1 / 6

Comparison of Correction Methods for Beam Tilt in Barrel Tracking

This document discusses two correction techniques for beam tilt: the inner barrel hit method and the barrel-crossing pattern method. Both methods aim to correct the z-value discrepancies in tracking systems. Results from JDH and STT meetings reveal negligible differences in correction effectiveness, with slight advantages in simplicity and performance when using the barrel-only method. The findings indicate that both techniques are valid, but the barrel method is recommended for its consistency and reduced complexity.

randi
Download Presentation

Comparison of Correction Methods for Beam Tilt in Barrel Tracking

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. Beam Tilt & TFC: Which z value for correction? 1. Standing plan: correct using barrel of innermost hit 2. Alternate: also use barrel-crossing pattern Compare means of dz = track – barrel center for both 1 and 2. JDH, STT meeting

  2. ZH->nnbb no beam tilt 6 for barrels 3 summary no tilt, expect r =0 f = random <b>, mm B1 B2 B3 f (degrees) B4 B5 B6 r, mm f, rad z, cm b, mm JDH, STT meeting

  3. Tilt sample (Lorenzo) x, y=.5 mm/cm so expect mr=.7 mm/cm <b>, mm B1 B2 B3 f (degrees) B4 B5 B6 r, mm f, rad z, cm b, mm JDH, STT meeting

  4. Tilt sample, again after applying barrel correction expect mr= 0 mm/cm f= random find, m consistent w/0! Slightly better b JDH, STT meeting

  5. Tilt sample, again after applying barrel+layer correction expect mr= 0 mm/cm f= random find, m consistent w/0! Slightly better b JDH, STT meeting

  6. Conclusions - either correction method alone beats none - negligible differences between the two methods - similar fit probabilities for flatness - identical impact parameter widths - barrel-only slightly better - slightly less physics dependence - simpler So stick with barrel only correction… ? JDH, STT meeting

More Related