Home » PANDA » PandaRoot » Tracking » Kalman low efficiency
| Kalman low efficiency [message #11946] |
Thu, 02 June 2011 12:04  |
Susanna Costanza
Messages: 33
Registered: January 2008
Location: Pavia
|
continuous participant |
From: *1-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it
|
|
Dear all,
while analysing the data samples of single track events simulated for the STT/TPC comparison, we have noticed something strange: the reconstruction efficiency after the Kalman fit is much lower than the efficiency after the STT+MVD pattern recognition, especially for low momentum tracks.
In the following table, an example of the efficiencies of the STT pattern recognition, the STT+MVD PR and of the Kalman fit are reported:
Muons @ 0.3 GeV/c, theta = 40°
STT alone PR: 87%
STT+MVD PR: 97%
KALMAN : 65%
Muons @ 1 GeV/c, theta = 40°
STT alone PR: 87%
STT+MVD PR: 94%
KALMAN : 89%
The efficiency is calculated as (integral in peak)/(number of generated events), where the peak is defined as the range (mean-3sigma, mean+3sigma).
As you see, the high efficiency of the STT+MVD pattern recognition is reduced after the Kalman.
Two plots are attached to the message, showing the momentum distributions obtained with the STT alone (black), with the STT+MVD reconstruction (red) and after the Kalman (blue), again for muons at 0.3/1 GeV/c and theta = 40°.
As it is shown in the file "03GeV_40deg.pdf", the Kalman produces long tails in the momentum distribution, causing a lower efficiency in peak; these tails are not present in the other two distributions. In addition, the distribution is no more gaussian.
The tails are not present in the Kalman 1 GeV/c distribution; nevertheless, the efficiency is lower than the STT+MVD one also in this case.
Is there something going wrong in the Kalman?
Has someone already noticed this behaviour or has any idea/suggestion?
Is it possible for the detector experts to check if the recohit covariances are correct?
Thank you.
Ciao,
Susanna
|
|
|
|
Current Time: Sat Apr 20 09:29:37 CEST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01001 seconds
|
GSI Forum
Search
Help
Members
Login
Home
