sphenix-tracking-l AT lists.bnl.gov
Subject: sPHENIX tracking discussion
List archive
[Sphenix-tracking-l] a quick peek at a (3+1) layer MAPS configuration
- From: "Michael P. McCumber" <mccumber AT bnl.gov>
- To: sphenix-upsilons-l AT lists.bnl.gov, sphenix-tracking-l AT lists.bnl.gov
- Subject: [Sphenix-tracking-l] a quick peek at a (3+1) layer MAPS configuration
- Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 09:25:47 -0600
Hello all,
Marzia asked me after the meeting to check the performance of a 4 layer MAPS tracker (3 inner vertex plus one outer layer). Of course such a long projection length (~few cm to 65 cm) starting with a small lever arm can not be done without fakes and the tracking is often picking the wrong outer cluster at higher pt---the ghost rejection should probably be turned off as it starts killing correct matches in favor of better false matches.
Here are those plots:
However the purities in central heavy ion collisions (bottom row, 3rd plot) aren't really that match worse than the ganged strip design, but since the momentum comes from only the single outer cluster it has more immediate impact on the track performance.
If we were to move this single outer layer inward the fake rate would drop, but there would be a tradeoff in correct match momentum resolution.
Mike
PS: I know from previous work that removing a single intermediate layer from the ITS doesn't impact the performance so I a 5-layer design with a single intermediate layer in-between should be a big improvement over this.
--
- [Sphenix-tracking-l] a quick peek at a (3+1) layer MAPS configuration, Michael P. McCumber, 04/20/2016
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.