1: \documentstyle[psfig,12pt]{aipproc}

2: \pagestyle{plain}

3: \setlength{\textheight}{9.7in}

4: 

5: \tolerance = 10000

6: 

7: \newcommand{\grad}{$^{\circ}$}

8: \newcommand{\vsp}{\vspace{0.125in}}

9: \newcommand{\hsp}{\hspace{0.15in}}

10: \newcommand{\gcm}{~g/cm$^3$~}

11: \newcommand{\gcms}{~g/cm$^2$~}

12: 

13: \newcommand{\muea}{\mbox{\sl $\mu^{-} A \rightarrow e^{-}$ A }}

14: \newcommand{\apr}{$\simeq$~}

15: 

16: %\pagenumbering{arabic}

17: 

18: \begin{document}

19: 

20: \title{ KALMAN FILTER BASED TRACKER STUDY FOR $\mu e$ - CONVERSION EXPERIMENT }

21: 

22: 

23: \author{Rashid M. Djilkibaev \thanks{Permanent address: Institute for Nuclear

24:  Research, 60-th Oct. pr. 7a, Moscow 117312, Russia}$^{,2}$, Rostislav V. Konoplich$^{2,3}$}

25:  \address{$^{2}$Department of Physics,

26:  New York University,

27:  New York, NY 10003 \\

28:  $^{3}$Manhattan College, Riverdale, New York, NY, 10471}

29: \maketitle

30: 

31: 

32: \begin{abstract}

33: The search for muon to electron conversion 

34: with a sensitivity of the order $10^{-17}$ requires a several order of magnitude

35: increase in muon intensity and a high resolution,

36: $\sigma \simeq$  0.1 MeV/c of the electron's momentum.

37: 

38: We present results of a pattern recognition  and track momentum

39: reconstruction algorithm that relies on a Kalman filter approach. 

40: Background from captured protons, neutrons, 

41: photons and from muon decay in orbit were generated by GEANT. 

42: The effective average 

43: straw tube background rate was 800 kHz.

44: 

45: The pattern recognition proceeds in two stages.

46: In the first, simple considerations using only  

47: straw tube center coordinates, without drift time information, were

48: applied to reduce the background to a manageable level. 

49: Then the drift time information is incorporated and a Deterministic Annealing Filter

50: applied to reach the final level of background suppression and 

51: to provide a starting 

52: point for the track momentum reconstruction using the Kalman filter.

53: This procedure reduces the simulated background by a factor 800

54: with small,(2.7\%), losses in real tracker hits.

55:  

56: The momentum resolution of the tracker is $\sigma $ = 0.12 MeV/c 

57: and the acceptance for muon conversion events with momentum

58: above 103.6 MeV/c is 22\%. These numbers do not differ significantly 

59: from the values obtained without background.

60: 

61: The expected number of events from muon decay in orbit (main background) 

62: in which the

63: decay electron has momentum greater than 100 MeV/c is 0.3, compared

64: to 6.5 $\mu e$ - conversion events above the same threshold 

65: for $R_{\mu e} = 10^{-16}$.

66: 

67: \end{abstract}

68: 

69: 

70: \section{Introduction}

71: 

72: The observation of $\mu e$ - conversion would provide the first

73: direct evidence for lepton flavor violation in charged lepton sector 

74: and require new physics,

75: beyond the Standard Model (see ~\cite{kuno} and references therein). 

76: Lepton flavor is not conserved in neutrino oscillations but the

77: modifications to the Standard Model to include the small neutrino

78: masses do not lead to an appreciable rate for $\mu e$ - conversion 

79: 

80: 

81: \begin{center}

82: $\mu^{-} + N \to e^{-} + N$ .

83: \end{center}

84:  

85: This process violates the lepton flavor numbers, $L_{e}$ and $L_{\mu}$,

86: but conserves the total lepton number. The signature of the process is very

87: clear: a single monochromatic electron in the final state with the energy 

88: close to the muon mass:

89: 

90: \begin{center}

91: $E_{e} = m_{\mu} - B_{\mu} - E_{rec}$ 

92: \end{center}

93: where $m_{\mu}$ is a muon mass, $ B_{\mu}$ is a binding energy of the

94: 1s muonic atom, $E_{rec}$ is a nuclear recoil energy. 

