Tracker Software Review: Meeting 6¶

Wednesday, August 16, 1400 BST (0800 CDT)¶

Agenda¶

1. Introduction - K. Long
2. Actions from previous meetings
• PR:
  1. AD: Compare data/MC efficiencies for 8681
  2. AD: Optimize Chi2 cut for “MINUIT” variant
  3. AD: Show distributions with sign per station per tracker
  4. AD: Show individual residual distributions to understand details - is the station 1 distribution a binning artifact or a constraint from the fit?
  5. AD, CH: Check and implement MCS errors
  6. AD: Plot chisq per dof for 'perfect' events
  7. Define multi-track requirements
• Track fit:
  1. Repeat study that was done to investigate whether field integration (e.g. using Runge Kutta) is required to compensate for magnetic field non-uniformity
  2. Make study of magnetic-field alignment with a view to establishing whether the present algorithm is sufficiently insensitive to reasonable assumptions of maximum field-misalignment
  3. Study p-value: split up contributions to p-value shape using MC and study shape in data, e.g. is there an error in the resolution per plane, handling of MCS, handing of energy loss, b field..
• Tracker, MC:
  1. MU/EO: Understand reasons for shape of hits-per-station histogram - low-level
  2. PK: Check dead channel & noise handling in MC.
  3. Tracker group: Summarize, show what has been studied so far for systematics (alignment, scattering, energy loss, field uniformity, etc).

1. Report on actions: Pattern recognition: A. Dobbs
2. Report on actions: Track fit: C. Hunt
3. Next Steps for review
4. AoB

---

Dial-in information¶

http://mice.iit.edu/phonebridge.html

---

Attendance: KL, CR, PK, AD, CH, MU, DR¶

Notes from Meeting 5: Aug 2, 2017:¶

Actions removed:

• Study “10%” of missing 5-point tracks; where in the p.r. does the missing point get rejected?
• Scan events in which 5-point tracks are rejected
• It may be necessary to revisit those again after fit optimizations are complete
• Remove requirement for one hit per station in data and study performance. Also, study multi-track MC
  • AD reported that relaxing the requirement had little effect on performance
  • Multi-track MC study is blocked since the MC does not simulate multiple triggers
• Plot Chi2 distributions etc. on log scale (to emphasize tails)
  • Done
• Check Highland and Bethe against what is implemented in GEANT
  • CH notes they agree very well. simulated indiv structures, stations, good agreement

Actions generated¶

1. Show distributions with sign per station per tracker
2. Show individual residual distributions to understand details - is the station 1 distribution a binning artifact or a constraint from the fit?
3. run analysis in MC and compare with data (8681)
4. AD, CH: Check and implement MCS errors
5. AD: Plot chisq per dof for 'perfect' events
6. Define multi-track requirements