Tracking and Alignment Plots for Conferences

Tracking

Muon tracking efficiency

Plot Description
P_Final_comparison_2012_2015EM.png Track reconstruction efficiency for 2012 and 2015, early measurements period (50ns).
Only statistical errors are shown. Systematics errors are of less importance due to their cancelation in the tracking efficiency ratios.
P_Final_comparison_2012_2015nominal.png Track reconstruction efficiency for 2012 and 2015, nominal data taking period (25ns bunch spacing).
Only statistical errors are shown. Systematics errors are of less importance due to their cancelation in the tracking efficiency ratios.
ETA_Final_comparison_MC_2015nominal.png Track reconstruction efficiencies for the data, 2015 nominal data taking period (25ns bunch spacing), and for weighted simulation (Sim09b). The efficiency is shown as a function of eta. Only statistical errors are shown. Systematics errors are of less importance due to their cancelation in the tracking efficiency ratios.
ETA_Final_comparison_2012_2015EM.png Track reconstruction efficiency for 2012 and 2015, early measurements period (50ns).
Only statistical errors are shown. Systematics errors are of less importance due to their cancelation in the tracking efficiency ratios.
nPVs_Final_comparison_MC_2015nominal.png Track reconstruction efficiencies for the data, 2015 nominal data taking period (25ns bunch spacing), and for weighted simulation (Sim09b). The efficiency is shown as a function of number of primary verticies. Only statistical errors are shown. Systematics errors are of less importance due to their cancelation in the tracking efficiency ratios.
nSPDHits_Final_comparison_MC_2015nominal.png Track reconstruction efficiencies for the data, 2015 nominal data taking period (25ns bunch spacing), and for weighted simulation (Sim09b). The efficiency is shown as a function of number of SPD hits. Only statistical errors are shown. Systematics errors are of less importance due to their cancelation in the tracking efficiency ratios.
P_Final_comparison_MC_2015nominal.png Track reconstruction efficiencies for the data, 2015 nominal data taking period (25ns bunch spacing), and for weighted simulation (Sim09b). The efficiency is shown as a function of p. Only statistical errors are shown. Systematics errors are of less importance due to their cancelation in the tracking efficiency ratios.

Electron tracking efficiency

Plot Description
fit_full_mc_label_nopull.png Plot of B+ invariant mass in simulation of B+ to J/psi(ee)K+ in context of tag-and-probe reconstruction efficiency measurement of electrons. In this case the probe electron only consists of a VELO track. The momentum of the probe is inferred with DecayTreeFitter, using a J/psi mass constraint. The simulation sample is MC16 with Sim09b with rerun of trigger with 0x61611709 TCK. Candidates are from the Hlt2TrackEffElectronDetachedEEKTurboCalib line.

Downstream tracking efficiency

Contact: Luis Miguel Garcia Martin.

Approval presentation: here

Plot Description
DownstreamTrackEff_reconstructiblity2.png "Reconstructible" variable from MCRecontructredTupleTool for the proton from the L0->p pi decay
DownstreamTrackEff_Pie_L0.png Proportion of Lambdas reconstructed from dowstream and long tracks in the decay Lb->L0 gamma using Stripping28r1p1
DownstreamTrackEff_MC16_MCEff2.png Tracking efficiency for MC2016 for the proton from the L0->p pi decay as function of the track origin (Lambda end vertex Z), red part is using MCRecontructredTupleTool and violet part using the method described in the presentation.
DownstreamTrackEff_MC16_eff_LD_L0_ENDVERTEX_Z.png Tracking efficiency for MC2016 for the proton from the L0->p pi decay as function of the track origin (Lambda end vertex Z) using the method described in the talk.
DownstreamTrackEff_RD18_eff_LD_L0_ENDVERTEX_Z.png Tracking efficiency for RD2018 for the proton from the L0->p pi decay as function of the track origin (Lambda end vertex Z) using the method described in the talk.
DownstreamTrackEff_MC16_L0_ENDVERTEX_RedGreenProfile.png Lambda End Vertex Z resolution as function of the L0 End Vertex Z from downstream track (green) and False downstream tracks described in talk (red).
DownstreamTrackEff_MC16_eff_LD_p_L0_PT.png Tracking efficiency for MC2016 for the proton from the L0->p pi decay as function of the track transverse momentum using the method described in the talk.
DownstreamTrackEff_RD18_eff_LD_p_L0_PT.png Tracking efficiency for RD2018 for the proton from the L0->p pi decay as function of the track transverse momentum using the method described in the talk.
DownstreamTrackEff_MC16_Down_p_L0_AtVtx_P_res.png Proton momentum resolution for MC2016 for the False downstream (described in the talk) and fitted with a gaussian.
DownstreamTrackEff_Upgrade_Down_p_L0_AtVtx_P_res.png Proton momentum resolution for MC Upgrade for the False downstream (described in the talk) and fitted with a gaussian.
DownstreamTrackEff_Upgrade_eff_LD_L0_ENDVERTEX_Z.png Tracking efficiency for MC Upgrade for the proton from the L0->p pi decay as function of the track origin (Lambda end vertex Z) using the method described in the talk.
DownstreamTrackEff_Upgrade_eff_LD_p_L0_PT.png Tracking efficiency for MC Upgrade for the proton from the L0->p pi decay as function of the track transverse momentum using the method described in the talk.

Ghost probability

Plot Description
GP_DKPi30.png D -> Kpi candidates from the Turbo stream without any cut on the ghost probability (black) and events rejected by a cut on the ghost probability of 30% (red).
KsGhostProbLong.png Ks candidates from long tracks without any cut on the ghost probability (black), after a ghost probability cut of 40% (blue) and events rejected by the cut on the ghost probability (red).
KsGhostProbDown.png Ks candidates from downstream tracks without any cut on the ghost probability (black), after a ghost probability cut of 40% (blue) and events rejected by the cut on the ghost probability (red).
rocChi2VsGP.png ROC curve for long tracks for the Run II ghost probability (red) and the track chi2/ndof (blue) for Run II (25ns).
rocChi2VsRunIVsRunIIGP.png ROC curve for long tracks for the Run II ghost probability (red), the track chi2/ndof (blue) and the Run I ghost probability (black) for Run II (50ns).

IP resolutions

Plot Description
GP_DKPi30.png Resolution of the x component of IPs comparing 2012 data (blue), 2015 data (black) and 2016 data (red). Only events with 1 reconstructed PV are used. The PV fit is rerun excluding each track in turn. The resulting PV is required to have > 25 tracks to minimise the contribution from PV resolution.
GP_DKPi30.png Resolution of the y component of IPs comparing 2012 data (blue), 2015 data (black) and 2016 data (red). Only events with 1 reconstructed PV are used. The PV fit is rerun excluding each track in turn. The resulting PV is required to have > 25 tracks to minimise the contribution from PV resolution.

Decay time resolution

Plot Description
decay_time_res_2015.png Decay time resolution of 2015 in momentum bins. Statistical uncertainties only.
_decay_time_res_2012_2015.png Comparison of the decay time resolution in 2012 and 2015 in momentum bins. The improvement seems to be due a combination of effects, we are still working on understanding in detail their relative importance. Statistical uncertainties only.

final_decay_time_res_plot16.png

Decay time resolution of 2016 in momentum bins. Statistical uncertainties only.
final_decay_time_res_plot_2012_2015_2016_comp.png Comparison of the decay time resolution in 2012, 2015 and 2016 in momentum bins. The improvement in run 2 seems to be due a combination of effects which are difficult to disentangle. Main suspects are kinematics, alignment and better PV finding efficiency. Statistical uncertainties only.

PV resolution

resolution_vs_ntracks_x_data2015.png

Primary Vertex Resolution for 2015 data and x axis as a number of tracks associated (N) to PV.

The function form is described by: (res) = A/(nTracks)^B + C, where A, B, C are free parameters.

resolution_vs_ntracks_x_data2015_comp.png

Primary Vertex Resolution for 2015 data and x axis as a number of tracks associated (N) to PV.

Comparison among 2011, 2012 and 2015.

The function form is described by: (res) = A/(nTracks)^B + C, where A, B, C are free parameters.

resolution_vs_ntracks_x_data2015MC.png

Primary Vertex Resolution for 2015 data and x axis as a number of tracks associated (N) to PV.

Comparison data/MC.

The function form is described by: (res) = A/(nTracks)^B + C, where A, B, C are free parameters.

resolution_vs_ntracks_z_data2015.png

Primary Vertex Resolution for 2015 data and z axis as a number of tracks associated (N) to PV.

The function form is described by: (res) = A/(nTracks)^B + C, where A, B, C are free parameters.

resolution_vs_ntracks_z_data2015_comp.png

Primary Vertex Resolution for 2015 data and z axis as a number of tracks associated (N) to PV.

Comparison among 2011, 2012 and 2015.

The function form is described by: (res) = A/(nTracks)^B + C, where A, B, C are free parameters.

resolution_vs_ntracks_z_data2015MC.png

Primary Vertex Resolution for 2015 data and z axis as a number of tracks associated (N) to PV.

Comparison data/MC.

The function form is described by: (res) = A/(nTracks)^B + C, where A, B, C are free parameters.

New reconstruction chain: VeloTT performances

Plot Description
velott-eff-p.png The track reconstruction efficiency of the VeloTT algorithms for Run I (blue) and Run II (green) as a function of p.

Plot Description
velott-eff-pt.png The track reconstruction efficiency of the VeloTT algorithms for Run I (blue) and Run II (green) as a function of pT.

Plot Description
Forward-gr-p.png The ghost rate of the Forward algorithms without (blue) and with (green) the VeloTT algorithm in the reconstruction chain as a function of p.

Plot Description
Forward-gr-pt.png The ghost rate of the Forward algorithms without (blue) and with (green) the VeloTT algorithm in the reconstruction chain as a function of pT.

Plot Description
HLT1.png New reconstruction chain for HLT1.

General

Plot Description
trackTypesRunIAndII.png Track types for the LHCb Run I and II
trackTypes_upgrade.png Track types for the LHCb Upgrade
  Subdetectors for alignment and calibration

Vectorized Kalman filter

Plot Description
SpeedupVectorizedKF.png Timing performance of the vectorized version of the LHCb Kalman filter. Only the time for the predicting, filtering and smoothing methods is taken into account and the speed-up with respect to the default Kalman filter is shown. Different architectures, precisions and, in the case of the Intel Xeon Phi, different cluster modes are compared.
VectorizedKFScalingXeonE5.png Scalability of the vectorized Kalman filter with the number of processors on a Intel Xeon E5 machine.
VectorizedKFScalingXeonPhi.png Scalability of the vectorized Kalman filter with the number of processors on a Intel Xeon Phi machine.

Parametrized Kalman filter

Plot Description
res_x_defaultKF.png X resolution of the LHCb Kalman filter at the first VELO measurement for the LHCb upgrade. No outlier removal is applied. Long tracks from the fast trigger stage are used.
res_x_parametrizedKF.png X resolution of a simplified and parametrized version of the LHCb Kalman filter at the first VELO measurement for the LHCb upgrade. Long tracks from the fast trigger stage are used.

pull_x_defaultKF.png Kalman filter pull distribution of the x position at the first VELO measurement for the LHCb upgrade. No outlier removal is applied. Long tracks from the fast trigger stage are used.
pull_x_parametrizedKF.png Simplified (parametrized) Kalman filter pull distribution of the x position at the first VELO measurement for the LHCb upgrade. No outlier removal is applied. Long tracks from the fast trigger stage are used.

res_qop_defaultKF.png Momentum resolution of the LHCb Kalman filter for tracks in the fast stage of the upgrade LHCb trigger system. No outliers are removed and no UT hits are used.
res_qop_parametrizedKF.png Momentum resolution of a simplified (parametrized) version of the LHCb Kalman filter for tracks in the fast stage of the upgrade LHCb trigger system. No outliers are removed and no UT hits are used.

pull_qop_defaultKF.png Kalman filter pull distribution of the momentum at the first VELO measurement for the LHCb upgrade. No outliers are removed and no UT hits are used.
pull_qop_parametrizedKF.png Simplified (parametrized) Kalman filter pull distribution of the momentum at the first VELO measurement for the LHCb upgrade. No outliers are removed and no UT hits are used.

KF_momentum_res_P_11_2017.png Momentum resolution of the default and simplified LHCb Kalman filter in the fast stage of the LHCb upgrade trigger system as a function of momentum. These are updated plots with an improved parametrization for the propagation through the magnet, included UT hits and outlier removal. The previous version is still available in the attachments (same name without '_11_2017').
KF_momentum_res_txty_11_2017.png Momentum resolution of the default and simplified LHCb Kalman filter in the fast stage of the LHCb upgrade trigger system as a function of the track-steepness. hese are updated plots with an improved parametrization for the propagation through the magnet, included UT hits and outlier removal. The previous version is still available in the attachments (same name without '_11_2017').

Machine Learning in Downstream Tracking

Plot Description
Roc1.png Downstream Tracking Seed Calssifier ROC curve
Roc2.png Downstream Tracking Seed Calssifier zoomed ROC curve

HLT1 sequence upgrade

Plot Description
Timing scaling of the various HLT1 sequence track reconstruction algorithms versus the occupancy in the detector.
Timing scaling of the various HLT1 sequence track reconstruction algorithms versus the occupancy in the detector.
Throughput of HLT1 sequence as a function of the tracking configuration.
Throughput scaling of the HLT1 reconstruction sequence as a function of the detector occupancy.

Alignment 2018

VELO Alignment

Plot Description
VELO 2 half alignment stability: The plot shows the stability of the alignment of the VELO halves during all Run II fills. Each point is obtained running the online alignment procedure and shows the difference between the initial alignment constants (the ones used in the previous fill) and the new ones computed by the alignment. It is normal that the alignment constants evaluated for 2 different fills may vary just due to statistical fluctuations even without real movement as different input data samples are used. Before updating the alignment it must thus be checked that the variation is significant (in the plot the red or the blue points must be outside the horizontal lines at +- 2 um). It can be seen for example that for the first fill the y translation goes above the threshold so the alignment will be updated. The second points will thus be the variations with respect to the first alignment. As the variation is not significant the alignment is not updated and also the third points are again with respect to the first alignment. This is a bit a simplification because the degrees of freedom to consider are more than the two shown there but it shows the concept well enough.
As previous plot but filled dots represents alignments that triggered an update and empty dots alignment that did not trigger an update. It is possible to spot alignment that triggered an update where both Tx and Ty are between the dotted lines, that means that some other degree of freedom triggered the update.

Tracker Alignment

Plot Description
Tracker IT boxes Tx alignment stability. Each point is obtained running the online alignment procedure and shows the difference between the initial alignment constants (the ones used in the previous fill) and the new ones computed by the alignment. The horizontal dashed lines represent the thresholds inside which the variation is considered a statistical fluctuation.
TrackerStability_Tx.png Same as previous plot but for Tz.
Same as first but filled dots represents alignments that triggerd an update and empty dots alignment that did not trigger an update.
Same as previous plot but for Tz.

Muon Alignment

Plot empty markers Plot full markers Description
Variation of the x position of the left side muon chambers with respect to the alignment used during data taking. This plot, used to monitor, confirms that the variation is small and an automatic update is not necessary.
Same as above but for right side.
Variation of the y position of the left side muon chambers with respect to the alignment used during data taking. This plot, used to monitor, confirms that the variation is small and an automatic update is not necessary.
Same as above but for right side.

RICH Mirror Alignment

The latest RICH Mirror Alignment rotation trend plots are made every fill, but if you want to show a plot at a conference for publicity purposes you will need to request that we approve one set of these plots (found here) formally via the Operations Report at a Tuesday Meeting. The following is the latest set of approved plots.

Any FAQs that a presenter should be aware of:

The horizontal dashed lines in the 2018 RICH Mirror Alignment plots below represent a preferred convergence criteria range (tolerance) for a particular combination of RICH detector, local rotation, and mirror type. The tolerances are expected to nearly encompass the alignment-to-alignment variation within a period of fixed magnet polarity. These tolerances were predicted based on studies of 2016 data, and adjusted for the new regularization scheme that we used in 2017. The sizes of the tolerance ranges are influenced mainly due to the choice of regularization scheme, limited statistics, and the limited precision of the method itself. A modification to the regularization scheme took place in 2018; this is estimated to affect the tolerances no more than 10%, so the existing tolerances from 2017 were kept in place.

Each of the vertical dashed lines in the 2018 RICH Mirror Alignment plots below represent a change of LHCb magnet polarity.

The plots are given in the following style. The value that is shown on the vertical axis in the plots is always the difference between the alignment constants that were put into the Online CondDB in the most recent previous update (NOT including the current alignment if an update was made), and the alignment constants determined by the alignment performed during the fill which the alignment number represents. If an update was made during a fill, the shapes are solid. If an update was not made, the shapes are hollow.

Plots with sequential alignment number on the horizontal axis are provided.

Note that for a single RICH detector, a point does not need to be outside a tolerance line on a particular plot (primary Y, primary Z, secondary Y, or secondary Z) for an update to have occurred. The point could have been outside a tolerance line on one or more of the other {primary Y, primary Z, secondary Y, or secondary Z} plots, or there could have been an automatic update on a change in magnet polarity.

Plot Description
RICH 1 primary local y rotations vs. Sequential Alignment Number: Rich1_2018_hollow_Numbers_py.png RICH1 primary mirror stability plots: stability of the RICH1 primary mirrors' alignment constants for rotations around the local y-axes of the individual mirrors for alignments performed on runs taken between 2018/04/24 and 2018/10/23.

Alignment number 0 was performed on runs of the first magnet down period, the magnet polarity then flipped (from down to up, and vice-versa) on the following sequential Alignment numbers: [1, 36, 70, 113, 163].

The Online CondDB was updated on the following Alignment numbers: [0, 1, 10, 13, 36, 37, 42, 44, 47, 51, 55, 67, 68, 70, 89, 92, 94, 96, 98, 101, 102, 113, 124, 138, 145, 152, 154, 163, 164, 166, 167, 173, 179].

The mirror alignment is updated in the Online CondDB upon every magnet polarity switch. The mirror alignment also updated automatically when a constant surpassed its tolerance.

The magnification factors (internally-used coefficients based on the detector geometry) were recalculated during Alignment [0] and used throughout the year.

There were no mirror alignments during the exclusive PbPb run at the end of 2018; The alignment used for this run was the last good mirror alignment from proton-proton collisions (Alignment 179).
RICH 1 primary local z rotations vs. Sequential Alignment Number: Rich1_2018_hollow_Numbers_pz.png As above (RICH1) but for the rotations around the local z-axes of the individual primary mirrors.
RICH 1 secondary local y rotations vs. Sequential Alignment Number: Rich1_2018_hollow_Numbers_sy.png As above (RICH1) but for the rotations around the local y-axes of the individual secondary mirrors.
The different markers represent different secondary mirrors.
RICH 1 secondary local z rotations vs. Sequential Alignment Number: Rich1_2018_hollow_Numbers_sz.png As above (RICH1) but for the rotations around the local z-axes of the individual secondary mirrors.
The different markers represent different secondary mirrors.
RICH 2 primary local y rotations vs. Sequential Alignment Number: Rich2_2018_hollow_Numbers_py.png RICH2 primary mirror stability plots: stability of the RICH2 primary mirrors' alignment constants for rotations around the local y-axes of the individual mirrors for alignments performed on runs taken between 2018/04/24 and 2018/10/23.

Alignment number [0] was performed on runs of the first magnet down period, the magnet polarity then flipped (from down to up, and vice-versa) on the following sequential Alignment numbers: [1, 36, 70, 113, 162].

The Online CondDB was updated on the following Alignment numbers: [0, 1, 6, 7, 11, 13, 15, 27, 28, 31, 34, 36, 50, 52, 54, 68, 70, 74, 82, 91, 94, 97, 100, 101, 102, 113, 121, 122, 144, 145, 162, 168, 173].

The mirror alignment is updated in the Online CondDB upon every magnet polarity switch. The mirror alignment also updated automatically when a constant surpassed its tolerance.

The magnification factors (internally-used coefficients based on the detector geometry) were recalculated during Alignment [0] and used throughout the year.

There were no mirror alignments during the exclusive PbPb run at the end of 2018; The alignment used for this run was the last good mirror alignment from proton-proton collisions (Alignment 173).

The different markers represent different primary mirrors.
RICH 2 primary local z rotations vs. Sequential Alignment Number: Rich2_2018_hollow_Numbers_pz.png As above (RICH2) but for the rotations around the local z-axes of the individual primary mirrors.
The different markers represent different primary mirrors.
RICH 2 secondary local y rotations vs. Sequential Alignment Number: Rich2_2018_hollow_Numbers_sy.png

As above (RICH2) but for the rotations around the local y-axes of the individual secondary mirrors.
The different markers represent different secondary mirrors.

RICH 2 secondary local z rotations vs. Sequential Alignment Number: Rich2_2018_hollow_Numbers_sz.png As above (RICH2) but for the rotations around the local z-axes of the individual secondary mirrors.
The different markers represent different secondary mirrors.

Alignment 2017

VELO Alignment

Plot Description
VELO 2 half alignment stability: The plot shows the stability of the alignment of the VELO halves during all Run II fills. Each point is obtained running the online alignment procedure and shows the difference between the initial alignment constants (the ones used in the previous fill) and the new ones computed by the alignment. It is normal that the alignment constants evaluated for 2 different fills may vary just due to statistical fluctuations even without real movement as different input data samples are used. Before updating the alignment it must thus be checked that the variation is significant (in the plot the red or the blue points must be outside the horizontal lines at +- 2 um). It can be seen for example that for the first fill the y translation goes above the threshold so the alignment will be updated. The second points will thus be the variations with respect to the first alignment. As the variation is not significant the alignment is not updated and also the third points are again with respect to the first alignment. This is a bit a simplification because the degrees of freedom to consider are more than the two shown there but it shows the concept well enough.
As previous plot but filled dots represents alignments that triggered an update and empty dots alignment that did not trigger an update. It is possible to spot alignment that triggered an update where both Tx and Ty are between the dotted lines, that means that some other degree of freedom triggered the update.

Tracker Alignment

Plot Description
Tracker IT boxes Tx alignment stability. Each point is obtained running the online alignment procedure and shows the difference between the initial alignment constants (the ones used in the previous fill) and the new ones computed by the alignment. The horizontal dashed lines represent the thresholds inside which the variation is considered a statistical fluctuation.
TrackerStability_Tx.png Same as previous plot but for Tz.
Same as first but filled dots represents alignments that triggerd an update and empty dots alignment that did not trigger an update.
Same as previous plot but for Tz.
updatesForDof_Tracker.png Number of updates in 2017 in which the different degrees of freedom where above the threshold to trigger an update. The columns are not exclusive as more than a degree of freedom is usually above the threshold to trigger an update. The total number of runs considered is 406 of which 68 triggered an update.

Muon Alignment

Plot empty markers Plot full markers Description
Variation of the x position of the left side muon chambers with respect to the alignment used during data taking. This plot, used to monitor, confirms that the variation is small and an automatic update is not necessary.
Same as above but for right side.
Variation of the y position of the left side muon chambers with respect to the alignment used during data taking. This plot, used to monitor, confirms that the variation is small and an automatic update is not necessary.
Same as above but for right side.

RICH Mirror Alignment

Any FAQs that a presenter should be aware of:

The horizontal dashed lines in the 2017 RICH Mirror Alignment plots below represent a preferred convergence criteria range (tolerance) for a particular combination of RICH detector, local rotation, and mirror type. The tolerances are expected to nearly encompass the alignment-to-alignment variation within a period of fixed magnet polarity. These tolerances were predicted based on studies of 2016 data, and adjusted for the new regularization scheme that we have been using in 2017. The sizes of the tolerance ranges are influenced mainly due to the choice of regularization scheme, limited statistics, and the limited precision of the method itself.

Each of the vertical dashed lines in the 2017 RICH Mirror Alignment plots below represent a change of LHCb magnet polarity.

The plots are given in two styles, default and hollow:

-- The value that is shown on the vertical axis in the default plots is always the difference between the alignment constants that were put into the Online CondDB in the most recent previous update (including the current alignment if an update was made), and the alignment constants determined by the alignment performed during the fill which the alignment number represents. If an update was made during a fill, the shapes are solid and the points collapse to the zero line. If an update was not made, the shapes are still solid but will have a non zero value.

-- The value that is shown on the vertical axis in the hollow plots is always the difference between the alignment constants that were put into the Online CondDB in the most recent previous update (NOT including the current alignment if an update was made), and the alignment constants determined by the alignment performed during the fill which the alignment number represents. If an update was made during a fill, the shapes are solid. If an update was not made, the shapes are hollow.

Near the end of 2017, in the second-to-last polarity period, a sample of 5 TeV pp and pNe data was taken instead of the usual 13 TeV pp data. Here it took several fills to collect enough data to perform the mirror alignment, but we were able to perform the mirror alignment twice during this time period. We were unfortunately unable to perform the mirror alignment in any run period during 2017 that did not include pp collisions, due to a lack of properly distributed tracks.

Plot Description
default style: Rich1_2017_final_default_py.png hollow style: Rich1_2017_final_hollow_py.png RICH1 primary mirror stability plots: stability of the RICH1 primary mirrors' alignment constants for rotations around the local y-axes of the individual mirrors for alignments performed on runs taken between 2017/06/06 and 2017/11/26.

Alignment number 0 was performed on runs of the first magnet up period, the magnet polarity then flipped (from up to down, and vice-versa) on the following Alignment numbers: [19, 47, 88, 135, 149, 151].

The Online CondDB was updated on the following Alignment numbers: [0, 19, 24, 47, 88, 135, 149, 151, 152, 153, 155].

The mirror alignment is updated in the Online CondDB upon every magnet polarity switch. From alignment 19 to alignment 27, and again from alignment 116, the mirror alignment also updated "automatically" when a constant surpassed its tolerance; these periods were the commissioning and the establishment of the fully-automated mirror alignment in 2017, respectively.

The Rich1 MDCS parameters were changed within the mirror alignment on Alignments 21 and 27. This was an attempt to bring the Cherenkov angle resolutions for magnet up and magnet down data into further agreement. The effect on the mirror alignment was enough to eventually force a CondDB update, but small (approximately of the same size as half of the range of our tolerance band).

The magnification factors (internally-used coefficients based on the detector geometry) were recalculated near the beginning of the 2017 run, but only updated in the alignment (from the magnification factors used in 2016) starting with Alignment 19.
default style: Rich1_2017_final_default_pz.png hollow style: Rich1_2017_final_hollow_pz.png As above (RICH1) but for the rotations around the local z-axes of the individual primary mirrors.
default style: Rich1_2017_final_default_sy.png hollow style: Rich1_2017_final_hollow_sy.png As above (RICH1) but for the rotations around the local y-axes of the individual secondary mirrors.
The different markers represent different secondary mirrors.
default style: Rich1_2017_final_default_sz.png hollow style: Rich1_2017_final_hollow_sz.png As above (RICH1) but for the rotations around the local z-axes of the individual secondary mirrors.
The different markers represent different secondary mirrors.
default style: Rich2_2017_final_default_py.png hollow style: Rich2_2017_final_hollow_py.png RICH2 primary mirror stability plots: stability of the RICH2 primary mirrors' alignment constants for rotations around the local y-axes of the individual mirrors for alignments performed on runs taken between 2017/06/05 and 2017/11/26.

Alignment number 0 was performed on runs of the first magnet up period, the magnet polarity then flipped (from up to down, and vice-versa) on the following Alignment numbers: [19, 47, 90, 137, 151, 153].

The Online CondDB was updated on the following Alignment numbers: [0, 19, 20, 23, 47, 90, 121, 137, 140, 151, 153].

The mirror alignment is updated in the Online CondDB upon every magnet polarity switch. From alignment 19 to alignment 27, and again from alignment 118, the mirror alignment also updated "automatically" when a constant surpassed its tolerance; these periods were the commissioning and the establishment of the fully-automated mirror alignment in 2017, respectively.
The different markers represent different primary mirrors.

The magnification factors (internally-used coefficients based on the detector geometry) were recalculated near the beginning of the 2017 run, but only updated in the alignment (from the magnification factors used in 2016) starting with Alignment 19.
default style: Rich2_2017_final_default_pz.png hollow style: Rich2_2017_final_hollow_pz.png As above (RICH2) but for the rotations around the local z-axes of the individual primary mirrors.
The different markers represent different primary mirrors.
default style: Rich2_2017_final_default_sy.png hollow style: Rich2_2017_final_hollow_sy.png

As above (RICH2) but for the rotations around the local y-axes of the individual secondary mirrors.
The different markers represent different secondary mirrors.

default style: Rich2_2017_final_default_sz.png hollow style: Rich2_2017_final_hollow_sz.png As above (RICH2) but for the rotations around the local z-axes of the individual secondary mirrors.
The different markers represent different secondary mirrors.

Tolerances for the mirror alignment (based on the regularization method we were using in 2016) were predicted based on studies of 2016 data, whereupon every magnet polarity change a mirror alignment update was simulated. While more stable behavior was seen, it was very clear that adding additional updates to the mirror alignment could lead to even better mirror alignment stability. Updates were thus also simulated based on various combinations of possible tolerance values. A final set of tolerances were determined and are denoted with horizontal lines on the plots below.

Plot Description
Rich1_primaryMirrors_y_2016ThresholdStudies.png RICH1 primary mirror stability plots: stability of the RICH1 primary mirrors' alignment constants for rotations around the local y-axes of the individual mirrors for alignments performed on runs taken between 2017/06/06 and 2017/08/29.

Alignments numbers 0-18 were performed on runs of the first magnet up period, alignments 19-48 were performed on the following magnet down period, alignments 49-68 were performed on the second magnet up period.

The Online CondDB was updated on Alignment numbers 0, 19, 24, and 49.

The value that is shown on the vertical axis is the difference between the alignment constants that were put into the Online CondDB in the most recent previous update, and the alignment constants determined by the alignment performed during the fill which the alignment number represents.

The mirror alignment is updated in the Online CondDB upon every magnet polarity switch. From alignment 19 to alignment 29, the mirror alignment also updated "automatically" when a constant surpassed its tolerance.

The Rich1 MDCS parameters were changed within the mirror alignment on Alignments 21 and 29. This was an attempt to bring the Cherenkov angle resolutions for magnet up and magnet down data into further agreement. The effect on the mirror alignment was enough to eventually force an update, however the effect was approximately of the same size as half of the range of our tolerance band, so not any cause for concern.
Rich1_primaryMirrors_z_2016ThresholdStudies.png As above (RICH1) but for the rotations around the local z-axes of the individual primary mirrors.
Rich1_secondaryMirrors_y_2016ThresholdStudies.png As above (RICH1) but for the rotations around the local y-axes of the individual secondary mirrors.
The different markers represent different secondary mirrors.
Rich1_secondaryMirrors_z_2016ThresholdStudies.png As above (RICH1) but for the rotations around the local z-axes of the individual secondary mirrors.
The different markers represent different secondary mirrors.
Rich2_primaryMirrors_y_2016ThresholdStudies.png RICH2 primary mirror stability plots: stability of the RICH2 primary mirrors' alignment constants for rotations around the local y-axes of the individual mirrors for alignments performed on runs taken between 2017/06/05 and 2017/08/29.

Alignments numbers 0-18 were performed on runs of the first magnet up period, alignments 19-47 were performed on the following magnet down period, alignments 48-67 were performed on the second magnet up period.

The Online CondDB was updated on Alignment numbers 0, 19, 20, 23, and 48.

The value that is shown on the vertical axis is the difference between the alignment constants that were put into the Online CondDB in the most recent previous update, and the alignment constants determined by the alignment performed during the fill which the alignment number represents.

The mirror alignment is updated in the Online CondDB upon every magnet polarity switch. From alignment 19 to alignment 28, the mirror alignment also updated "automatically" when a constant surpassed its tolerance.
The different markers represent different primary mirrors.
Rich2_primaryMirrors_z_2016ThresholdStudies.png As above (RICH2) but for the rotations around the local z-axes of the individual primary mirrors.
The different markers represent different primary mirrors.
Rich2_secondaryMirrors_y_2016ThresholdStudies.png

As above (RICH2) but for the rotations around the local y-axes of the individual secondary mirrors.
The different markers represent different secondary mirrors.

Rich2_secondaryMirrors_z_2016ThresholdStudies.png As above (RICH2) but for the rotations around the local z-axes of the individual secondary mirrors.
The different markers represent different secondary mirrors.

<-- -->

Alignment 2016

VELO Alignment

Plot Description
VELO 2 half alignment stability: The plot shows the stability of the alignment of the VELO halves during all Run II fills. Each point is obtained running the online alignment procedure and shows the difference between the initial alignment constants (the ones used in the previous fill) and the new ones computed by the alignment. It is normal that the alignment constants evaluated for 2 different fills may vary just due to statistical fluctuations even without real movement as different input data samples are used. Before updating the alignment it must thus be checked that the variation is significant (in the plot the red or the blue points must be outside the horizontal lines at +- 2 um). It can be seen for example that for the first fill the y translation goes above the threshold so the alignment will be updated. The second points will thus be the variations with respect to the first alignment. As the variation is not significant the alignment is not updated and also the third points are again with respect to the first alignment. This is a bit a simplification because the degrees of freedom to consider are more than the two shown there but it shows the concept well enough.
As previous plot but filled dots represents alignments that triggered an update and empty dots alignment that did not trigger an update. It is possible to spot alignment that triggered an update where both Tx and Ty are between the dotted lines, that means that some other degree of freedom triggered the update.
Trend plot of the value of the alignment constants Tx ad Ty (minus the mean value to centre the plot)
As previuos plot but filled dots represents alignments that triggerd an update and empty dots alignment that did not trigger an update.
updatesForComb_2016.png Fraction of updates triggered by each combination of degrees of freedom.
updatesForDof_2016.png Fraction of updates in which each degree of freedom is above the threshold to trigger an update. The percentages do not add to 100% as there are updates for which more than a degree of freedom is above the threshold.

Tracker Alignment

Plot Description
Tracker IT boxes Tx alignment stability. Each point is obtained running the online alignment procedure and shows the difference between the initial alignment constants (the ones used in the previous fill) and the new ones computed by the alignment. The horizontal dashed lines represent the thresholds inside which the variation is considered a statistical fluctuation.
TrackerStability_Tx.png Same as previous plot but for Tz.
Same as first but filled dots represents alignments that triggerd an update and empty dots alignment that did not trigger an update.
Same as previous plot but for Tz.

Muon Alignment

Plot empty markers Plot full markers Description
Variation of the x position of the left side muon chambers with respect to the alignment used during data taking. This plot, used to monitor, confirms that the variation is small and an automatic update is not necessary.
Same as above but for right side.
Variation of the y position of the left side muon chambers with respect to the alignment used during data taking. This plot, used to monitor, confirms that the variation is small and an automatic update is not necessary.
Same as above but for right side.

RICH Mirror Alignment

Any FAQs that a presenter should be aware of:

The dashed lines in the below plots for the RICH Mirror Alignment represent a preferred convergence criteria range for a particular combination of RICH detector, local rotation, and mirror type. The range is expected to encompass the alignment-to-alignment variation within a period of fixed magnet polarity.

Plot Description
Rich1_primaryMirrors_y.png RICH1 primary mirror stability plots: stability of the RICH1 primary mirrors' alignment constants for rotations around the local y-axes of the individual mirrors for alignments performed on runs taken between 24/05/2016 and 24/08/2016.

Alignments number 0-5 were performed on runs of the first magnet down period, alignments 6-10 were performed on the following magnet up period, alignments 11-14 were performed on the second magnet down period.

The value that is shown on the vertical axis is the difference between the alignment constants that were put into the condDB at the beginning of data-taking in 2016 and the alignment constant determined by the alignment. No update of the alignment constants for the RICH detectors was made after the beginning of 2016.

The grey dotted lines indicate the region where variations are expected due to limited statistics and the limited precision of the method itself.
Rich1_primaryMirrors_z.png As above (RICH1) but for the rotations around the local z-axes of the individual primary mirrors.
Rich1_secondaryMirrors_y.png

As above (RICH1) but for the rotations around the local y-axes of the individual secondary mirrors. The different markers represent different secondary mirrors.

There is a visible variation for some secondary mirrors when the magnet switched to up polarity. This has no effect in the performance at all, as evidenced by the PID performance plots.

Rich1_secondaryMirrors_z.png As above (RICH1) but for the rotations around the local z-axes of the individual secondary mirrors. The different markers represent different secondary mirrors.
Rich1_absav_range.1-1.png

Same conditions as described above.

The vertical axis shows the average of the absolute value of the change in mirror constants for the RICH1 primary mirrors. The shaded area shows the range from the smallest to the biggest variation.

Rich1_absav_range.2-1.png Same as above but for the RICH1 secondary mirrors.

There is a visible variation for some secondary mirrors when the magnet switched to up polarity. This has no effect in the performance at all, as evidenced by the PID performance plots.

Rich2_primaryMirrors_y.png RICH2 primary mirror stability plots: stability of the RICH2 primary mirrors' alignment constants for rotations around the local y-axes of the individual mirrors for alignments performed on runs taken between 24/05/2016 and 24/08/2016.

Alignments number 0-5 were performed on runs of the first magnet down period, alignments 6-10 were performed on the following magnet up period, alignments 11-14 were performed on the second magnet down period.

The value that is shown on the vertical axis is the difference between the alignment constants that were put into the condDB at the beginning of data-taking in 2016 and the alignment constant determined by the alignment. No update of the alignment constants for the RICH detectors was made after the beginning of 2016.

The grey dotted lines indicate the region where variations are expected due to limited statistics and the limited precision of the method itself.
The different markers represent different primary mirrors.
Rich2_primaryMirrors_z.png As above (RICH2) but for the rotations around the local z-axes of the individual primary mirrors.
The different markers represent different primary mirrors.
Rich2_secondaryMirrors_y.png

As above (RICH2) but for the rotations around the local y-axes of the individual secondary mirrors.
The different markers represent different secondary mirrors.

Rich2_secondaryMirrors_z.png As above (RICH2) but for the rotations around the local z-axes of the individual secondary mirrors.
The different markers represent different secondary mirrors.
Rich2_absav_range.1-1.png

Same conditions as described above.

The vertical axis shows the average of the absolute value of the change in mirror constants for the RICH2 primary mirrors. The shaded area shows the range from the smallest to the biggest variation.

Rich2_absav_range.2-1.png Same as above but for the RICH2 secondary mirrors.

Alignment 2015

VELO Alignment

Plot Description
VeloStability.pdf VELO 2 half alignment stability: The plot shows the stability of the alignment of the VELO halves during all Run II fills. Each point is obtained running the online alignment procedure and shows the difference between the initial alignment constants (the ones used in the previous fill) and the new ones computed by the alignment. It is normal that the alignment constants evaluated for 2 different fills may vary just due to statistical fluctuations even without real movement as different input data samples are used. Before updating the alignment it must thus be checked that the variation is significant (in the plot the red or the blue points must be outside the horizontal lines at +- 2 um). It can be seen for example that for the first fill the y translation goes above the threshold so the alignment will be updated. The second points will thus be the variations with respect to the first alignment. As the variation is not significant the alignment is not updated and also the third points are again with respect to the first alignment. This is a bit a simplification because the degrees of freedom to consider are more than the two shown there but it shows the concept well enough.
VeloStability.pdf As previuos plot but filled dots represents alignments that triggerd an update and empty dots alignment that did not trigger an update. It is possible to spot alignment that triggerd an update where both Tx and Ty are between the dotted lines, that means that some other degree of freedom triggered the update.
VeloStability.pdf Trend plot of the value of the alignment constants Tx ad Ty (minus the mean value to center the plot)
VeloStability.pdf As previuos plot but filled dots represents alignments that triggerd an update and empty dots alignment that did not trigger an update.
VeloConvergence.png VELO 2 half alignment convergence: Convergence of the VELO alignment obtained on fill 3819 starting from 2012 VELO alignment. Each point shows the variation of the VELO left side x-translation with respect to the previous iteration.

Tracker Alignment

Plot Description
TrackerStability_Tx.png Tracker IT boxes Tx alignment stability. Each point is obtained running the online alignment procedure and shows the difference between the initial alignment constants (the ones used in the previous fill) and the new ones computed by the alignment. The horizontal dashed lines represent the thresholds inside which the variation is considered a statistical fluctuation.
TrackerStability_Tx.png Same as previous plot but for Tz.
TrackerConvergence.png Convergence of the tracker alignment when starting from 2012 tracker alignment. Due to the mechanical intervention an IT box misalignment of 1 or 2 mm is expected. Each point shows the change of the alignment parameter outlined in the legend with respect to the previous iteration. This plot show the convergence of the automatic alignment procedure in case of large misalignment.

Muon Alignment

Plot Description
MuonAlignment2015Start.png Muon half-station alignment in 2015 data: full points = displacement with respect to the closed (ideal) position measured by software alignment (full dots), survey (empty dots). Black points shows the reference positions of the opened detector that preserves projectivity with respect IP and A-C side symmetry. NB: L0muon trigger implements the measured positions shown here to evaluate the LUT for the on-line pT computation of trigger candidates
MuonAlignment2015Start.png Variation of the x position of the left side muon chambers with respect to the alignment used during data taking. This plot, used to monitor, confirms that the variation is small and an automatic update is not necessary.
MuonAlignment2015Start.png Variation of the y position of the left side muon chambers with respect to the alignment used during data taking. This plot, used to monitor, confirms that the variation is small and an automatic update is not necessary.

OT calibration

Plot Description
OTt0calibration2015.png OT global t0 calibration: difference of the global t0 value calculated with the latest calibration with respect to the previous t0 value used in data. Red points are the calibrations which triggered an update of the t0 condition, since the difference with respect to the previous value is larger than the threshold. The thresholds are indicated with the shadows. This plot includes the first period of data taking in 2015: commissioning, Early Measurements and first period of stable running. (see following plot for the full data taking period until 01/12/2015).
OTdeltat0.png OT global t0 calibration: difference of the global t0 value calculated with the latest calibration with respect to the previous t0 value used. Update 03/06/2015-01/12/2015. Few days of heavy ions collisions are included (started on the 25th of November).
OTdeltat0.png OT global t0 stability in 2016: difference of the global t0 value calculated with the latest calibration with respect to the previous t0 value used.
OTdeltat0_vsTime.png OT global t0 calibration: difference of the global t0 value calculated with the latest calibration with respect to the previous t0 value used. Update 03/06/2015-01/12/2015. Differences are shown as function of time instead of calibration number (easier to identify the TS and different running periods).
OTt0.png Stability of the OT global t0 (as function of time).
OTdeltat0.png NEW OT global t0 stability in 2016 23/04/2016-09/09/2016: difference of the global t0 value calculated with the latest calibration with respect to the previous t0 value used. The large variations around 650 correspond to a real problem with the clock (https://lblogbook.cern.ch/Shift/94591 and https://lblogbook.cern.ch/Shift/94595).

Various plots related the automatic alignment and calibration

Plot Description
Upsilon1.png Invariant mass distribution for $\Upsilon \to \mu \mu$. The mass resolution is $92$ MeV $/c^2$ with the first alignment.
Upsilon2.png Invariant mass distribution for $\Upsilon \to \mu \mu$. The mass resolution is $49$ MeV $/c^2$ with an improved alignment.
FSM.png Finite state machine which defines the behaviour of the alignment tasks.
JPsi1.png Time evolution of the relative variation of the difference between the measured mass of the $J/\Psi$(1S) and the nominal one from \cite{PDG}. Each point corresponds to data taken with a different tracking alignment; the blue up-triangles and red down-triangles correspond to opposite magnet polarities.
JPsi2.png Time evolution of the relative variation of the relative variation of the mass resolution at the $J/\Psi$(1S) mass. Each point corresponds to data taken with a different tracking alignment; the blue up-triangles and red down-triangles correspond to opposite magnet polarities.
-- SilviaBorghi - 2015-10-06
Topic attachments
I Attachment History Action Size Date Who Comment
PDFpdf DownstreamTrackEff_MC16_Down_p_L0_AtVtx_P_res.pdf r1 manage 208.9 K 2019-03-12 - 17:41 MichaelAlexander  
PNGpng DownstreamTrackEff_MC16_Down_p_L0_AtVtx_P_res.png r1 manage 36.2 K 2019-03-12 - 17:41 MichaelAlexander  
PDFpdf DownstreamTrackEff_MC16_L0_ENDVERTEX_RedGreenProfile.pdf r1 manage 411.7 K 2019-03-12 - 17:41 MichaelAlexander  
PNGpng DownstreamTrackEff_MC16_L0_ENDVERTEX_RedGreenProfile.png r1 manage 544.1 K 2019-03-12 - 17:42 MichaelAlexander  
PDFpdf DownstreamTrackEff_MC16_MCEff2.pdf r1 manage 16.2 K 2019-03-12 - 17:42 MichaelAlexander  
PNGpng DownstreamTrackEff_MC16_MCEff2.png r1 manage 81.8 K 2019-03-12 - 17:41 MichaelAlexander  
PDFpdf DownstreamTrackEff_MC16_eff_LD_L0_ENDVERTEX_Z.pdf r1 manage 15.9 K 2019-03-12 - 17:42 MichaelAlexander  
PNGpng DownstreamTrackEff_MC16_eff_LD_L0_ENDVERTEX_Z.png r1 manage 79.2 K 2019-03-12 - 17:41 MichaelAlexander  
PDFpdf DownstreamTrackEff_MC16_eff_LD_p_L0_PT.pdf r1 manage 15.5 K 2019-03-12 - 17:42 MichaelAlexander  
PNGpng DownstreamTrackEff_MC16_eff_LD_p_L0_PT.png r1 manage 74.9 K 2019-03-12 - 17:41 MichaelAlexander  
PDFpdf DownstreamTrackEff_Pie_L0.pdf r1 manage 47.9 K 2019-03-12 - 17:41 MichaelAlexander  
PNGpng DownstreamTrackEff_Pie_L0.png r1 manage 34.1 K 2019-03-12 - 17:41 MichaelAlexander  
PDFpdf DownstreamTrackEff_RD18_eff_LD_L0_ENDVERTEX_Z.pdf r1 manage 15.9 K 2019-03-12 - 17:42 MichaelAlexander  
PNGpng DownstreamTrackEff_RD18_eff_LD_L0_ENDVERTEX_Z.png r1 manage 78.6 K 2019-03-12 - 17:42 MichaelAlexander  
PDFpdf DownstreamTrackEff_RD18_eff_LD_p_L0_PT.pdf r1 manage 15.5 K 2019-03-12 - 17:42 MichaelAlexander  
PNGpng DownstreamTrackEff_RD18_eff_LD_p_L0_PT.png r1 manage 73.3 K 2019-03-12 - 17:42 MichaelAlexander  
PDFpdf DownstreamTrackEff_Upgrade_Down_p_L0_AtVtx_P_res.pdf r1 manage 179.8 K 2019-03-12 - 17:43 MichaelAlexander  
PNGpng DownstreamTrackEff_Upgrade_Down_p_L0_AtVtx_P_res.png r1 manage 33.4 K 2019-03-12 - 17:43 MichaelAlexander  
PDFpdf DownstreamTrackEff_Upgrade_eff_LD_L0_ENDVERTEX_Z.pdf r1 manage 15.8 K 2019-03-12 - 17:43 MichaelAlexander  
PNGpng DownstreamTrackEff_Upgrade_eff_LD_L0_ENDVERTEX_Z.png r1 manage 79.2 K 2019-03-12 - 17:43 MichaelAlexander  
PDFpdf DownstreamTrackEff_Upgrade_eff_LD_p_L0_PT.pdf r1 manage 15.5 K 2019-03-12 - 17:43 MichaelAlexander  
PNGpng DownstreamTrackEff_Upgrade_eff_LD_p_L0_PT.png r1 manage 75.3 K 2019-03-12 - 17:43 MichaelAlexander  
PDFpdf DownstreamTrackEff_reconstructiblity2.pdf r1 manage 13.8 K 2019-03-12 - 17:41 MichaelAlexander  
PNGpng DownstreamTrackEff_reconstructiblity2.png r1 manage 79.7 K 2019-03-12 - 17:41 MichaelAlexander  
Unknown file formateps ETA_Final_comparison_2012_2015EM.eps r1 manage 8.0 K 2018-06-26 - 16:10 RenataKopecna1  
PDFpdf ETA_Final_comparison_2012_2015EM.pdf r1 manage 13.7 K 2018-06-26 - 15:56 RenataKopecna1 2015EM and 2012 tracking efficiency (muon, data)
PNGpng ETA_Final_comparison_2012_2015EM.png r1 manage 9.8 K 2018-06-26 - 16:11 RenataKopecna1  
PDFpdf ETA_Final_comparison_MC_2015nominal.pdf r1 manage 13.6 K 2018-02-20 - 14:57 RenataKopecna1  
PNGpng ETA_Final_comparison_MC_2015nominal.png r1 manage 10.1 K 2018-02-20 - 15:07 RenataKopecna1  
PDFpdf FSM.pdf r1 manage 23.3 K 2015-10-06 - 23:04 SilviaBorghi Scheme of the procedure for an alignment task
PNGpng FSM.png r1 manage 3.9 K 2015-10-06 - 23:04 SilviaBorghi Scheme of the procedure for an alignment task
PDFpdf Forward-gr-p.pdf r1 manage 15.9 K 2015-10-30 - 16:44 BarbaraStoraci Forward ghost rate as a function of p in case the VeloTT is in or not in the reconstruction chain
PNGpng Forward-gr-p.png r1 manage 61.8 K 2015-10-30 - 16:44 BarbaraStoraci Forward ghost rate as a function of p in case the VeloTT is in or not in the reconstruction chain
PDFpdf Forward-gr-pt.pdf r1 manage 16.0 K 2015-10-30 - 16:43 BarbaraStoraci Forward ghost rate with and without the VeloTT in the reconstruction chain
PNGpng Forward-gr-pt.png r1 manage 60.9 K 2015-10-30 - 16:43 BarbaraStoraci Forward ghost rate with and without the VeloTT in the reconstruction chain
PDFpdf GP_DKPi30.pdf r1 manage 17.2 K 2015-10-07 - 21:24 MichelDeCian  
PNGpng GP_DKPi30.png r1 manage 110.0 K 2015-10-07 - 21:24 MichelDeCian  
PDFpdf HLT1.pdf r1 manage 62.2 K 2015-10-27 - 10:23 BarbaraStoraci New track chain schema
PNGpng HLT1.png r1 manage 25.8 K 2015-10-27 - 10:23 BarbaraStoraci New track chain schema
PDFpdf IPX-Vs-InversePT-Compare2012To2015ValidationFill4207.pdf r1 manage 17.2 K 2015-10-08 - 12:38 MichaelAlexander  
PNGpng IPX-Vs-InversePT-Compare2012To2015ValidationFill4207.png r1 manage 43.7 K 2015-10-08 - 12:38 MichaelAlexander  
PDFpdf IPX-resolution-vs-inversept-2016-2015-2012.pdf r1 manage 18.7 K 2017-06-26 - 17:29 MichaelAlexander  
PNGpng IPX-resolution-vs-inversept-2016-2015-2012.png r1 manage 52.0 K 2017-06-26 - 17:29 MichaelAlexander  
PDFpdf IPY-Vs-InversePT-Compare2012To2015ValidationFill4207.pdf r1 manage 17.2 K 2015-10-08 - 12:38 MichaelAlexander  
PNGpng IPY-Vs-InversePT-Compare2012To2015ValidationFill4207.png r1 manage 43.2 K 2015-10-08 - 12:38 MichaelAlexander  
PDFpdf IPY-resolution-vs-inversept-2016-2015-2012.pdf r1 manage 18.6 K 2017-06-26 - 17:29 MichaelAlexander  
PNGpng IPY-resolution-vs-inversept-2016-2015-2012.png r1 manage 51.3 K 2017-06-26 - 17:29 MichaelAlexander  
PDFpdf JPsi1.pdf r1 manage 594.2 K 2015-10-06 - 23:05 SilviaBorghi Time evolution of j/psi mass for Run 1 data
PNGpng JPsi1.png r1 manage 154.8 K 2015-10-06 - 23:05 SilviaBorghi Time evolution of j/psi mass for Run 1 data
PDFpdf JPsi2.pdf r1 manage 256.3 K 2015-10-06 - 23:06 SilviaBorghi Time evolution of j/psi mass resolution for Run 1 data
PNGpng JPsi2.png r1 manage 148.6 K 2015-10-06 - 23:06 SilviaBorghi Time evolution of j/psi mass resolution for Run 1 data
PNGpng KF_momentum_res_P.png r1 manage 96.0 K 2017-03-07 - 21:09 SimonBenediktStemmle Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter).
PDFpdf KF_momentum_res_P_11_2017.pdf r1 manage 15.0 K 2018-07-06 - 07:45 SimonBenediktStemmle Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter). Update from Nov 2017
PNGpng KF_momentum_res_P_11_2017.png r1 manage 171.7 K 2018-07-06 - 07:45 SimonBenediktStemmle Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter). Update from Nov 2017
PDFpdf KF_momentum_res_txty.pdf r1 manage 15.1 K 2017-03-07 - 20:44 SimonBenediktStemmle Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter).
PNGpng KF_momentum_res_txty.png r1 manage 107.4 K 2017-03-07 - 21:09 SimonBenediktStemmle Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter).
PDFpdf KF_momentum_res_txty_11_2017.pdf r2 r1 manage 15.1 K 2018-07-06 - 07:55 SimonBenediktStemmle Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter). Update from Nov 2017
PNGpng KF_momentum_res_txty_11_2017.png r2 r1 manage 174.6 K 2018-07-06 - 07:56 SimonBenediktStemmle Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter).
PDFpdf KF_momentum_res_txty_advanced.pdf r1 manage 15.1 K 2017-03-07 - 20:44 SimonBenediktStemmle Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter).
PNGpng KF_momentum_res_txty_advanced.png r1 manage 94.9 K 2017-03-07 - 21:09 SimonBenediktStemmle Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter).
PDFpdf KsGhostProbDown.pdf r1 manage 47.1 K 2016-02-19 - 16:52 MichelDeCian  
PNGpng KsGhostProbDown.png r1 manage 142.0 K 2016-02-19 - 16:58 MichelDeCian  
PDFpdf KsGhostProbLong.pdf r1 manage 43.3 K 2016-02-19 - 16:52 MichelDeCian  
PNGpng KsGhostProbLong.png r1 manage 139.2 K 2016-02-19 - 16:58 MichelDeCian  
PDFpdf MuonA_stability_Tx.pdf r2 r1 manage 28.9 K 2016-09-08 - 12:17 GiulioDujany 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots
PNGpng MuonA_stability_Tx.png r2 r1 manage 231.0 K 2016-09-08 - 12:17 GiulioDujany 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots
PDFpdf MuonA_stability_Tx_fd.pdf r2 r1 manage 31.0 K 2016-09-08 - 12:14 GiulioDujany 2016 automatic alignemnt publicity plots
PNGpng MuonA_stability_Tx_fd.png r2 r1 manage 194.0 K 2016-09-08 - 12:15 GiulioDujany 2016 automatic alignemnt publicity plots
PDFpdf MuonA_stability_Ty.pdf r2 r1 manage 32.2 K 2016-09-08 - 12:19 GiulioDujany 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots
PNGpng MuonA_stability_Ty.png r2 r1 manage 233.7 K 2016-09-08 - 12:20 GiulioDujany 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots
PDFpdf MuonA_stability_Ty_fd.pdf r2 r1 manage 34.5 K 2016-09-08 - 12:16 GiulioDujany 2016 automatic alignemnt publicity plots
PNGpng MuonA_stability_Ty_fd.png r2 r1 manage 196.8 K 2016-09-08 - 12:22 GiulioDujany 2016 automatic alignemnt publicity plots
PDFpdf MuonAlignment2015Start.pdf r1 manage 17.2 K 2015-10-09 - 12:20 StefaniaVecchi  
PNGpng MuonAlignment2015Start.png r1 manage 12.6 K 2015-10-09 - 12:20 StefaniaVecchi  
PDFpdf MuonC_stability_Tx.pdf r2 r1 manage 29.0 K 2016-09-08 - 12:23 GiulioDujany 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots
PNGpng MuonC_stability_Tx.png r2 r1 manage 228.7 K 2016-09-08 - 12:24 GiulioDujany 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots
PDFpdf MuonC_stability_Tx_fd.pdf r2 r1 manage 31.1 K 2016-09-08 - 12:24 GiulioDujany 2016 automatic alignemnt publicity plots
PNGpng MuonC_stability_Tx_fd.png r2 r1 manage 192.4 K 2016-09-08 - 12:24 GiulioDujany 2016 automatic alignemnt publicity plots
PDFpdf MuonC_stability_Ty.pdf r2 r1 manage 32.2 K 2016-09-08 - 12:25 GiulioDujany 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots
PNGpng MuonC_stability_Ty.png r2 r1 manage 231.9 K 2016-09-08 - 12:30 GiulioDujany 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots
PDFpdf MuonC_stability_Ty_fd.pdf r2 r1 manage 34.6 K 2016-09-08 - 12:31 GiulioDujany 2016 automatic alignemnt publicity plots
PNGpng MuonC_stability_Ty_fd.png r2 r1 manage 194.9 K 2016-09-08 - 12:32 GiulioDujany 2016 automatic alignemnt publicity plots
PNGpng MuonStability-p1.png r1 manage 189.3 K 2015-11-26 - 14:28 GiulioDujany Plots muon stability
PDFpdf MuonStability.pdf r3 r2 r1 manage 20.0 K 2015-12-01 - 09:55 GiulioDujany Muon alignment stability
PNGpng MuonStability.png r2 r1 manage 177.9 K 2015-12-01 - 09:55 GiulioDujany Muon alignment stability
PNGpng MuonStability_Ty-p1.png r1 manage 192.6 K 2015-11-26 - 14:28 GiulioDujany Plots muon stability
PDFpdf MuonStability_Ty.pdf r3 r2 r1 manage 20.3 K 2015-12-01 - 09:55 GiulioDujany Muon alignment stability
PNGpng MuonStability_Ty.png r2 r1 manage 181.3 K 2015-12-01 - 09:55 GiulioDujany Muon alignment stability
PDFpdf OTdeltat0.pdf r2 r1 manage 67.4 K 2015-12-01 - 22:12 LuciaGrillo Difference of the latest calibrated t0 value with respect to the t0 previously used
PNGpng OTdeltat0.png r2 r1 manage 29.0 K 2015-12-01 - 22:14 LuciaGrillo  
PDFpdf OTdeltat0_vsTime.pdf r2 r1 manage 63.6 K 2015-12-01 - 22:17 LuciaGrillo Difference of the latest calibrated t0 value with respect to the t0 previously used as function of time
PNGpng OTdeltat0_vsTime.png r2 r1 manage 14.6 K 2015-12-01 - 22:21 LuciaGrillo  
PDFpdf OTt0.pdf r2 r1 manage 64.0 K 2015-12-01 - 22:18 LuciaGrillo stability of the global t0 value
PNGpng OTt0.png r2 r1 manage 17.3 K 2015-12-01 - 22:19 LuciaGrillo  
PDFpdf OTt0_stability.pdf r1 manage 34.9 K 2016-06-18 - 12:12 LuciaGrillo Stability of the global t0 constant in 2016
PNGpng OTt0_stability.png r1 manage 23.8 K 2016-06-18 - 12:12 LuciaGrillo Stability of the global t0 constant in 2016
PDFpdf OTt0_stability_090916.pdf r1 manage 103.7 K 2016-09-11 - 16:28 LuciaGrillo OT t0 stability plot for the period 23/04/2016 - 09/09/2016
PNGpng OTt0_stability_090916.png r1 manage 72.3 K 2016-09-11 - 16:32 LuciaGrillo OT t0 stablilty 23/04/2016 - 09/09/2016 png
PDFpdf OTt0calibration2015.pdf r1 manage 96.7 K 2015-10-06 - 22:27 SilviaBorghi Stability of OT global t0 calibration
PNGpng OTt0calibration2015.png r1 manage 40.2 K 2015-10-06 - 22:27 SilviaBorghi Stability of OT global t0 calibration
Unknown file formateps P_Final_comparison_2012_2015EM.eps r1 manage 9.6 K 2018-02-20 - 14:48 RenataKopecna1  
PDFpdf P_Final_comparison_2012_2015EM.pdf r1 manage 14.4 K 2018-02-20 - 14:48 RenataKopecna1  
PNGpng P_Final_comparison_2012_2015EM.png r1 manage 10.9 K 2018-02-20 - 15:07 RenataKopecna1  
Unknown file formateps P_Final_comparison_2012_2015nominal.eps r1 manage 9.3 K 2018-02-20 - 14:48 RenataKopecna1  
PDFpdf P_Final_comparison_2012_2015nominal.pdf r1 manage 14.2 K 2018-02-20 - 14:48 RenataKopecna1  
PNGpng P_Final_comparison_2012_2015nominal.png r1 manage 10.9 K 2018-02-20 - 15:07 RenataKopecna1  
PDFpdf P_Final_comparison_MC_2015nominal.pdf r1 manage 14.2 K 2018-02-20 - 14:57 RenataKopecna1  
PNGpng P_Final_comparison_MC_2015nominal.png r1 manage 11.0 K 2018-02-20 - 15:07 RenataKopecna1  
PDFpdf Rich1_2017_final_default_py.pdf r1 manage 42.7 K 2017-12-21 - 18:05 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich1_2017_final_default_py.png r1 manage 67.3 K 2017-12-21 - 18:05 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich1_2017_final_default_pz.pdf r1 manage 42.8 K 2017-12-21 - 18:05 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich1_2017_final_default_pz.png r1 manage 68.1 K 2017-12-21 - 18:05 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich1_2017_final_default_sy.pdf r1 manage 104.8 K 2017-12-21 - 18:05 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich1_2017_final_default_sy.png r1 manage 73.7 K 2017-12-21 - 18:05 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich1_2017_final_default_sz.pdf r1 manage 104.3 K 2017-12-21 - 18:05 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich1_2017_final_default_sz.png r1 manage 71.6 K 2017-12-21 - 18:05 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich1_2017_final_hollow_py.pdf r1 manage 43.3 K 2017-12-21 - 18:05 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich1_2017_final_hollow_py.png r1 manage 81.7 K 2017-12-21 - 18:05 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich1_2017_final_hollow_pz.pdf r1 manage 43.4 K 2017-12-21 - 18:06 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich1_2017_final_hollow_pz.png r1 manage 83.6 K 2017-12-21 - 18:06 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich1_2017_final_hollow_sy.pdf r1 manage 106.7 K 2017-12-21 - 18:06 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich1_2017_final_hollow_sy.png r1 manage 84.1 K 2017-12-21 - 18:06 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich1_2017_final_hollow_sz.pdf r1 manage 106.5 K 2017-12-21 - 18:06 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich1_2017_final_hollow_sz.png r1 manage 81.0 K 2017-12-21 - 18:06 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich1_2018_hollow_Fills_to20180820_py.pdf r1 manage 38.3 K 2018-08-29 - 15:11 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich1_2018_hollow_Fills_to20180820_py.png r2 r1 manage 74.2 K 2018-08-29 - 15:31 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich1_2018_hollow_Fills_to20180820_pz.pdf r1 manage 38.1 K 2018-08-29 - 15:11 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich1_2018_hollow_Fills_to20180820_pz.png r2 r1 manage 75.9 K 2018-08-29 - 15:31 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich1_2018_hollow_Fills_to20180820_sy.pdf r1 manage 88.8 K 2018-08-29 - 15:11 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich1_2018_hollow_Fills_to20180820_sy.png r2 r1 manage 65.9 K 2018-08-29 - 15:31 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich1_2018_hollow_Fills_to20180820_sz.pdf r1 manage 88.3 K 2018-08-29 - 15:11 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich1_2018_hollow_Fills_to20180820_sz.png r2 r1 manage 63.3 K 2018-08-29 - 15:31 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich1_2018_hollow_Numbers_py.pdf r1 manage 47.3 K 2018-11-29 - 18:47 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich1_2018_hollow_Numbers_py.png r1 manage 100.2 K 2018-11-29 - 18:48 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich1_2018_hollow_Numbers_pz.pdf r1 manage 47.5 K 2018-11-29 - 18:47 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich1_2018_hollow_Numbers_pz.png r1 manage 102.7 K 2018-11-29 - 18:48 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich1_2018_hollow_Numbers_sy.pdf r1 manage 124.4 K 2018-11-29 - 18:47 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich1_2018_hollow_Numbers_sy.png r1 manage 83.0 K 2018-11-29 - 18:48 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich1_2018_hollow_Numbers_sz.pdf r1 manage 124.4 K 2018-11-29 - 18:47 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich1_2018_hollow_Numbers_sz.png r1 manage 75.5 K 2018-11-29 - 18:48 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich1_2018_hollow_Numbers_to20180820_py.pdf r1 manage 38.6 K 2018-08-29 - 15:11 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich1_2018_hollow_Numbers_to20180820_py.png r2 r1 manage 84.5 K 2018-08-29 - 15:31 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich1_2018_hollow_Numbers_to20180820_pz.pdf r1 manage 38.5 K 2018-08-29 - 15:11 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich1_2018_hollow_Numbers_to20180820_pz.png r2 r1 manage 85.2 K 2018-08-29 - 15:31 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich1_2018_hollow_Numbers_to20180820_sy.pdf r1 manage 89.1 K 2018-08-29 - 15:11 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich1_2018_hollow_Numbers_to20180820_sy.png r2 r1 manage 82.4 K 2018-08-29 - 15:31 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich1_2018_hollow_Numbers_to20180820_sz.pdf r1 manage 88.9 K 2018-08-29 - 15:11 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich1_2018_hollow_Numbers_to20180820_sz.png r2 r1 manage 78.9 K 2018-08-29 - 15:31 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich1_absav_range.1-1.png r1 manage 80.3 K 2016-09-22 - 17:56 ClaireProuve  
PDFpdf Rich1_absav_range.1.pdf r1 manage 14.1 K 2016-09-23 - 11:52 ClaireProuve  
PNGpng Rich1_absav_range.2-1.png r1 manage 88.4 K 2016-09-22 - 17:56 ClaireProuve  
PDFpdf Rich1_absav_range.2.pdf r1 manage 14.1 K 2016-09-23 - 11:52 ClaireProuve  
PDFpdf Rich1_primaryMirrors_y.pdf r1 manage 14.3 K 2016-09-23 - 11:47 ClaireProuve  
PNGpng Rich1_primaryMirrors_y.png r1 manage 62.9 K 2016-09-23 - 11:46 ClaireProuve  
PDFpdf Rich1_primaryMirrors_y_20170830.pdf r2 r1 manage 30.3 K 2017-10-20 - 16:28 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich1_primaryMirrors_y_20170830.png r2 r1 manage 129.9 K 2017-10-20 - 16:28 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich1_primaryMirrors_z.png r1 manage 60.9 K 2016-09-23 - 11:46 ClaireProuve  
PDFpdf Rich1_primaryMirrors_z_20170830.pdf r2 r1 manage 30.2 K 2017-10-20 - 16:28 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich1_primaryMirrors_z_20170830.png r2 r1 manage 134.2 K 2017-10-20 - 16:28 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich1_primaryMirrros_z.pdf r1 manage 14.3 K 2016-09-23 - 11:47 ClaireProuve  
PDFpdf Rich1_secondaryMirrors_y.pdf r1 manage 17.2 K 2016-09-23 - 11:47 ClaireProuve  
PNGpng Rich1_secondaryMirrors_y.png r2 r1 manage 72.8 K 2016-09-23 - 11:35 ClaireProuve  
PDFpdf Rich1_secondaryMirrors_y_20170830.pdf r2 r1 manage 54.3 K 2017-10-20 - 16:28 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich1_secondaryMirrors_y_20170830.png r2 r1 manage 144.9 K 2017-10-20 - 16:28 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich1_secondaryMirrors_z.pdf r1 manage 17.2 K 2016-09-23 - 11:47 ClaireProuve  
PNGpng Rich1_secondaryMirrors_z.png r2 r1 manage 79.8 K 2016-09-23 - 11:35 ClaireProuve  
PDFpdf Rich1_secondaryMirrors_z_20170830.pdf r2 r1 manage 53.8 K 2017-10-20 - 16:28 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich1_secondaryMirrors_z_20170830.png r2 r1 manage 145.2 K 2017-10-20 - 16:28 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich2_2017_final_default_py.pdf r1 manage 312.0 K 2017-12-21 - 18:06 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich2_2017_final_default_py.png r1 manage 101.8 K 2017-12-21 - 18:06 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich2_2017_final_default_pz.pdf r1 manage 312.1 K 2017-12-21 - 18:06 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich2_2017_final_default_pz.png r1 manage 97.0 K 2017-12-21 - 18:06 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich2_2017_final_default_sy.pdf r1 manage 231.7 K 2017-12-21 - 18:06 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich2_2017_final_default_sy.png r1 manage 90.9 K 2017-12-21 - 18:06 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich2_2017_final_default_sz.pdf r1 manage 231.3 K 2017-12-21 - 18:06 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich2_2017_final_default_sz.png r1 manage 95.8 K 2017-12-21 - 18:06 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich2_2017_final_hollow_py.pdf r1 manage 320.0 K 2017-12-21 - 18:06 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich2_2017_final_hollow_py.png r1 manage 117.8 K 2017-12-21 - 18:06 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich2_2017_final_hollow_pz.pdf r1 manage 320.4 K 2017-12-21 - 18:06 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich2_2017_final_hollow_pz.png r1 manage 110.5 K 2017-12-21 - 18:06 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich2_2017_final_hollow_sy.pdf r1 manage 237.5 K 2017-12-21 - 18:06 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich2_2017_final_hollow_sy.png r1 manage 102.1 K 2017-12-21 - 18:06 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich2_2017_final_hollow_sz.pdf r1 manage 239.0 K 2017-12-21 - 18:07 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich2_2017_final_hollow_sz.png r1 manage 100.5 K 2017-12-21 - 18:07 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich2_2018_hollow_Fills_to20180820_py.pdf r1 manage 260.4 K 2018-08-29 - 15:12 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich2_2018_hollow_Fills_to20180820_py.png r2 r1 manage 90.5 K 2018-08-29 - 15:29 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich2_2018_hollow_Fills_to20180820_pz.pdf r1 manage 260.1 K 2018-08-29 - 15:12 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich2_2018_hollow_Fills_to20180820_pz.png r2 r1 manage 85.2 K 2018-08-29 - 15:29 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich2_2018_hollow_Fills_to20180820_sy.pdf r1 manage 194.0 K 2018-08-29 - 15:12 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich2_2018_hollow_Fills_to20180820_sy.png r2 r1 manage 92.2 K 2018-08-29 - 15:29 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich2_2018_hollow_Fills_to20180820_sz.pdf r1 manage 194.2 K 2018-08-29 - 15:12 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich2_2018_hollow_Fills_to20180820_sz.png r2 r1 manage 94.3 K 2018-08-29 - 15:29 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich2_2018_hollow_Numbers_py.pdf r1 manage 373.5 K 2018-11-29 - 18:47 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich2_2018_hollow_Numbers_py.png r1 manage 122.3 K 2018-11-29 - 18:48 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich2_2018_hollow_Numbers_pz.pdf r1 manage 373.1 K 2018-11-29 - 18:47 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich2_2018_hollow_Numbers_pz.png r1 manage 113.3 K 2018-11-29 - 18:48 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich2_2018_hollow_Numbers_sy.pdf r1 manage 274.9 K 2018-11-29 - 18:47 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich2_2018_hollow_Numbers_sy.png r1 manage 126.2 K 2018-11-29 - 18:48 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich2_2018_hollow_Numbers_sz.pdf r1 manage 274.3 K 2018-11-29 - 18:47 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich2_2018_hollow_Numbers_sz.png r1 manage 118.8 K 2018-11-29 - 18:48 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich2_2018_hollow_Numbers_to20180820_py.pdf r1 manage 261.3 K 2018-08-29 - 15:12 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich2_2018_hollow_Numbers_to20180820_py.png r2 r1 manage 118.5 K 2018-08-29 - 15:29 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich2_2018_hollow_Numbers_to20180820_pz.pdf r1 manage 260.0 K 2018-08-29 - 15:12 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich2_2018_hollow_Numbers_to20180820_pz.png r2 r1 manage 110.9 K 2018-08-29 - 15:29 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich2_2018_hollow_Numbers_to20180820_sy.pdf r1 manage 193.9 K 2018-08-29 - 15:12 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich2_2018_hollow_Numbers_to20180820_sy.png r2 r1 manage 119.8 K 2018-08-29 - 15:29 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich2_2018_hollow_Numbers_to20180820_sz.pdf r1 manage 194.2 K 2018-08-29 - 15:12 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich2_2018_hollow_Numbers_to20180820_sz.png r2 r1 manage 113.6 K 2018-08-29 - 15:29 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich2_absav_range.1-1.png r1 manage 65.4 K 2016-09-22 - 18:01 ClaireProuve  
PDFpdf Rich2_absav_range.1.pdf r1 manage 14.1 K 2016-09-23 - 11:52 ClaireProuve  
PNGpng Rich2_absav_range.2-1.png r1 manage 68.2 K 2016-09-22 - 18:01 ClaireProuve  
PDFpdf Rich2_absav_range.2.pdf r1 manage 14.1 K 2016-09-23 - 11:52 ClaireProuve  
PDFpdf Rich2_primaryMirrors_y.pdf r1 manage 27.3 K 2016-09-23 - 11:47 ClaireProuve  
PNGpng Rich2_primaryMirrors_y.png r2 r1 manage 85.2 K 2016-09-23 - 11:35 ClaireProuve  
PDFpdf Rich2_primaryMirrors_y_20170830.pdf r2 r1 manage 127.3 K 2017-10-20 - 16:27 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich2_primaryMirrors_y_20170830.png r2 r1 manage 190.1 K 2017-10-20 - 16:27 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich2_primaryMirrors_z.pdf r1 manage 27.1 K 2016-09-23 - 11:47 ClaireProuve  
PNGpng Rich2_primaryMirrors_z.png r2 r1 manage 76.0 K 2016-09-23 - 11:35 ClaireProuve  
PDFpdf Rich2_primaryMirrors_z_20170830.pdf r2 r1 manage 126.7 K 2017-10-20 - 16:27 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich2_primaryMirrors_z_20170830.png r2 r1 manage 186.0 K 2017-10-20 - 16:27 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich2_secondaryMirrors_y.pdf r1 manage 23.5 K 2016-09-23 - 11:47 ClaireProuve  
PNGpng Rich2_secondaryMirrors_y.png r2 r1 manage 91.8 K 2016-09-23 - 11:35 ClaireProuve  
PDFpdf Rich2_secondaryMirrors_y_20170830.pdf r2 r1 manage 98.8 K 2017-10-20 - 16:27 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich2_secondaryMirrors_y_20170830.png r2 r1 manage 178.1 K 2017-10-20 - 16:27 ParasNaik  
PDFpdf Rich2_secondaryMirrors_z.pdf r1 manage 23.6 K 2016-09-23 - 11:47 ClaireProuve  
PNGpng Rich2_secondaryMirrors_z.png r2 r1 manage 91.2 K 2016-09-23 - 11:36 ClaireProuve  
PDFpdf Rich2_secondaryMirrors_z_20170830.pdf r2 r1 manage 99.1 K 2017-10-20 - 16:27 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Rich2_secondaryMirrors_z_20170830.png r2 r1 manage 182.9 K 2017-10-20 - 16:27 ParasNaik  
PNGpng Roc1.png r1 manage 27.7 K 2017-08-11 - 10:53 AdamMateuszDendek Downstream Tracking Seed Classifier ROC curve plot
PNGpng Roc2.png r1 manage 28.9 K 2017-08-11 - 10:53 AdamMateuszDendek Downstream Tracking Seed Classifier zoomed ROC curve plot
PDFpdf SpeedupVectorizedKF.pdf r1 manage 189.9 K 2017-03-07 - 20:42 SimonBenediktStemmle Performance of the vectorized version of the Kalman filter
PNGpng SpeedupVectorizedKF.png r1 manage 323.3 K 2017-03-07 - 21:06 SimonBenediktStemmle Performance of the vectorized version of the Kalman filter
PDFpdf Throughput_HLT1UpgradeMT.pdf r1 manage 299.5 K 2018-03-20 - 19:35 RenatoQuagliani Throughput for the upgrade HLT1 sequence
PNGpng Throughput_HLT1UpgradeMT.png r1 manage 378.2 K 2018-03-20 - 20:37 GiulioDujany Throughput for the upgrade HLT1 sequence
PDFpdf Timing_algorithms_HLT1Upgrade.pdf r1 manage 419.5 K 2018-03-20 - 19:35 RenatoQuagliani Throughput for the upgrade HLT1 sequence
PNGpng Timing_algorithms_HLT1Upgrade.png r1 manage 302.0 K 2018-03-20 - 20:37 GiulioDujany Throughput for the upgrade HLT1 sequence
PDFpdf Timing_algorithms_HLT1Upgrade_PTPVCuts.pdf r1 manage 249.8 K 2018-03-20 - 19:35 RenatoQuagliani Throughput for the upgrade HLT1 sequence
PNGpng Timing_algorithms_HLT1Upgrade_PTPVCuts.png r1 manage 159.3 K 2018-03-20 - 20:37 GiulioDujany Throughput for the upgrade HLT1 sequence
PDFpdf Timing_algorithms_HLT1Upgrade_ScalingOccupancy.pdf r1 manage 304.3 K 2018-03-20 - 19:35 RenatoQuagliani Throughput for the upgrade HLT1 sequence
PNGpng Timing_algorithms_HLT1Upgrade_ScalingOccupancy.png r1 manage 216.6 K 2018-03-20 - 20:37 GiulioDujany Throughput for the upgrade HLT1 sequence
PDFpdf TrackEffPComp2015EM2012.pdf r1 manage 14.5 K 2015-10-07 - 11:37 MichelDeCian  
PNGpng TrackEffPComp2015EM2012.png r1 manage 56.6 K 2015-10-07 - 11:37 MichelDeCian  
PDFpdf TrackEffPComp2015_2012.pdf r1 manage 10.7 K 2016-03-31 - 17:29 MichaelKolpin  
PNGpng TrackEffPComp2015_2012.png r1 manage 5.8 K 2016-03-31 - 17:29 MichaelKolpin  
PDFpdf TrackEffPLong2015_2012.pdf r1 manage 11.4 K 2016-03-31 - 17:32 MichaelKolpin  
PNGpng TrackEffPLong2015_2012.png r1 manage 6.4 K 2016-03-31 - 17:32 MichaelKolpin  
PDFpdf TrackerConvergence.pdf r1 manage 16.3 K 2015-10-06 - 23:02 SilviaBorghi IT box alignment convergence for the first alignment of Run2
PNGpng TrackerConvergence.png r1 manage 24.5 K 2015-10-06 - 23:02 SilviaBorghi IT box alignment convergence for the first alignment of Run2
PDFpdf TrackerStability.pdf r1 manage 25.0 K 2015-10-06 - 22:25 SilviaBorghi IT boxes alignment stability plot (variation wrt previous alignment)
PNGpng TrackerStability.png r1 manage 46.8 K 2015-10-06 - 22:25 SilviaBorghi IT boxes alignment stability plot (variation wrt previous alignment)
PDFpdf TrackerStability_Tx.pdf r1 manage 31.0 K 2015-12-01 - 11:47 GiulioDujany Tracker alignment stability
PNGpng TrackerStability_Tx.png r1 manage 183.6 K 2015-12-01 - 11:47 GiulioDujany Tracker alignment stability
PDFpdf TrackerStability_Tz.pdf r1 manage 30.4 K 2015-12-01 - 11:47 GiulioDujany Tracker alignment stability
PNGpng TrackerStability_Tz.png r1 manage 175.3 K 2015-12-01 - 11:47 GiulioDujany Tracker alignment stability
PDFpdf Tracker_stability_Tx.pdf r2 r1 manage 34.2 K 2016-09-08 - 12:34 GiulioDujany 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots
PNGpng Tracker_stability_Tx.png r2 r1 manage 263.5 K 2016-09-08 - 12:34 GiulioDujany 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots
PDFpdf Tracker_stability_Tx_fd.pdf r2 r1 manage 36.5 K 2016-09-08 - 12:34 GiulioDujany 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots
PNGpng Tracker_stability_Tx_fd.png r2 r1 manage 206.3 K 2016-09-08 - 12:35 GiulioDujany 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots
PDFpdf Tracker_stability_Tz.pdf r2 r1 manage 35.1 K 2016-09-08 - 12:35 GiulioDujany 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots
PNGpng Tracker_stability_Tz.png r2 r1 manage 279.6 K 2016-09-08 - 12:35 GiulioDujany 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots
PDFpdf Tracker_stability_Tz_fd.pdf r2 r1 manage 37.4 K 2016-09-08 - 12:35 GiulioDujany 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots
PNGpng Tracker_stability_Tz_fd.png r2 r1 manage 221.1 K 2016-09-08 - 12:36 GiulioDujany 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots
PDFpdf Upsilon1.pdf r1 manage 53.8 K 2015-10-06 - 23:00 SilviaBorghi Invariant mass distribution with the first alignment of Run1
PNGpng Upsilon1.png r1 manage 56.6 K 2015-10-06 - 22:57 SilviaBorghi Invariant mass distribution with the first alignment of Run1
PDFpdf Upsilon2.pdf r1 manage 53.0 K 2015-10-06 - 23:00 SilviaBorghi Invariant mass distribution with improved alignment of Run1
PNGpng Upsilon2.png r1 manage 55.3 K 2015-10-06 - 22:57 SilviaBorghi nvariant mass distribution with improved alignment of Run1
PDFpdf VectorizedKFScalingXeonE5.pdf r1 manage 272.4 K 2017-03-07 - 20:42 SimonBenediktStemmle Performance of the vectorized version of the Kalman filter
PNGpng VectorizedKFScalingXeonE5.png r1 manage 68.8 K 2017-03-07 - 21:06 SimonBenediktStemmle Performance of the vectorized version of the Kalman filter
PDFpdf VectorizedKFScalingXeonPhi.pdf r1 manage 344.4 K 2017-03-07 - 20:42 SimonBenediktStemmle Performance of the vectorized version of the Kalman filter
PNGpng VectorizedKFScalingXeonPhi.png r1 manage 65.5 K 2017-03-07 - 21:06 SimonBenediktStemmle Performance of the vectorized version of the Kalman filter
PDFpdf VeloConvergence.pdf r1 manage 13.6 K 2015-10-06 - 23:02 SilviaBorghi VELO 2 half alignment convergence for the first alignment of Run2
PNGpng VeloConvergence.png r1 manage 18.5 K 2015-10-06 - 23:02 SilviaBorghi VELO 2 half alignment convergence for the first alignment of Run2
PDFpdf VeloStability.pdf r2 r1 manage 18.1 K 2015-10-07 - 16:04 GiulioDujany VELO 2 half alignment stability plot (variation wrt previous alignment)
PNGpng VeloStability.png r2 r1 manage 123.7 K 2015-10-07 - 16:09 GiulioDujany VELO 2 half alignment stability plot (variation wrt previous alignment)
PDFpdf Velo_stability.pdf r2 r1 manage 20.8 K 2015-12-01 - 09:51 GiulioDujany Velo alignment stability
PNGpng Velo_stability.png r2 r1 manage 146.1 K 2015-12-01 - 09:51 GiulioDujany Velo alignment stability
PDFpdf Velo_stability_Txy.pdf r2 r1 manage 21.7 K 2016-09-08 - 12:36 GiulioDujany 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots
PNGpng Velo_stability_Txy.png r2 r1 manage 172.4 K 2016-09-08 - 12:37 GiulioDujany 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots
PDFpdf Velo_stability_Txy_fd.pdf r2 r1 manage 22.6 K 2016-09-08 - 12:37 GiulioDujany 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots
PNGpng Velo_stability_Txy_fd.png r2 r1 manage 135.6 K 2016-09-08 - 12:38 GiulioDujany 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots
PDFpdf Velo_stability_fd.pdf r2 r1 manage 21.2 K 2015-12-01 - 09:51 GiulioDujany Velo alignment stability
PNGpng Velo_stability_fd.png r2 r1 manage 135.0 K 2015-12-01 - 09:51 GiulioDujany Velo alignment stability
PDFpdf Velo_trend.pdf r2 r1 manage 20.9 K 2015-12-01 - 09:51 GiulioDujany Velo alignment stability
PNGpng Velo_trend.png r2 r1 manage 142.7 K 2015-12-01 - 09:51 GiulioDujany Velo alignment stability
PDFpdf Velo_trend_Txy.pdf r2 r1 manage 21.7 K 2016-09-08 - 12:39 GiulioDujany 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots
PNGpng Velo_trend_Txy.png r2 r1 manage 166.2 K 2016-09-08 - 12:39 GiulioDujany 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots
PDFpdf Velo_trend_Txy_fd.pdf r2 r1 manage 22.5 K 2016-09-08 - 12:39 GiulioDujany 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots
PNGpng Velo_trend_Txy_fd.png r2 r1 manage 128.8 K 2016-09-08 - 12:40 GiulioDujany 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots
PDFpdf Velo_trend_fd.pdf r2 r1 manage 21.3 K 2015-12-01 - 09:51 GiulioDujany Velo alignment stability
PNGpng Velo_trend_fd.png r2 r1 manage 132.5 K 2015-12-01 - 09:51 GiulioDujany Velo alignment stability
PNGpng _decay_time_res_2012_2015.png r1 manage 66.5 K 2016-08-03 - 10:20 LuciaGrillo decay time resolution 2012 and 2015
PNGpng decay_time_res_2015.png r1 manage 62.9 K 2016-08-03 - 10:24 LuciaGrillo Decay time resolution 2015
PNGpng detector_align_calib.png r1 manage 678.2 K 2017-07-04 - 22:46 AgnieszkaDziurda  
PDFpdf final_decay_time_res_plot1.pdf r1 manage 15.3 K 2016-08-03 - 10:23 LuciaGrillo Decay time resolution 2015
PDFpdf final_decay_time_res_plot16.pdf r1 manage 15.5 K 2017-05-09 - 18:49 SevdaEsen  
PNGpng final_decay_time_res_plot16.png r1 manage 17.0 K 2017-05-09 - 19:54 SevdaEsen  
PDFpdf final_decay_time_res_plot_2012_2015_2016_comp.pdf r1 manage 17.2 K 2017-05-09 - 18:49 SevdaEsen  
PNGpng final_decay_time_res_plot_2012_2015_2016_comp.png r1 manage 20.9 K 2017-05-09 - 19:54 SevdaEsen  
PDFpdf final_decay_time_res_plot_2012_2015_comp.pdf r1 manage 16.0 K 2016-08-03 - 10:22 LuciaGrillo Decay time resolution 2015 compared to 2012
PDFpdf fit_full_mc_label_nopull.pdf r1 manage 74.4 K 2018-06-26 - 16:36 RenataKopecna1 B+ invariant mass simulation of B+ to Jpsi(ee)K+ from Sim09b
PNGpng fit_full_mc_label_nopull.png r1 manage 43.2 K 2018-06-26 - 16:36 RenataKopecna1 B+ invariant mass simulation of B+ to Jpsi(ee)K+ from Sim09b
PDFpdf nPVs_Final_comparison_MC_2015nominal.pdf r1 manage 14.3 K 2018-02-20 - 14:57 RenataKopecna1  
PNGpng nPVs_Final_comparison_MC_2015nominal.png r1 manage 10.7 K 2018-02-20 - 15:07 RenataKopecna1  
PDFpdf nSPDHits_Final_comparison_MC_2015nominal.pdf r1 manage 14.2 K 2018-02-20 - 14:57 RenataKopecna1  
PNGpng nSPDHits_Final_comparison_MC_2015nominal.png r1 manage 10.9 K 2018-02-20 - 15:07 RenataKopecna1  
PDFpdf pull_qop_defaultKF.pdf r1 manage 14.9 K 2017-03-07 - 20:44 SimonBenediktStemmle Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter).
PNGpng pull_qop_defaultKF.png r1 manage 75.9 K 2017-03-07 - 21:09 SimonBenediktStemmle Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter).
PDFpdf pull_qop_parametrizedKF.pdf r1 manage 15.0 K 2017-03-07 - 20:44 SimonBenediktStemmle Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter).
PNGpng pull_qop_parametrizedKF.png r1 manage 77.0 K 2017-03-07 - 21:09 SimonBenediktStemmle Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter).
PDFpdf pull_x_defaultKF.pdf r1 manage 14.9 K 2017-03-07 - 20:44 SimonBenediktStemmle Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter).
PNGpng pull_x_defaultKF.png r1 manage 77.4 K 2017-03-07 - 21:09 SimonBenediktStemmle Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter).
PDFpdf pull_x_parametrizedKF.pdf r1 manage 14.9 K 2017-03-07 - 20:44 SimonBenediktStemmle Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter).
PNGpng pull_x_parametrizedKF.png r1 manage 75.2 K 2017-03-07 - 21:09 SimonBenediktStemmle Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter).
PDFpdf res_qop_defaultKF.pdf r1 manage 14.8 K 2017-03-07 - 20:44 SimonBenediktStemmle Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter).
PNGpng res_qop_defaultKF.png r1 manage 78.1 K 2017-03-07 - 21:09 SimonBenediktStemmle Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter).
PDFpdf res_qop_parametrizedKF.pdf r1 manage 14.9 K 2017-03-07 - 20:44 SimonBenediktStemmle Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter).
PNGpng res_qop_parametrizedKF.png r1 manage 81.2 K 2017-03-07 - 21:09 SimonBenediktStemmle Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter).
PDFpdf res_x_defaultKF.pdf r1 manage 14.7 K 2017-03-07 - 20:44 SimonBenediktStemmle Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter).
PNGpng res_x_defaultKF.png r1 manage 72.0 K 2017-03-07 - 21:09 SimonBenediktStemmle Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter).
PDFpdf res_x_parametrizedKF.pdf r1 manage 14.7 K 2017-03-07 - 20:44 SimonBenediktStemmle Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter).
PNGpng res_x_parametrizedKF.png r1 manage 74.0 K 2017-03-07 - 21:30 SimonBenediktStemmle Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter).
PDFpdf resolution_vs_ntracks_x_data2015.pdf r1 manage 15.7 K 2017-05-02 - 14:23 AgnieszkaDziurda Primary Vertex resolution for Run II
PNGpng resolution_vs_ntracks_x_data2015.png r1 manage 469.4 K 2018-10-16 - 14:06 AgnieszkaDziurda Primary Vertex resolution for Run II
PDFpdf resolution_vs_ntracks_x_data2015MC.pdf r1 manage 17.7 K 2017-05-02 - 14:23 AgnieszkaDziurda Primary Vertex resolution for Run II
PNGpng resolution_vs_ntracks_x_data2015MC.png r1 manage 577.3 K 2018-10-16 - 14:06 AgnieszkaDziurda Primary Vertex resolution for Run II
PDFpdf resolution_vs_ntracks_x_data2015_comp.pdf r1 manage 17.1 K 2017-05-02 - 14:23 AgnieszkaDziurda Primary Vertex resolution for Run II
PNGpng resolution_vs_ntracks_x_data2015_comp.png r1 manage 585.8 K 2018-10-16 - 14:06 AgnieszkaDziurda Primary Vertex resolution for Run II
PDFpdf resolution_vs_ntracks_z_data2015.pdf r1 manage 15.5 K 2017-05-02 - 14:23 AgnieszkaDziurda Primary Vertex resolution for Run II
PNGpng resolution_vs_ntracks_z_data2015.png r1 manage 469.1 K 2018-10-16 - 14:06 AgnieszkaDziurda Primary Vertex resolution for Run II
PDFpdf resolution_vs_ntracks_z_data2015MC.pdf r1 manage 17.5 K 2017-05-02 - 14:23 AgnieszkaDziurda Primary Vertex resolution for Run II
PNGpng resolution_vs_ntracks_z_data2015MC.png r1 manage 595.8 K 2018-10-16 - 14:06 AgnieszkaDziurda Primary Vertex resolution for Run II
PDFpdf resolution_vs_ntracks_z_data2015_comp.pdf r1 manage 16.8 K 2017-05-02 - 14:23 AgnieszkaDziurda Primary Vertex resolution for Run II
PNGpng resolution_vs_ntracks_z_data2015_comp.png r1 manage 590.1 K 2018-10-16 - 14:06 AgnieszkaDziurda Primary Vertex resolution for Run II
PDFpdf rocChi2VsGP.pdf r1 manage 87.9 K 2016-02-19 - 16:52 MichelDeCian  
PNGpng rocChi2VsGP.png r1 manage 108.1 K 2016-02-19 - 16:58 MichelDeCian  
PDFpdf rocChi2VsRunIVsRunIIGP.pdf r1 manage 125.8 K 2016-02-19 - 16:52 MichelDeCian  
PNGpng rocChi2VsRunIVsRunIIGP.png r1 manage 122.1 K 2016-02-19 - 16:58 MichelDeCian  
PDFpdf trackTypesRunIAndII.pdf r1 manage 1358.3 K 2016-10-18 - 11:01 MichelDeCian  
PNGpng trackTypesRunIAndII.png r1 manage 89.0 K 2016-10-18 - 11:01 MichelDeCian  
PDFpdf trackTypes_upgrade.pdf r1 manage 1357.9 K 2016-10-18 - 10:53 MichelDeCian  
PNGpng trackTypes_upgrade.png r1 manage 89.4 K 2016-10-18 - 10:55 MichelDeCian  
PDFpdf updatesForComb_2016.pdf r1 manage 38.0 K 2017-05-08 - 17:10 GiulioDujany Fraction of updates triggered by each dof or combination of dofs
PNGpng updatesForComb_2016.png r1 manage 54.9 K 2017-05-08 - 17:12 GiulioDujany  
PDFpdf updatesForDof_2016.pdf r1 manage 18.1 K 2017-05-08 - 17:10 GiulioDujany Fraction of updates triggered by each dof or combination of dofs
PNGpng updatesForDof_2016.png r1 manage 22.2 K 2017-05-08 - 17:12 GiulioDujany  
PDFpdf updatesForDof_Tracker.pdf r1 manage 32.3 K 2018-05-29 - 19:02 GiulioDujany Degrees of freedom that triggered an update of the tracker alignment in 2017
PNGpng updatesForDof_Tracker.png r1 manage 30.8 K 2018-05-29 - 19:02 GiulioDujany Degrees of freedom that triggered an update of the tracker alignment in 2017
PDFpdf velott-eff-p.pdf r1 manage 16.8 K 2015-10-26 - 17:24 BarbaraStoraci VeloTT efficiency as a function of p
PNGpng velott-eff-p.png r1 manage 143.4 K 2015-10-27 - 09:39 SilviaBorghi VeloTT efficiency as a function of p
PDFpdf velott-eff-pt.pdf r1 manage 16.6 K 2015-10-27 - 10:17 BarbaraStoraci VeloTT efficiency as a function of pt (runI vs runII)
PNGpng velott-eff-pt.png r1 manage 71.2 K 2015-10-27 - 10:19 BarbaraStoraci VeloTT efficiency as a function of pt (runI vs runII)
PDFpdf velott-gr-p.pdf r1 manage 16.7 K 2015-10-27 - 10:22 BarbaraStoraci VeloTT ghost rate as a function of momentum (runI vs runII)
PNGpng velott-gr-p.png r1 manage 72.0 K 2015-10-27 - 10:22 BarbaraStoraci VeloTT ghost rate as a function of momentum (runI vs runII)
PDFpdf velott-gr-pt.pdf r1 manage 16.8 K 2015-10-27 - 10:22 BarbaraStoraci VeloTT ghost rate versus transverse momentum (runI vs runII)
PNGpng velott-gr-pt.png r1 manage 71.2 K 2015-10-27 - 10:22 BarbaraStoraci VeloTT ghost rate versus transverse momentum (runI vs runII)
Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r82 < r81 < r80 < r79 < r78 | Backlinks | Raw View | WYSIWYG | More topic actions
Topic revision: r82 - 2019-07-08 - ParasNaik
 
    • Cern Search Icon Cern Search
    • TWiki Search Icon TWiki Search
    • Google Search Icon Google Search

    LHCb 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