EGamma_ElectronTrackingValidation/docs/presentations/2017_08_28/main.tex

% rubber: module pdftex

\documentclass[english,aspectratio=43,8pt]{beamer}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{siunitx}
\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage{marvosym}
\usepackage{verbatim}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}  % Needed for /sout

\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{October 4, 2017}

\titlegraphic{%
\begin{figure}
  \includegraphics[width=1in]{CMSlogo.png}\hspace{0.75in}\includegraphics[width=1in]{nebraska-n.png}
\end{figure}
}

\begin{frame}[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 Study window sizes for pixel matching
    % \item Implement 
    \item Previous talk\footnote{https://indico.cern.ch/event/616443/contributions/2669480/attachments/1496854/2329372/main.pdf} 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 Added additional detector information (Ladder/Blade) for matched hits
    \end{itemize}
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{Some Definitions}
  \begin{itemize}
    \item $\Delta \phi/z_{1}$ \-- Distance between \texttt{RecHit} and extrapolated impact position for first matched hit
    \item $\Delta \phi/z_{2}$ \-- Distance between \texttt{RecHit} and extrapolated impact position for second matched hit
    \item $\Delta \phi/z_1^{\textrm{sim}}$ \-- Distance between \texttt{RecHit} and \texttt{SimHit} for 1st innermost hit in \texttt{Seed}.
    \item $\Delta \phi/z_2^{\textrm{sim}}$ \-- Distance between \texttt{RecHit} and \texttt{SimHit} for 2nd innermost hit in \texttt{Seed}.
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{Comparing $\Delta \phi_1$ and $\Delta \phi_1^{\textrm{sim}}$ Resolution}
  \begin{columns}
    \begin{column}{0.4\textwidth}
      \begin{itemize}
        \item $\sigma_{\Delta \phi_1}/\sigma_{\Delta \phi_1^{\textrm{sim}}} \approx 175$
        \item But these are measuring quite different quantities!
        \item $\Delta \phi_1^{\textrm{sim}}$ is effectively just the single-hit pixel resultion
        \item While $\Delta \phi_1$ is affected by SC position/energy resolution and beam spot.
        \item So not really an apples-to-apples comparison.
      \end{itemize}
    \end{column}
    \begin{column}{0.6\textwidth}
      \begin{figure}
        \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/live/sc_ex_v_sim_phi1_B1.png}
      \end{figure}
    \end{column}
  \end{columns}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{Hits in BPIX Layers 1 and 2 }
  \begin{columns}
    \begin{column}{0.4\textwidth}
      \begin{itemize}
        \item Same as previous slide, but with Hits in BPIX L2 instead of L1.
        \item Note that $\sigma_{\Delta \phi_1}$ is almost unchanged from the L1 value (74.2 millirad)
        \item However, $\sigma_{\Delta \phi_1^{\textrm{sim}}}$ decreases by $\approx 1/r$
        \item This is because single-hit resultion is independent of layer.
      \end{itemize}
    \end{column}
    \begin{column}{0.6\textwidth}
      \begin{figure}
        \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/live/sc_ex_v_sim_phi1_B2.png}
      \end{figure}
    \end{column}
  \end{columns}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{What about 2nd \sout{Breakfast} Hits?}
  \begin{columns}
    \begin{column}{0.4\textwidth}
      \begin{itemize}
        \item $\sigma_{\Delta \phi_2^{\textrm{sim}}}$ is slightly smaller than $\sigma_{\Delta \phi_1^{\textrm{sim}}}$
        \item $\sigma_{\Delta \phi_2}$ is about 3.4 times smaller than  $\sigma_{\Delta \phi_1}$, but the width of the core is about the same.
        \item Interesting side-band feature. Do experts recognize this?
      \end{itemize}
    \end{column}
    \begin{column}{0.6\textwidth}
      \begin{figure}
        \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/live/sc_ex_v_sim_phi2_B2.png}
      \end{figure}
    \end{column}
  \end{columns}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{What about $\Delta z$?}
  \begin{columns}
    \begin{column}{0.4\textwidth}
      \begin{itemize}
        \item The distribution of $\Delta z_1$ is essentially flat within the window ($\pm 0.5$ cm).
        \item Not surprising due to the rough extrapolation and high likelihood of unrelated hits in area of extrapolated point.
      \end{itemize}
    \end{column}
    \begin{column}{0.6\textwidth}
      \begin{figure}
        \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/live/sc_ex_v_sim_z1_B1.png}
      \end{figure}
    \end{column}
  \end{columns}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}{And finally, what about $\Delta z$ for second hits?}
  \begin{columns}
    \begin{column}{0.4\textwidth}
      \begin{itemize}
        \item Current window size ($\pm 900 \mu$m) still seems appropriate, but maybe could be optimized?
        \item $\Delta z_2^{\textrm{sim}}$ resolution almost identical to $\Delta z_1^{\textrm{sim}}$
        \item Implies single-hit resulation is independent of whether the hit is the 1st or 2nd innermost in seed
      \end{itemize}
    \end{column}
    \begin{column}{0.6\textwidth}
      \begin{figure}
        \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/live/sc_ex_v_sim_z2_B2.png}
      \end{figure}
    \end{column}
  \end{columns}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{Outlook}
  \begin{itemize}
    \item Equivalent studies for FPIX
    \item Define and measure efficiencies
    \item Optimize window sizes
    \item Test triplet (instead of pair) matching
    \item Suggestions from experts?
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}[noframenumbering]
  \centering
  {\Huge BACKUP }
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}[noframenumbering]{Gsf Electron Seeding I}
  \begin{columns}
  \begin{column}{0.75\textwidth}
    \begin{figure}
      \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{diagrams/Gsf_Seeding1.png}
    \end{figure}
  \end{column}
  \begin{column}{0.25\textwidth}
    \begin{figure}
      \hspace{-1in}
      \vspace{-1in}
      \includegraphics[width=1.8\textwidth]{diagrams/window1.png}
    \end{figure}
  \end{column}
  \end{columns}
  \vfill
  \footnotesize{Windows from \url{https://indico.cern.ch/event/611042/contributions/2464057/attachments/1406271/2148742/ElectronTracking30112016.pdf}}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}[noframenumbering]{Gsf Electron Seeding II}
  \begin{columns}
  \begin{column}{0.66\textwidth}
    \begin{figure}
      \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{diagrams/Gsf_Seeding2.png}
    \end{figure}
  \end{column}
  \begin{column}{0.33\textwidth}
    \begin{figure}
      \hspace{-0.75in}
      \vspace{1in}
      \includegraphics[width=1.5\textwidth]{diagrams/window2.png}
    \end{figure}
  \end{column}
  \end{columns}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}[noframenumbering]{Gsf Electron Seeding III}
  \begin{center}
    \begin{figure}
      \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{diagrams/Gsf_Seeding3.png}
    \end{figure}
  \end{center}
\end{frame}

\end{document}