|
@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+% rubber: module pdftex
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+\documentclass[english,aspectratio=43,9pt]{beamer}
|
|
|
|
+\usepackage{graphicx}
|
|
|
|
+\usepackage{amssymb}
|
|
|
|
+\usepackage{booktabs}
|
|
|
|
+\usepackage{siunitx}
|
|
|
|
+\usepackage{subcaption}
|
|
|
|
+\usepackage{marvosym}
|
|
|
|
+\usepackage{verbatim}
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+\newcommand{\pb}{\si{\pico\barn}}%
|
|
|
|
+\newcommand{\fb}{\si{\femto\barn}}%
|
|
|
|
+\newcommand{\invfb}{\si{\per\femto\barn}}
|
|
|
|
+\newcommand{\GeV}{\si{\giga\electronvolt}}
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+\hypersetup{colorlinks=true,urlcolor=blue}
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+\usetheme[]{bjeldbak}
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+\begin{document}
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+\title[e Reco. Validation]{Offline Electron Seeding Validation - Update}
|
|
|
|
+\author[C. Fangmeier]{\textbf{Caleb Fangmeier} \\ Ilya Kravchenko, Greg Snow}
|
|
|
|
+\institute[UNL]{University of Nebraska \-- Lincoln}
|
|
|
|
+\date{August 28, 2017}
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+\titlegraphic{%
|
|
|
|
+\begin{figure}
|
|
|
|
+ \includegraphics[width=1in]{CMSlogo.png}\hspace{0.75in}\includegraphics[width=1in]{nebraska-n.png}
|
|
|
|
+\end{figure}
|
|
|
|
+}
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+\begin{frame}[noframenumbering,plain]
|
|
|
|
+ \titlepage%
|
|
|
|
+\end{frame}
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+\begin{frame}{Introduction}
|
|
|
|
+ \begin{itemize}
|
|
|
|
+ \item Our goal is to study \textbf{seeding} for the \textbf{offline} Gsf tracking with the \textbf{new pixel detector}.
|
|
|
|
+ \item \href{https://indico.cern.ch/event/616443/contributions/2669480/attachments/1496854/2329372/main.pdf}{Previous talk} gave introduction/motivation to approach
|
|
|
|
+ \item Since Then,
|
|
|
|
+ \begin{itemize}
|
|
|
|
+ \item Migrated Code from \texttt{8\_1\_0} to \texttt{9\_0\_2}
|
|
|
|
+ \item Regenerated \texttt{trackingNtuple}s for dataset \\
|
|
|
|
+ {\tiny \vspace{0.05in}\hspace{-0.2in}\texttt{/DYJetsToLL\_M-50\_TuneCUETP8M1\_13TeV-madgraphMLM-pythia8 \\
|
|
|
|
+ \vspace{-0.05in}\hspace{-0.2in}/PhaseISpring17DR-FlatPU28to62HcalNZS\_90X\_upgrade2017\_realistic\_v20-v1/GEN-SIM-RAW}}
|
|
|
|
+ \item Calculated $\Delta \phi_{1,2}$/$\Delta z_{1,2}$ for distances between extrapolated SC and reconstructed pixel hit
|
|
|
|
+ \item In previous talk, gave distributions of the above for distances between
|
|
|
|
+ \end{itemize}
|
|
|
|
+ \end{itemize}
|
|
|
|
+\end{frame}
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+\begin{frame}{First matched hit resolutions (\texttt{Simhit} \-- \texttt{RecHit})}
|
|
|
|
+ \begin{figure}
|
|
|
|
+ \includegraphics[height=3in]{figures/live/first_hits::rs:DY2LL@output_902results_root.png}
|
|
|
|
+ \end{figure}
|
|
|
|
+\end{frame}
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+\begin{frame}{First matched hit resolutions (SC Extrapolation)}
|
|
|
|
+ \begin{figure}
|
|
|
|
+ \includegraphics[height=3in]{figures/live/sc_extrapolation_first::rs:DY2LL@output_902results_root.png}
|
|
|
|
+ \end{figure}
|
|
|
|
+\end{frame}
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+\begin{frame}{second matched hit resolutions (\texttt{Simhit} \-- \texttt{RecHit})}
|
|
|
|
+ \begin{figure}
|
|
|
|
+ \includegraphics[height=3in]{figures/live/second_hits::rs:DY2LL@output_902results_root.png}
|
|
|
|
+ \end{figure}
|
|
|
|
+\end{frame}
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+\begin{frame}{Second matched hit resolutions (SC Extrapolation)}
|
|
|
|
+ \begin{figure}
|
|
|
|
+ \includegraphics[height=3in]{figures/live/sc_extrapolation_second::rs:DY2LL@output_902results_root.png}
|
|
|
|
+ \end{figure}
|
|
|
|
+\end{frame}
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+\begin{frame}{Outlook}
|
|
|
|
+ \begin{itemize}
|
|
|
|
+ \item Investigate spikes in $\Delta \phi_{1}$/$\Delta z_{1}$ distributions
|
|
|
|
+ \item Add cross-references between SC info and matched seeds/hits to ntuple
|
|
|
|
+ \item Suggestions from experts?
|
|
|
|
+ \end{itemize}
|
|
|
|
+\end{frame}
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+\end{document}
|