CMS Tracker Detector Performance Results 2015: Alignment

Contact: Tapio Lampen (tapio.lampen@cernNOSPAMPLEASE.ch), Matthias Schröder (matthias.schroeder@desyNOSPAMPLEASE.de), and the tracker alignment hypernews (hn-cms-tk-alignment@cernNOSPAMPLEASE.ch).

Data-Taking Periods and Alignment Strategies

  • Different data-taking periods in 2015, which are considered here, in historic order
    • cosmic-ray data with the magnetic field at 3.8T
    • 0T collision data at 13 CMS.TeV center-of-mass energy
    • 3.8T collision data at 13 CMS.TeV center-of-mass energy
  • They correspond to three different detector geometries particularly due to changes of the magnetic field. Alignment constants have been derived for each data-taking period using the data collected during that period.
  • Alignments under study are the result of a combination of a global (Millepede-II) [1], [2] and local (HIP) fit approach [2]
    • The results are obtained by different approaches of running the two algorithms in sequence. In each data-taking period, the starting point for the alignment fit is the alignment obtained in the previous data-taking period.
    • In addition, the two algorithms run independently confirm each other.

Plots and Results

The coordinate systems (both the primed and non-primed coordinates) used in the following are defined in [2].

Geometry Comparison

Visualization of the module-position differences of two different tracker geometries.

Comparison of the Run II and Run I tracker-geometries

Figure in PNG format (click on plot to get PDF) Description

Also as ANIMATED GIF
Comparison of Run II and Run I positions of the pixel modules of the tracker, determined with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using cosmic ray data collected with 0T and 3.8T magnetic field in the solenoid and 0T collision data at 13 CMS.TeV. The positions at the end of Run I are shown in gray. The module shifts between Run I and Run II are magnified by a factor of 5 for visualization, and the resulting positions are shown in red, yellow, or green, depending on the magnitude of the shift. The red is mostly concentrated in the -z endcap, which moved by about 6 mm away from the barrel. The barrel is mostly yellow, as it was moved up by (-1.3,-3.38) mm in (x,y) in the re-centering procedure around the beampipe during the installation phase prior to Run II. Because of additional movements of the two half-barrels, a few modules are red. The half barrel on the +x side (direction inwards into the picture) was in addition subject of extensive repair and replacement work.
Comparison of Run II and Run I positions of the modules in the forward-pixel (FPIX) detector of the tracker, determined with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using cosmic ray data collected with 0T and 3.8T magnetic field in the solenoid. Shown is the difference Δz(Run II - Run I) as a function of z in global coordinates. Modules in the endcap half-disks at the -z side are shown in red, modules in the half-disks at the +z side are shown in black. The four half-disks at the -z side (four clusters of red dots) are displaced by -4.5 mm and -5.5 mm. Much smaller relative movements of up to 200μm are observed for the modules in the half-disks on the +z side (two clusters of black dots).
Comparison of the Run II and Run I positions of the modules in the forward-pixel (FPIX) detector of the tracker, determined with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using cosmic ray data collected with 0T and 3.8T magnetic field in the solenoid. Shown is the difference Δz(Run II - Run I) as a function of φ in global coordinates. Modules in the endcap half-disks at the -z side are shown in red, modules in the half-disks at the +z side are shown in black. The half-disks at the -z side are displaced by -4.5mm (φ<-π/2, φ>π/2) and -5.5 mm (-π/2<φ<π/2) compared to the Run I position. Much smaller relative movements of up to 200μm are observed between the half-disks on the +z side.

Comparison of Run II and Run I positions of the modules in the forward-pixel (FPIX) detector of the tracker, determined with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using cosmic ray data collected with 0T and 3.8T magnetic field in the solenoid. Shown is the difference Δx(Run II - Run I) as a function of φ in global coordinates. Modules in the endcap half-disks at the -z side are shown in red, modules in the half-disks at the +z side are shown in black. Relative movements between the half-disk structures -π/2<φ<π/2 and φ<-π/2, φ>π/2 are visible, which are more pronounced up to 300μm at the -z side.
Comparison of Run II and Run I positions of the modules in the barrel-pixel (BPIX) detector of the tracker, determined with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using cosmic ray data collected with 0T and 3.8T magnetic field in the solenoid. Shown is the difference Δx(Run II - Run I) as a function of φ in global coordinates. The BPIX as a whole is subject to a ~2 mm shift attributed to the shifts (-1.3,-3.38) mm introduced in (x,y) in the re-centering procedure of the BPIX around the beampipe during the installation phase. In addition, a relative movement between the two half-barrel structures -π/2<φ<π/2 and φ<-π/2, φ>π/2 is visible, and the individual modules in the half-barrel structure -π/2<φ<π/2 move within a range of up to 1 mm. Also, the z-dependence of the spread in x shows that there is a tilt of one half-barrel. This is attributed to the extensive repair and replacement work of this half barrel.
Comparison of Run II and Run I positions of the modules in the barrel-pixel (BPIX) detector of the tracker, determined with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using cosmic ray data collected with 0T and 3.8T magnetic field in the solenoid. Shown is the difference Δy(Run II - Run I) as a function of φ in global coordinates. The BPIX as a whole is subject to a 3-3.5 mm shift attributed to the shifts (-1.3,-3.38) mm introduced in in (x,y) the re-centering procedure of the BPIX around the beampipe during the installation phase. In addition, a relative shift between the two half-barrel structures -π/2<φ<π/2 and φ<-π/2, φ>π/2 is visible, which is attributed to the extensive repair and replacement work in the -π/2<φ<π/2 half barrel.
Comparison of Run II and Run I positions of the modules in the barrel-pixel (BPIX) detector of the tracker, determined with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using cosmic ray data collected with 0T and 3.8T magnetic field in the solenoid. Shown is the difference Δz(Run II - Run I) as a function of φ in global coordinates. A relative movement between the two half-barrel structures -π/2<φ<π/2 and φ<-π/2, φ>π/2 is visible, and the individual modules in the half-barrel structure -π/2<φ<π/2 move within a range of ~200μm. This is attributed to the extensive repair and replacement work of this half barrel.
Comparison of Run II and Run I positions of the modules in the barrel-pixel (BPIX) detector of the tracker, determined with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using cosmic ray data collected with 0T and 3.8T magnetic field in the solenoid. Shown is the difference Δz(Run II - Run I) as a function of the radius r in global coordinates. Six clusters of modules are visible. Clusters around the same three values of r correspond to modules in the three concentric layers of the two BPIX half-barrels. In each layer (at each of the three values of r) two clusters are visible, one close to Δz=0 and one cluster of modules with movements of ~700μm, indicating a movement of one half-barrel.
Comparison of Run II and Run I positions of the modules in the barrel-pixel (BPIX) detector of the tracker, determined with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using cosmic ray data collected with 0T and 3.8T magnetic field in the solenoid. Shown is the difference Δz(Run II - Run I) as a function of z in global coordinates. Modules in the lower part of the plot, corresponding to one half barrel, have moved about 700μm, while the other half barrel does not show movements of this size.

