| Re: Benchmark Tables and plots for tracking performance [message #11158 is a reply to message #11124] |
Tue, 02 November 2010 17:59  |
Gianluigi Boca
Messages: 177
Registered: March 2004
|
first-grade participant |
From: *gsi.de
|
|
Hi Stefano,
thanks for your reply. I generally agree with your suggestions.
In this message I only discuss those points where I have some more comments.
| Stefano Spataro wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 09:09 |
Maybe you mean exclusion of reconstructed tracks with less than the number. Or you want to separate acceptance from reco efficiency? I would consider only primary particles.
|
I mean that I would consider only tracks leaving a number of hits in the central tracker ENOUGH TO BE RECONSTRUCTED via software (a reasonable number is 3 hits for
a Helix ). That would exclude for instance the tracks falling in the target pipe vertical gap which are not very interesting for our porposes.
| Quote: |
and theta.
I think we need momentum residual and mom resolution as a function of momentum and theta, theta residual and resolution, and efficiency also for prefitting and fitting (how to define this efficiency? within 5 sigma?). For each particle multiplicity.
|
OK ; for the efficiency, we could use 3 sigma from the central value of the peak.
| Quote: |
I think this comes later. First we need to validate reconstruction apart from physics channels. We will need them in a second time.
|
I disagree on this particular point. I believe that a check with a physical channel gives an immediate feeling on the algorithm is working; besides, the cross check with a physics channel is the ultimate benchmark necessary for any tracking.
| Quote: |
Could you please provide a standard macro with such kind of code, that starting from PndMCTrack TCA and PndTrackCand TCA is able to do this job and fill the corresponding tables/plots?
|
As Obama said : "Yes, we can " and I will be happy to provide such a Macro soon if people ask me to.
Cheers Gianluigi
|
|
|
|
GSI Forum
Search
Help
Members
Login
Home
