Difference between revisions of "Mattione Update 09212011"
From GlueXWiki
(→TOF Deposited Energy Uncertainty) |
(→TOF X Uncertainty) |
||
(9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
== TOF Deposited Energy Uncertainty == | == TOF Deposited Energy Uncertainty == | ||
− | * ΔdE (Measured Average - Most Probable) vs. | + | === π<sup>-</sup> hits in both TOF planes === |
+ | * ΔdE (Measured Average - Most Probable) vs. Most Probable (NOT True) dE | ||
[[Image:Mattione_Update_09212011_TOF_DeltadEVsProbabledE.gif|thumb|left|500px|ΔdE vs. Most Probable dE]] | [[Image:Mattione_Update_09212011_TOF_DeltadEVsProbabledE.gif|thumb|left|500px|ΔdE vs. Most Probable dE]] | ||
+ | * ΔdE (Measured Average - Most Probable) vs. Measured Average dE | ||
[[Image:Mattione_Update_09212011_TOF_DeltadEVsAvgdE.gif|thumb|left|500px|ΔdE vs. Measured Avg. dE]] | [[Image:Mattione_Update_09212011_TOF_DeltadEVsAvgdE.gif|thumb|left|500px|ΔdE vs. Measured Avg. dE]] | ||
<br style="clear:both;"/> | <br style="clear:both;"/> | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Most probable deposited energy calculated via Equation 27.10 in Section 27.2.7 of the [http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-passage-particles-matter.pdf RPP]. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Perhaps the best way to do it is to look at the dE distribution as a function of track βγ, and get the uncertainty from the width of that distribution. How would the energy uncertainty be calibrated using real data? | ||
+ | |||
+ | == TOF X Uncertainty == | ||
+ | |||
+ | === π<sup>-</sup> hits in both TOF planes === | ||
+ | * Δx vs. x | ||
+ | [[Image:Mattione_Update_09212011_TOF_DeltaXVsX.gif|thumb|left|500px|Δx vs. x]] | ||
+ | <br style="clear:both;"/> | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Fit the Δx distributions to Gaussian functions, means are shown below. | ||
+ | [[Image:Mattione_Update_09212011_TOF_MeanXVsX.gif|thumb|left|500px|μ<sub>x</sub> vs. x]] | ||
+ | <br style="clear:both;"/> | ||
+ | |||
+ | * I'm not sure, but I think the skews may be due to the cut used to identify when the hits matched between planes. |
Latest revision as of 13:31, 21 September 2011
Contents
Summary
- OBJECTIVE: I'm updating the reconstruction uncertainties to improve the particle-ID algorithms and support the kinematic fitting analyses.
- PLAN: I'm comparing the generated and reconstructed track parameters in the TOF, BCAL, and FCAL systems to determine the uncertainties.
- STATUS: TOF Uncertainties are below.
TOF Time Uncertainty
π- hits in both TOF planes
- Δt vs. x, y, average dE
- Fit the Δt distributions to Gaussian functions, σt's are fit below.
π- hit only in the horizontal plane
- Δt vs. x, y, dE
- Fit the Δt distributions to Gaussian functions, σt's are fit below.
π- hit only in the vertical plane
- Δt vs. x, y, dE
- Fit the Δt distributions to Gaussian functions, σt's are fit below.
TOF Deposited Energy Uncertainty
π- hits in both TOF planes
- ΔdE (Measured Average - Most Probable) vs. Most Probable (NOT True) dE
- ΔdE (Measured Average - Most Probable) vs. Measured Average dE
- Most probable deposited energy calculated via Equation 27.10 in Section 27.2.7 of the RPP.
- Perhaps the best way to do it is to look at the dE distribution as a function of track βγ, and get the uncertainty from the width of that distribution. How would the energy uncertainty be calibrated using real data?
TOF X Uncertainty
π- hits in both TOF planes
- Δx vs. x
- Fit the Δx distributions to Gaussian functions, means are shown below.
- I'm not sure, but I think the skews may be due to the cut used to identify when the hits matched between planes.