Bill Atwood, Core Meeting, 9-Oct. 2002 GLAS T 1 Finding and Fitting A Recast of Traditional GLAST Finding: Combo A Recast of the Kalman Filter Setting.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Background effect to Vertex Detector and Impact parameter resolution T. Fujikawa(Tohoku Univ.) Feb LC Detector Meeting.
Advertisements

Bill Atwood, Dec GLAST 1 GLAST Energy or Humpty-Dumpty’s Revenge A Statement of the Problem Divide and Conquer strategy Easiest: Leakage (Depth)
TRACK DICTIONARY (UPDATE) RESOLUTION, EFFICIENCY AND L – R AMBIGUITY SOLUTION Claudio Chiri MEG meeting, 21 Jan 2004.
Bill Atwood, August, 2003 GLAST 1 Covariance & GLAST Agenda Review of Covariance Application to GLAST Kalman Covariance Present Status.
Surplus Hits Ratio Leon R. C&A Meeting Oct. 31, 2001.
1 Vertex fitting Zeus student seminar May 9, 2003 Erik Maddox NIKHEF/UvA.
31 March 2004 Geneva University MICE TPG Reconstruction Cluster finding Space point reconstruction Track recognition Track fit GENEVA UNIVERSITY GENEVA.
Tracker Reconstruction SoftwarePerformance Review, Oct 16, 2002 Core Software “Performance Review” TkrRecon How do we know the Tracking is working? GLAST.
Measuring momentum at the TIF David Stuart, UC Santa Barbara June 25, 2007.
TkrRecon Status Perugia Software Workshop May, 2003.
Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, Dec., 2003 GLAST 1 DC1 Instrument Response Agenda Where are we? V3R3P7 Classification Trees Covariance Scaled PSF Pair Energies.
Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, Nov, 2003 GLAST 1 Update on Rome Results Agenda A eff Fall-off past 10 GeV V3R3P7 Classification Trees Covariance Scaled PSFs.
Surplus Hits Ratio, etc. Leon R. C&A Meeting &
Bill Atwood - July 2002 GLAS T 1 A Kalman Filter for GLAST What is a Kalman Filter and how does it work. Overview of Implementation in GLAST Validation.
Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, DC2 Closeout, May 31, 2006 GLAST 1 Bill Atwood & Friends.
Tracking Photon Conversions. Existing Track Seeding From pixels –Widely used, but not useful here From stereo silicon layers –Uses layers 5 and 8 (barrel),
Tracker Reconstruction SoftwarePerformance Review, Oct 16, 2002 Summary of Core “Performance Review” for TkrRecon How do we know the Tracking is working?
Photon reconstruction and calorimeter software Mikhail Prokudin.
Vertex Reconstructing Neural Networks at the ZEUS Central Tracking Detector FermiLab, October 2000 Erez Etzion 1, Gideon Dror 2, David Horn 1, Halina Abramowicz.
Pion test beam from KEK: momentum studies Data provided by Toho group: 2512 beam tracks D. Duchesneau April 27 th 2011 Track  x Track  y Base track positions.
Measurement of through-going particle momentum by means of Multiple Scattering with the T600 TPC Talk given by Antonio Jesús Melgarejo (Universidad de.
Progress with the Development of Energy Flow Algorithms at Argonne José Repond for Steve Kuhlmann and Steve Magill Argonne National Laboratory Linear Collider.
1 Tracking Reconstruction Norman A. Graf SLAC July 19, 2006.
Tracking at LHCb Introduction: Tracking Performance at LHCb Kalman Filter Technique Speed Optimization Status & Plans.
Regression. Population Covariance and Correlation.
GEM MINIDRIFT DETECTOR WITH CHEVRON READOUT EIC Tracking Meeting 10/6/14 B.Azmoun, BNL.
Impact parameter resolution study for ILC detector Tomoaki Fujikawa (Tohoku university) ACFA Workshop in Taipei Nov
August 30, 2006 CAT physics meeting Calibration of b-tagging at Tevatron 1. A Secondary Vertex Tagger 2. Primary and secondary vertex reconstruction 3.
1 Th.Naumann, DESY Zeuthen, HERMES Tracking meeting, Tracking with the Silicon Detectors Th.Naumann H1 DESY Zeuthen A short collection of experiences.
What is in my contribution area Nick Sinev, University of Oregon.
CHEP07 conference 5 September 2007, T. Cornelissen 1 Thijs Cornelissen (CERN) On behalf of the ATLAS collaboration The Global-  2 Track Fitter in ATLAS.
LCWS 06 Bangalore, India, March Track fitting using weight matrix Nick Sinev, University of Oregon.
Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, May, 2005 GLAST 1 A Parametric Energy Recon for GLAST A 3 rd attempt at Energy Reconstruction Keep in mind: 1)The large phase-space.