95: 

96: The SINDRUM II collaboration at PSI has carried out a program of experiments to 

97: search for $\mu e$ - conversion in various nuclei. They find that at 

98: 90\% CL the upper limit for the reaction $\mu^{-} + Ti \to e^{-} + Ti$

99: is $6.1\times 10^{-13}$ ~\cite{psi}. In this experiment muons were accumulated

100: at a rate of $10^{7} \mu^{-}/sec$. According to preliminary results 

101: ~\cite{psigold} for the reaction $\mu^{-} + Au \to e^{-} + Au$

102: a single event sensitivity is $3.3\times 10^{-13}$

103: 

104: In ~\cite{rashid} an idea of increasing of muon beam intensity

105: by a few orders of magnitude up to $10^{11} \mu^{-}/sec$ based on the 

106: solenoid-capture scheme was discussed and MELC experiment was proposed

107: ~\cite{abadj} with a goal to reach a sensitivity of the order $10^{-17}$.

108:  

109: A new $\mu e$ - conversion experiment MECO (Muon Electron COnversion) E-940

110: ~\cite{bnl}, exploiting the idea of the solenoid-capture scheme,

111: is under preparation at BNL. MECO aims to search for 

112: $\mu^{-} + Al \to e^{-} + Al$ with a single event sensitivity 2$\times$$10^{-17}$. It will

113: use a new high-intensity pulsed muon beam, which could yield about

114: $10^{11} \mu^{-}/sec$ stopped in a target. 

115: 

116: Also the PRIME (PRISM MuE conversion) working group at KEK expressed an

117: interest ~\cite{prime} to carry out a search for lepton flavor violation

118: in $\mu e$ - conversion in a muonic atom at a sensitivity of 

119: $10^{-18}$ using a proposed high intensity pure muon source of

120: $10^{11} - 10^{12} \mu^{-}/sec$ .  

121: 

122: In this article we develop a pattern recognition and  track reconstruction

123: procedure 

124: based on the Kalman filter technique for a transverse version of tracker for MECO

125: experiment. 

126: 

127: This paper is organized as follows: In section 2 the 

128: transverse tracker is described and the advantages of the tracker discussed.

129: In Section 3 possible backgrounds are discussed and  the 

130: procedure of background simulation briefly explained. 

131: In Section 4 the pattern recognition

132: procedure is developed. 

133: At this stage a deterministic annealing 

134: filter (DAF) is applied to make a final background 

135: suppression and provide a starting 

136: point for track momentum reconstruction by the Kalman 

137: filter technique. Section 5 describes the procedure of momentum 

138: reconstruction based on the Kalman filter. Results of the pattern 

139: recognition and momentum reconstruction are presented in this 

140: section. A brief summary outlook can be found in 

141: Section 6. The appendices provide a more detailed look at Kalman filter and deterministic

142: annealing filter. Also tracker resolution is discussed in Appendix.  

143: 

144: \section{The Transverse Tracker Description}

145: 

146: The goal of the MECO tracker is to detect the electron from $\mu e$ - conversion

147: with large acceptance and measure its momentum 

148: with high resolution ($\sigma  \simeq$  0.1 MeV/c).

149: The tracker is located in a uniform 1T magnetic field. 

150: The minimal tracker length is defined by the following

151: requirements:

152: 

153: Background electrons with an energy around 105 MeV  are produced

154: by cosmic rays  in the wall between the transport and detector

155: solenoids. These electrons cannot have a pitch angle $\theta$ in

156: the tracker greater than $45^{o}$, due to the adiabatic character

157: of charge particle movement. To suppress the  cosmic ray

158: background we require that measured pitch angle $\theta_{min}$ for

159: signal events to be more than $45^{o}$.

