1 / 14

Tracking

Tracking. Drew Alton University of Michigan. e vs h. e vs f. e vs p T. e vs Q. e vs tick. e vs Ntrk. P14 Tracking. Promised better tracking Bump hunting Efficiency Resolutions We still need some improvements # hits/Track c 2 for tracks

hide
Download Presentation

Tracking

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Tracking Drew Alton University of Michigan

  2. e vs h e vs f e vs pT e vs Q e vs tick e vs Ntrk P14 Tracking • Promised better tracking • Bump hunting • Efficiency • Resolutions • We still need some improvements • # hits/Track • c2 for tracks • Mass locations…tuning material/magnetic field • Must run faster and more reliably • A look at reco-cloggers

  3. DØ Run II Preliminary p+ L0 p   = 114 pb-1 p multiple tracks with ~cm impact parameters Highlights of the many bumps we have

  4. Zmm Peak • Nice Z peak. • Note that the resolution improvement is dramatic

  5. Impact Parameter • The IP resolution is within 10% of expectations.

  6. Tracking Efficiency • Track Match Efficiency in Zee • Spatial • CC 0.895+-0.009 • EC 0.779+-0.029 • Spatial +E/p • CC 0.808+-0.013 • EC Same…no E/p • Can Forward tracking be improved using FPS MIP layer?

  7. Image of HDI from γ-conversions 6-chip SMT HDI X, cm HV cap Y, cm CFT SMT

  8. Timing

  9. It’s not perfect • Z->ee track comparison between data/MC • As you can see the number of hits doesn’t agree between data and Monte Carlo. • The c2 distribution in data is wider and has a long tail.

  10. mass from EM clusters mass from tracks Mass • The mass of the J/ is about 1/3 of a sigma low • Most peaks have similar issues • Currently there is work in the tracking group to understand how to separate effects from material and magnetic field.

  11. Reco-Cloggers • These events were identified on the farms by Mike Diesburg and named by Tom Diehl. • They run forever…eventually Mike kills them

  12. Crossing Dependence • The distribution of RC events seems to depend on crossing number. • The CFT has a crossing dependence to it’s pedestal mean (random channel)

  13. Improvements • Tracking in p14.05 is supposed to mitigate • Removes “crumbling” clusters • On a file from run 179934 (46e30) (3k events) on CAB

  14. Historic Reminders • About two years ago we had SMT+ • A year ago we had tracking efficiencies 45-65 %. • now we’re in the 90’s for high pt and isolated. • Where will we be next year? • Mike and Flera have a list of projects…see http://www-d0.fnal.gov/global_tracking/projects/active.html

More Related