August 26, 2003P. Nilsson, SPD Group Meeting1 Paul Nilsson, SPD Group Meeting, August 26, 2003 Test Beam 2002 Analysis Techniques for Estimating Intrinsic.
Cluster finding in CALICE calorimeters Chris Ainsley University of Cambridge, UK LCWS 04: Simulation (reconstruction) parallel session 20 April 2004, Paris,
Feb. 7, 2007First GLAST symposium1 Measuring the PSF and the energy resolution with the GLAST-LAT Calibration Unit Ph. Bruel on behalf of the beam test.
ALICE Offline Week, CERN, Andrea Dainese 1 Primary vertex with TPC-only tracks Andrea Dainese INFN Legnaro Motivation: TPC stand-alone analyses.
ROBUSTIFICATION of the Belle Vertex Fitter April 14 th 2003Johannes Rindhauser Hephy Vienna Belle Weekly Meeting (AdaptiveVtxFitter)
Status of BESIII Event Reconstruction System Zepu Mao IHEP BESIII Annual Meeting 2005/05/29.
1 Top and Tau Measurements Tim Barklow (SLAC) Oct 02, 2009.
Resolution and radiative corrections A first order estimate for pbar p  e + e - T. H. IPN Orsay 05/10/2011 GDR PH-QCD meeting on « The nucleon structure.
Fast Tracking of Strip and MAPS Detectors Joachim Gläß Computer Engineering, University of Mannheim Target application is trigger  1. do it fast  2.
Inclusive Measurements of inelastic electron/positron scattering on unpolarized H and D targets at Lara De Nardo for the HERMES COLLABORATION.
The Detector Performance Study for the Barrel Section of the ATLAS Semiconductor Tracker (SCT) with Cosmic Rays Yoshikazu Nagai (Univ. of Tsukuba) For.
1 LumiCal Optimization Simulations Iftach Sadeh Tel Aviv University Collaboration High precision design May 6 th 2008.
Adam Blake, June 9 th Results Quick Review Look at Some Data In Depth Look at One Anomalous Event Conclusion.
A track fitting method for multiple scattering Peter Kvasnička, 5th SILC meeting, Prague 2007.
DN/d  and dN/dp T analysis status Gabor Veres for the working group QCD meeting, Jan 12, 2010.
TeV muons: from data handling to new physics phenomena Vladimir Palichik JINR, Dubna NEC’2009 Varna, September 07-14, 2009.
Kalanand Mishra June 29, Branching Ratio Measurements of Decays D 0  π - π + π 0, D 0  K - K + π 0 Relative to D 0  K - π + π 0 Giampiero Mancinelli,
Study of 1D Hit Error Assignment Marco Terranova, Filippo Pisano, N. Amapane, G. Cerminara.
Kalanand Mishra February 23, Branching Ratio Measurements of Decays D 0  π - π + π 0, D 0  K - K + π 0 Relative to D 0  K - π + π 0 decay Giampiero.
TeV Muon Reconstruction Vladimir Palichik JINR, Dubna NEC’2007 Varna, September 10-17, 2007.
Giuseppe Ruggiero CERN Straw Chamber WG meeting 07/02/2011 Spectrometer Reconstruction: Pattern recognition and Efficiency 07/02/ G.Ruggiero - Spectrometer.
LAV efficiency studies with photons T. Spadaro* *Frascati National Laboratory of INFN.
SiD Tracking in the LOI and Future Plans Richard Partridge SLAC ALCPG 2009.
3 May 2003, LHC2003 Symposium, FermiLab Tracking Performance in LHCb, Jeroen van Tilburg 1 Tracking performance in LHCb Tracking Performance Jeroen van.
M. Ellis - MICE Collaboration Meeting - Wednesday 27th October Sci-Fi Tracker Performance Software Status –RF background simulation –Beam simulation.
BESIII offline software group Status of BESIII Event Reconstruction System.
Tracking software of the BESIII drift chamber Linghui WU For the BESIII MDC software group.
11/25/03 3D Model Acquisition by Tracking 2D Wireframes Presenter: Jing Han Shiau M. Brown, T. Drummond and R. Cipolla Department of Engineering University.
Pattern recognition with the triplet method Fabrizio Cei INFN & University of Pisa MEG Meeting, Hakata October /10/20131 Fabrizio Cei.
Track Reconstruction in MUCH and TRD Andrey Lebedev 1,2 Gennady Ososkov 2 1 Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany 2 Laboratory of Information.
M.C. Studies of CDC Axial/Stereo Layer Configuration David Lawrence, JLab Sept. 19, /19/08 1 CDC Tracking MC Studies -- D. Lawrence, JLab.
New TRD (&TOF) tracking algorithm
Beam Gas Vertex – Beam monitor
Comparison of GAMMA-400 and Fermi-LAT telescopes
GLAST Large Area Telescope:
Jin Huang Los Alamos National Lab
Reconstruction Overview and Status (representing a lot of people)
Presentation transcript:

Bill Atwood, Core Meeting, 9-Oct GLAS T 1 Finding and Fitting A Recast of Traditional GLAST Finding: Combo A Recast of the Kalman Filter Setting the e + e - Energies Vertexing: How to put the tracks together Bottom Line: PSF & A eff

Bill Atwood, Core Meeting, 9-Oct GLAS T 2 Strips/Clusters to Space Points A basic to GLAST is the 3-in-a-row trigger: 3 consecutive X-Y planes firing within a microsecond. This yields possible space points. Step one: build an object which can cycle over the allowed X-Y pairing in a given GLAST measuring layer a) Ordered just as they come X’s then Y’s b) Ordered with reference to closeness to a given space point x y y Case a) Case b) (x,y) Point from which to search (nextHit) (nearestHit)

Bill Atwood, Core Meeting, 9-Oct GLAS T 3 Combo Pat Rec - Kalman Overview First Pass Best Track Hit Flagging Second Pass All the others Set Energies Final Fits  Creation Calorimeter Based or Blind Search Allow up to 5 shared Clusters Blind Search Global Energy Constrained Track Energy Kalman Track Fit Track Averaging: energy + errors determine weights (Not Vertexing)

Bill Atwood, Core Meeting, 9-Oct GLAS T 4 The “Combo” Pat. Rec. (Details) Starting Layer: One furthest from the calorimeter Two Strategies: 1) Calorimeter Energy present An energy centroid (space point!) 2) Too little Cal. Energy use only Track Hits “Combo” Pattern Recognition - Processing an Example Event: The Event as produce by GLEAM 100 MeV  Raw SSD Hits

Bill Atwood, Core Meeting, 9-Oct GLAS T 5 The “Combo” Pat. Rec. (Details) Sufficient Cal. Energy (42 MeV) Use Cal. centroid Start with hits in outer most layer First Guess: connect hit with Cal. Centroid Use nearestHit to find 2 nd hit

Bill Atwood, Core Meeting, 9-Oct GLAS T 6 The “Combo” Pat. Rec. (Details) Initial Track Guess: Connect first 2 Hits! Project and Add Hits Along the Track within Search Region The search region is set by propagating the track errors through the GLAST geometry. The default region is 9  (set very wide at this stage)

Bill Atwood, Core Meeting, 9-Oct GLAS T 7 The “Combo” Pat. Rec. (Details) The Blind Search proceeds similar to the Calorimeter based Search 1st Hit found found - tried in combinatoric order 2nd Hit selected in combinatoric order First two hits used to project into next layer - 3rd Hit is searched for - If 3rd hit is found, track is built by “finding - following” as with Calorimeter search In this way a list of tracks is formed. Crucial to success, is ordering the list! (Optimization work still in progress)

Bill Atwood, Core Meeting, 9-Oct GLAS T 8 Hit Sharing Hit Flagging (or Sharing) In order not to find the same track at most 5 clusters can be shared The first X and Y cluster (nearest the conversion point) is always allowed to be shared Subsequent Clusters are shared depending on the cluster width and the track’s slope Predict 3 hit strips Observe 5 Allow Cluster to be shared Example of oversized Cluster Fitted Track SSD Layer