Comparison of the Run II tracker-geometry at 3.8T and 0T

Figure in PNG format (click on plot to get PDF) Description

Also as ANIMATED GIF
Comparison of the 3.8T position of the pixel modules of the tracker to their 0T position, determined with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using 0T and 3.8T cosmic ray data. The positions during the first 0T cosmic ray data collection are shown in gray. The module shifts, which resulted from the changing magnetic field, are magnified by a factor of 200 for visualization, and the resulting positions are shown in red, yellow, or green, depending on the magnitude of the shift. The movements are of order 100 microns, and the largest movements are found in the barrel.

DMR Validation

Distributions of medians of unbiased track-hit residuals. Each track is refitted using the alignment constants under consideration, and the hit prediction for each module is obtained from all of the other track hits. The median of the distribution of unbiased hit residuals is then taken for each module and is histogrammed. The width of this distribution of the medians of residuals (DMR) is a measure of the statistical precision of alignment results; deviations from zero indicate possible biases. The width also has an intrinsic component due to the limited number of tracks, meaning that distributions can only be compared if they are produced with the same number of tracks, as is the case within each set of plots here.

3.8T cosmic ray data

The first alignment of the tracker, using 0T and 3.8T cosmic ray data, corrected for the shifts that took place since the end of Run I of the LHC. The pixels modules in particular were repaired during the shutdown, and the pixel subdetectors were also recentered within the tracker. This validation was performed with 2 million cosmic tracks recorded with a magnetic field of 3.8T. Large improvements over the Run I geometry are observed in both the pixel (BPIX and FPIX) and the strip (TIB, TID, TOB, TEC) modules. Although the strips moved much less than the pixels did, the pixel misalignment results in less accurate tracks, with effects that are visible in the strips as well.

Figure in PNG format (click on plot to get PDF) Description
The distribution of median residuals is plotted for the local x-direction in the barrel pixel detector, using 2 million cosmic ray tracks collected with the magnetic field at 3.8T. The blue line shows the Run I geometry, which is no longer valid for Run II data, primarily because of temperature changes and pixel re-centering and repair. The alignment shown in green was produced with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using 0T and 3.8T cosmic ray data. The rms values, calculated using modules both inside and outside the plot range, show improvement over the Run I geometry by a factor of 10.
The distribution of median residuals is plotted for the local y-direction in the barrel pixel detector, using 2 million cosmic ray tracks collected with the magnetic field at 3.8T. The blue line shows the Run I geometry, which is no longer valid for Run II data, primarily because of temperature changes and pixel re-centering and repair. The alignment shown in green was produced with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using 0T and 3.8T cosmic ray data. The rms values, calculated using modules both inside and outside the plot range, show improvement over the Run I geometry by a factor of 10.
The distribution of median residuals is plotted for the local x-direction in the forward pixel detectors, using 2 million cosmic ray tracks collected with the magnetic field at 3.8T. The blue line shows the Run I geometry, which is no longer valid for Run II data, primarily because of temperature changes and pixel re-centering and repair. The alignment shown in green was produced with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using 0T and 3.8T cosmic ray data. The rms values, calculated using modules both inside and outside the plot range, show improvement over the Run I geometry by a factor of 3.
The distribution of median residuals is plotted for the local y-direction in the forward pixel detector, using 2 million cosmic ray tracks collected with the magnetic field at 3.8T. The blue line shows the Run I geometry, which is no longer valid for Run II data, primarily because of temperature changes and pixel re-centering and repair. The alignment shown in green was produced with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using 0T and 3.8T cosmic ray data. The rms values, calculated using modules both inside and outside the plot range, show improvement over the Run I geometry by a factor of 3.
The distribution of median residuals is plotted for the tracker inner barrel, using 2 million cosmic ray tracks collected with the magnetic field at 3.8T. The blue line shows the Run I geometry, which is no longer valid for Run II data, primarily because of temperature changes and pixel re-centering and repair (since tracks are fitted using hits in both the pixel and the strip detectors, the large movements of the pixel detectors also affect the DMR performance in the strip detectors). The alignment shown in green was produced with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using 0T and 3.8T cosmic ray data. The rms values, calculated using modules both inside and outside the plot range, show improvement over the Run I geometry by a factor of 10.
The distribution of median residuals is plotted for the tracker inner disks, using 2 million cosmic ray tracks collected with the magnetic field at 3.8T. The blue line shows the Run I geometry, which is no longer valid for Run II data, primarily because of temperature changes and pixel re-centering and repair (since tracks are fitted using hits in both the pixel and the strip detectors, the large movements of the pixel detectors also affect the DMR performance in the strip detectors). The alignment shown in green was produced with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using 0T and 3.8T cosmic ray data. The rms values, calculated using modules both inside and outside the plot range, show improvement over the Run I geometry by a factor of 10.
The distribution of median residuals is plotted for the tracker outer barrel, using 2 million cosmic ray tracks collected with the magnetic field at 3.8T. The blue line shows the Run I geometry, which is no longer valid for Run II data, primarily because of temperature changes and pixel re-centering and repair (since tracks are fitted using hits in both the pixel and the strip detectors, the large movements of the pixel detectors also affect the DMR performance in the strip detectors). The alignment shown in green was produced with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using 0T and 3.8T cosmic ray data. The rms values, calculated using modules both inside and outside the plot range, show improvement over the Run I geometry by a factor of 10.
The distribution of median residuals is plotted for the tracker endcaps, using 2 million cosmic ray tracks collected with the magnetic field at 3.8T. The blue line shows the Run I geometry, which is no longer valid for Run II data, primarily because of temperature changes and pixel re-centering and repair (since tracks are fitted using hits in both the pixel and the strip detectors, the large movements of the pixel detectors also affect the DMR performance in the strip detectors). The alignment shown in green was produced with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using 0T and 3.8T cosmic ray data. The rms values, calculated using modules both inside and outside the plot range, show improvement over the Run I geometry by a factor of 3.