160: 

161: To get more redundancy for signal events we require that the measured

162: trajectory should have two full turns. This requirement sets

163: limits on the minimal tracker length, which is

164: expressed as:

165: 

166: \begin{center}

167: $ L_{Tracker}^{min} = 4 \cdot \pi \cdot 1/2.998 \cdot P \cdot cos(\theta_{min})/B \simeq

168:   4.19 \cdot 105 \cdot 0.707$/1.0 $\simeq$ 310 cm

169: \end{center}

170: where P is a muon conversion momentum (MeV/c) and B is a magnetic

171: field (1 Tesla) in the tracker region.

172: 

173: The tracker consists of 18 modules spaced  17 cm apart. A module

174: consists of 6 planes, each turned at 30$^{o}$ and shifted 2.5 cm

175: relative to the previous one (Figure ~\ref{fig:setup}). A plane

176: consists of two trapezoidal chambers of  width 30 cm and lengths

177: 70 to 130 cm in an up and down configuration. 

178: The chamber coordinate systems are defined by a

179: rotation  angle proportional to 30$^{o}$ giving an effective

180: ``stereo'' of crossed directions for 12 different views.

181: 

182: A protective sheath is used to suppress background Compton

183: electrons from a chamber frame. 

184: The protective sheath makes nonsensitive a small

185: region of the anode wire near the frame.

186: 

187: The chamber consists of one layer of straw tubes (60 straws) of 5

188: mm diameter, and length varying from 70 cm to 130 cm. The total

189: number of chambers is 216. The chamber sensitive area starts from

190: 38 cm radius. The straws are assumed to have wall 

191: thickness 15  $\mu$m and are

192: constructed of kapton. The total thickness of each chamber is 9

193: mg/$cm^2$. The total number of the tracker straws is 12960. The

194: tracker length is 302 cm. A signal from the straw anode wire 

195: will be used to get drift time.

196: 

197: The Al target is tapered in the downstream direction, with 5 cm

198: disk spacing and radii from 8.3 cm to 6.53 cm. The target is

199: placed in the graded portion of the DS magnetic field, with the

200: first disk at 1.75 T and the last at 1.3 T. Protons from the muon

201: capture are absorbed in three concentric polyethylene absorbers: a

202: conical tube of dimensions $R_{1}$ = 46 cm, $R_{2}$ = 70 cm, L =

203: 260 cm and a tube (R = 70 cm, L = 200 cm) both have thickness 3

204: mm, and a tube of smaller radius (R = 36 cm, L = 235 cm) of

205: thickness 0.5 mm which are placed  before the tracker.

206: 

207: \begin{figure}[htb!]

208: \centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=tracker.eps,height=3.5in,clip=on}}}

209:   \caption{

210:   Schematic drawing of the tracker design.

211:  }

212: \label{fig:setup}

213: \end{figure}

214: 

215: \bigskip

216: The transverse tracker is to be compared with a

217: longitudinal version that MECO is also considering. 

218: The longitudinal tracker ~\cite{bnl} consists 

219: of an octagonal array of eight detector planes placed symmetrically 

220: around the Detector Solenoid axis, plus eight more planes projecting 

221: radially outward from each vertex of the octagon. Each plane consists of

222: resistive straws approximately 300 cm long. A hit position 

223: in the radial and azimuthal direction is determined by the straw

224: position and the drift time on the anode wire. The hit position in 

225: the axial direction is determined by the centroid of the imaged charge 

226: from the anode wire, as collected on cathode pads.    

227: 

228: The transverse tracker would have several advantages in comparison with a

229: longitudinal one since: 

230: 

231: \noindent

232: $\bullet$ Normal non resistive straws are used without a pad system. \\

233: $\bullet$ Gas manifolds, straw end-caps and chamber supports are

234: all outside the conversion electron trajectories. \\

235: $\bullet$ Shorter straws (0.7 - 1.3 m) are technically easier to build

236: and are more robust against instability than longitudinal straws of 3 m.\\

237: $\bullet$ Complications from the small tilt of each plane of the longitudinal

