Lars Schmitt wrote on Thu, 18 August 2011 11:24 |
Dear Donghee, Your results are very instructive. This means that the efficiencies of TPC and STT in reconstructing tracks are actually similar, since the TPC asks for a minimal track length. If this would correspond to something like 7 hits in the STT the resulting efficiencies would be the same. |
Quote: |
f I understand how the TPC works, it is necessary to have a certain track length in the TPC for the reconstruction, otherwise it doesn't work (am I right Felix ?) The STT can work also with less points (actually in PR at least 2). Instead of banging all the time on the number of hits in the Stt, why don't we have the results of TPC+Mvd to compare with Stt+Mvd ? That makes more sense instead of trying to reduce 'artificially' the STT efficiency with hits requests and complaining that we quote the STT+Mvd pattern recognition. On the other hand, if the TPC people think they are better off not using the Mvd system, then it is their choice and they must live with their track length requirement. |
Quote: |
Donghee, do you have time to plot the effective masses for the Stt in the cases when you have 2, 3, 4, ......, 10 hits minimum? I am curious to see if the mass resolution changes with the number of hits. |
Quote: |
f I understand how the TPC works, it is necessary to have a certain track length in the TPC for the reconstruction, otherwise it doesn't work (am I right Felix ?) The STT can work also with less points (actually in PR at least 2). Instead of banging all the time on the number of hits in the Stt, why don't we have the results of TPC+Mvd to compare with Stt+Mvd ? That makes more sense instead of trying to reduce 'artificially' the STT efficiency with hits requests and complaining that we quote the STT+Mvd pattern recognition. On the other hand, if the TPC people think they are better off not using the Mvd system, then it is their choice and they must live with their track length requirement. |
Quote: |
int fmcid[6]; fmcid[0] = fvtxkmfit ->GetMcIdx(); fmcid[1] = fvtxpp1fit->GetMcIdx(); fmcid[2] = fvtxpp2fit->GetMcIdx(); fmcid[3] = fvtxkpfit ->GetMcIdx(); fmcid[4] = fvtxpm1fit->GetMcIdx(); fmcid[5] = fvtxpm2fit->GetMcIdx(); //loop over tpc points to make counting! int tpc_counter[6]; tpc_counter[0] =0; tpc_counter[1] =0; tpc_counter[2] =0; tpc_counter[3] =0; tpc_counter[4] =0; tpc_counter[5] =0; //cout<< "TPC hits = "<< tpc_hit->GetEntriesFast()<<endl; for (Int_t ll=0; ll<tpc_hit->GetEntriesFast(); ll++) { int trackID = ((PndTpcPoint*)tpc_hit->At(ll))->GetTrackID(); if(trackID < 0) continue; if(trackID == mcid[0]) tpc_counter[0] ++; if(trackID == mcid[1]) tpc_counter[1] ++; if(trackID == mcid[2]) tpc_counter[2] ++; if(trackID == mcid[3]) tpc_counter[3] ++; if(trackID == mcid[4]) tpc_counter[4] ++; if(trackID == mcid[5]) tpc_counter[5] ++; } if( (tpc_counter[0] >= 100) && (tpc_counter[1] >= 100) && (tpc_counter[2] >= 100) && (tpc_counter[3] >= 100) && (tpc_counter[4] >= 100) && (tpc_counter[5] >= 100)){ histograms..........here } |