1 / 20

MC Misalignment

MC Misalignment. George Vesztergombi. Tracker DPG meeting, 25.11.2011. Budapest: Adam Agocs, Krisztian Krajczar, Ferenc Sikler, George Vesztergombi DESY: Joerg Behr, Gero Flucke, Justyna Tomaszewska CERN: Alessio Bonato, Roberto Castello

haven
Télécharger la présentation

MC Misalignment

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. MC Misalignment George Vesztergombi Tracker DPG meeting, 25.11.2011

  2. Budapest: Adam Agocs, Krisztian Krajczar, Ferenc Sikler, George Vesztergombi DESY: Joerg Behr, Gero Flucke, Justyna Tomaszewska CERN: Alessio Bonato, Roberto Castello Aachen: Natalie Heracleous Credits Budapest Group

  3. Latest startup Dec 2010, only cosmics + minbias Intro Plots from Adam or Natalie? Z with only IDEAL and Startup geoms Budapest Group

  4. Aim: find an alignment (including sensor bow parameters) on MC, which performs close to the current data alignment Momentum biases as seen with Z-mass validation Local precision as seen with track based validation Geometry production: starting from an MC geometry + bow parameters from data ~ similar to data approach Strategy Budapest Group

  5. Input: same datasets as in real data: Isolated muons from W (16.3 M tracks) Isolated muons from QCD-mu enriched events (2.3 M tracks) Minbias tracks (450k events ~ 4.5 M tracks) Zmumu events using mass constraint (390k events) Peak mode cosmics (1.8 M used tracks) Deco mode cosmics (1.7 M used tracks) Different weights for cosmics (x2, x0.5) → negligible change in the produced geometry Datasets Budapest Group

  6. pT and eta distribution in data and MC Budapest Group

  7. Alignments starting from ideal and startup MC geometries + bows from data: The presence of the Z-mass φ-mode seems completely determined by the starting geometry Roberto produced hybrid geometries which lay between ideal and startup: Starting from ideal and adding a fraction of the difference from startup IDEALplus_02Delta IDEALplus_033Delta IDEALplus_05Delta List of valid geometries Budapest Group

  8. IDEALplus_05Delta Kinks and δ-bows Realigned bows Budapest Group

  9. Track based validation DMR – BPIX-x, BPIX-y, FPIX-x, FPIX-y, TEC, TOB Budapest Group

  10. Track based validation DRR – BPIX-x, BPIX-y, FPIX-x, FPIX-y, TEC, TOB Budapest Group

  11. Cosmic split ΔK - ΔΘ Budapest Group

  12. Mass peak Z validation Plots from Natalie Budapest Group

  13. MZ vs η, MZ vs Φ for all tracker Z validation Budapest Group http://natalie.web.cern.ch/natalie/directory/Tracker_Alignement_Task/111111/All/

  14. MZ vs Φ in Barrel, MZ vs Φ in TEC+ Z validation TEC+ Barrel TEC+ Barrel Budapest Group http://natalie.web.cern.ch/natalie/directory/Tracker_Alignement_Task/111111/TEC+/

  15. MZ vs Δη Z validation Plots from Natalie/Roberto? Budapest Group

  16. The BPIX centred IDEALplus_05Delta is chosen Chosen geometry Budapest Group

  17. Geometry comparisons IDEAL vs IDEALplus_05Delta Centred - BPIX Budapest Group

  18. Geometry comparisons IDEAL vs IDEALplus_05Delta Centred - TOB Budapest Group

  19. Summary Conclusions Outlook Budapest Group

  20. Backup slides Budapest Group

More Related