238: tracker with respect to the magnetic field are avoided.\\

239: $\bullet$ Transverse geometry provides a simple signature of an event since

240: charged particles cross a single straw only once.\\

241: $\bullet$ There  is a significant simplification dealing 

242: only with single chamber hits points.\\

243: $\bullet$ The average number of spatially separated hits is a few times greater in  

244: comparison with the number of  spatially separated clusters in the longitudinal 

245: tracker. The hits are distributed uniformly in

246: lobes along the transverse tracker.\\

247: $\bullet$ The transverse tracker presents less material in the case of

248: 15 $\mu$m straw wall thickness. The effective total thickness is

249: 29*(15+2)*3.14 = 1550 $\mu$m versus longitudinal tracker 8*3.5*25*3.14 = 2200 $\mu$m.\\

250: $\bullet$ The pattern recognition  can be performed with good precision

251: even without drift time and amplitude information.\\

252: $\bullet$ The Cu layer covering straw tubes suppresses significantly gas diffusion

253: through a straw wall.\\

254: $\bullet$ Capacitive crosstalk  between channels is small.\\

255: $\bullet$ Low energy Compton electron backgrounds have distinguished signature.\\

256: 

257: 

258: \section{Background simulation}  

259: 

260: Our analysis is based on a full GEANT simulation taking into account an

261: individual straw structure.

262: Multiple scattering and energy loss are taken into account. 

263: Isobutane ($C_{4}H_{10}$) gas is assumed to fill the tubes. 

264: 

265: For the subsequent analysis we take only events satisfying the

266: following criteria: number of hits in the tracker is greater than 15;

267: MC simulated energy release in the calorimeter is greater than 80 MeV;

268: pitch angle is greater than 45 $^{0}$. That leaves about $35\%$ of

269: the original events.

270: 

271: The primary sources of charged particles in the tracker detector

272: during the detection time are protons, neutrons and photons from

273: muon capture by $^{27}Al$ nuclei and electrons from muon decay in

274: orbit.

275: The average and peak tracker rates from

276: different backgrounds are presented in Table ~~\ref{table:tab1}.

277: The main source of background to muon conversion is  muon decay in orbit (DIO).

278: 

279: \begin{center}

280: \begin{table}[htb!]

281: \caption { The Average and Peak (in parenthesis) Tracker  Rates }

282: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|}

283: \hline

284: Processes&proton&neutron &$\gamma$ &DIO & DIO\\

285:  & & & &$<$ 55 MeV &$>$ 55MeV\\

286: \hline

287: Particles/process & 0.1 & 1.2 & 1.8 & 0.9945 & $5.5 \cdot 10^{-3}$ \\

288: Particles/nsec & $120 (170)\times 0.1$ &$120 (170)\times 1.2$ &$120 (170) \times

289: 1.8$ &80 (115) & 80 (115)\\

290: \hline

291: Prob. Particle to Hit Tracker&$ 1.08 \cdot 10^{-2}$&$0.92 \cdot 10^{-3}$

292: &$0.9 \cdot 10^{-3}$ & $4.0 \cdot 10^{-4}$ & $1.4 \cdot 10^{-2}$\\

293: \hline

294: Events in Tracker/30ns&3.9 (5.5) &4.0 (5.6) &5.9 (8.2) &1.0 (1.4) & 0.2 (0.3)\\

295: \hline

296: Straws on in Tracker/event &14.0 &5.2 &31.0 & 15.7 & 4.3\\

297: \hline

298: Straw Rate (kHz)&140 (200) &53 (75) &470 (650) &40 (56) & 2.2 (3.3)\\

299: \hline

300: \end{tabular}

301: \label{table:tab1}

302: \end{table}

303: \end{center}

304: 

305: 

306: 

307: To study the tracker performance in the presence of the background

308: the number of muon conversion events ($10^5$) with

309: initial momentum  of conversion electrons produced

310: in the target (105 MeV/c) was simulated and saved to a data file.

311: The expected number of

312: DIO events during the experiment time ($10^7$ sec) in

313: this region is $5.2 \cdot 10^4 $ events above 100 MeV/c. 

314: 

315: To study the main background 

316: the number of simulated  DIO events 

317: in this energy region  was chosen to be ten times greater.