0T collision data

The tracker geometry changed between the 3.8T cosmic ray data and the first collisions, recorded with the magnetic field off, primarily because the changing magnetic field causes movements in the tracker. These effects are apparent mostly in the pixels, and the alignment performed using 0T collisions and cosmic rays (taken in between collision-data runs) recovers the tracker performance. These plots are produced with 1.8 million 0T collision-data tracks.
Figure in PNG format (click on plot to get PDF) Description
The distribution of median residuals is plotted for the local x-direction in the barrel pixel detector, using 1.8 million collision tracks collected with the magnetic field turned off. The blue line shows the Run I geometry, which is no longer valid for Run II data, primarily because of temperature changes and pixel re-centering and repair. The green line shows the data refitted with the initial geometry used for data taking, which was determined using 0T and 3.8T cosmic ray data and which was valid for data collected with the magnetic field turned on. The black line shows the data refitted with the alignment for this data period, produced with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using 0T collisions and cosmic ray data. This alignment recovers the changes in the tracker geometry between the two run periods, which are primarily a result of the change in the magnetic field.The RMS of the distribution reduces from 96.5 and 11.4 to 1.8μm for the Run I, initial, and aligned geometry, respectively.
The distribution of median residuals is plotted for the local y-direction in the barrel pixel detector, using 1.8 million collision tracks collected with the magnetic field turned off. The blue line shows the Run I geometry, which is no longer valid for Run II data, primarily because of temperature changes and pixel re-centering and repair. The green line shows the data refitted with the initial geometry used for data taking, which was determined using 0T and 3.8T cosmic ray data and which was valid for data collected with the magnetic field turned on. The black line shows the data refitted with the alignment for this data period, produced with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using 0T collisions and cosmic ray data. This alignment recovers the changes in the tracker geometry between the two run periods, which are primarily a result of the change in the magnetic field. The RMS of the distribution reduces from 71.2 and 24.7 to 7.4μm for the Run I, initial, and aligned geometry, respectively.
The distribution of median residuals is plotted for the local x-direction in the forward pixel detectors, using 1.8 million collision tracks collected with the magnetic field turned off. The blue line shows the Run I geometry, which is no longer valid for Run II data, primarily because of temperature changes and pixel re-centering and repair. The green line shows the data refitted with the initial geometry used for data taking, which was determined using 0T and 3.8T cosmic ray data and which was valid for data collected with the magnetic field turned on. The black line shows the data refitted with the alignment for this data period, produced with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using 0T collisions and cosmic ray data. This alignment recovers the changes in the tracker geometry between the two run periods, which are primarily a result of the change in the magnetic field. The RMS of the distribution reduces from 49.9 and 21.8 to 10.9μm for the Run I, initial, and aligned geometry, respectively.
The distribution of median residuals is plotted for the local y-direction in the forward pixel detectors, using 1.8 million collision tracks collected with the magnetic field turned off. The blue line shows the Run I geometry, which is no longer valid for Run II data, primarily because of temperature changes and pixel re-centering and repair. The green line shows the data refitted with the initial geometry used for data taking, which was determined using 0T and 3.8T cosmic ray data and which was valid for data collected with the magnetic field turned on. The black line shows the data refitted with the alignment for this data period, produced with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using 0T collisions and cosmic ray data. This alignment recovers the changes in the tracker geometry between the two run periods, which are primarily a result of the change in the magnetic field. The RMS of the distribution reduces from 27.9 and 25.2 to 14.0μm for the Run I, initial, and aligned geometry, respectively.
The distribution of median residuals is plotted for the tracker inner barrel, using 1.8 million collision tracks collected with the magnetic field turned off. The blue line shows the Run I geometry, which is no longer valid for Run II data, primarily because of temperature changes and pixel re-centering and repair (since tracks are fitted using hits in both the pixel and the strip detectors, the large movements of the pixel detectors also affect the DMR performance in the strip detectors). The green line shows the data refitted with the initial geometry used for data taking, which was determined using 0T and 3.8T cosmic ray data and which was valid for data collected with the magnetic field turned on. The black line shows the data refitted with the alignment for this data period, produced with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using 0T collisions and cosmic ray data. This alignment recovers the changes in the tracker geometry between the two run periods, which are primarily a result of the change in the magnetic field. The RMS of the distribution reduces from 20.1 to 5.6 and 4.0μm for the Run I, initial, and aligned geometry, respectively.
The distribution of median residuals is plotted for the tracker inner disks, using 1.8 million collision tracks collected with the magnetic field turned off. The blue line shows the Run I geometry, which is no longer valid for Run II data, primarily because of temperature changes and pixel re-centering and repair (since tracks are fitted using hits in both the pixel and the strip detectors, the large movements of the pixel detectors also affect the DMR performance in the strip detectors). The green line shows the data refitted with the initial geometry used for data taking, which was determined using 0T and 3.8T cosmic ray data and which was valid for data collected with the magnetic field turned on. The black line shows the data refitted with the alignment for this data period, produced with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using 0T collisions and cosmic ray data. The improvements from this alignment are mostly seen in the pixel modules, but also improve the strips to a lesser degree. The RMS of the distribution reduces from 22.1 to 4.5μm for the Run I and the initial and aligned geometry, respectively.
The distribution of median residuals is plotted for the tracker outer barrel, using 1.8 million collision tracks collected with the magnetic field turned off. The blue line shows the Run I geometry, which is no longer valid for Run II data, primarily because of temperature changes and pixel re-centering and repair (since tracks are fitted using hits in both the pixel and the strip detectors, the large movements of the pixel detectors also affect the DMR performance in the strip detectors). The green line shows the data refitted with the initial geometry used for data taking, which was determined using 0T and 3.8T cosmic ray data and which was valid for data collected with the magnetic field turned on. The black line shows the data refitted with the alignment for this data period, produced with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using 0T collisions and cosmic ray data. The improvements from this alignment are mostly seen in the pixel modules. The RMS of the distribution reduces from 17.8 to 7.7 and 7.4μm for the Run I, initial, and aligned geometry, respectively.
The distribution of median residuals is plotted for the tracker endcaps, using 1.8 million collision tracks collected with the magnetic field turned off. The blue line shows the Run I geometry, which is no longer valid for Run II data, primarily because of temperature changes and pixel re-centering and repair (since tracks are fitted using hits in both the pixel and the strip detectors, the large movements of the pixel detectors also affect the DMR performance in the strip detectors). The green line shows the data refitted with the initial geometry used for data taking, which was determined using 0T and 3.8T cosmic ray data and which was valid for data collected with the magnetic field turned on. The black line shows the data refitted with the alignment for this data period, produced with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using 0T collisions and cosmic ray data. The improvements from this alignment are mostly seen in the pixel modules. The RMS of the distribution reduces from 13.5 to 7.0μm for the Run I and the initial and aligned geometry, respectively.

3.8T collision data

The tracker geometry changed again when the magnetic field was turned back on. This alignment was produced in an automated process, which will be used as part of the Prompt Calibration Loop (PCL), which activates as the data is collected and processed. Alignment is performed with a relatively small amount tracks (much less than the 20 million tracks used in the validation below), and the current alignment is used as a starting point. New alignment constants are fitted for larger substructures of the pixel detector (BPIX half-barrels and FPIX half-cylinders) only. The changes, again produced by the changing magnetic field, are recovered by this alignment.

