Actions
Trackersoftwarereview-mtg7 » History » Revision 6
« Previous |
Revision 6/11
(diff)
| Next »
Dobbs, Adam, 08 September 2017 12:24
Tracker Software Review: Meeting 7¶
September 8, 2017: 1400 BST¶
Agenda¶
- Introduction - K. Long
- Actions from previous meetings
- PR:
- AD: Optimize Chi2 cut for “MINUIT” variant
- AD, CH: Check and implement MCS errors
- AD: Plot chisq per dof for 'perfect' events
- Define multi-track requirements
AD: Compare data/MC efficiencies for 8681DoneAD: Show distributions with sign per station per trackerDoneAD: Show individual residual distributions to understand details - is the station 1 distribution a binning artifact or a constraint from the fit?Done
- Track fit:
- Repeat study that was done to investigate whether field integration (e.g. using Runge Kutta) is required to compensate for magnetic field non-uniformity
- 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
- 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:
- MU/EO: Understand reasons for shape of hits-per-station histogram - low-level
- PK: Check dead channel & noise handling in MC.
- Tracker group: Summarize, show what has been studied so far for systematics (alignment, scattering, energy loss, field uniformity, etc).
- Report on actions: Pattern recognition: A. Dobbs
- Report on actions: Track fit: C. Hunt
- Next Steps for review
- AoB
Dial-in information¶
http://mice.iit.edu/phonebridge.html
Attendance: KL, CR, PK, AD, CH, MU, DR¶
Notes from Meeting 5: Aug 16, 2017:¶
- AD: Compare data/MC efficiencies for 8681
- done. 8681, 2.8.5 MC reprocessed with 2.9.1-PatRec,Kalman -- results consistent with 2.9.1 reco
- Illustrative plots added
- AD: Optimize Chi2 cut for “MINUIT” variant
- pushing cuts lower gives higher efficiencies, though purity may be an issue. Noted that critical parameter is efficiency
- Q: how loose should the LSQ cuts be? AD points to loosest cut in table from previous meeting.
- AD: Show residual distributions with sign per station per tracker
- sent to email list, added to meeting wiki
- AD: Plot chisq per dof for 'perfect’ events
- stands
- Define multi-track requirements
- stands. Need discussion and inputs on how to define
- Adding errors:
- for circle fit: suggestion is to define a mean error and apply to every station rather than station-by-station errors.
- Q: how to define mean error? based on the geometric mean of the errors?
- Q: does taking the chi^2/mean_error^2 bias the pr fit?
- errors on the resulting circle fit parameters will feed into the longitudinal fit
- Discussion about aperture cut
- CR notes that aperture cut should be standardized by tracker group. AD notes that the cut in PR is loose -- 150.
- PK suggests a flag to indicate if track passed or failed an aperture cut
- All agree that fiducial cut should be standardized,
- Q: does the current aperture cut throw out any potential tracks? If it does, cut should be loosened, but consensus seems to be that tracking should not do any "analysis-style" cuts but rather optimize track-finding.
- Effect of magnetic field non-uniformity, alignment on track fit -- CH had issues reading mag field map from Joe Langland's program. CH will check against comsol map for 7469.
Updated by Dobbs, Adam about 6 years ago · 6 revisions