1 / 8

Monitoring the ID EF Tracking Performance

Monitoring the ID EF Tracking Performance. Online Data (EF tracking) Quality Monitoring Test of infrastructure during Nov. technical run Current (updated) quantities dedicated for DQM Tracking performance, ID EF vs Offline Method used CSC note plots. DQM: Test During Nov. Technical Run.

msparks
Download Presentation

Monitoring the ID EF Tracking Performance

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. Monitoring the ID EF Tracking Performance • Online Data (EF tracking) Quality Monitoring • Test of infrastructure during Nov. technical run • Current (updated) quantities dedicated for DQM • Tracking performance, ID EF vs Offline • Method used • CSC note plots

  2. DQM: Test During Nov. Technical Run • DQMF = Data Quality Monitoring Framework, used for automatic online histograms tests. • A ID EF DQMF segment was included for the TR in November • Goal was just to understand how it is done. So only “not empty” histogram tests used for a few quantities • Next step: Look into what quantities and tests to use in connection with Lvl2, ID online and ID Tier-0 monitoring people. • The current idea is to: • Only have a few automatic tests, so “nr hist x nr tests x nr slices” is manageable. • Produce a few more histograms than used in DQMF for investigation • To keep computation load and total nr histograms low, use primarily high level results (produced in the InDetTrigParticleCreation algorithm) in a manner "if that is ok the previous steps should be about Ok as well”. • All this is just a starting point to be iterated on and should be improved as good ideas, experience and data comes a long... Stefan Ask (T2UK meeting 6 Feb 08)

  3. DQM: Example from TR in Nov DQMF Display • Technical Run (Nov 23) 32016: • using ttbar sample • “Not-empty” test of histograms • nr TrackParticle / RoI • nr Tracks / RoI • nr Vertex / RoI) nr Part. / RoI Bphysics, MinBias, Photon slices were not included Vertexing was switched off for Tau slice Stefan Ask (T2UK meeting 6 Feb 08)

  4. DQM: Current Quantities Available A first iteration on the available quantities dedicated for DQM, after discussion with ID tier-0 monitoring people (Beate Heinemann and Tobias Golling) • “Per Track” Quantities 
 • Track parameters (d0, z0, phi, theta, eta, qOverP) • Number of hits (npix_hits, nsct_hits, ntrt_hits) • Chi2 / dof (chi2dof) • “Per ROI” Quantities • Number of Tracks or Vertecies (ntrkpart, ntrk, nvertex) • Fraction of po. and neg. trackparticles (frac_posneg, = (p-n)/(p+n) ) • Eta_reco vs Eta_roi (eta_vs_eta_roi) • Phi_reco vs Phi_roi (phi_vs_phi_roi) • Eta_reco vs Phi_reco (eta_vs_phi) • Eta_roi vs Phi_roi (eta_roi_vs_phi_roi) (Only a subset will be used for the automatic tests within the DQMF…) Stefan Ask (T2UK meeting 6 Feb 08)

  5. Tracking Performance: ID EF vs Offline • Since the EF uses the offline track reconstruction tools, try to compare EF and Offline performance in a straight forward way • Using same quantities and tools, e.g. Perigee to PV extrapolation • same (standard) track performance cuts etc… • Now: • Made an algorithm which is as similar as possible to the InDetRecStatistics package, used by ID tracking group. • To factorize out pure EF tracking performance: Run EF tracking only and seeded by fake RoIs from generator particles. • Runs on RDOs • Next step: • Find a good procedure for regular cross checks with offline performance (possibility of integration with offline SW ?) • Study trigger and physics aspects (L2/Menu, large track density…) • Study the performance validation possible with ESD and AOD Stefan Ask (T2UK meeting 6 Feb 08)

  6. Setup and Cuts • Used InDetTrigRecExample, running EF only and fake seeding • L1 RoI produced by FakeLvl1RoIfromKine, from all MC e or mu with pT > 1 GeV and || < 3 • L2 through dummyAlgo • InDetTrigRecAlgs + “TrigInDetRecStatistics” • Standard Performance Cuts (for single particle performance) Ntuple.root • Selected MC particles: • || < 2.5 • Barcode < 100000 • |d0| < 2mm • |z0-zp| x sind() < 10mm • |PdgId| = 11 or 13 • pT > 1 GeV • Matching Cuts: • Fraction of matched • hits >= 80% • Quality Cuts: • nr SCT + Pixel hits >= 7 • |d0| < 2mm • |z0-zp| x sind() < 10mm Stefan Ask (T2UK meeting 6 Feb 08)

  7. CSC note plots CSC note “HLT Track Reconstruction Performance” All electrons: <> = 83.9 +/- 0.2 for 5 GeV, <> = 92.9 +/- 0.1 for 100 GeV All muons: <> = 99.50 +/- 0.03 for 5 GeV, <> = 99.52 +/- 0.03 for 100 GeV Stefan Ask (T2UK meeting 6 Feb 08)

  8. CSC note plots • Fluctuations outside stat errors are due to non-Gaussian tails (material effects…) giving uncertainty to the Gaussian fit • However, consistent with offline results ! • Some minor editing/corrections still foreseen (maybe overlay offline results + asymmetric errors) Stefan Ask (T2UK meeting 6 Feb 08)

More Related