Figure in PNG format (click on plot to get PDF) Description
The distribution of median residuals is plotted for the local x-direction in the barrel pixel detector, using 20 million collision tracks collected with the magnetic field at 3.8T. The blue line shows the Run I geometry, which is no longer valid for Run II data, primarily because of temperature changes and pixel re-centering and repair. The black line shows the starting geometry for data taking, which was valid for data taken with the magnetic field turned off, as it was produced with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using cosmic ray and 0T collision data. The alignment shown in violet was adjusted from this geometry by an automated alignment process of the pixel detector that will be run as part of the Prompt Calibration Loop as data is collected and processed, and shows improvements over the inital geometry. The changes resulted primarily from the change in the magnetic field. The RMS of the distribution reduces from 118.9 and 9.4 to 3.3μm for the Run I, initial, and aligned geometry, respectively.
The distribution of median residuals is plotted for the local y-direction in the barrel pixel detector, using 20 million collision tracks collected with the magnetic field at 3.8T. The blue line shows the Run I geometry, which is no longer valid for Run II data, primarily because of temperature changes and pixel re-centering and repair. The black line shows the starting geometry for data taking, which was valid for data taken with the magnetic field turned off, as it was produced with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using cosmic ray and 0T collision data. The alignment shown in violet was adjusted from this geometry by an automated alignment process of the pixel detector that will be run as part of the Prompt Calibration Loop as data is collected and processed, and shows improvements over the inital geometry. The changes resulted primarily from the change in the magnetic field.The RMS of the distribution reduces from 90.1 and 27.0 to 10.0μm for the Run I, initial, and aligned geometry, respectively. The double-peak structure present when assuming the initial geometry in the track refit is corrected by the PCL-style alignment of the pixel detector.
The distribution of median residuals is plotted for the local x-direction in the forward pixel detector, using 20 million collision tracks collected with the magnetic field at 3.8T. The blue line shows the Run I geometry, which is no longer valid for Run II data, primarily because of temperature changes and pixel re-centering and repair. The black line shows the starting geometry for data taking, which was valid for data taken with the magnetic field turned off, as it was produced with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using cosmic ray and 0T collision data. The alignment shown in violet was adjusted from this geometry by an automated alignment process of the pixel detector that will be run as part of the Prompt Calibration Loop as data is collected and processed, and shows improvements over the inital geometry. The changes resulted primarily from the change in the magnetic field. The RMS of the distribution reduces from 63.1 and 13.6 to 4.6μm for the Run I, initial, and aligned geometry, respectively.
The distribution of median residuals is plotted for the local y-direction in the forward pixel detector, using 20 million collision tracks collected with the magnetic field at 3.8T. The blue line shows the Run I geometry, which is no longer valid for Run II data, primarily because of temperature changes and pixel re-centering and repair. The black line shows the starting geometry for data taking, which was valid for data taken with the magnetic field turned off, as it was produced with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using cosmic ray and 0T collision data. The alignment shown in violet was adjusted from this geometry by an automated alignment process of the pixel detector that will be run as part of the Prompt Calibration Loop as data is collected and processed, and shows improvements over the inital geometry. The changes resulted primarily from the change in the magnetic field. The RMS of the distribution reduces from 32.7 and 11.7 to 7.1μm for the Run I, initial, and aligned geometry, respectively.
The distribution of median residuals is plotted for the tracker inner barrel, using 20 million collision tracks collected with the magnetic field at 3.8T. The blue line shows the Run I geometry, which is no longer valid for Run II data, primarily because of temperature changes and pixel re-centering and repair (since tracks are fitted using hits in both the pixel and the strip detectors, the large movements of the pixel detectors also affect the DMR performance in the strip detectors). The black line shows the starting geometry for data taking, which was valid for data taken with the magnetic field turned off, as it was produced with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using cosmic ray and 0T collision data. The alignment shown in violet was adjusted from this geometry by an automated alignment process of the pixel detector that will be run as part of the Prompt Calibration Loop as data is collected and processed, and shows improvements over the inital geometry. The changes resulted primarily from the change in the magnetic field. The RMS of the distribution reduces from 36.3 and 5.8 to 3.1μm for the Run I, initial, and aligned geometry, respectively.
The distribution of median residuals is plotted for the tracker inner disks, using 20 million collision tracks collected with the magnetic field at 3.8T. The blue line shows the Run I geometry, which is no longer valid for Run II data, primarily because of temperature changes and pixel re-centering and repair (since tracks are fitted using hits in both the pixel and the strip detectors, the large movements of the pixel detectors also affect the DMR performance in the strip detectors). The black line shows the starting geometry for data taking, which was valid for data taken with the magnetic field turned off, as it was produced with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using cosmic ray and 0T collision data. The alignment shown in violet was adjusted from this geometry by an automated alignment process of the pixel detector that will be run as part of the Prompt Calibration Loop as data is collected and processed, and shows improvements over the inital geometry. The changes resulted primarily from the change in the magnetic field. The RMS of the distribution reduces from 42.1 to 5.4 and 4.6μm for the Run I, initial, and aligned geometry, respectively.
The distribution of median residuals is plotted for the tracker endcaps, using 20 million collision tracks collected with the magnetic field at 3.8T. The blue line shows the Run I geometry, which is no longer valid for Run II data, primarily because of temperature changes and pixel re-centering and repair (since tracks are fitted using hits in both the pixel and the strip detectors, the large movements of the pixel detectors also affect the DMR performance in the strip detectors). The black line shows the starting geometry for data taking, which was valid for data taken with the magnetic field turned off, as it was produced with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using cosmic ray and 0T collision data. The alignment shown in violet was adjusted from this geometry by an automated alignment process of the pixel detector that will be run as part of the Prompt Calibration Loop as data is collected and processed, and shows improvements over the inital geometry. The changes resulted primarily from the change in the magnetic field, and affected the inner detectors more than the outer detectors, such as the endcaps shown here. The RMS of the distribution reduces from 13.3 to 5.3 and 5.2μm for the Run I, initial, and aligned geometry, respectively.

Cosmic Track Splitting Validation

Cosmic ray tracks are split in half at the hit closest to origin and refitted with the alignment constants under consideration. The differences in various track parameters between the two half-tracks are studied. The width of the distribution measures the achieved alignment precision, while deviations from zero indicate possible biases.

3.8T cosmic ray data

Figure in PNG format (click on plot to get PDF) Description
The normalized differences between two halves of a cosmic track, split at the point of closest approach to the interaction region, in $d_{xy}$, the xy distance between the track and the origin. The observed precision using the aligned geometry (green circles), produced with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using cosmic ray data at 0 and 3.8T, is a major improvement over the Run I geometry (blue empty squares) which is no longer valid for Run II data, primarily because of temperature changes and pixel re-centering and repair. The precision comes close to that of the ideal Monte Carlo, illustrating that the tracker has almost reached its design spatial resolution.
The normalized differences between two halves of a cosmic track, split at the point of closest approach to the interaction region, in $d_z$, the distance in the z direction between the track and the origin. The observed precision using the aligned geometry (green circles), produced with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using cosmic ray data at 0 and 3.8T, is a major improvement over the Run I geometry (blue empty squares) which is no longer valid for Run II data, primarily because of temperature changes and pixel re-centering and repair. The precision comes close to that of the ideal Monte Carlo, illustrating that the tracker has almost reached its design spatial resolution.
The normalized differences between two halves of a cosmic track, split at the point of closest approach to the interaction region, in the track's polar angle $\theta$. The observed precision using the aligned geometry (green circles), produced with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using cosmic ray data at 0 and 3.8T, is a major improvement over the Run I geometry (blue empty squares) which is no longer valid for Run II data, primarily because of temperature changes and pixel re-centering and repair. The precision comes close to that of the ideal Monte Carlo, illustrating that the tracker has almost reached its design angular resolution.
The normalized differences between two halves of a cosmic track, split at the point of closest approach to the interaction region, in the track's azimuthal angle $\phi$. The observed precision using the aligned geometry (green circles), produced with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using cosmic ray data at 0 and 3.8T, is a major improvement over the Run I geometry (blue empty squares) which is no longer valid for Run II data, primarily because of temperature changes and pixel re-centering and repair. The precision comes close to that of the ideal Monte Carlo, illustrating that the tracker has almost reached its design angular resolution.
The normalized differences between two halves of a cosmic track, split at the point of closest approach to the interaction region, in the track's transverse momentum $p_T$. The observed precision using the aligned geometry (green circles), produced with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using cosmic ray data at 0 and 3.8T, is a major improvement over the Run I geometry (blue empty squares) which is no longer valid for Run II data, primarily because of temperature changes and pixel re-centering and repair. The precision comes close to that of the ideal Monte Carlo, illustrating that the tracker has almost reached its design momentum resolution.