318: Five different random backgrounds (protons, neutrons, photons and

319: DIO (see Table ~\ref{table:tab1}) were generated and saved to data

320: files. 

321: 

322: The  numbers in the table are the result of a GEANT simulations

323: at the anticipated beam intensity,

324: with no artificial increase as a  safety factor.

325: No suppression was added for rejection of

326: heavy ionization particles.

327: 

328: Background was taken from the data files and added to

329: conversion events and DIO events above 100 MeV/c. For example, we

330: simulate the number of events N for the proton background

331: according to a Poisson distribution with average 3.9 

332: taken from background Table ~\ref{table:tab1}. Then we randomly

333: pick-up N accidental proton events from the corresponding data

334: file and add these events to the muon conversion  or DIO event. 

335: In the

336: same way the above procedure is repeated for all background types.

337: 

338: 

339: 

340: In Figure ~\ref{fig:nrb} distributions in the number of real and background 

341: tracker hits are shown. 

342: The average number of real hits is 29.  

343: The real hits distribution starts from 15 hits, corresponding to 

344: the cut-off in the minimum number of selected hits. 

345: The maximum number of real tracker hits can reach 60.

346: The average number of background hits is 300 which corresponds to an average

347: straw rate about 800 kHz.

348: The distribution in the number of background hits is a broad one and

349: the maximum number of hits is about 900.   

350: 

351: 

352: 

353: \begin{figure}[htb!]

354: \centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=Nreal.eps,height=2.0in,clip=on}

355:                   \psfig{figure=Nback_t.eps,height=2.0in,clip=on}}}

356:  \caption{

357: Distributions in the number of real and background tracker hits. 

358:  }

359: \label{fig:nrb}

360: \end{figure}

361: 

362: 

363: \section{Pattern recognition}

364: 

365: 

366: 

367: There are twelve views in the tracker,

368: each separated from the previous by 30 degrees. In a typical

369: event, a two-dimensional projection of the helical trajectory, a

370: sine curve, is observed in three or four of the views. There are

371: approximately 10 hits in each view, and 29 hits in the

372: event. The hits are grouped in lobes (see Figure ~\ref{fig:sin1}) with a typical

373: gap between lobes about 60 cm (in these gaps an electron travels in vacuum).

374: Therefore in the sensitive area of the tracker one gets track segments 

375: but not a complete track and the problem of combining information

376: from different lobes arises. Since in a given view at least 4 hits 

377: are required to reconstruct four parameters describing a 

378: two-dimensional projection of helix often it is not possible to get helix

379: parameters for a track segment in a single lobe and than to apply

380: track element merging strategy. Quite opposite one has to use

381: hits from different lobes for pattern recognition and then for

382: momentum reconstruction. We will show that an appropriate mathematical 

383: approach allows to resolve the problem..      

384: 

385: The sinusoidal projection of helix is described by four parameters:

386: $x_{0}^{\prime }$ , $z_{0}^{\prime }$, $R_{L}$, $R_{T}$,

387: 

388: \begin{equation}

389: x_{i}^{\prime }=x_{0}^{\prime }+R_{T}\cos (\frac{z_{i}-z_{0}^{\prime }}{R_{L}%

390: })

391:  \label{eq0}

392: \end{equation}

393: 

394: where importantly,  $R_{L}$ and $R_{T}$, related to the longitudinal and transversal

395: momenta, and z coordinate are common to all projections. Coordinate $x^{\prime}$ is 

396: defined in a system for each given view.

397: 

398: A simple and powerful reconstruction strategy

399: starts from a single chamber view. To determine the parameters in this view a minimum of four

400: hits are required.

401: The  total momentum and  momentum  pitch angle are determined.

402: 

403: \begin{figure}[htb!]

404: \centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=sin1.eps,height=2.5in,clip=on}}}

405:   \caption{

406:   Lobes in the tracker.

