MisID vs Impurity [message #14221] |
Wed, 21 November 2012 15:48 |
Klaus Götzen
Messages: 293 Registered: June 2006 Location: GSI
|
first-grade participant |
From: *gsi.de
|
|
Dear all,
since my mic died during the EVO meeting yesterday, I'll try to explain what I wanted to say concerning misID and impurity.
The issue I wanted to point out is, that the impurity is a quantity which is not independent of the fluxes, whereas the misID is. The misID is the fraction of false positive identified particles of a certain species. E.g. the pion-misID of a kaon selector is
misID(pi|K) = #selected pi / #total pi
Obviously this quantity is flux independent, since the flux would go into nominator and denominator. Please note, that there is not information about the selected number of kaons in this quantity, although it is a property of the kaon selector. It's just the probability for another particle species to be accepted by the kaon selector.
On the other hand the impurity is defined as
impurity(pi|K) = 1 - purity = 1 - #sel. K / (#sel. pi + #sel. K) = #sel. pi / (#sel K + #sel pi)
First of all, these two things are different quantities. The other issue is, that a change in relative fluxes would change the impurity (as well as the purity of course), since (with F being the relative pi/K flux factor change in the upper equation)
impurity = F·#sel pi / (#sel. K + F·#sel pi) != #sel. pi / (#sel K + #sel pi)
I think the quality measure of a particular selection algorithm should not depend on the current physical environment (like relative fluxes).
Of course I'm open for discussions in that respect.
Cheers,
Klaus
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: MisID vs Impurity [message #14232 is a reply to message #14231] |
Fri, 23 November 2012 17:59 |
donghee
Messages: 385 Registered: January 2009 Location: Germnay
|
first-grade participant |
From: *kph.uni-mainz.de
|
|
Dear all,
I have a idea about the definition of impurity and misID.
before getting the answer from Gosia
Gorsia showed us...
pi_imp = PID_{e} > X / pi_all
PID_{e} - it calls here probablity of being an electron for given particle. In this case for pion.
If we define PID_{e} > X as a
"selected true pion after doing MC PID match and requiring PID probability", then it refer to impurity.
or
"any kind of tracks passed required PID probability", then this quantity should be misID.
Above one is impurity as 1-purity and tell us how much % of wrong type particles are contributed in given PID selection.
Below quantity can have a meaning, how much % of a particle type can participate to other list of track candidate according given particle type.
Could we think two definition with this way?
Have a nice weekend,
Donghee
[Updated on: Fri, 23 November 2012 18:01] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: MisID vs Impurity [message #14233 is a reply to message #14231] |
Sat, 24 November 2012 07:04 |
Malgorzata Gumberidze
Messages: 98 Registered: June 2005
|
continuous participant |
From: *pool.mediaWays.net
|
|
Hello
I'm wondering about the PID_{e} > X.
Is it "selected true pion after doing MC PID match and requiring PID probability"
Yes this is exactly what am I doing. I ask, that the particles is really pion by cross-checking MC id and than i apply to the primary PION cut on PID to be an electron.
You have selected only one reconstructed particle, which has a closest momentum value to MC one.
We can have usually more than one track after reconstruction even from one event.
That means, all values of impurity shown in your categories are too ideal in some point.
Could you tell me the number, how much % of such event can we have from tracking?
Of course we have more than one particle per event, but ideally you will try later in the experimental analysis also select one particle per event, assuming that you want to analyze one particle per event. If you do not do such selection, than in case of efficiency you will get more than 1.
For example in our case pbarp->e+e- in the old framework we were doing all combination of +- pair in the event, and than we were selecting to have only one
per event. The best one, looking to CHi2 from kinematical fit for example.
So I THINK that in this case it is fine what i do.
gosia
|
|
|
|
|
|