0T cosmic rays (taken in between runs during the 0T collision data-taking period)

Figure in PNG format (click on plot to get PDF) Description
The normalized differences between two halves of a cosmic track, split at the point of closest approach to the interaction region, in $d_{xy}$, the xy distance between the track and the origin. The observed precision using the aligned geometry (black filled squares), produced with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using cosmic ray and 0T collision data, is a major improvement over the Run I geometry (blue empty squares) which is no longer valid for Run II data, primarily because of temperature changes and pixel re-centering and repair. The precision comes close to that of the ideal Monte Carlo, illustrating that the tracker has almost reached its design spatial resolution.
The normalized differences between two halves of a cosmic track, split at the point of closest approach to the interaction region, in $d_z$, the distance in the z direction between the track and the origin. The observed precision using the aligned geometry (black filled squares), produced with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using cosmic ray and 0T collision data, is a major improvement over the Run I geometry (blue empty squares) which is no longer valid for Run II data, primarily because of temperature changes and pixel re-centering and repair. The precision comes close to that of the ideal Monte Carlo, illustrating that the tracker has almost reached its design spatial resolution.
The normalized differences between two halves of a cosmic track, split at the point of closest approach to the interaction region, in the track's polar angle $\theta$. The observed precision using the aligned geometry (black filled squares), produced with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using cosmic ray and 0T collision data, is a major improvement over the Run I geometry (blue empty squares) which is no longer valid for Run II data, primarily because of temperature changes and pixel re-centering and repair. The precision is approximately the same as that of the ideal Monte Carlo, illustrating that the tracker has reached its design angular resolution for 0 tesla data.
The normalized differences between two halves of a cosmic track, split at the point of closest approach to the interaction region, in the track's azimuthal angle $\phi$. The observed precision using the aligned geometry (black filled squares), produced with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using cosmic ray and 0T collision data, is a major improvement over the Run I geometry (blue empty squares) which is no longer valid for Run II data, primarily because of temperature changes and pixel re-centering and repair. The precision is close to that of the ideal Monte Carlo, illustrating that the tracker has reached its design angular resolution for 0 tesla data. The small difference is believed to be the result of a statistical fluctuation.

Primary Vertex Validation

The resolution of the reconstructed vertex position is driven by the pixel detector since it is the closest detector to the interaction point and has the best hit resolution. The primary vertex residual method is based on the study the distance between the track and the vertex, the latter reconstructed without the track under scrutiny (unbiased track-vertex residual). Selection and reconstruction of the events is the following:
  • Events used in this analysis are selected online with minimum bias triggers.
  • The fit of the vertex must have at least 4 degrees of freedom.
  • For each of the vertices, the impact parameters are measured for tracks with:
    • more than 6 hits in the tracker, of which at least two are in the pixel detector,
    • at least one hit in the first layer of the Barrel Pixel or the first disk of the Forward Pixel,
    • $\chi^{2}/ndof$ of the track fit < 5.
  • The vertex position is recalculated excluding the track under scrutiny.
  • A deterministic annealing clustering algorithm is used in order to make the method robust against pileup, as in the default reconstruction sequence.
The distributions of the unbiased track-vertex residuals in the transverse plane, $d_{xy}$ and in the longitudinal direction, $d_{z}$ are studied in bins of track azimuth $\phi$ and pseudo-rapidity $\eta$. Random misalignments of the modules affect only the resolution of the unbiased track-vertex residual, increasing the width of the distributions, but without biasing their mean. Systematic movements of the modules will bias the distributions in a way that depends on the nature and size of the misalignment and the and of the selected tracks.

Run II only alignments

Figure in PNG format (click on plot to get PDF) Description
The distance in the transverse plane of the track at its closest approach to a refit unbiased primary vertex ($d_{xy}$) is studied in bins of track azimuth $\phi$ using a sample of around 5.5M events collected by the CMS detector at zero magnetic field (0T) selected online through minimum bias triggers. The performance of a dedicated alignment achieved with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using cosmic ray data collected with 0T and 3.8T magnetic field and 0T collision data is compared to the one of a previous alignment reached during the commissioning phase with cosmic ray tracks at full magnetic field and to a detailed detector simulation with perfect alignment and calibration. The structures of the green curve indicate relative movements of the pixel half-barrels.
The distance in the longitudinal plane of the track at its closest approach to a refit unbiased primary vertex ($d_{z}$) is studied in bins of track azimuth $\phi$ using a sample of around 5.5M events collected by the CMS detector at zero magnetic field (0T) selected online through minimum bias triggers. The performance of a dedicated alignment achieved with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using cosmic ray data collected with 0T and 3.8T magnetic field and 0T collision data is compared to the one of a previous alignment reached during the commissioning phase with cosmic ray tracks at full magnetic field and to a detailed detector simulation with perfect alignment and calibration. The structures of the green curve indicate relative movements of the pixel half-barrels.
The distance in the transverse plane of the track at its closest approach to a refit unbiased primary vertex ($d_{xy}$) is studied in bins of track pseudo-rapidity $\eta$ using a sample of around 5.5M events collected by the CMS detector at zero magnetic field (0T) selected online through minimum bias triggers. The performance of a dedicated alignment achieved with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using cosmic ray data collected with 0T and 3.8T magnetic field and 0T collision data is compared to the one of a previous alignment reached during the commissioning phase with cosmic ray tracks at full magnetic field and to a detailed detector simulation with perfect alignment and calibration. Non optimal performance in the high pseudo-rapidity bins is understood in term of not yet perfect alignment of the Forward Pixel modules, due to low illumination of this part of the detector to cosmic rays and to the limited amount of collision tracks used in the alignment fit.
The distance in the longitudinal plane of the track at its closest approach to a refit unbiased primary vertex ($d_{z}$) is studied in bins of track pseudo-rapidity $\eta$ using a sample of around 5.5M events collected by the CMS detector at zero magnetic field (0T) selected online through minimum bias triggers. The performance of a a dedicated alignment achieved with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using cosmic ray data collected with 0T and 3.8T magnetic field and 0T collision data is compared to the one of a previous alignment reached during the commissioning phase with cosmic ray tracks at full magnetic field and to a detailed detector simulation with perfect alignment and calibration. Non optimal performance in the high pseudo-rapidity bins is understood in term of not yet perfect alignment of the Forward Pixel modules, due to low illumination of this part of the detector to cosmic rays and to the limited amount of collision tracks used in the alignment fit.

