...
The first step is to compare against the event selection that Bill does. The results seem very comparable. One possible difference is that IM truncates it's floating point precision.
BILL PASS7 | SIG | BKG |
---|---|---|
RibbonCut_p7 | 99.66% (99.66%) | 88.38% (88.38%) |
CornerCut_p7 | 98.25% (98.59%) | 83.70% (94.70%) |
BasicTileCut_p7 | 90.19% (91.79%) | 16.04% (19.16%) |
TotalTileEnergyCut_p7 | 85.42% (94.71%) | 6.269% (39.09%) |
VetoTileCut_p7 | 84.37% (98.77%) | 4.384% (69.94%) |
TileEdgeCut_p7 | 84.29% (99.91%) | 4.312% (98.35%) |
ALEX PASS7 | SIG | BKG |
---|---|---|
RibbonCut_p7 | 99.6% (99.6%) – 121159 | 89.25% (89.25%) – 159950 |
CornerCut_p7 | 98.29% (98.68%) – 119564 | 85.81% (96.15%) – 153790 |
BasicTileCut_p7 | 92.64% (94.25%) – 112691 | 13.95% (16.26%) – 25009 |
TotalTileEnergyCut_p7 | 86.39% (93.25%) – 105089 | 7.007% (50.21%) – 12558 |
VetoTileCut_p7 | 84.8% (98.16%) – 103159 | 4.951% (70.66%) – 8873 |
TileEdgeCut_p7 | 84.74% (99.93%) – 103084 | 4.884% (98.65%) – 8753 |
...
Selection Efficiency as a Function of Energy
Name | Solo Individual Selection | Selection with Respect to Complement |
---|---|---|
RibbonVeto |
|
|
CornerVeto |
|
|
BasicTileVeto |
|
|
TotalTileEnergyVeto |
|
|
TkrVTileVeto |
|
|
TileEdgeVeto |
|
|
...
PASS7 ACD2 | SIG | BKG |
---|---|---|
RibbonCut2_p7 | 99.01% (99.01%) – 60482 | 89.9% (89.9%) – 50790 |
CornerCut2_p7 | 97.99% (98.96%) – 59856 | 86.69% (96.43%) – 48978 |
BasicTileCut2_p7 | 92.92% (94.83%) – 56760 | 22.73% (26.22%) – 12843 |
TotalTileEnergyCut2_p7 | 86.05% (92.61%) – 52566 | 13.42% (59.03%) – 7581 |
VetoTileCut2_p7 | 82.59% (95.98%) – 50452 | 9.709% (72.35%) – 5485 |
TileEdgeCut2_p7 | 82.54% (99.94%) – 50421 | 9.693% (99.84%) – 5476 |
Cal1ConeCut_p8 | 80.34% (97.33%) – 49073 | 4.461% (46.02%) – 2520 |
PASS8 | SIG | BKG | |
---|---|---|---|
RibbonVeto_p8 | 99.5% (99.5%) | 89.9% (89.9%) | VetoHit1Cut_p8 | 95.12%
CornerVeto_p8 | 98.6% (99.1%) | 86.9% (96.6%) | |
Tkr1SigmaVeto_p8 | 93.3% (94.7%) | 22.5% (25.9%) | |
TkrSigmaHitVeto_p8 | 88.7% (95%) | 16.6% (73.7%) | |
Tkr1ConeVeto_p8 | 83.7% (94.3%) | 10.5% (63.6%) | |
Cal1ConeVeto_p8 | 81.7% (97.6%) | 4.96% (47.1%) |
Wiki Markup |
---|
{htmlcomment:hidden} || OLD PASS8 || SIG || BKG || | VetoHit1Cut_p8 | 95.12% (95.12%) |
...
-- 58105 | 26.2% (26.2%) |
...
-- 14802 | | TotalTileEnergyCut_p8 |
...
| 86.53% (90.96%) |
...
-- 52855 | 12.83% (48.99%) |
...
-- 7251 | | VetoGap1Cut_p8 |
...
| 86.36% (99.8%) |
...
-- 52750 | 12.65% (98.52%) |
...
-- 7144 | | VetoHitCut_p8 |
...
| 85.53% (99.05%) |
...
-- 52247 | 12.06% (95.34%) |
...
-- 6811 | | Cal1ConeCut_p8 |
...
| 82.85% (96.86%) |
...
-- 50609 | 5.245% (43.5%) |
...
-- 2963 |
{htmlcomment} |
The power of the Cal1ConeCut comes from the fact that the majority of the residual background is sneaking through the bottom of the TKR. The direction of these events is poorly reconstructed since, especially at high energy, the longest straightest track will often come from back-splash. On the other hand, the CAL axis will point along the direction of the incident particle causing the ACD to query the proper tiles.
...
Selection Efficiency as a Function of Energy
Name | Solo Individual Selection | Selection with Respect to Complement |
---|---|---|
RibbonVeto |
|
|
CornerVeto |
|
|
Tkr1SigmaVeto |
|
|
TkrSigmaHitVeto |
|
|
Tkr1ConeVeto |
|
|
Cal1ConeVeto |
|
|
Sequential Cuts Selections (Sig) | Sequential Cuts Selections (Bkg) |
---|---|
|
|