1 / 28

L-Tracker Progress & Plans

L-Tracker Progress & Plans. J.Popp University of California, Irvine Brookhaven National Lab MECO Collaboration Meeting May 14-15, 2004. Outline. Motivation Cursory test of likelihood fitter – by itself No event selection (trigger energy cut, pitch angle cut, etc.)

hop
Download Presentation

L-Tracker Progress & Plans

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. L-Tracker Progress & Plans J.Popp University of California, Irvine Brookhaven National Lab MECO Collaboration Meeting May 14-15, 2004

  2. Outline • Motivation • Cursory test of likelihood fitter – by itself • No event selection (trigger energy cut, pitch angle cut, etc.) • No helix/detector crossing pre-selection for helix recognition • Example from study of finite efficiency and acceptance of straws • Mostly resolvable cluster type ambiguity • Multiple parents for clusters • Sketch of how we do cluster recognition • State of our L-tracker software tools J.Popp, UCI L-Tracker Progress'

  3. Motivation • Goal: Obtain sufficient information about the L-tracker to make an acceptable performance comparison to the T-tracker. • Desirable select detector design SOON: say, six months or less(?) • Acceptance of likelihood fitter must be understood. • Assuming a favorable outcome: we must raise the level of sophistication of L-tracker simulation • Simulate detector operation at the raw data level (TDC times, etc.) • Finish cluster recognition & reconstruction: inefficiencies, etc. • Expand helix recognition pre-selection methods • Fully utilize cluster information: local angle measurements • Add more event types beyond two orbits with (3,3) and (4,4) crossings J.Popp, UCI L-Tracker Progress'

  4. Simulation: GMC Version 077 • Detector solenoid simulation • 10,000 conversion events – higher statistics, later • Electron energy = 105 MeV in stopping target • Magnetic field: MIT design calculation • Calorimeter: crystal • Tracker: • 2848 straws • Wall thickness = 0.0025 cm • Outer radius = 0.25 cm • Length = 260 cm • Modules are tilted to avoid helix crossing a straw more than once • Test TJ’s maximum likelihood fitter – by itself J.Popp, UCI L-Tracker Progress'

  5. Energy Spectra – Smearing Off – 10000 Events • MECO memo 125, Fig. 2 • Entries 18.2 vs 21.9% • Mean 0.283 vs 0.303 MeV • RMS 0.354 vs 0.370 MeV • Chi^2/ndf 283/25 vs 270/127 • Mean 0.327 vs 0.329 MeV • Sigma 0.230 vs 0.209 MeV • MECO memo 125, Fig. 4 • Entries 18.2 vs 21.9% • Mean 104.0 vs 104.0 MeV • RMS 0.681 vs 0.695 MeV • Chi^2/ndf 30.4/27 vs 423/166 • Mean 104.4 vs 104.1 MeV • Sigma 0.329 vs 0.568 MeV J.Popp, UCI L-Tracker Progress'

  6. Energy Spectra – Smearing On – 3500 Events Smearing off vs on: • E(fitter) – E(entry to tracker) • Entries 21.9 vs 19.5% • Mean 0.303 vs 0.310 MeV • RMS 0.370 vs 0.336 MeV • Chi^2/ndf 270/127 vs 85.5/80 • Mean 0.329 vs 0.324 MeV • Sigma 0.209 vs 0.248 MeV • E(fitter) energy spectrum • Entries 18.2 vs 19.5% • Mean 104.0 vs 104.1 MeV • RMS 0.695 vs 0.629 MeV • Chi^2/ndf 423/166 vs 201/139 • Mean 104.1 vs 104.3 MeV • Sigma 0.568 vs 0.545 MeV J.Popp, UCI L-Tracker Progress'

  7. What’s missing Pre-selection cuts in MECO memo 125 make little difference…? • At least 6 helix/detector crossings • Trigger energy > 75 MeV • Pitch angle cut: 45-60 degrees • Likelihood > 0.001 • Fitting uncertainty < 600 MeV • Scattering angle at crossing < 0.08 radians J.Popp, UCI L-Tracker Progress'

  8. Example: Finite Acceptance & 1-hit Inefficiency • Finite Acceptance: • Close-packed tubes, finite thickness • Tube geometry distortion – later • Finite single-tube efficiency: • Roy Lee’s dissertation, p.38: E871 average efficiency = 0.96 • Given an N-hit cluster the probability there are n hits missing is binomially distributed. • Our software can be easily generalized to distinguish clusters with any number of missing hits that we may require. J.Popp, UCI L-Tracker Progress'

  9. Tube did not fire Tube did not fire Resolvable Cluster Type Ambiguity: Example J.Popp, UCI L-Tracker Progress'

  10. Multiple Parents for Distinct Cluster Types • Distinct cluster type, i.e.. geometry • Not a problem, just feature of terrain • Resolved by nonlinear fits to the observed set of time and wire positions • Could also test each hypothesis J.Popp, UCI L-Tracker Progress'

  11. No event selection Example: Ideal Cluster Recognition • Distribution of cluster candidates per event, before reconstruction • Form list of straw hits • Form groups of contiguous hits • Give each hit a group label • Require hits in all 3 layers • Finite acceptances and efficiencies will require us to relax these conditions later • Form all combinations of 3- to 9-hits • Maximum distance between hits • TDC times have maximum separation • Reject combinations with no c-type • Reconstruct each cluster (DTD) • Reject if no tracks returned by cluster reconstruction subroutine J.Popp, UCI L-Tracker Progress'

  12. State of L-Tracker Tool Development • Helix pre-selection methods have been developed at UCI & NYU • Maximum likelihood fitter acceptance is being examined • Could take up to a week, depending on what we find • Finite cluster efficiencies and acceptances: 60-70% complete • DTD: reconstruction underway • FDT: straight-forward once time differences are done • DTD could be completed in 1-2 weeks/ FDT should take a week • Cluster recognition: 50% complete • Test effectiveness of cluster reconstruction on eliminating candidates • Cluster recognition may take 2-4 weeks, possibly less. • Pre-selection for helix recognition is most difficult task • TJ’s FORTRAN is very hard to read and follow • Maybe faster to use NYU pre-selection code for L-tracker. J.Popp, UCI L-Tracker Progress'

  13. Old Pattern Recognition Plan • Previous detector simulation plan: Jan. 2002 • Simulate raw detector signals • Straw clusters: time differences • Pad clusters: time differences • Crystals • Cluster recognition: • Straws: local position & direction in plane perpendicular to wires • Pads: local position along wires • Crystals: local position on sensitive surface • Timing information in all cases • Helix recognition: global track finding • Detector information pre-selection • Maximum likelihood method helix fitter J.Popp, UCI L-Tracker Progress'

  14. J.Popp, UCI L-Tracker Progress'

  15. J.Popp, UCI L-Tracker Progress'

  16. J.Popp, UCI L-Tracker Progress'

  17. J.Popp, UCI L-Tracker Progress'

  18. J.Popp, UCI L-Tracker Progress'

  19. J.Popp, UCI L-Tracker Progress'

  20. J.Popp, UCI L-Tracker Progress'

  21. J.Popp, UCI L-Tracker Progress'

  22. J.Popp, UCI L-Tracker Progress'

  23. J.Popp, UCI L-Tracker Progress'

  24. J.Popp, UCI L-Tracker Progress'

  25. J.Popp, UCI L-Tracker Progress'

  26. Event Selection • 1000 muon-electron conversions • Crystal calorimeter: E > 85 MeV • Helix pitch angle: 45-60 degrees • Ideal clusters with 3 – 9 hits • Trajectory crosses all 3 planes • Hits in cluster are contiguous • Events with 6-9 clusters J.Popp, UCI L-Tracker Progress'

  27. Multiplicity: Ideal Clusters J.Popp, UCI L-Tracker Progress'

  28. J.Popp, UCI L-Tracker Progress'

More Related