Including Run I alignment

Figure in PNG format (click on plot to get PDF) Description
The distance in the transverse plane of the track at its closest approach to a refit unbiased primary vertex ($d_{xy}$) is studied in bins of track azimuth $\phi$ using a sample of around 5.5M events collected by the CMS detector at zero magnetic field (0T) selected online through minimum bias triggers. The performance of a dedicated alignment achieved with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using 0T and 3.8T cosmic ray and 0T collision data is compared to the one of a previous alignment reached during the commissioning phase with cosmic ray tracks at full magnetic field, to the alignment used during end of Run I, and to a detailed detector simulation with perfect alignment and calibration. Large biases in the Run I geometry are expected due to the shifts (-1.3,-3.38) mm introduced in (x,y) in the re-centering procedure of the Barrel Pixel around the beampipe during the installation phase.
The distance in the longitudinal plane of the track at its closest approach to a refit unbiased primary vertex ($d_{z}$) is studied in bins of track azimuth $\phi$ using a sample of around 5.5M events collected by the CMS detector at zero magnetic field (0T) selected online through minimum bias triggers. The performance of a dedicated alignment achieved with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using 0T and 3.8T cosmic ray and 0T collision data is compared to the one of a previous alignment reached during the commissioning phase with cosmic ray tracks at full magnetic field, to the alignment used at the end of Run I and to a detailed detector simulation with perfect alignment and calibration. Large biases in the Run I geometry are expected due to the shifts (-1.3,-3.38) mm introduced in in (x,y) the re-centering procedure of the Barrel Pixel around the beampipe during the installation phase.
The distance in the transverse plane of the track at its closest approach to a refit unbiased primary vertex ($d_{xy}$) is studied in bins of track pseudo-rapidity $\eta$ using a sample of around 5.5M events collected by the CMS detector at zero magnetic field (0T) selected online through minimum bias triggers. The performance of a dedicated alignment achieved with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using 0T and 3.8T cosmic ray and 0T collision data is compared to the one of a previous alignment reached during the commissioning phase with cosmic ray tracks at full magnetic field, to the alignment used at the end of Run I and to a detailed detector simulation with perfect alignment and calibration. Large biases in the Run I geometry are expected due to the shifts (-1.3,-3.38) mm introduced in (x,y) in the re-centering procedure of the Barrel Pixel around the beampipe during the installation phase.
The distance in the longitudinal plane of the track at its closest approach to a refit unbiased primary vertex ($d_{z}$) is studied in bins of track pseudo-rapidity $\eta$ using a sample of around 5.5M events collected by the CMS detector at zero magnetic field (0T) selected online through minimum bias triggers. The performance of a dedicated alignment achieved with the Millepede-II and HIP algorithms using 0T and 3.8T cosmic ray and 0T collision data is compared to the one of a previous alignment reached during the commissioning phase with cosmic ray tracks at full magnetic field, to the alignment used at the end of Run I and to a detailed detector simulation with perfect alignment and calibration. Large biases in the Run I geometry are expected due to the shifts (-1.3,-3.38) mm introduced in (x,y) in the re-centering procedure of the Barrel Pixel around the beampipe during the installation phase. The structures at large absolute $eta; are attributed to systematic effects still present in the Forward Pixel, which require more 3.8T collision data to be corrected by the alignment.

References

[1] CMS Collaboration "Alignment of the CMS tracker with LHC and cosmic ray data " 2014 JINST 9 P06009 doi:10.1088/1748-0221/9/06/P06009 [2] CMS Collaboration "Alignment of the CMS silicon tracker during commissioning with cosmic rays" 2010 JINST 5 T03009 doi:10.1088/1748-0221/5/03/T03009

