Linear Collider Forum

Home » Analysis and Reconstruction » Tracking & Vertexing » Fitting scheme
Re: Fitting scheme (part 2/2 for Martin) [message #2010 is a reply to message #2009] Wed, 02 June 2010 09:22 Go to previous message
Messages: 43
Registered: August 2007
Location: DESY Hamburg
Hi all

killenberg wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 06:23

I propose to explicitly state which residuals we refer to:

  • r_n : residual with all hits in the track fit
  • r_(n-1) : residual with the test hit excluded in track fit
  • r_geo : geometric mean of r_n and r_(n-1)
  • r_MC : residual to Monte Carlo truth as track
  • r_hod : residual to track from hodoscope

For the residual including and excluding the fit, I don't have much of an opinion. It is just definition how to call it.
I only used the names "distance" and "residual" in my thesis since its easy to write/read and to enunciate - at least a bit easier than with some kind of indices. And this definition spread in the DESY group.
But as I said, it was just a definition...

I would not call the geometric mean "r_geo", since it is the geometric mean of the widths of the two corresponding distributions. So IMHO, "sigma" would be more appropriate here to avoid confusion.
Or does anyone need the geometric mean of two residuals? At the moment, I don't see for what this could be used.

The rest of proposed naming is good.

CU, Ralf.
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic:TPC Tracks not being produced
Next Topic:Conditons Data for MarlinTPC
Goto Forum:

Current Time: Mon Mar 19 11:31:02 Pacific Daylight Time 2018
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.0.1.
Copyright ©2001-2010 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software