Bill Atwood, Core Meeting, 9-Oct GLAS T 9 Kalman Filter The Kalman filter process is a successive approximation scheme to estimate parameters Simple Example: 2 parameters - intercept and slope: x = x 0 + S x * z; P = (x 0, S x ) Errors on parameters x 0 & S x : covariance matrix: C = Cx-x Cx-s Cs-x Cs-s Cx-x = In general C = Propagation: x(k+1) = x(k)+Sx(k)*(z(k+1)-z(k)) Pm(k+1) = F(  z) * P(k) where F(  z) = 1 z(k+1)-z(k) 0 1 Cm(k+1) = F(  z) *C(k) * F(  z) T + Q(k) k k+1 Noise: Q(k) (Multiple Scattering) P(k) Pm(k+1)

Bill Atwood, Core Meeting, 9-Oct GLAS T 10 Kalman Filter (2) Form the weighted average of the k+1 measurement and the propagated track model: Weights given by inverse of Error Matrix: C -1 Hit: X(k+1) with errors V(k+1) P(k+1) = Cm -1 (k+1)*Pm(k+1)+ V -1 (k+1)*X(k+1) Cm -1 (k+1) + V -1 (k+1) k k+1 Noise (Multiple Scattering) and C(k+1) = (Cm -1 (k+1) + V -1 (k+1)) -1 Now its repeated for the k+2 planes and so - on. This is called FILTERING - each successive step incorporates the knowledge of previous steps as allowed for by the NOISE and the aggregate sum of the previous hits. Pm(k+1)

Bill Atwood, Core Meeting, 9-Oct GLAS T 11  2 and the 1-Event Display 3 Views of a 1 GeV   Blue Lines = +-  2 Top View X-Z View Y-Z View Note:  2 = (Residual) 2

Bill Atwood, Core Meeting, 9-Oct GLAS T 12 = 24 = 1.0/DoF =.63 mrad Use  ’s and give the true energy to Kalman Filter Several Problems discovered During “Sea Trails” Phase Proper setting of measurement errors Proper inclusion of energy loss (for  ’s - Bethe-Block) Proper handling of over-sized Clusters End Results: Example 10 GeV  ’s Kalman Filter: Sea Trials

Bill Atwood, Core Meeting, 9-Oct GLAS T 13 Setting the Energies Track energies are critical in determining the errors (because of the dominance of Multiple Scattering) A Three Stage Process: Kalman Energies: compute the RMS angle between 3D Track segments Key: include material audit and reference energy back to first layer Results:  E-Kalman ~ 100 MeV (!) Determine Global Energy: E Global Hit counting + Calorimeter Energy (Resolution limited by Calorimeter response) Results: Depends on Cuts - Best ~ 12% at 100 MeV Use Global Energy to Constrain the first 2 track energies: E Golbal = E1 Kal + x1*  1 Kal + E2 Kal + x2*  2 Kal  2 = x1 2 + x2 2 Determine x1 & x2 by minimizing  2 The Constrained Energies are then used in the FINAL FIT

Bill Atwood, Core Meeting, 9-Oct GLAS T 14 The Final Fits & Creating a  A second pass through the Kalman Fit is done Using the Constrained Energies for the First two tracks - others use the default Pat. Rec. energy The Track hits are NOT re-found - the hits from the Pat. Rec. stage are used Creating a  (Note this isn’t true “Vertexing”) Tracks are MS dominated - NOISE Dominated Verticizing - adding NOISE coherently Use tracks as ~ independent measures of  direction Process: – Check that tracks “intersect” - simple DOCA Calc. – Estimate Combined direction using Track Errors and Constrained Energies to form the weights

Bill Atwood, Core Meeting, 9-Oct GLAS T 15 The Bottom Line: How does it all Work? Data for 100 MeV, Nrm. Inc. Thin Section Only - Req. All Events to have 2 Tracks which formed a “vertex” Results: A eff ~ 3000 cm 2 Best Track Resolution: 39 mrad (PSF ~ 3.3 Deg.)  Resolution: 35 mrad (PSF ~ 3.0 Deg) Difference Plot Shows the Improvement! But… the story is even Better! Look Ma! NO TAILS!

Bill Atwood, Core Meeting, 9-Oct GLAS T 16 Dialing in Your PSF! The PSF for  ’s turn out to depend on the Opening Angle between the 2 Tracks In retrospect this is now Obvious! - Parallel Tracks minimal MS! 95/68 Ratio A eff