-- TomasHreus - 2015-07-04

Topic attachments
I Attachment History Action Size Date Who Comment
PDFpdf 0Tcollisions_DmedianR_BPIX_plain.pdf r1 manage 14.9 K 2015-07-10 - 21:17 HeshyRoskes DMRs for 0T collisions
PNGpng 0Tcollisions_DmedianR_BPIX_plain.png r1 manage 24.5 K 2015-07-10 - 21:17 HeshyRoskes DMRs for 0T collisions
PDFpdf 0Tcollisions_DmedianR_FPIX_plain.pdf r1 manage 15.0 K 2015-07-10 - 21:17 HeshyRoskes DMRs for 0T collisions
PNGpng 0Tcollisions_DmedianR_FPIX_plain.png r1 manage 24.7 K 2015-07-10 - 21:17 HeshyRoskes DMRs for 0T collisions
PDFpdf 0Tcollisions_DmedianR_TEC_plain.pdf r1 manage 15.5 K 2015-07-10 - 21:17 HeshyRoskes DMRs for 0T collisions
PNGpng 0Tcollisions_DmedianR_TEC_plain.png r1 manage 26.4 K 2015-07-10 - 21:17 HeshyRoskes DMRs for 0T collisions
PDFpdf 0Tcollisions_DmedianR_TIB_plain.pdf r1 manage 15.2 K 2015-07-10 - 21:17 HeshyRoskes DMRs for 0T collisions
PNGpng 0Tcollisions_DmedianR_TIB_plain.png r1 manage 25.1 K 2015-07-10 - 21:17 HeshyRoskes DMRs for 0T collisions
PDFpdf 0Tcollisions_DmedianR_TID_plain.pdf r1 manage 15.1 K 2015-07-10 - 21:17 HeshyRoskes DMRs for 0T collisions
PNGpng 0Tcollisions_DmedianR_TID_plain.png r1 manage 24.6 K 2015-07-10 - 21:17 HeshyRoskes DMRs for 0T collisions
PDFpdf 0Tcollisions_DmedianR_TOB_plain.pdf r1 manage 15.5 K 2015-07-10 - 21:18 HeshyRoskes DMRs for 0T collisions
PNGpng 0Tcollisions_DmedianR_TOB_plain.png r1 manage 26.5 K 2015-07-10 - 21:18 HeshyRoskes DMRs for 0T collisions
PDFpdf 0Tcollisions_DmedianYR_BPIX_plain.pdf r1 manage 15.1 K 2015-07-10 - 21:18 HeshyRoskes DMRs for 0T collisions
PNGpng 0Tcollisions_DmedianYR_BPIX_plain.png r1 manage 25.2 K 2015-07-10 - 21:18 HeshyRoskes DMRs for 0T collisions
PDFpdf 0Tcollisions_DmedianYR_FPIX_plain.pdf r1 manage 15.4 K 2015-07-10 - 21:18 HeshyRoskes DMRs for 0T collisions
PNGpng 0Tcollisions_DmedianYR_FPIX_plain.png r1 manage 26.9 K 2015-07-10 - 21:18 HeshyRoskes DMRs for 0T collisions
PDFpdf 3.8Tcollisions_DmedianR_BPIX_plain.pdf r2 r1 manage 14.9 K 2015-07-12 - 15:17 HeshyRoskes DMRs for 3.8T collisions
PNGpng 3.8Tcollisions_DmedianR_BPIX_plain.png r2 r1 manage 24.1 K 2015-07-12 - 15:17 HeshyRoskes DMRs for 3.8T collisions
PDFpdf 3.8Tcollisions_DmedianR_FPIX_plain.pdf r2 r1 manage 15.1 K 2015-07-12 - 15:17 HeshyRoskes DMRs for 3.8T collisions
PNGpng 3.8Tcollisions_DmedianR_FPIX_plain.png r2 r1 manage 24.8 K 2015-07-12 - 15:17 HeshyRoskes DMRs for 3.8T collisions
PDFpdf 3.8Tcollisions_DmedianR_TEC_plain.pdf r2 r1 manage 15.1 K 2015-07-12 - 15:17 HeshyRoskes DMRs for 3.8T collisions
PNGpng 3.8Tcollisions_DmedianR_TEC_plain.png r2 r1 manage 24.6 K 2015-07-12 - 15:17 HeshyRoskes DMRs for 3.8T collisions
PDFpdf 3.8Tcollisions_DmedianR_TIB_plain.pdf r2 r1 manage 15.5 K 2015-07-12 - 15:17 HeshyRoskes DMRs for 3.8T collisions
PNGpng 3.8Tcollisions_DmedianR_TIB_plain.png r2 r1 manage 26.1 K 2015-07-12 - 15:17 HeshyRoskes DMRs for 3.8T collisions
PDFpdf 3.8Tcollisions_DmedianR_TID_plain.pdf r2 r1 manage 15.1 K 2015-07-12 - 15:17 HeshyRoskes DMRs for 3.8T collisions
PNGpng 3.8Tcollisions_DmedianR_TID_plain.png r2 r1 manage 24.6 K 2015-07-12 - 15:17 HeshyRoskes DMRs for 3.8T collisions
PDFpdf 3.8Tcollisions_DmedianYR_BPIX_plain.pdf r2 r1 manage 15.4 K 2015-07-12 - 15:21 HeshyRoskes DMRs for 3.8T collisions
PNGpng 3.8Tcollisions_DmedianYR_BPIX_plain.png r2 r1 manage 25.8 K 2015-07-12 - 15:21 HeshyRoskes DMRs for 3.8T collisions
PDFpdf 3.8Tcollisions_DmedianYR_FPIX_plain.pdf r2 r1 manage 14.9 K 2015-07-12 - 15:21 HeshyRoskes DMRs for 3.8T collisions
PNGpng 3.8Tcollisions_DmedianYR_FPIX_plain.png r2 r1 manage 24.1 K 2015-07-12 - 15:21 HeshyRoskes DMRs for 3.8T collisions
PDFpdf CRAFT_DmedianR_BPIX_plain.pdf r1 manage 15.1 K 2015-07-10 - 21:15 HeshyRoskes DMRs for CRAFT
PNGpng CRAFT_DmedianR_BPIX_plain.png r1 manage 26.2 K 2015-07-10 - 21:15 HeshyRoskes DMRs for CRAFT
PDFpdf CRAFT_DmedianR_FPIX_plain.pdf r1 manage 15.0 K 2015-07-10 - 21:15 HeshyRoskes DMRs for CRAFT
PNGpng CRAFT_DmedianR_FPIX_plain.png r1 manage 24.8 K 2015-07-10 - 21:15 HeshyRoskes DMRs for CRAFT
PDFpdf CRAFT_DmedianR_TEC_plain.pdf r1 manage 15.4 K 2015-07-10 - 21:15 HeshyRoskes DMRs for CRAFT
PNGpng CRAFT_DmedianR_TEC_plain.png r1 manage 26.0 K 2015-07-10 - 21:15 HeshyRoskes DMRs for CRAFT
PDFpdf CRAFT_DmedianR_TIB_plain.pdf r1 manage 14.7 K 2015-07-10 - 21:15 HeshyRoskes DMRs for CRAFT
PNGpng CRAFT_DmedianR_TIB_plain.png r1 manage 23.4 K 2015-07-10 - 21:15 HeshyRoskes DMRs for CRAFT
PDFpdf CRAFT_DmedianR_TID_plain.pdf r1 manage 15.1 K 2015-07-10 - 21:15 HeshyRoskes DMRs for CRAFT
PNGpng CRAFT_DmedianR_TID_plain.png r1 manage 25.3 K 2015-07-10 - 21:15 HeshyRoskes DMRs for CRAFT
PDFpdf CRAFT_DmedianR_TOB_plain.pdf r1 manage 15.0 K 2015-07-10 - 21:17 HeshyRoskes DMRs for CRAFT
PNGpng CRAFT_DmedianR_TOB_plain.png r1 manage 25.4 K 2015-07-10 - 21:17 HeshyRoskes DMRs for CRAFT
PDFpdf CRAFT_DmedianYR_BPIX_plain.pdf r1 manage 14.8 K 2015-07-10 - 21:17 HeshyRoskes DMRs for CRAFT
PNGpng CRAFT_DmedianYR_BPIX_plain.png r1 manage 23.8 K 2015-07-10 - 21:17 HeshyRoskes DMRs for CRAFT
PDFpdf CRAFT_DmedianYR_FPIX_plain.pdf r1 manage 14.8 K 2015-07-10 - 21:17 HeshyRoskes DMRs for CRAFT
PNGpng CRAFT_DmedianYR_FPIX_plain.png r1 manage 23.9 K 2015-07-10 - 21:17 HeshyRoskes DMRs for CRAFT
PDFpdf CRAFT_hist.Delta_dxy.pdf r1 manage 15.9 K 2015-07-10 - 23:06 HeshyRoskes CRAFT track splitting
PNGpng CRAFT_hist.Delta_dxy.png r1 manage 29.3 K 2015-07-10 - 23:06 HeshyRoskes CRAFT track splitting
PDFpdf CRAFT_hist.Delta_dz.pdf r1 manage 17.3 K 2015-07-10 - 23:06 HeshyRoskes CRAFT track splitting
PNGpng CRAFT_hist.Delta_dz.png r1 manage 32.8 K 2015-07-10 - 23:06 HeshyRoskes CRAFT track splitting
PDFpdf CRAFT_hist.Delta_phi.pdf r1 manage 17.1 K 2015-07-10 - 23:06 HeshyRoskes CRAFT track splitting
PNGpng CRAFT_hist.Delta_phi.png r1 manage 31.2 K 2015-07-10 - 23:06 HeshyRoskes CRAFT track splitting
PDFpdf CRAFT_hist.Delta_pt.relative.pdf r1 manage 16.5 K 2015-07-10 - 23:06 HeshyRoskes CRAFT track splitting
PNGpng CRAFT_hist.Delta_pt.relative.png r1 manage 33.2 K 2015-07-10 - 23:06 HeshyRoskes CRAFT track splitting
