Home |

Short Presentation |

Mechanical Constraints |

Misalignment Studies |

Alignment Techniques |

Application to VELO |

C++ code |

Latest News |

Links |

Existing Alignment Techniques

1. Introduction

This short review only concerns alignment methods based on track parameters measurements. Indeed other methods, like interferometry, could be used. But in the VELO context (sensors in vacuum vessel,...) such methods are not applicable, and alignment by tracks is the most practical option.The main goal of alignment is to determine the real position of the subdetectors, in order to take into account this movements in the reconstruction code. Otherwise this one will assume that the subdetectors are in perfect positions, and then will not correctly estimate track parameters.

1. The alignment problem

The two part of Fig.1 illustrate the problem. We are here in a very simple case, with just one misalignment.

What happens in reality is described on the left figure. The particle (blue line) passing trough the real detector lets its signature: hits (red circles).

The hits are collected and used by the reconstruction code in order to reconstruct the track. If the alignment is not corrected, the reconstruction code will see the right figure, ie non-aligned hits. It will then reconstruct a bad quality track, or even no track at all if the misalignments are very large.

In any case, track parameters will be seriously affected. That's why alignment is mandatory.

2. Minimising the residuals

If we look again at the right figure, we see that the distances between the red circles and the fitted track (blue line), are larger than on the left figure. These distances are the residuals, and a good way to align our detector is to minimize them.The first idea is to fit a large number of tracks, and to plot the residuals for each subdetector (in the previous case for the five plates). The mean value of each residual distribution should then be centered on the misalignment value. We just have to correct the subdetector coordinates from this value, fit the track again, plot the residuals,... And so on until the residuals central values are stabilized at 0.

This method could be summarized with the following schedule:

2. Iterative alignment

Of course, in a normal case, there is more than one misaligned parameter, and residuals are a complex combination of the different misalignment sources. But if you modelize carefully this sources you would align your detector with a relatively good accuracy.

However, this method has some drawbacks. The principal problem is that it is iterative, and iterations are based on biased track fit results (fit with misaligned detector). Then, even if the method converges, it could leads to biased misalignment values (offsets to real values).

The solution is to avoid iterations, in order to avoid biasing the track fit. That means doing only few times the track fit. However nothing prevents us to fit the residuals once we have computed them. Non iteratives methods tends to go into this direction. That's the main subject of the next part.

3. Alignment in one step: fitting the residuals

When you fit a track in a misaligned environment, you had to consider two different types of fitted parameters:- Parameters related to the track properties (slope,...), determined by the track fit. These variables are different for each tracks, so they are called LOCAL parameters.
- Parameters which are not depending on the tracks, but on the detector position. Alignment parameters are clearly such variables. We call them GLOBAL parameters.

Taking into account global parameters could be handled in two ways:

- You perform the track fit WITH the global parameters. So your problem should be solved in one step because you don't have anymore residuals. This is the so-called MILLEPEDE approach, so far it has been used by CDF and HERA-b.
- You perform the track fit WITHOUT the global parameters. But then you fit the residuals, which are a combination of the global parameters. This technique has been developped by SLD for their vertex detector. Once you have the residuals, only one step is necessary.

3.1 How it works: Millepede ?

Millepede has been develloped by V. Blobel. The algorithm is based on a clever way to invert the final matrix, and on the assumption that . A very good introduction to Millepede formalism could be found in this Blobel's talk. If you want to start with something smoother, have a look at this talk.Anyway, the idea behind Millepede is to provide a tool to reduce the final matrix to a NglobalXNglobal dimensions (instead of the expected (Nglobal+NtrackXNlocal) size). Then, the way to invert this final matrix is up to you, and you could use an other method than the one provided by Millepede (Gauss elimination). The Singular Value Decomposition is a possibility among others.

3.2 How it works: SLD Method ?

SLD also exploit the fact that residuals are function of the global parameters, but doesn't perform global and local fits in the meantime.First of all, the local fits are performed, exactly like in the iterative methods. Then residuals are computed and fitted. The fitting functions are directly related to the global parameters. Once your residuals distributions have all been fitted, you obtain a global system where the unknowns are the global parameters.

This system leads usually to a non-square matrix, which could be inverted only using specific techniques. The most performant technique in this case is the Singular Value Decomposition, as it enables singular matrix inversion.

As for the Millepede technique, you obtain the final result in just one step.