Re: [Brahms-dev-l] T2-T3 matching

From: Ian Bearden <bearden@nbi.dk>
Date: Tue Jun 15 2004 - 03:48:14 EDT
I think this is because the matching is (and this is a VERY BAD idea, 
IMHO) done based on H1 hits.
Or at least it was.  I think that Flemming is right, we should have a 
module which works just like BrModuleMatchTrack, but with no magnet.
On the other hand:
Is it possible to define a "fake" magnet which is just a plane in space 
so that we could use the same module for matching?
I guess it is a matter of copying the matching module, or making a 
weird magnet volume, or there is something I haven't though of...

-Ian
On 15/6-2004, at 03:17, flemming videbaek wrote:

> Hi
> Just a short comment.
> I am clueless why T2-T3 matching depends on H1, H2 calibrations. This 
> should
> only be a function of
> tracking detectors - so I will go along with a solution for matching 
> that
> looks like BrModuleMatchTrack, but will
> strongly disagree to let this module dela with T2,T3 matching (the is 
> no
> filed involved). I have sai this before
> and will thus repeat. One coul make a matching approximately like this.
> We should also recall that due to the independence of FFS an BFS there 
> may
> be small systematic geometry
> difference, most likely in the x-offsets an not in angles that can 
> effect
> how we do t2-t3 matching and t2-t4 matching.
>
> Note this is not a complete note, but summarizes do something like 
> solution
> 3 but with a module parralle to BrModuleMatchTrack.. I do not like the 
> root
> file solution which would add a 3. method for storing calibration/db
> information.
>
> flemming
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Flemming Videbaek
> Physics Department
> Brookhaven National Laboratory
>
> e-mail: videbaek@bnl.gov
> phone: 631-344-4106
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pawel Staszel" <ufstasze@if.uj.edu.pl>
> To: "Djamel Ouerdane" <ouerdane@nbi.dk>
> Cc: "Brahms Devel List" <brahms-dev-l@lists.bnl.gov>
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 3:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [Brahms-dev-l] T2-T3 matching
>
>
>> Hi Djamel,
>> You are right, it is very old file, and we certainly have to update 
>> both
>> the parameter file and the part of the software
>> which deals with it.
>> Let me explain you how was it done for now and then we can decide 
>> about
>> the updates.
>>
>> offsets5361_5972.FS contains matching parameters in ascii format for 
>> all
> possible detector combinations in FS.
>> BrFsTrackingModule utilizes only parameters for T2-T3 combination. 
>> Files
> like offsets5361_5972.FS
>> are generated using the stuff from ps_app/fs/receff is a first part 
>> of the
> detector efficiency calculation.
>> This calculation uses local tracks as an input and depends only on H1 
>> and
> H2 calibration.
>> (the bad thing is that H1 and H2 calibrations depends on global 
>> tracking
> but for T2-T3 we don't need it)
>> In the mean time I moved from ascii to root format (see
> ~ufstasze/effic/EfficParamFile.root).
>>
>> As for now I see the following 3 solutions:
>> 1: update BrFsTrackingModule, so it can read root format files: the
> advantage of this solution is that we don't
>> have to update a lot. The disadvantage is however, that you generate
> offsetes for all detector combinations
>> but still these offsets have to be redone because of H1 and H2.
>> 2. Extract from ps_app/fs/receff what is needed and create a dedicated
> module for generating T2-T3 offsets only.
>> Then it will depend only on the localtracks.
>> We can decide about the format, or maybe, for this 8 float numbers we 
>> can
> create a db entry.
>> 3. Generate T2-T3 offsets at the same time when the other parameters
> utilized in BrModuleMatchTrack are generated.
>> The last solution would required some updates in BrModuleMatchTrack 
>> but I
> thing that this solution would
>> significantly simplified a book keeping and would made the whole 
>> analysis
> process more solid
>> (less possibility for a mistake). It would automatically took the
> advantage of your latest updates (brat version 2.17.8).
>>
>> So, I vote for the 3rd solution.
>> I can provide the updates but let us first agree on of how to proceed.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Pawel.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Djamel Ouerdane wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I was checking the BrFsTrackingModule and I saw the following: FFS 
>>> and
> BFS
>>> tracks are combined by checking some matching between T2 and T3 
>>> tracks.
>>> The module still uses an offset file called
>>>
>>> trackmatch/offsets5361_5972.FS
>>>
>>> How good is that ?? runs 5xxx are almost prehistory compared to 
>>> 11xxx.
>>> I guess this question is for Pawel. How did you generate this file ??
>>>
>>> Djam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Brahms-dev-l mailing list
>> Brahms-dev-l@lists.bnl.gov
>> http://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-dev-l
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Brahms-dev-l mailing list
> Brahms-dev-l@lists.bnl.gov
> http://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-dev-l
>


_______________________________________________
Brahms-dev-l mailing list
Brahms-dev-l@lists.bnl.gov
http://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-dev-l
Received on Tue Jun 15 03:49:41 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jun 15 2004 - 03:50:03 EDT