Tracking and Alignment Plots for Conferences

Tracking

Muon tracking efficiency

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.

Electron tracking efficiency

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.

Downstream tracking efficiency

Contact: Luis Miguel Garcia Martin.

Approval presentation: here

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.

Ghost probability

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).

IP resolutions

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.

Decay time 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

PV resolution

	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.
	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.
	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.
	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.
	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.
	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
	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.

General

Plot	Description
	Track types for the LHCb Run I and II
	Track types for the LHCb Upgrade
	Subdetectors for alignment and calibration

Vectorized Kalman filter

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.

Parametrized Kalman filter

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.

	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.
	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.

	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.
	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.

	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.
	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.

	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').
	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
	Downstream Tracking Seed Calssifier ROC curve
	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.
	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 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. The different markers represent different 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.

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.
	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.

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: hollow 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 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: hollow style:	As above (RICH1) but for the rotations around the local z-axes of the individual primary mirrors.
default style: hollow 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: hollow 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: hollow 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: hollow 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: hollow style:	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: hollow 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.

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 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.
	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. The different markers represent different 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.

<-- -->

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.
	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.

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.
	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 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. The different markers represent different 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.

Alignment 2015

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 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.

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.
	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.

Muon Alignment

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.

OT calibration

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 and https://lblogbook.cern.ch/Shift/94595).

Various plots related the automatic alignment and calibration

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.