Comparison: old and new tracking

comparison of old and tracking algorithm using urqmd (mainly hadrons) and pluto simulations.

new tracking: version 2
old tracking: version 1

Efficiency

red: new tracking, 2
black: old tracking,1

effi= no of hmdchitsim tracks/mdcgeant
with and without chi2cut

• efficiency URQMD - old and new tracking algorithm:
  

• efficiency PLUTO: old and new tracking algorithm:
  

Comment

The effiency for the pluto simulations is low for the inner mdcs. The efficiency will improve if one uses only tracks, which were measured/reconstructed in all detectors.
Further in the inner mdc one has more close pairs from conversion - here the reconstruction is worse. Due to the magentic field it, there are less conversion pairs in the outer chambers (->efficiency higher).

x,y, xdir and ydir Resolution as well as vertex reconstruction

2. comparison of x, y, phi, theta, vertex

xdiff= MdcGeantx-HMdcHitsim.fdata.x
ydiff analog
phi and theta:

Float_t
phihit=TMath::RadToDeg()*atan2(ydir[sector][module],xdir[sector][module]);
Float_t
thetahit=TMath::RadToDeg()*atan2(sqrt(xdir[sector][module]*xdir[sector][module]+ydir[sector][module]*ydir[sector][
module]),zdir[sector][module]);

phidiff=geantphi-phihit
thetadiff analog

vertex:
vertexfromhit=pEventHead->getVertexZ();
vertexz=vertex from geant
vertexdiff=vertexfromhit-vertexz

the pictures:
1st row: new tracking
2nd row: old tracking
3rd row: new tracking-oldtracking

from left to right: xdiff, ydiff, phidiff, thetadiff, vertexdiff
all graphs normalized to 1

• comparison URQMD:
  

• comparison PLUTO:
  

Comment

the two tracking algorithms do not give large differences.

-- YvonnePachmayer - 29 Oct 2005