracker

Page 5: Hit and Tracking

5

Hit Efficiency vs Eta

o Current Tracker• Integrated Tracker

Page 6: Hit and Tracking

6

Padrow of Last Hit

padrow

o Current Tracker– Integrated Tracker

Page 7: Hit and Tracking

7

Padrow of Last Hit vs eta

o Current Tracker• Integrated Tracker

Page 8: Hit and Tracking

8

Padrow of First Hit vs Eta

o Current Tracker• Integrated Tracker

Page 9: Hit and Tracking

9

Fit Points I

Loose cuts:All mult,|eta|<1.5,dca<3,Fit Pts>9

o Current Tracker• Integrated Tracker

Page 10: Hit and Tracking

10

Fit Points II

Low, Medium, High Multiplicityo Current Tracker– Integrated Tracker

Tight cuts:Fit Points>23Dca<1.5,|eta|<0.5

NormalizedTo 1

Page 11: Hit and Tracking

11

Fit Point “Efficiency”: Fit Points/MC Hits

Low, Medium, High Multiplicity o Current Tracker– Integrated Tracker

Page 12: Hit and Tracking

12

Mean Fit Points vs pT I

o Current Tracker• Integrated Tracker

Page 13: Hit and Tracking

13

Mean Fit Points vs pT II

Low, Medium, High Multiplicity

o Current Tracker• Integrated Tracker

Page 14: Hit and Tracking

14

Mean Fit Points vs Eta I

o Current Tracker• Integrated Tracker

Page 15: Hit and Tracking

15

Mean Fit Points vs eta II

Low, Medium, High Multiplicityo Current Tracker• Integrated Tracker

Page 16: Hit and Tracking

16

“Efficiency” vs Multiplicity

Here, efficiency is:

All Matched TracksAll MC Tracks

(even MC tracksNot in acceptance)

So, absolute scaleMuch worse than True efficiency.

o Current Tracker• Integrated Tracker

Page 17: Hit and Tracking

17

Efficiency vs pT I

Here, efficiency is:

Found & MatchedMC Accepted

i.e. as in all spectraanalyses

o Current Tracker• Integrated Tracker

Page 18: Hit and Tracking

18

Efficiency vs pT II

Low, Medium, High Multiplicityo Current Tracker• Integrated Tracker

Page 19: Hit and Tracking

19

Efficiency vs eta I

o Current Tracker• Integrated Tracker

Page 20: Hit and Tracking

20

Efficiency vs eta II

Low, Medium, High Multiplicityo Current Tracker• Integrated Tracker

Page 21: Hit and Tracking

21

Snapshot of tracker and “To Do”

Shape of distributions are similar to current tracker Mean Fit Points shows similar trends with multiplicity, pt and

eta Shape at low fit points shows a bump not seen before

Efficiency is still low comparted to current tracker Low pT part needs tuning Perhaps a 2nd pass removing hits already used…

Crucial to increase efficiency Also : test distributions in embedding, need to match real

data Fit points, global DCA, etc.