50 likes | 122 Views
LCFIVertex with Jupiter - brief report -. S. Uozumi Apr-9 2008 ACFA-sim-j meeting. b. b. c (b-bkgr). c (b-bkgr). c. FullLDCTracking, LDC01_05Sc. c. open: Wolf PFA full: PandoraPFA. open: BRAHMS, LC-note full: MARLIN (Mokka), Si-only track cheater.
E N D
LCFIVertex with Jupiter- brief report - S. Uozumi Apr-9 2008 ACFA-sim-j meeting
b b c (b-bkgr) c (b-bkgr) c FullLDCTracking, LDC01_05Sc c open: Wolf PFA full: PandoraPFA open: BRAHMS, LC-note full: MARLIN (Mokka), Si-only track cheater c-tagging performance(full tracking+Pandora+LCFIVertex, very preliminary) by Sonja, Z-pole Z-pole May 2007 GLD LDC00Sc Mar 2008
Flavor-tagging input variables List of parameters used for the Flavor-tagging : D0significance of a jet Z0significance of a jet Momentum of a jet JoingProbRphi JointProbZ DecayLength DecayLengthSignificance PTCorrectedMass RawMomentum NumTracksInVertices SecondaryVertexProbability GLD LDC00Sc
Status & Plans • Still comparing input variables for flavor tagging between GLD and LDC. • Problem with the Mokka data I’ve generated? Will look at Sonja’s data (only LDC01 available). • After getting reasonable conclusion with GLD and LDC00 (or LDC01), compare tagging performance with GLD, GLDprim, J4LDC.
b c (b-bkgr) c open: BRAHMS, LC-note full: MARLIN (Mokka), Si-only track cheater Resulting purity vs efficiency at the Z-peak (Sonja, May 2007) • at high efficiency MARLIN(MOKKA) with “Silicon-only” track cheater gives better • performance compared to LC-note result using tracking with pattern recognition