SLAC PEP-II
BABAR
SLAC<->RAL
Babar logo
HEPIC E,S & H Databases PDG HEP preprints
Organization Detector Computing Physics Documentation
Personnel Glossary Sitemap Search Hypernews
Unwrap page!
Det. Search
Who's who?
Meetings
FAQ
Images
Archive
Systems
Performance
Intern. region
Vertex Tracker
Drift chamber
DIRC
Calorimeter
IFR
LST
Magnet
Electronics
Trigger
Operations
Run Coordination
Contact Experts
Shift Takers Info
Operations Manual
Electronic Logbook
Ops Hypernews
Shift Signup
Check this page for HTML 4.01 Transitional compliance with the
W3C Validator
(More checks...)

Update on TSF efficiency simulation

I have looked at the unfolded TSF hits for each of the four sub layers and calculated the hit efficiency for each of the sub layers The results are presented in the following plot Comparing run 16802 and MC bbgeneric (Had selection)


The Fash ADC count cut used was about 130 for all hits. The TSF-hit eficiency vs. theta looks as follows


We see that we can extract the right TSF efficiency dependence on theta by getting the hit efficiency for each sub layer about right The discrapancy between data and MC could appear b/c of few reason

  • I use hadronic events selection, therefore there might be tacks crossing each other which might lead to too many ghits. I should first, copy the ghit list in some way and use the earlier ghit and Second average there charge.
  • There need to be backgound overlay although for now it should not be a big trouple as will be seen in the following
  • Another suggestion is more sattled The question is how sure we are that the MC simulation is doing exactly the same as the hardware any small difference or bias toward the third pivot layer makes the segments depends strongly on the LUT

Some background study

In order to address the second possibility it is interesting to study how the backgound affect the TSF/DCH-hit occupancy,different segments wieght and so on. In the following I have looked at the Run-18084 (Cosmic run) and Run-18562(Cosmic with beam)

The results is as expected the good news is the TSF-hit occupancy comparison


Another interesting comparison is the the ratio of each particular weight by the total number of the good segments close to a track in each event I plot the ratio vs the SL in order to find out the effect of backgroud


The same study was done using Run -18084-17077


The results is as expected the good news is the TSF-hit occupancy comparison


Another interesting comparison is the the ratio of each particular weight by the total number of the good segments close to a track in each event I plot the ratio vs the SL in order to find out the effect of backgroud


valerieh@SLAC.stanford.edu