PDFpdf CRAFT_hist.Delta_theta.pdf r1 manage 17.8 K 2015-07-10 - 23:06 HeshyRoskes CRAFT track splitting
PNGpng CRAFT_hist.Delta_theta.png r1 manage 31.0 K 2015-07-10 - 23:06 HeshyRoskes CRAFT track splitting
GIFgif CRAFTvsCRUZET.gif r1 manage 1966.4 K 2015-07-11 - 02:19 DenisJeredMcinerney 3D Geometry Comparison animations and PDFs for Run II vs Run I and 3.8T vs 0T Run II
PDFpdf CRAFTvsCRUZET.pdf r1 manage 201.0 K 2015-07-11 - 02:19 DenisJeredMcinerney 3D Geometry Comparison animations and PDFs for Run II vs Run I and 3.8T vs 0T Run II
PNGpng CRAFTvsCRUZET.png r1 manage 96.1 K 2015-07-12 - 13:58 MatthiasSchroederHH  
GIFgif RunIIvsRunI.gif r1 manage 1812.7 K 2015-07-11 - 02:19 DenisJeredMcinerney 3D Geometry Comparison animations and PDFs for Run II vs Run I and 3.8T vs 0T Run II
PDFpdf RunIIvsRunI.pdf r2 r1 manage 195.0 K 2015-07-11 - 02:34 DenisJeredMcinerney 3D Geometry Comparison animations and PDFs for Run II vs Run I and 3.8T vs 0T Run II
PNGpng RunIIvsRunI.png r1 manage 84.2 K 2015-07-12 - 13:59 MatthiasSchroederHH  
PDFpdf dxyEtaBiasCanvas.pdf r1 manage 17.8 K 2015-07-10 - 22:38 MarcoMusich PV Validation curves excluding the run1 geometry
PNGpng dxyEtaBiasCanvas.png r1 manage 19.2 K 2015-07-10 - 22:38 MarcoMusich PV Validation curves excluding the run1 geometry
PDFpdf dxyPhiBiasCanvas.pdf r1 manage 17.9 K 2015-07-10 - 22:38 MarcoMusich PV Validation curves excluding the run1 geometry
PNGpng dxyPhiBiasCanvas.png r1 manage 22.0 K 2015-07-10 - 22:38 MarcoMusich PV Validation curves excluding the run1 geometry
PDFpdf dzEtaBiasCanvas.pdf r1 manage 17.9 K 2015-07-10 - 22:38 MarcoMusich PV Validation curves excluding the run1 geometry
PNGpng dzEtaBiasCanvas.png r1 manage 21.0 K 2015-07-10 - 22:38 MarcoMusich PV Validation curves excluding the run1 geometry
PDFpdf dzPhiBiasCanvas.pdf r1 manage 17.9 K 2015-07-10 - 22:38 MarcoMusich PV Validation curves excluding the run1 geometry
PNGpng dzPhiBiasCanvas.png r1 manage 21.4 K 2015-07-10 - 22:38 MarcoMusich PV Validation curves excluding the run1 geometry
PDFpdf interfill_hist.Delta_dxy.pdf r1 manage 16.2 K 2015-07-10 - 23:06 HeshyRoskes interfill track splitting
PNGpng interfill_hist.Delta_dxy.png r1 manage 28.8 K 2015-07-10 - 23:06 HeshyRoskes interfill track splitting
PDFpdf interfill_hist.Delta_dz.pdf r1 manage 17.5 K 2015-07-10 - 23:06 HeshyRoskes interfill track splitting
PNGpng interfill_hist.Delta_dz.png r1 manage 27.6 K 2015-07-10 - 23:06 HeshyRoskes interfill track splitting
PDFpdf interfill_hist.Delta_eta.pdf r1 manage 16.5 K 2015-07-10 - 23:06 HeshyRoskes interfill track splitting
PNGpng interfill_hist.Delta_eta.png r1 manage 29.1 K 2015-07-10 - 23:06 HeshyRoskes interfill track splitting
PDFpdf interfill_hist.Delta_phi.pdf r1 manage 16.7 K 2015-07-10 - 23:06 HeshyRoskes interfill track splitting
PNGpng interfill_hist.Delta_phi.png r1 manage 30.4 K 2015-07-10 - 23:06 HeshyRoskes interfill track splitting
PDFpdf interfill_hist.Delta_theta.pdf r1 manage 17.5 K 2015-07-10 - 23:06 HeshyRoskes interfill track splitting
PNGpng interfill_hist.Delta_theta.png r1 manage 30.3 K 2015-07-10 - 23:06 HeshyRoskes interfill track splitting
PDFpdf phi_vs_dx_PXB_1.pdf r2 r1 manage 37.0 K 2015-07-15 - 12:48 MatthiasSchroederHH  
PNGpng phi_vs_dx_PXB_1.png r3 r2 r1 manage 79.5 K 2015-07-15 - 12:53 MatthiasSchroederHH  
PDFpdf phi_vs_dx_PXF_1.pdf r2 r1 manage 34.5 K 2015-07-15 - 12:48 MatthiasSchroederHH  
PNGpng phi_vs_dx_PXF_1.png r2 r1 manage 55.8 K 2015-07-15 - 12:48 MatthiasSchroederHH  
PDFpdf phi_vs_dy_PXB_1.pdf r2 r1 manage 36.9 K 2015-07-15 - 12:48 MatthiasSchroederHH  
PNGpng phi_vs_dy_PXB_1.png r2 r1 manage 57.4 K 2015-07-15 - 12:48 MatthiasSchroederHH  
PDFpdf phi_vs_dz_PXB_1.pdf r2 r1 manage 36.5 K 2015-07-15 - 12:48 MatthiasSchroederHH  
PNGpng phi_vs_dz_PXB_1.png r2 r1 manage 51.3 K 2015-07-15 - 12:48 MatthiasSchroederHH  
PDFpdf phi_vs_dz_PXF_1.pdf r2 r1 manage 34.6 K 2015-07-15 - 12:48 MatthiasSchroederHH  
PNGpng phi_vs_dz_PXF_1.png r2 r1 manage 43.7 K 2015-07-15 - 12:48 MatthiasSchroederHH  
PDFpdf r_vs_dr_PXF_1.pdf r1 manage 35.2 K 2015-07-15 - 12:49 MatthiasSchroederHH  
PNGpng r_vs_dr_PXF_1.png r1 manage 50.7 K 2015-07-15 - 12:49 MatthiasSchroederHH  
PDFpdf r_vs_dz_PXB_1.pdf r2 r1 manage 37.0 K 2015-07-15 - 12:49 MatthiasSchroederHH  
PNGpng r_vs_dz_PXB_1.png r2 r1 manage 48.8 K 2015-07-15 - 12:49 MatthiasSchroederHH  
PDFpdf wRun1_dxyEtaBiasCanvas.pdf r1 manage 19.0 K 2015-07-10 - 22:37 MarcoMusich PV Validation plots with Run1 geometry
PNGpng wRun1_dxyEtaBiasCanvas.png r1 manage 20.9 K 2015-07-10 - 22:37 MarcoMusich PV Validation plots with Run1 geometry
PDFpdf wRun1_dxyPhiBiasCanvas.pdf r1 manage 18.9 K 2015-07-10 - 22:37 MarcoMusich PV Validation plots with Run1 geometry
PNGpng wRun1_dxyPhiBiasCanvas.png r1 manage 20.0 K 2015-07-10 - 22:37 MarcoMusich PV Validation plots with Run1 geometry
PDFpdf wRun1_dzEtaBiasCanvas.pdf r1 manage 18.7 K 2015-07-10 - 22:37 MarcoMusich PV Validation plots with Run1 geometry
PNGpng wRun1_dzEtaBiasCanvas.png r1 manage 20.3 K 2015-07-10 - 22:37 MarcoMusich PV Validation plots with Run1 geometry
PDFpdf wRun1_dzPhiBiasCanvas.pdf r1 manage 20.0 K 2015-07-10 - 22:37 MarcoMusich PV Validation plots with Run1 geometry
PNGpng wRun1_dzPhiBiasCanvas.png r1 manage 22.6 K 2015-07-10 - 22:37 MarcoMusich PV Validation plots with Run1 geometry
PDFpdf z_vs_dz_PXB_1.pdf r2 r1 manage 35.8 K 2015-07-15 - 12:49 MatthiasSchroederHH  
PNGpng z_vs_dz_PXB_1.png r2 r1 manage 38.6 K 2015-07-15 - 12:49 MatthiasSchroederHH  
PDFpdf z_vs_dz_PXF_1.pdf r2 r1 manage 33.3 K 2015-07-15 - 12:49 MatthiasSchroederHH  
PNGpng z_vs_dz_PXF_1.png r2 r1 manage 31.0 K 2015-07-15 - 12:49 MatthiasSchroederHH  
Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r28 < r27 < r26 < r25 < r24 | Backlinks | Raw View | WYSIWYG | More topic actions
Topic revision: r28 - 2019-09-03 - MarcoMusich
 
    • Cern Search Icon Cern Search
    • TWiki Search Icon TWiki Search
    • Google Search Icon Google Search

    CMSPublic All webs login

This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright &© 2008-2019 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback