Plot | Description |
---|---|
![]() |
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. |
![]() |
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. |
![]() |
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. |
![]() |
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. |
![]() |
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. |
![]() |
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. |
![]() |
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. |
Plot | Description |
---|---|
![]() |
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. |
Plot | Description |
---|---|
![]() |
"Reconstructible" variable from MCRecontructredTupleTool for the proton from the L0->p pi decay |
![]() |
Proportion of Lambdas reconstructed from dowstream and long tracks in the decay Lb->L0 gamma using Stripping28r1p1 |
![]() |
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. |
![]() |
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. |
![]() |
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. |
![]() |
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). |
![]() |
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. |
![]() |
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. |
![]() |
Proton momentum resolution for MC2016 for the False downstream (described in the talk) and fitted with a gaussian. |
![]() |
Proton momentum resolution for MC Upgrade for the False downstream (described in the talk) and fitted with a gaussian. |
![]() |
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. |
![]() |
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. |
Plot | Description |
---|---|
![]() |
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). |
![]() |
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). |
![]() |
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). |
![]() |
ROC curve for long tracks for the Run II ghost probability (red) and the track chi2/ndof (blue) for Run II (25ns). |
![]() |
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). |
Plot | Description |
---|---|
![]() |
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. |
![]() |
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. |
Plot | Description |
---|---|
![]() |
Decay time resolution of 2015 in momentum bins. Statistical uncertainties only. |
![]() |
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. |
|
Decay time resolution of 2016 in momentum bins. Statistical uncertainties only. |
![]() |
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. This plot is published in LHCb-DP-2019-001 |
Plot | Description |
---|---|
![]() |
The track reconstruction efficiency of the VeloTT algorithms for Run I (blue) and Run II (green) as a function of p. |
Plot | Description |
---|---|
![]() |
The track reconstruction efficiency of the VeloTT algorithms for Run I (blue) and Run II (green) as a function of pT. |
Plot | Description |
---|---|
![]() |
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 |
---|---|
![]() |
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 |
---|---|
![]() |
New reconstruction chain for HLT1. |
Plot | Description |
---|---|
![]() |
Track types for the LHCb Run I and II |
![]() |
Track types for the LHCb Upgrade |
Subdetectors for alignment and calibration |
Plot | Description |
---|---|
![]() |
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. |
![]() |
Scalability of the vectorized Kalman filter with the number of processors on a Intel Xeon E5 machine. |
![]() |
Scalability of the vectorized Kalman filter with the number of processors on a Intel Xeon Phi machine. |
Plot | Description |
---|---|
![]() |
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. |
![]() |
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. |
Plot | Description |
---|---|
![]() |
Downstream Tracking Seed Calssifier ROC curve |
![]() |
Downstream Tracking Seed Calssifier zoomed ROC curve |
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. |
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. |
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. |
![]() ![]() |
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. |
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. |
Plot | Description |
---|---|
RICH 1 primary local y rotations vs. Sequential Alignment Number: ![]() |
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: ![]() |
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: ![]() |
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: ![]() |
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 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: ![]() |
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: ![]() |
As above (RICH2) but for the rotations around the local y-axes of the individual secondary mirrors.
|
RICH 2 secondary local z rotations vs. Sequential Alignment Number: ![]() |
As above (RICH2) but for the rotations around the local z-axes of the individual secondary mirrors. The different markers represent different secondary mirrors. |
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. |
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. |
![]() ![]() |
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. |
![]() |
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. |
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. |
Plot | Description |
---|---|
default style: ![]() ![]() |
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 ![]() 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: ![]() ![]() |
As above (RICH1) but for the rotations around the local z-axes of the individual primary mirrors. |
default style: ![]() ![]() |
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: ![]() ![]() |
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 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: ![]() ![]() |
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: ![]() ![]() |
As above (RICH2) but for the rotations around the local y-axes of the individual secondary mirrors.
|
default style: ![]() ![]() |
As above (RICH2) but for the rotations around the local z-axes of the individual secondary mirrors. The different markers represent different secondary mirrors. |
Plot | Description |
---|---|
![]() |
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 ![]() |
![]() |
As above (RICH1) but for the rotations around the local z-axes of the individual primary mirrors. |
![]() |
As above (RICH1) but for the rotations around the local y-axes of the individual secondary mirrors. The different markers represent different secondary mirrors. |
![]() |
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 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. |
![]() |
As above (RICH2) but for the rotations around the local z-axes of the individual primary mirrors. The different markers represent different primary mirrors. |
![]() |
As above (RICH2) but for the rotations around the local y-axes of the individual secondary mirrors.
|
![]() |
As above (RICH2) but for the rotations around the local z-axes of the individual secondary mirrors. The different markers represent different secondary mirrors. |
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. |
![]() |
Fraction of updates triggered by each combination of degrees of freedom. |
![]() |
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. |
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. |
![]() ![]() |
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. |
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. |
Plot | Description |
---|---|
![]() |
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. |
![]() |
As above (RICH1) but for the rotations around the local z-axes of the individual primary mirrors. |
![]() |
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. |
![]() |
As above (RICH1) but for the rotations around the local z-axes of the individual secondary mirrors. The different markers represent different secondary mirrors. |
![]() |
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. |
![]() |
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 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. |
![]() |
As above (RICH2) but for the rotations around the local z-axes of the individual primary mirrors. The different markers represent different primary mirrors. |
![]() |
As above (RICH2) but for the rotations around the local y-axes of the individual secondary mirrors.
|
![]() |
As above (RICH2) but for the rotations around the local z-axes of the individual secondary mirrors. The different markers represent different secondary mirrors. |
![]() |
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. |
![]() |
Same as above but for the RICH2 secondary mirrors. |
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 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. |
![]() |
Trend plot of the value of the alignment constants Tx ad Ty (minus the mean value to center the plot) |
![]() |
As previuos plot but filled dots represents alignments that triggerd an update and empty dots alignment that did not trigger an update. |
![]() |
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. |
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. |
![]() |
Same as previous plot but for Tz. |
![]() |
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. |
Plot | Description |
---|---|
![]() |
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 |
![]() |
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. |
![]() |
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. |
Plot | Description |
---|---|
![]() |
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). |
![]() |
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). |
![]() |
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. |
![]() |
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). |
![]() |
Stability of the OT global t0 (as function of time). |
![]() |
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![]() ![]() |
Plot | Description |
---|---|
![]() |
Invariant mass distribution for $\Upsilon \to \mu \mu$. The mass resolution is $92$ MeV $/c^2$ with the first alignment. |
![]() |
Invariant mass distribution for $\Upsilon \to \mu \mu$. The mass resolution is $49$ MeV $/c^2$ with an improved alignment. |
![]() |
Finite state machine which defines the behaviour of the alignment tasks. |
![]() |
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. |
![]() |
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. |
I | Attachment | History | Action | Size | Date | Who | Comment |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
DownstreamTrackEff_MC16_Down_p_L0_AtVtx_P_res.pdf | r1 | manage | 208.9 K | 2019-03-12 - 17:41 | MichaelAlexander | |
![]() |
DownstreamTrackEff_MC16_Down_p_L0_AtVtx_P_res.png | r1 | manage | 36.2 K | 2019-03-12 - 17:41 | MichaelAlexander | |
![]() |
DownstreamTrackEff_MC16_L0_ENDVERTEX_RedGreenProfile.pdf | r1 | manage | 411.7 K | 2019-03-12 - 17:41 | MichaelAlexander | |
![]() |
DownstreamTrackEff_MC16_L0_ENDVERTEX_RedGreenProfile.png | r1 | manage | 544.1 K | 2019-03-12 - 17:42 | MichaelAlexander | |
![]() |
DownstreamTrackEff_MC16_MCEff2.pdf | r1 | manage | 16.2 K | 2019-03-12 - 17:42 | MichaelAlexander | |
![]() |
DownstreamTrackEff_MC16_MCEff2.png | r1 | manage | 81.8 K | 2019-03-12 - 17:41 | MichaelAlexander | |
![]() |
DownstreamTrackEff_MC16_eff_LD_L0_ENDVERTEX_Z.pdf | r1 | manage | 15.9 K | 2019-03-12 - 17:42 | MichaelAlexander | |
![]() |
DownstreamTrackEff_MC16_eff_LD_L0_ENDVERTEX_Z.png | r1 | manage | 79.2 K | 2019-03-12 - 17:41 | MichaelAlexander | |
![]() |
DownstreamTrackEff_MC16_eff_LD_p_L0_PT.pdf | r1 | manage | 15.5 K | 2019-03-12 - 17:42 | MichaelAlexander | |
![]() |
DownstreamTrackEff_MC16_eff_LD_p_L0_PT.png | r1 | manage | 74.9 K | 2019-03-12 - 17:41 | MichaelAlexander | |
![]() |
DownstreamTrackEff_Pie_L0.pdf | r1 | manage | 47.9 K | 2019-03-12 - 17:41 | MichaelAlexander | |
![]() |
DownstreamTrackEff_Pie_L0.png | r1 | manage | 34.1 K | 2019-03-12 - 17:41 | MichaelAlexander | |
![]() |
DownstreamTrackEff_RD18_eff_LD_L0_ENDVERTEX_Z.pdf | r1 | manage | 15.9 K | 2019-03-12 - 17:42 | MichaelAlexander | |
![]() |
DownstreamTrackEff_RD18_eff_LD_L0_ENDVERTEX_Z.png | r1 | manage | 78.6 K | 2019-03-12 - 17:42 | MichaelAlexander | |
![]() |
DownstreamTrackEff_RD18_eff_LD_p_L0_PT.pdf | r1 | manage | 15.5 K | 2019-03-12 - 17:42 | MichaelAlexander | |
![]() |
DownstreamTrackEff_RD18_eff_LD_p_L0_PT.png | r1 | manage | 73.3 K | 2019-03-12 - 17:42 | MichaelAlexander | |
![]() |
DownstreamTrackEff_Upgrade_Down_p_L0_AtVtx_P_res.pdf | r1 | manage | 179.8 K | 2019-03-12 - 17:43 | MichaelAlexander | |
![]() |
DownstreamTrackEff_Upgrade_Down_p_L0_AtVtx_P_res.png | r1 | manage | 33.4 K | 2019-03-12 - 17:43 | MichaelAlexander | |
![]() |
DownstreamTrackEff_Upgrade_eff_LD_L0_ENDVERTEX_Z.pdf | r1 | manage | 15.8 K | 2019-03-12 - 17:43 | MichaelAlexander | |
![]() |
DownstreamTrackEff_Upgrade_eff_LD_L0_ENDVERTEX_Z.png | r1 | manage | 79.2 K | 2019-03-12 - 17:43 | MichaelAlexander | |
![]() |
DownstreamTrackEff_Upgrade_eff_LD_p_L0_PT.pdf | r1 | manage | 15.5 K | 2019-03-12 - 17:43 | MichaelAlexander | |
![]() |
DownstreamTrackEff_Upgrade_eff_LD_p_L0_PT.png | r1 | manage | 75.3 K | 2019-03-12 - 17:43 | MichaelAlexander | |
![]() |
DownstreamTrackEff_reconstructiblity2.pdf | r1 | manage | 13.8 K | 2019-03-12 - 17:41 | MichaelAlexander | |
![]() |
DownstreamTrackEff_reconstructiblity2.png | r1 | manage | 79.7 K | 2019-03-12 - 17:41 | MichaelAlexander | |
![]() |
ETA_Final_comparison_2012_2015EM.eps | r1 | manage | 8.0 K | 2018-06-26 - 16:10 | RenataKopecna | |
![]() |
ETA_Final_comparison_2012_2015EM.pdf | r1 | manage | 13.7 K | 2018-06-26 - 15:56 | RenataKopecna | 2015EM and 2012 tracking efficiency (muon, data) |
![]() |
ETA_Final_comparison_2012_2015EM.png | r1 | manage | 9.8 K | 2018-06-26 - 16:11 | RenataKopecna | |
![]() |
ETA_Final_comparison_MC_2015nominal.pdf | r1 | manage | 13.6 K | 2018-02-20 - 14:57 | RenataKopecna | |
![]() |
ETA_Final_comparison_MC_2015nominal.png | r1 | manage | 10.1 K | 2018-02-20 - 15:07 | RenataKopecna | |
![]() |
FSM.pdf | r1 | manage | 23.3 K | 2015-10-06 - 23:04 | SilviaBorghi | Scheme of the procedure for an alignment task |
![]() |
FSM.png | r1 | manage | 3.9 K | 2015-10-06 - 23:04 | SilviaBorghi | Scheme of the procedure for an alignment task |
![]() |
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 |
![]() |
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 |
![]() |
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 |
![]() |
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 |
![]() |
GP_DKPi30.pdf | r1 | manage | 17.2 K | 2015-10-07 - 21:24 | MichelDeCian | |
![]() |
GP_DKPi30.png | r1 | manage | 110.0 K | 2015-10-07 - 21:24 | MichelDeCian | |
![]() |
HLT1.pdf | r1 | manage | 62.2 K | 2015-10-27 - 10:23 | BarbaraStoraci | New track chain schema |
![]() |
HLT1.png | r1 | manage | 25.8 K | 2015-10-27 - 10:23 | BarbaraStoraci | New track chain schema |
![]() |
IPX-Vs-InversePT-Compare2012To2015ValidationFill4207.pdf | r1 | manage | 17.2 K | 2015-10-08 - 12:38 | MichaelAlexander | |
![]() |
IPX-Vs-InversePT-Compare2012To2015ValidationFill4207.png | r1 | manage | 43.7 K | 2015-10-08 - 12:38 | MichaelAlexander | |
![]() |
IPX-resolution-vs-inversept-2016-2015-2012.pdf | r1 | manage | 18.7 K | 2017-06-26 - 17:29 | MichaelAlexander | |
![]() |
IPX-resolution-vs-inversept-2016-2015-2012.png | r1 | manage | 52.0 K | 2017-06-26 - 17:29 | MichaelAlexander | |
![]() |
IPY-Vs-InversePT-Compare2012To2015ValidationFill4207.pdf | r1 | manage | 17.2 K | 2015-10-08 - 12:38 | MichaelAlexander | |
![]() |
IPY-Vs-InversePT-Compare2012To2015ValidationFill4207.png | r1 | manage | 43.2 K | 2015-10-08 - 12:38 | MichaelAlexander | |
![]() |
IPY-resolution-vs-inversept-2016-2015-2012.pdf | r1 | manage | 18.6 K | 2017-06-26 - 17:29 | MichaelAlexander | |
![]() |
IPY-resolution-vs-inversept-2016-2015-2012.png | r1 | manage | 51.3 K | 2017-06-26 - 17:29 | MichaelAlexander | |
![]() |
JPsi1.pdf | r1 | manage | 594.2 K | 2015-10-06 - 23:05 | SilviaBorghi | Time evolution of j/psi mass for Run 1 data |
![]() |
JPsi1.png | r1 | manage | 154.8 K | 2015-10-06 - 23:05 | SilviaBorghi | Time evolution of j/psi mass for Run 1 data |
![]() |
JPsi2.pdf | r1 | manage | 256.3 K | 2015-10-06 - 23:06 | SilviaBorghi | Time evolution of j/psi mass resolution for Run 1 data |
![]() |
JPsi2.png | r1 | manage | 148.6 K | 2015-10-06 - 23:06 | SilviaBorghi | Time evolution of j/psi mass resolution for Run 1 data |
![]() |
KF_momentum_res_P.png | r1 | manage | 96.0 K | 2017-03-07 - 21:09 | UnknownUser | Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter). |
![]() |
KF_momentum_res_P_11_2017.pdf | r1 | manage | 15.0 K | 2018-07-06 - 07:45 | UnknownUser | Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter). Update from Nov 2017 |
![]() |
KF_momentum_res_P_11_2017.png | r1 | manage | 171.7 K | 2018-07-06 - 07:45 | UnknownUser | Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter). Update from Nov 2017 |
![]() |
KF_momentum_res_txty.pdf | r1 | manage | 15.1 K | 2017-03-07 - 20:44 | UnknownUser | Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter). |
![]() |
KF_momentum_res_txty.png | r1 | manage | 107.4 K | 2017-03-07 - 21:09 | UnknownUser | Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter). |
![]() |
KF_momentum_res_txty_11_2017.pdf | r2 r1 | manage | 15.1 K | 2018-07-06 - 07:55 | UnknownUser | Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter). Update from Nov 2017 |
![]() |
KF_momentum_res_txty_11_2017.png | r2 r1 | manage | 174.6 K | 2018-07-06 - 07:56 | UnknownUser | Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter). |
![]() |
KF_momentum_res_txty_advanced.pdf | r1 | manage | 15.1 K | 2017-03-07 - 20:44 | UnknownUser | Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter). |
![]() |
KF_momentum_res_txty_advanced.png | r1 | manage | 94.9 K | 2017-03-07 - 21:09 | UnknownUser | Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter). |
![]() |
KsGhostProbDown.pdf | r1 | manage | 47.1 K | 2016-02-19 - 16:52 | MichelDeCian | |
![]() |
KsGhostProbDown.png | r1 | manage | 142.0 K | 2016-02-19 - 16:58 | MichelDeCian | |
![]() |
KsGhostProbLong.pdf | r1 | manage | 43.3 K | 2016-02-19 - 16:52 | MichelDeCian | |
![]() |
KsGhostProbLong.png | r1 | manage | 139.2 K | 2016-02-19 - 16:58 | MichelDeCian | |
![]() |
MuonA_stability_Tx.pdf | r2 r1 | manage | 28.9 K | 2016-09-08 - 12:17 | GiulioDujany | 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots |
![]() |
MuonA_stability_Tx.png | r2 r1 | manage | 231.0 K | 2016-09-08 - 12:17 | GiulioDujany | 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots |
![]() |
MuonA_stability_Tx_fd.pdf | r2 r1 | manage | 31.0 K | 2016-09-08 - 12:14 | GiulioDujany | 2016 automatic alignemnt publicity plots |
![]() |
MuonA_stability_Tx_fd.png | r2 r1 | manage | 194.0 K | 2016-09-08 - 12:15 | GiulioDujany | 2016 automatic alignemnt publicity plots |
![]() |
MuonA_stability_Ty.pdf | r2 r1 | manage | 32.2 K | 2016-09-08 - 12:19 | GiulioDujany | 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots |
![]() |
MuonA_stability_Ty.png | r2 r1 | manage | 233.7 K | 2016-09-08 - 12:20 | GiulioDujany | 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots |
![]() |
MuonA_stability_Ty_fd.pdf | r2 r1 | manage | 34.5 K | 2016-09-08 - 12:16 | GiulioDujany | 2016 automatic alignemnt publicity plots |
![]() |
MuonA_stability_Ty_fd.png | r2 r1 | manage | 196.8 K | 2016-09-08 - 12:22 | GiulioDujany | 2016 automatic alignemnt publicity plots |
![]() |
MuonAlignment2015Start.pdf | r1 | manage | 17.2 K | 2015-10-09 - 12:20 | StefaniaVecchi | |
![]() |
MuonAlignment2015Start.png | r1 | manage | 12.6 K | 2015-10-09 - 12:20 | StefaniaVecchi | |
![]() |
MuonC_stability_Tx.pdf | r2 r1 | manage | 29.0 K | 2016-09-08 - 12:23 | GiulioDujany | 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots |
![]() |
MuonC_stability_Tx.png | r2 r1 | manage | 228.7 K | 2016-09-08 - 12:24 | GiulioDujany | 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots |
![]() |
MuonC_stability_Tx_fd.pdf | r2 r1 | manage | 31.1 K | 2016-09-08 - 12:24 | GiulioDujany | 2016 automatic alignemnt publicity plots |
![]() |
MuonC_stability_Tx_fd.png | r2 r1 | manage | 192.4 K | 2016-09-08 - 12:24 | GiulioDujany | 2016 automatic alignemnt publicity plots |
![]() |
MuonC_stability_Ty.pdf | r2 r1 | manage | 32.2 K | 2016-09-08 - 12:25 | GiulioDujany | 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots |
![]() |
MuonC_stability_Ty.png | r2 r1 | manage | 231.9 K | 2016-09-08 - 12:30 | GiulioDujany | 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots |
![]() |
MuonC_stability_Ty_fd.pdf | r2 r1 | manage | 34.6 K | 2016-09-08 - 12:31 | GiulioDujany | 2016 automatic alignemnt publicity plots |
![]() |
MuonC_stability_Ty_fd.png | r2 r1 | manage | 194.9 K | 2016-09-08 - 12:32 | GiulioDujany | 2016 automatic alignemnt publicity plots |
![]() |
MuonStability-p1.png | r1 | manage | 189.3 K | 2015-11-26 - 14:28 | GiulioDujany | Plots muon stability |
![]() |
MuonStability.pdf | r3 r2 r1 | manage | 20.0 K | 2015-12-01 - 09:55 | GiulioDujany | Muon alignment stability |
![]() |
MuonStability.png | r2 r1 | manage | 177.9 K | 2015-12-01 - 09:55 | GiulioDujany | Muon alignment stability |
![]() |
MuonStability_Ty-p1.png | r1 | manage | 192.6 K | 2015-11-26 - 14:28 | GiulioDujany | Plots muon stability |
![]() |
MuonStability_Ty.pdf | r3 r2 r1 | manage | 20.3 K | 2015-12-01 - 09:55 | GiulioDujany | Muon alignment stability |
![]() |
MuonStability_Ty.png | r2 r1 | manage | 181.3 K | 2015-12-01 - 09:55 | GiulioDujany | Muon alignment stability |
![]() |
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 |
![]() |
OTdeltat0.png | r2 r1 | manage | 29.0 K | 2015-12-01 - 22:14 | LuciaGrillo | |
![]() |
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 |
![]() |
OTdeltat0_vsTime.png | r2 r1 | manage | 14.6 K | 2015-12-01 - 22:21 | LuciaGrillo | |
![]() |
OTt0.pdf | r2 r1 | manage | 64.0 K | 2015-12-01 - 22:18 | LuciaGrillo | stability of the global t0 value |
![]() |
OTt0.png | r2 r1 | manage | 17.3 K | 2015-12-01 - 22:19 | LuciaGrillo | |
![]() |
OTt0_stability.pdf | r1 | manage | 34.9 K | 2016-06-18 - 12:12 | LuciaGrillo | Stability of the global t0 constant in 2016 |
![]() |
OTt0_stability.png | r1 | manage | 23.8 K | 2016-06-18 - 12:12 | LuciaGrillo | Stability of the global t0 constant in 2016 |
![]() |
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 |
![]() |
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 |
![]() |
OTt0calibration2015.pdf | r1 | manage | 96.7 K | 2015-10-06 - 22:27 | SilviaBorghi | Stability of OT global t0 calibration |
![]() |
OTt0calibration2015.png | r1 | manage | 40.2 K | 2015-10-06 - 22:27 | SilviaBorghi | Stability of OT global t0 calibration |
![]() |
P_Final_comparison_2012_2015EM.eps | r1 | manage | 9.6 K | 2018-02-20 - 14:48 | RenataKopecna | |
![]() |
P_Final_comparison_2012_2015EM.pdf | r1 | manage | 14.4 K | 2018-02-20 - 14:48 | RenataKopecna | |
![]() |
P_Final_comparison_2012_2015EM.png | r1 | manage | 10.9 K | 2018-02-20 - 15:07 | RenataKopecna | |
![]() |
P_Final_comparison_2012_2015nominal.eps | r1 | manage | 9.3 K | 2018-02-20 - 14:48 | RenataKopecna | |
![]() |
P_Final_comparison_2012_2015nominal.pdf | r1 | manage | 14.2 K | 2018-02-20 - 14:48 | RenataKopecna | |
![]() |
P_Final_comparison_2012_2015nominal.png | r1 | manage | 10.9 K | 2018-02-20 - 15:07 | RenataKopecna | |
![]() |
P_Final_comparison_MC_2015nominal.pdf | r1 | manage | 14.2 K | 2018-02-20 - 14:57 | RenataKopecna | |
![]() |
P_Final_comparison_MC_2015nominal.png | r1 | manage | 11.0 K | 2018-02-20 - 15:07 | RenataKopecna | |
![]() |
Rich1_2017_final_default_py.pdf | r1 | manage | 42.7 K | 2017-12-21 - 18:05 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2017_final_default_py.png | r1 | manage | 67.3 K | 2017-12-21 - 18:05 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2017_final_default_pz.pdf | r1 | manage | 42.8 K | 2017-12-21 - 18:05 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2017_final_default_pz.png | r1 | manage | 68.1 K | 2017-12-21 - 18:05 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2017_final_default_sy.pdf | r1 | manage | 104.8 K | 2017-12-21 - 18:05 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2017_final_default_sy.png | r1 | manage | 73.7 K | 2017-12-21 - 18:05 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2017_final_default_sz.pdf | r1 | manage | 104.3 K | 2017-12-21 - 18:05 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2017_final_default_sz.png | r1 | manage | 71.6 K | 2017-12-21 - 18:05 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2017_final_hollow_py.pdf | r1 | manage | 43.3 K | 2017-12-21 - 18:05 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2017_final_hollow_py.png | r1 | manage | 81.7 K | 2017-12-21 - 18:05 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2017_final_hollow_pz.pdf | r1 | manage | 43.4 K | 2017-12-21 - 18:06 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2017_final_hollow_pz.png | r1 | manage | 83.6 K | 2017-12-21 - 18:06 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2017_final_hollow_sy.pdf | r1 | manage | 106.7 K | 2017-12-21 - 18:06 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2017_final_hollow_sy.png | r1 | manage | 84.1 K | 2017-12-21 - 18:06 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2017_final_hollow_sz.pdf | r1 | manage | 106.5 K | 2017-12-21 - 18:06 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2017_final_hollow_sz.png | r1 | manage | 81.0 K | 2017-12-21 - 18:06 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2018_hollow_Fills_to20180820_py.pdf | r1 | manage | 38.3 K | 2018-08-29 - 15:11 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2018_hollow_Fills_to20180820_py.png | r2 r1 | manage | 74.2 K | 2018-08-29 - 15:31 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2018_hollow_Fills_to20180820_pz.pdf | r1 | manage | 38.1 K | 2018-08-29 - 15:11 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2018_hollow_Fills_to20180820_pz.png | r2 r1 | manage | 75.9 K | 2018-08-29 - 15:31 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2018_hollow_Fills_to20180820_sy.pdf | r1 | manage | 88.8 K | 2018-08-29 - 15:11 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2018_hollow_Fills_to20180820_sy.png | r2 r1 | manage | 65.9 K | 2018-08-29 - 15:31 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2018_hollow_Fills_to20180820_sz.pdf | r1 | manage | 88.3 K | 2018-08-29 - 15:11 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2018_hollow_Fills_to20180820_sz.png | r2 r1 | manage | 63.3 K | 2018-08-29 - 15:31 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2018_hollow_Numbers_py.pdf | r1 | manage | 47.3 K | 2018-11-29 - 18:47 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2018_hollow_Numbers_py.png | r1 | manage | 100.2 K | 2018-11-29 - 18:48 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2018_hollow_Numbers_pz.pdf | r1 | manage | 47.5 K | 2018-11-29 - 18:47 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2018_hollow_Numbers_pz.png | r1 | manage | 102.7 K | 2018-11-29 - 18:48 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2018_hollow_Numbers_sy.pdf | r1 | manage | 124.4 K | 2018-11-29 - 18:47 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2018_hollow_Numbers_sy.png | r1 | manage | 83.0 K | 2018-11-29 - 18:48 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2018_hollow_Numbers_sz.pdf | r1 | manage | 124.4 K | 2018-11-29 - 18:47 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2018_hollow_Numbers_sz.png | r1 | manage | 75.5 K | 2018-11-29 - 18:48 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2018_hollow_Numbers_to20180820_py.pdf | r1 | manage | 38.6 K | 2018-08-29 - 15:11 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2018_hollow_Numbers_to20180820_py.png | r2 r1 | manage | 84.5 K | 2018-08-29 - 15:31 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2018_hollow_Numbers_to20180820_pz.pdf | r1 | manage | 38.5 K | 2018-08-29 - 15:11 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2018_hollow_Numbers_to20180820_pz.png | r2 r1 | manage | 85.2 K | 2018-08-29 - 15:31 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2018_hollow_Numbers_to20180820_sy.pdf | r1 | manage | 89.1 K | 2018-08-29 - 15:11 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2018_hollow_Numbers_to20180820_sy.png | r2 r1 | manage | 82.4 K | 2018-08-29 - 15:31 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2018_hollow_Numbers_to20180820_sz.pdf | r1 | manage | 88.9 K | 2018-08-29 - 15:11 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_2018_hollow_Numbers_to20180820_sz.png | r2 r1 | manage | 78.9 K | 2018-08-29 - 15:31 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_absav_range.1-1.png | r1 | manage | 80.3 K | 2016-09-22 - 17:56 | ClaireProuve | |
![]() |
Rich1_absav_range.1.pdf | r1 | manage | 14.1 K | 2016-09-23 - 11:52 | ClaireProuve | |
![]() |
Rich1_absav_range.2-1.png | r1 | manage | 88.4 K | 2016-09-22 - 17:56 | ClaireProuve | |
![]() |
Rich1_absav_range.2.pdf | r1 | manage | 14.1 K | 2016-09-23 - 11:52 | ClaireProuve | |
![]() |
Rich1_primaryMirrors_y.pdf | r1 | manage | 14.3 K | 2016-09-23 - 11:47 | ClaireProuve | |
![]() |
Rich1_primaryMirrors_y.png | r1 | manage | 62.9 K | 2016-09-23 - 11:46 | ClaireProuve | |
![]() |
Rich1_primaryMirrors_y_20170830.pdf | r2 r1 | manage | 30.3 K | 2017-10-20 - 16:28 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_primaryMirrors_y_20170830.png | r2 r1 | manage | 129.9 K | 2017-10-20 - 16:28 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_primaryMirrors_z.png | r1 | manage | 60.9 K | 2016-09-23 - 11:46 | ClaireProuve | |
![]() |
Rich1_primaryMirrors_z_20170830.pdf | r2 r1 | manage | 30.2 K | 2017-10-20 - 16:28 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_primaryMirrors_z_20170830.png | r2 r1 | manage | 134.2 K | 2017-10-20 - 16:28 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_primaryMirrros_z.pdf | r1 | manage | 14.3 K | 2016-09-23 - 11:47 | ClaireProuve | |
![]() |
Rich1_secondaryMirrors_y.pdf | r1 | manage | 17.2 K | 2016-09-23 - 11:47 | ClaireProuve | |
![]() |
Rich1_secondaryMirrors_y.png | r2 r1 | manage | 72.8 K | 2016-09-23 - 11:35 | ClaireProuve | |
![]() |
Rich1_secondaryMirrors_y_20170830.pdf | r2 r1 | manage | 54.3 K | 2017-10-20 - 16:28 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_secondaryMirrors_y_20170830.png | r2 r1 | manage | 144.9 K | 2017-10-20 - 16:28 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_secondaryMirrors_z.pdf | r1 | manage | 17.2 K | 2016-09-23 - 11:47 | ClaireProuve | |
![]() |
Rich1_secondaryMirrors_z.png | r2 r1 | manage | 79.8 K | 2016-09-23 - 11:35 | ClaireProuve | |
![]() |
Rich1_secondaryMirrors_z_20170830.pdf | r2 r1 | manage | 53.8 K | 2017-10-20 - 16:28 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich1_secondaryMirrors_z_20170830.png | r2 r1 | manage | 145.2 K | 2017-10-20 - 16:28 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2017_final_default_py.pdf | r1 | manage | 312.0 K | 2017-12-21 - 18:06 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2017_final_default_py.png | r1 | manage | 101.8 K | 2017-12-21 - 18:06 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2017_final_default_pz.pdf | r1 | manage | 312.1 K | 2017-12-21 - 18:06 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2017_final_default_pz.png | r1 | manage | 97.0 K | 2017-12-21 - 18:06 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2017_final_default_sy.pdf | r1 | manage | 231.7 K | 2017-12-21 - 18:06 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2017_final_default_sy.png | r1 | manage | 90.9 K | 2017-12-21 - 18:06 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2017_final_default_sz.pdf | r1 | manage | 231.3 K | 2017-12-21 - 18:06 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2017_final_default_sz.png | r1 | manage | 95.8 K | 2017-12-21 - 18:06 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2017_final_hollow_py.pdf | r1 | manage | 320.0 K | 2017-12-21 - 18:06 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2017_final_hollow_py.png | r1 | manage | 117.8 K | 2017-12-21 - 18:06 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2017_final_hollow_pz.pdf | r1 | manage | 320.4 K | 2017-12-21 - 18:06 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2017_final_hollow_pz.png | r1 | manage | 110.5 K | 2017-12-21 - 18:06 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2017_final_hollow_sy.pdf | r1 | manage | 237.5 K | 2017-12-21 - 18:06 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2017_final_hollow_sy.png | r1 | manage | 102.1 K | 2017-12-21 - 18:06 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2017_final_hollow_sz.pdf | r1 | manage | 239.0 K | 2017-12-21 - 18:07 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2017_final_hollow_sz.png | r1 | manage | 100.5 K | 2017-12-21 - 18:07 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2018_hollow_Fills_to20180820_py.pdf | r1 | manage | 260.4 K | 2018-08-29 - 15:12 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2018_hollow_Fills_to20180820_py.png | r2 r1 | manage | 90.5 K | 2018-08-29 - 15:29 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2018_hollow_Fills_to20180820_pz.pdf | r1 | manage | 260.1 K | 2018-08-29 - 15:12 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2018_hollow_Fills_to20180820_pz.png | r2 r1 | manage | 85.2 K | 2018-08-29 - 15:29 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2018_hollow_Fills_to20180820_sy.pdf | r1 | manage | 194.0 K | 2018-08-29 - 15:12 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2018_hollow_Fills_to20180820_sy.png | r2 r1 | manage | 92.2 K | 2018-08-29 - 15:29 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2018_hollow_Fills_to20180820_sz.pdf | r1 | manage | 194.2 K | 2018-08-29 - 15:12 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2018_hollow_Fills_to20180820_sz.png | r2 r1 | manage | 94.3 K | 2018-08-29 - 15:29 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2018_hollow_Numbers_py.pdf | r1 | manage | 373.5 K | 2018-11-29 - 18:47 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2018_hollow_Numbers_py.png | r1 | manage | 122.3 K | 2018-11-29 - 18:48 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2018_hollow_Numbers_pz.pdf | r1 | manage | 373.1 K | 2018-11-29 - 18:47 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2018_hollow_Numbers_pz.png | r1 | manage | 113.3 K | 2018-11-29 - 18:48 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2018_hollow_Numbers_sy.pdf | r1 | manage | 274.9 K | 2018-11-29 - 18:47 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2018_hollow_Numbers_sy.png | r1 | manage | 126.2 K | 2018-11-29 - 18:48 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2018_hollow_Numbers_sz.pdf | r1 | manage | 274.3 K | 2018-11-29 - 18:47 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2018_hollow_Numbers_sz.png | r1 | manage | 118.8 K | 2018-11-29 - 18:48 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2018_hollow_Numbers_to20180820_py.pdf | r1 | manage | 261.3 K | 2018-08-29 - 15:12 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2018_hollow_Numbers_to20180820_py.png | r2 r1 | manage | 118.5 K | 2018-08-29 - 15:29 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2018_hollow_Numbers_to20180820_pz.pdf | r1 | manage | 260.0 K | 2018-08-29 - 15:12 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2018_hollow_Numbers_to20180820_pz.png | r2 r1 | manage | 110.9 K | 2018-08-29 - 15:29 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2018_hollow_Numbers_to20180820_sy.pdf | r1 | manage | 193.9 K | 2018-08-29 - 15:12 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2018_hollow_Numbers_to20180820_sy.png | r2 r1 | manage | 119.8 K | 2018-08-29 - 15:29 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2018_hollow_Numbers_to20180820_sz.pdf | r1 | manage | 194.2 K | 2018-08-29 - 15:12 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_2018_hollow_Numbers_to20180820_sz.png | r2 r1 | manage | 113.6 K | 2018-08-29 - 15:29 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_absav_range.1-1.png | r1 | manage | 65.4 K | 2016-09-22 - 18:01 | ClaireProuve | |
![]() |
Rich2_absav_range.1.pdf | r1 | manage | 14.1 K | 2016-09-23 - 11:52 | ClaireProuve | |
![]() |
Rich2_absav_range.2-1.png | r1 | manage | 68.2 K | 2016-09-22 - 18:01 | ClaireProuve | |
![]() |
Rich2_absav_range.2.pdf | r1 | manage | 14.1 K | 2016-09-23 - 11:52 | ClaireProuve | |
![]() |
Rich2_primaryMirrors_y.pdf | r1 | manage | 27.3 K | 2016-09-23 - 11:47 | ClaireProuve | |
![]() |
Rich2_primaryMirrors_y.png | r2 r1 | manage | 85.2 K | 2016-09-23 - 11:35 | ClaireProuve | |
![]() |
Rich2_primaryMirrors_y_20170830.pdf | r2 r1 | manage | 127.3 K | 2017-10-20 - 16:27 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_primaryMirrors_y_20170830.png | r2 r1 | manage | 190.1 K | 2017-10-20 - 16:27 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_primaryMirrors_z.pdf | r1 | manage | 27.1 K | 2016-09-23 - 11:47 | ClaireProuve | |
![]() |
Rich2_primaryMirrors_z.png | r2 r1 | manage | 76.0 K | 2016-09-23 - 11:35 | ClaireProuve | |
![]() |
Rich2_primaryMirrors_z_20170830.pdf | r2 r1 | manage | 126.7 K | 2017-10-20 - 16:27 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_primaryMirrors_z_20170830.png | r2 r1 | manage | 186.0 K | 2017-10-20 - 16:27 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_secondaryMirrors_y.pdf | r1 | manage | 23.5 K | 2016-09-23 - 11:47 | ClaireProuve | |
![]() |
Rich2_secondaryMirrors_y.png | r2 r1 | manage | 91.8 K | 2016-09-23 - 11:35 | ClaireProuve | |
![]() |
Rich2_secondaryMirrors_y_20170830.pdf | r2 r1 | manage | 98.8 K | 2017-10-20 - 16:27 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_secondaryMirrors_y_20170830.png | r2 r1 | manage | 178.1 K | 2017-10-20 - 16:27 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_secondaryMirrors_z.pdf | r1 | manage | 23.6 K | 2016-09-23 - 11:47 | ClaireProuve | |
![]() |
Rich2_secondaryMirrors_z.png | r2 r1 | manage | 91.2 K | 2016-09-23 - 11:36 | ClaireProuve | |
![]() |
Rich2_secondaryMirrors_z_20170830.pdf | r2 r1 | manage | 99.1 K | 2017-10-20 - 16:27 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Rich2_secondaryMirrors_z_20170830.png | r2 r1 | manage | 182.9 K | 2017-10-20 - 16:27 | ParasNaik | |
![]() |
Roc1.png | r1 | manage | 27.7 K | 2017-08-11 - 10:53 | UnknownUser | Downstream Tracking Seed Classifier ROC curve plot |
![]() |
Roc2.png | r1 | manage | 28.9 K | 2017-08-11 - 10:53 | UnknownUser | Downstream Tracking Seed Classifier zoomed ROC curve plot |
![]() |
SpeedupVectorizedKF.pdf | r1 | manage | 189.9 K | 2017-03-07 - 20:42 | UnknownUser | Performance of the vectorized version of the Kalman filter |
![]() |
SpeedupVectorizedKF.png | r1 | manage | 323.3 K | 2017-03-07 - 21:06 | UnknownUser | Performance of the vectorized version of the Kalman filter |
![]() |
Throughput_HLT1UpgradeMT.pdf | r1 | manage | 299.5 K | 2018-03-20 - 19:35 | RenatoQuagliani | Throughput for the upgrade HLT1 sequence |
![]() |
Throughput_HLT1UpgradeMT.png | r1 | manage | 378.2 K | 2018-03-20 - 20:37 | GiulioDujany | Throughput for the upgrade HLT1 sequence |
![]() |
Timing_algorithms_HLT1Upgrade.pdf | r1 | manage | 419.5 K | 2018-03-20 - 19:35 | RenatoQuagliani | Throughput for the upgrade HLT1 sequence |
![]() |
Timing_algorithms_HLT1Upgrade.png | r1 | manage | 302.0 K | 2018-03-20 - 20:37 | GiulioDujany | Throughput for the upgrade HLT1 sequence |
![]() |
Timing_algorithms_HLT1Upgrade_PTPVCuts.pdf | r1 | manage | 249.8 K | 2018-03-20 - 19:35 | RenatoQuagliani | Throughput for the upgrade HLT1 sequence |
![]() |
Timing_algorithms_HLT1Upgrade_PTPVCuts.png | r1 | manage | 159.3 K | 2018-03-20 - 20:37 | GiulioDujany | Throughput for the upgrade HLT1 sequence |
![]() |
Timing_algorithms_HLT1Upgrade_ScalingOccupancy.pdf | r1 | manage | 304.3 K | 2018-03-20 - 19:35 | RenatoQuagliani | Throughput for the upgrade HLT1 sequence |
![]() |
Timing_algorithms_HLT1Upgrade_ScalingOccupancy.png | r1 | manage | 216.6 K | 2018-03-20 - 20:37 | GiulioDujany | Throughput for the upgrade HLT1 sequence |
![]() |
TrackEffPComp2015EM2012.pdf | r1 | manage | 14.5 K | 2015-10-07 - 11:37 | MichelDeCian | |
![]() |
TrackEffPComp2015EM2012.png | r1 | manage | 56.6 K | 2015-10-07 - 11:37 | MichelDeCian | |
![]() |
TrackEffPComp2015_2012.pdf | r1 | manage | 10.7 K | 2016-03-31 - 17:29 | UnknownUser | |
![]() |
TrackEffPComp2015_2012.png | r1 | manage | 5.8 K | 2016-03-31 - 17:29 | UnknownUser | |
![]() |
TrackEffPLong2015_2012.pdf | r1 | manage | 11.4 K | 2016-03-31 - 17:32 | UnknownUser | |
![]() |
TrackEffPLong2015_2012.png | r1 | manage | 6.4 K | 2016-03-31 - 17:32 | UnknownUser | |
![]() |
TrackerConvergence.pdf | r1 | manage | 16.3 K | 2015-10-06 - 23:02 | SilviaBorghi | IT box alignment convergence for the first alignment of Run2 |
![]() |
TrackerConvergence.png | r1 | manage | 24.5 K | 2015-10-06 - 23:02 | SilviaBorghi | IT box alignment convergence for the first alignment of Run2 |
![]() |
TrackerStability.pdf | r1 | manage | 25.0 K | 2015-10-06 - 22:25 | SilviaBorghi | IT boxes alignment stability plot (variation wrt previous alignment) |
![]() |
TrackerStability.png | r1 | manage | 46.8 K | 2015-10-06 - 22:25 | SilviaBorghi | IT boxes alignment stability plot (variation wrt previous alignment) |
![]() |
TrackerStability_Tx.pdf | r1 | manage | 31.0 K | 2015-12-01 - 11:47 | GiulioDujany | Tracker alignment stability |
![]() |
TrackerStability_Tx.png | r1 | manage | 183.6 K | 2015-12-01 - 11:47 | GiulioDujany | Tracker alignment stability |
![]() |
TrackerStability_Tz.pdf | r1 | manage | 30.4 K | 2015-12-01 - 11:47 | GiulioDujany | Tracker alignment stability |
![]() |
TrackerStability_Tz.png | r1 | manage | 175.3 K | 2015-12-01 - 11:47 | GiulioDujany | Tracker alignment stability |
![]() |
Tracker_stability_Tx.pdf | r2 r1 | manage | 34.2 K | 2016-09-08 - 12:34 | GiulioDujany | 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots |
![]() |
Tracker_stability_Tx.png | r2 r1 | manage | 263.5 K | 2016-09-08 - 12:34 | GiulioDujany | 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots |
![]() |
Tracker_stability_Tx_fd.pdf | r2 r1 | manage | 36.5 K | 2016-09-08 - 12:34 | GiulioDujany | 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots |
![]() |
Tracker_stability_Tx_fd.png | r2 r1 | manage | 206.3 K | 2016-09-08 - 12:35 | GiulioDujany | 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots |
![]() |
Tracker_stability_Tz.pdf | r2 r1 | manage | 35.1 K | 2016-09-08 - 12:35 | GiulioDujany | 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots |
![]() |
Tracker_stability_Tz.png | r2 r1 | manage | 279.6 K | 2016-09-08 - 12:35 | GiulioDujany | 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots |
![]() |
Tracker_stability_Tz_fd.pdf | r2 r1 | manage | 37.4 K | 2016-09-08 - 12:35 | GiulioDujany | 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots |
![]() |
Tracker_stability_Tz_fd.png | r2 r1 | manage | 221.1 K | 2016-09-08 - 12:36 | GiulioDujany | 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots |
![]() |
Upsilon1.pdf | r1 | manage | 53.8 K | 2015-10-06 - 23:00 | SilviaBorghi | Invariant mass distribution with the first alignment of Run1 |
![]() |
Upsilon1.png | r1 | manage | 56.6 K | 2015-10-06 - 22:57 | SilviaBorghi | Invariant mass distribution with the first alignment of Run1 |
![]() |
Upsilon2.pdf | r1 | manage | 53.0 K | 2015-10-06 - 23:00 | SilviaBorghi | Invariant mass distribution with improved alignment of Run1 |
![]() |
Upsilon2.png | r1 | manage | 55.3 K | 2015-10-06 - 22:57 | SilviaBorghi | nvariant mass distribution with improved alignment of Run1 |
![]() |
VectorizedKFScalingXeonE5.pdf | r1 | manage | 272.4 K | 2017-03-07 - 20:42 | UnknownUser | Performance of the vectorized version of the Kalman filter |
![]() |
VectorizedKFScalingXeonE5.png | r1 | manage | 68.8 K | 2017-03-07 - 21:06 | UnknownUser | Performance of the vectorized version of the Kalman filter |
![]() |
VectorizedKFScalingXeonPhi.pdf | r1 | manage | 344.4 K | 2017-03-07 - 20:42 | UnknownUser | Performance of the vectorized version of the Kalman filter |
![]() |
VectorizedKFScalingXeonPhi.png | r1 | manage | 65.5 K | 2017-03-07 - 21:06 | UnknownUser | Performance of the vectorized version of the Kalman filter |
![]() |
VeloConvergence.pdf | r1 | manage | 13.6 K | 2015-10-06 - 23:02 | SilviaBorghi | VELO 2 half alignment convergence for the first alignment of Run2 |
![]() |
VeloConvergence.png | r1 | manage | 18.5 K | 2015-10-06 - 23:02 | SilviaBorghi | VELO 2 half alignment convergence for the first alignment of Run2 |
![]() |
VeloStability.pdf | r2 r1 | manage | 18.1 K | 2015-10-07 - 16:04 | GiulioDujany | VELO 2 half alignment stability plot (variation wrt previous alignment) |
![]() |
VeloStability.png | r2 r1 | manage | 123.7 K | 2015-10-07 - 16:09 | GiulioDujany | VELO 2 half alignment stability plot (variation wrt previous alignment) |
![]() |
Velo_stability.pdf | r2 r1 | manage | 20.8 K | 2015-12-01 - 09:51 | GiulioDujany | Velo alignment stability |
![]() |
Velo_stability.png | r2 r1 | manage | 146.1 K | 2015-12-01 - 09:51 | GiulioDujany | Velo alignment stability |
![]() |
Velo_stability_Txy.pdf | r2 r1 | manage | 21.7 K | 2016-09-08 - 12:36 | GiulioDujany | 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots |
![]() |
Velo_stability_Txy.png | r2 r1 | manage | 172.4 K | 2016-09-08 - 12:37 | GiulioDujany | 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots |
![]() |
Velo_stability_Txy_fd.pdf | r2 r1 | manage | 22.6 K | 2016-09-08 - 12:37 | GiulioDujany | 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots |
![]() |
Velo_stability_Txy_fd.png | r2 r1 | manage | 135.6 K | 2016-09-08 - 12:38 | GiulioDujany | 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots |
![]() |
Velo_stability_fd.pdf | r2 r1 | manage | 21.2 K | 2015-12-01 - 09:51 | GiulioDujany | Velo alignment stability |
![]() |
Velo_stability_fd.png | r2 r1 | manage | 135.0 K | 2015-12-01 - 09:51 | GiulioDujany | Velo alignment stability |
![]() |
Velo_trend.pdf | r2 r1 | manage | 20.9 K | 2015-12-01 - 09:51 | GiulioDujany | Velo alignment stability |
![]() |
Velo_trend.png | r2 r1 | manage | 142.7 K | 2015-12-01 - 09:51 | GiulioDujany | Velo alignment stability |
![]() |
Velo_trend_Txy.pdf | r2 r1 | manage | 21.7 K | 2016-09-08 - 12:39 | GiulioDujany | 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots |
![]() |
Velo_trend_Txy.png | r2 r1 | manage | 166.2 K | 2016-09-08 - 12:39 | GiulioDujany | 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots |
![]() |
Velo_trend_Txy_fd.pdf | r2 r1 | manage | 22.5 K | 2016-09-08 - 12:39 | GiulioDujany | 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots |
![]() |
Velo_trend_Txy_fd.png | r2 r1 | manage | 128.8 K | 2016-09-08 - 12:40 | GiulioDujany | 2016 automatic alignment publicity plots |
![]() |
Velo_trend_fd.pdf | r2 r1 | manage | 21.3 K | 2015-12-01 - 09:51 | GiulioDujany | Velo alignment stability |
![]() |
Velo_trend_fd.png | r2 r1 | manage | 132.5 K | 2015-12-01 - 09:51 | GiulioDujany | Velo alignment stability |
![]() |
_decay_time_res_2012_2015.png | r1 | manage | 66.5 K | 2016-08-03 - 10:20 | LuciaGrillo | decay time resolution 2012 and 2015 |
![]() |
decay_time_res_2015.png | r1 | manage | 62.9 K | 2016-08-03 - 10:24 | LuciaGrillo | Decay time resolution 2015 |
![]() |
detector_align_calib.png | r1 | manage | 678.2 K | 2017-07-04 - 22:46 | AgnieszkaDziurda | |
![]() |
final_decay_time_res_plot1.pdf | r1 | manage | 15.3 K | 2016-08-03 - 10:23 | LuciaGrillo | Decay time resolution 2015 |
![]() |
final_decay_time_res_plot16.pdf | r1 | manage | 15.5 K | 2017-05-09 - 18:49 | SevdaEsen | |
![]() |
final_decay_time_res_plot16.png | r1 | manage | 17.0 K | 2017-05-09 - 19:54 | SevdaEsen | |
![]() |
final_decay_time_res_plot_2012_2015_2016_comp.pdf | r1 | manage | 17.2 K | 2017-05-09 - 18:49 | SevdaEsen | |
![]() |
final_decay_time_res_plot_2012_2015_2016_comp.png | r1 | manage | 20.9 K | 2017-05-09 - 19:54 | SevdaEsen | |
![]() |
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 |
![]() |
fit_full_mc_label_nopull.pdf | r1 | manage | 74.4 K | 2018-06-26 - 16:36 | RenataKopecna | B+ invariant mass simulation of B+ to Jpsi(ee)K+ from Sim09b |
![]() |
fit_full_mc_label_nopull.png | r1 | manage | 43.2 K | 2018-06-26 - 16:36 | RenataKopecna | B+ invariant mass simulation of B+ to Jpsi(ee)K+ from Sim09b |
![]() |
nPVs_Final_comparison_MC_2015nominal.pdf | r1 | manage | 14.3 K | 2018-02-20 - 14:57 | RenataKopecna | |
![]() |
nPVs_Final_comparison_MC_2015nominal.png | r1 | manage | 10.7 K | 2018-02-20 - 15:07 | RenataKopecna | |
![]() |
nSPDHits_Final_comparison_MC_2015nominal.pdf | r1 | manage | 14.2 K | 2018-02-20 - 14:57 | RenataKopecna | |
![]() |
nSPDHits_Final_comparison_MC_2015nominal.png | r1 | manage | 10.9 K | 2018-02-20 - 15:07 | RenataKopecna | |
![]() |
pull_qop_defaultKF.pdf | r1 | manage | 14.9 K | 2017-03-07 - 20:44 | UnknownUser | Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter). |
![]() |
pull_qop_defaultKF.png | r1 | manage | 75.9 K | 2017-03-07 - 21:09 | UnknownUser | Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter). |
![]() |
pull_qop_parametrizedKF.pdf | r1 | manage | 15.0 K | 2017-03-07 - 20:44 | UnknownUser | Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter). |
![]() |
pull_qop_parametrizedKF.png | r1 | manage | 77.0 K | 2017-03-07 - 21:09 | UnknownUser | Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter). |
![]() |
pull_x_defaultKF.pdf | r1 | manage | 14.9 K | 2017-03-07 - 20:44 | UnknownUser | Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter). |
![]() |
pull_x_defaultKF.png | r1 | manage | 77.4 K | 2017-03-07 - 21:09 | UnknownUser | Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter). |
![]() |
pull_x_parametrizedKF.pdf | r1 | manage | 14.9 K | 2017-03-07 - 20:44 | UnknownUser | Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter). |
![]() |
pull_x_parametrizedKF.png | r1 | manage | 75.2 K | 2017-03-07 - 21:09 | UnknownUser | Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter). |
![]() |
res_qop_defaultKF.pdf | r1 | manage | 14.8 K | 2017-03-07 - 20:44 | UnknownUser | Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter). |
![]() |
res_qop_defaultKF.png | r1 | manage | 78.1 K | 2017-03-07 - 21:09 | UnknownUser | Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter). |
![]() |
res_qop_parametrizedKF.pdf | r1 | manage | 14.9 K | 2017-03-07 - 20:44 | UnknownUser | Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter). |
![]() |
res_qop_parametrizedKF.png | r1 | manage | 81.2 K | 2017-03-07 - 21:09 | UnknownUser | Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter). |
![]() |
res_x_defaultKF.pdf | r1 | manage | 14.7 K | 2017-03-07 - 20:44 | UnknownUser | Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter). |
![]() |
res_x_defaultKF.png | r1 | manage | 72.0 K | 2017-03-07 - 21:09 | UnknownUser | Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter). |
![]() |
res_x_parametrizedKF.pdf | r1 | manage | 14.7 K | 2017-03-07 - 20:44 | UnknownUser | Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter). |
![]() |
res_x_parametrizedKF.png | r1 | manage | 74.0 K | 2017-03-07 - 21:30 | UnknownUser | Performance of a parametrized version of the Kalman filter (compared to the default Kalman filter). |
![]() |
resolution_vs_ntracks_x_data2015.pdf | r1 | manage | 15.7 K | 2017-05-02 - 14:23 | AgnieszkaDziurda | Primary Vertex resolution for Run II |
![]() |
resolution_vs_ntracks_x_data2015.png | r1 | manage | 469.4 K | 2018-10-16 - 14:06 | AgnieszkaDziurda | Primary Vertex resolution for Run II |
![]() |
resolution_vs_ntracks_x_data2015MC.pdf | r1 | manage | 17.7 K | 2017-05-02 - 14:23 | AgnieszkaDziurda | Primary Vertex resolution for Run II |
![]() |
resolution_vs_ntracks_x_data2015MC.png | r1 | manage | 577.3 K | 2018-10-16 - 14:06 | AgnieszkaDziurda | Primary Vertex resolution for Run II |
![]() |
resolution_vs_ntracks_x_data2015_comp.pdf | r1 | manage | 17.1 K | 2017-05-02 - 14:23 | AgnieszkaDziurda | Primary Vertex resolution for Run II |
![]() |
resolution_vs_ntracks_x_data2015_comp.png | r1 | manage | 585.8 K | 2018-10-16 - 14:06 | AgnieszkaDziurda | Primary Vertex resolution for Run II |
![]() |
resolution_vs_ntracks_z_data2015.pdf | r1 | manage | 15.5 K | 2017-05-02 - 14:23 | AgnieszkaDziurda | Primary Vertex resolution for Run II |
![]() |
resolution_vs_ntracks_z_data2015.png | r1 | manage | 469.1 K | 2018-10-16 - 14:06 | AgnieszkaDziurda | Primary Vertex resolution for Run II |
![]() |
resolution_vs_ntracks_z_data2015MC.pdf | r1 | manage | 17.5 K | 2017-05-02 - 14:23 | AgnieszkaDziurda | Primary Vertex resolution for Run II |
![]() |
resolution_vs_ntracks_z_data2015MC.png | r1 | manage | 595.8 K | 2018-10-16 - 14:06 | AgnieszkaDziurda | Primary Vertex resolution for Run II |
![]() |
resolution_vs_ntracks_z_data2015_comp.pdf | r1 | manage | 16.8 K | 2017-05-02 - 14:23 | AgnieszkaDziurda | Primary Vertex resolution for Run II |
![]() |
resolution_vs_ntracks_z_data2015_comp.png | r1 | manage | 590.1 K | 2018-10-16 - 14:06 | AgnieszkaDziurda | Primary Vertex resolution for Run II |
![]() |
rocChi2VsGP.pdf | r1 | manage | 87.9 K | 2016-02-19 - 16:52 | MichelDeCian | |
![]() |
rocChi2VsGP.png | r1 | manage | 108.1 K | 2016-02-19 - 16:58 | MichelDeCian | |
![]() |
rocChi2VsRunIVsRunIIGP.pdf | r1 | manage | 125.8 K | 2016-02-19 - 16:52 | MichelDeCian | |
![]() |
rocChi2VsRunIVsRunIIGP.png | r1 | manage | 122.1 K | 2016-02-19 - 16:58 | MichelDeCian | |
![]() |
trackTypesRunIAndII.pdf | r1 | manage | 1358.3 K | 2016-10-18 - 11:01 | MichelDeCian | |
![]() |
trackTypesRunIAndII.png | r1 | manage | 89.0 K | 2016-10-18 - 11:01 | MichelDeCian | |
![]() |
trackTypes_upgrade.pdf | r1 | manage | 1357.9 K | 2016-10-18 - 10:53 | MichelDeCian | |
![]() |
trackTypes_upgrade.png | r1 | manage | 89.4 K | 2016-10-18 - 10:55 | MichelDeCian | |
![]() |
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 |
![]() |
updatesForComb_2016.png | r1 | manage | 54.9 K | 2017-05-08 - 17:12 | GiulioDujany | |
![]() |
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 |
![]() |
updatesForDof_2016.png | r1 | manage | 22.2 K | 2017-05-08 - 17:12 | GiulioDujany | |
![]() |
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 |
![]() |
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 |
![]() |
velott-eff-p.pdf | r1 | manage | 16.8 K | 2015-10-26 - 17:24 | BarbaraStoraci | VeloTT efficiency as a function of p |
![]() |
velott-eff-p.png | r1 | manage | 143.4 K | 2015-10-27 - 09:39 | SilviaBorghi | VeloTT efficiency as a function of p |
![]() |
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) |
![]() |
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) |
![]() |
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) |
![]() |
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) |
![]() |
velott-gr-pt.pdf | r1 | manage | 16.8 K | 2015-10-27 - 10:22 | BarbaraStoraci | VeloTT ghost rate versus transverse momentum (runI vs runII) |
![]() |
velott-gr-pt.png | r1 | manage | 71.2 K | 2015-10-27 - 10:22 | BarbaraStoraci | VeloTT ghost rate versus transverse momentum (runI vs runII) |