520 likes | 537 Views
Learn about the innovative tracking and particle identification methods used in the Alice Time Projection Chamber (TPC). Discover the chamber's design, simulations, tracking history, and cluster finding techniques.
E N D
TPC parallel tracking and Particle Identification Marian Ivanov
Alice TPC • Time Projection chamber – main tracking device of the Alice central barrel • Main tasks • Track finding • Momentum measurements • Particle identification by dE/dx
Alice TPC • Geometrical features: • Drift region: • Cylindrical vessel • Length = 250+250 cm • Rin/Rout ~87/252 cm • Readout chambers • 2×18 sectors (72 chambers) • Sector opening angle 20 degrees • Pad shapes 7.5x4, 10x6 and 15x6 mm ~ 0.5 million pads • Time sampling ~ 445 time bins per pad ~220 million samples per event
TPC simulations • Physical processes: • Relevant GEANT processes • Diffusion • Gas gain fluctuation • ExB effect • Responses in time and pad direction (2D) • noise
TPC tracking • First TPC tracking 1997 • Iouri Belikov, Boris Batyunya, Karel Safarik • Based on Kalman filtering approach • “offline” tracking • Parallel development • Bergen group • Hough transform – global approach • “online” tracking – only “almost” primary particles
New tracking • Maximal Information principle • Use everything what you can ==> You get the best • Why? • You can't use more • Problem – too many degrees of freedom (~220 million 10 bits samples • Compromise – looking for orthogonal parameters • Parallel Kalman Filter tracking approach chosen • To allow to use optimal combination of local and global information about track's and clusters • Global tracking approach (Hough transform) considered only as seeding for track candidates
New cluster finder • Cluster finder looks for local maxima in two dimensional time x pad-row plane • Neighbourhood - matrix 5x5 with maxima at central bin • 5x5 is bigger then typical size of cluster • Standard centre of gravity and RMS used to characterize cluster • Problem • Systematic error due to the threshold effect
New cluster finder • Parameterization of the cluster shape • Depend on the track parameters • Z position – gives the diffusion component • Known during clustering • Θ angle – gives the z angular component • Known during clustering for primary particles • φ angle – depend on the pad row radius and particle momentum • Known only during tracking • Conservative approach – supposing 0 degree – good for high pt tracks
New cluster finder • “RMS” fitting of the cluster • Virtual charge added • signal below threshold replaced by expected value according gauss interpolation • if bigger replaced with amplitude equal to threshold • Signal shape (RMS) used for later error estimation - and as a criteria for cluster unfolding • Gives comparable results with Gaussian fit of the cluster, but is much faster
RMS versus fitting • left side: reconstructed RMS to fitted sigma ratio • right side: ratio as function of the expected cluster RMS
Cluster unfolding • If one of the RMS's – in time or pad direction is bigger then critical RMS - unfolding • Fast spline method for unfolding • Charge conservation • Small systematic effect • Supposing the same signal shape – equivalent to the same track angles – if not fulfilled – tracks diverge very rapidly
Spline unfolding • Amplitude in bin 4 corresponding to cluster on left side • Amplitude in 5 and derivation in five 0 • Amplitude in 2 and 3 taken • C1_4 calculated • Right side • symmetric C2_4 calculated • C1_4 = C1_4*C4/(C1_4+C2_4)
Spline unfolding (standalone simulator) • Dependence of the reconstructed cluster position as function of the distance to the next cluster • RMS of clusters – 0.75
Cluster characteristic • fY,fZ • centre of gravity • fSigmaY, fSigmaZ • shape of the cluster • in case of overlapped clusters – characterize cluster background • fMax, fQ • Signal at the maximum – respectively total charge in cluster • fCType • Cluster type - characterize overlap factor
Cluster error estimation • Errors estimated only during tracking • Using • cluster shape information • cluster amplitude • type of the cluster – is gold-plated or overlapped • track angles and position • is shared info (not yet implemented) • Error parameterization • Different for different pad geometries
Cluster error estimation • Previous parameterization used for “gold-plated” clusters • Overlapped clusters • Additional correction as function of the distortion from expected size • Edge clusters taken separately • Error parameterization principle • Make Gaussian pulls with unite sigma
Seeding with vertex constrain • Seeding 2 times • 1 seeding - 90 % of tracks are found • 2 seeding - 6.7 % additional found • Problems • N2 problem (2 minutes of CPU) • Vertex constrain suppress secondaries • Solution ? • Seeding using polynomial fit without any assumption on vertex position
Seeding without vertex constrain • Simple track follower • Algorithm • Seeding between pad-row i1 and i2 – start in the middle pad-row • Take cluster at middle pad-row • Find 2 nearest up and down – make linear fit • Find prolongation • Take next 2 nearest - update fit - prolongation .... • After 7 cluster - make polynomial fit ... • continue
Tracking • 2 seedings with constrain + few seedings without at different radii (necessary for kinks) • Tracking - parallel • Find for each track the prolongation to the next pad-row • Estimate the errors • Update track according current cluster parameters • Track several track hypothesis in parallel • Allow cluster sharing between different tracks
Removing track hypothesis • Remove-Overlap – called 3 times • After seeding (threshold =50 %) • After tracking outer sectors (threshold =50 %) • After tracking inner sector (threshold =50 %) • Effect (full event) • New tracker - 3 fakes • Old tracker - 7 fakes
dEdx • Truncated mean – 60 % • Currently signals at cluster maximum • Shared clusters not used at all • Correction function for cluster shape • Function of ratio of measured cluster shape to expected cluster shape
Comparison of new tracking and old tracking • Full event dN/dy compared – Hijing parameterization • efficiency comparison for primaries • dEdx comparison for primaries • efficiency comparison for primaries +secondary crossing full TPC • dEdx comparison for primaries +secondary crossing full TPC
Particle identification using TPC dE/dx • dE/dx measurement in TPC (in combination with TRD and ITS) can be used for PID • Next slides • First systematic study of using new TPC tracking and dE/dx information for PID determination (low-momentum region) (Boris Batiounia) • dE/dx as function of momentum • dE/dx spectra for fixed momentum • PID efficiency and contamination (old and new tracking
Efficiency (for kinks) • Left – primaries decaying at radius r • Right - secondary created at radius r
Kink and secondary vertex finder • Track candidates - seeded in several positions within chamber • 'easy' to implement using current new tracking • Algorithm • Combinatorial search – closest point between two tracks investigated • Cluster density criteria before and after kink respectively (V0 used to determine the criteria for hypothesis removal) • Status • First attempts – systematic study of efficiency and contamination still to be done