407:  }

408: \label{fig:sin1}

409: \end{figure}

410: 

411: To find the five parameters describing the full 3-dimensional helix,

412:  one additional hit outside the plane is required:

413: 

414: \begin{equation}

415: x_{i}^{\prime }=x_{0}^{\prime }+R_{T}\cos (\frac{z_{i}-z_{0}^{\prime }}{R_{L}%

416: }); ~~~~~~~

417: y_{i}^{\prime }=y_{0}^{\prime }+R_{T}\sin (\frac{z_{i}-z_{0}^{\prime }}{R_{L}%

418: })

419:  \label{eq01}

420: \end{equation}

421: 

422: 

423: The mathematical procedure to find the parameters is the following one:\\

424: 

425: \noindent

426: $\bullet$ four hits from a single view are taken to give the system of equations

427: for helix parameters in the coordinate system related with the view.\\

428: $\bullet$ the system of four equations is reduced to a unique equation for $R_{L}$. \\

429: 

430: \begin{equation}

431: \Delta x_{24}S_{43}S_{41}S_{31}+\Delta x_{14}S_{43}S_{42}S_{23}+\Delta

432: x_{34}S_{41}S_{42}S_{12}=0  \label{eq2}

433: \end{equation}

434: 

435: where $\Delta x_{ij}=x_{i}^{\prime }-x_{j}^{\prime }$ , $S_{ij}=\sin

436: ((z_{i}-z_{j})/2R_{L}).$

437: \\

438: \noindent

439: $\bullet$ the equation is solved for $R_{L}$ numerically by the Newton-Raphson method.\\

440: $\bullet$ the parameters are expressed in terms of $R_{L}$. \\

441: 

442: \begin{equation}

443: \tan (z_{0}^{\prime }/R_{L})=\frac{\Delta x_{14}S_{43}\sin

444: ((z_{4}+z_{3})/2R_{L})-\Delta x_{34}S_{41}\sin ((z_{4}+z_{1})/2R_{L})}{%

445: \Delta x_{14}S_{43}\cos ((z_{4}+z_{3})/2R_{L})-\Delta x_{34}S_{41}\cos

446: ((z_{4}+z_{1})/2R_{L})}  \label{eq3}

447: \end{equation}

448: 

449: \[

450: R_{T}=\frac{\Delta x_{12}}{c_{1}-c_{2}}

451: \]

452: 

453: \[

454: x_{0}^{\prime }=\frac{x_{2}c_{1}-x_{1}c_{2}}{c_{1}-c_{2}}

455: \]

456: 

457: where $c=\cos ((z_{i}-z_{0}^{\prime })/R_{L}).$

458: \\

459: \noindent

460: 

461: $\bullet$ a fifth hit from a different view is included to

462: obtain the remaining parameters of helix. \\

463: 

464: 

465: \begin{equation}

466: x_{0}=\frac{1}{\sin (\alpha ^{\prime \prime }-\alpha ^{\prime })}\left\{

467: x_{0}^{\prime }\sin \alpha ^{\prime \prime }-[x_{5}^{\prime \prime

468: }-R_{T}\cos (\frac{z_{5}-z_{0}}{R_{L}}-\alpha ^{\prime \prime })]\sin

469: (\alpha ^{\prime })\right\}   \label{eq7}

470: \end{equation}

471: 

472: \begin{equation}

473: y_{0}=\frac{-1}{\sin (\alpha ^{\prime \prime }-\alpha ^{\prime })}\left\{

474: x_{0}^{\prime }\cos \alpha ^{\prime \prime }-[x_{5}^{\prime \prime

475: }-R_{T}\cos (\frac{z_{5}-z_{0}}{R_{L}}-\alpha ^{\prime \prime })]\cos

476: (\alpha ^{\prime })\right\} .  \label{eq8}

477: \end{equation}

478: 

479: where $\alpha ^{\prime }$ ($\alpha ^{\prime \prime }$) is the angle of

480: rotation from the global system to a given chamber system,

481: 

482: \begin{equation}

483: z_{0}=z_{0}^{\prime }-\alpha ^{\prime }R_{L}.  \label{eq6}

484: \end{equation}

485: 

486: 

487: It is important to note that the consideration of several lobes 

488: (see Figure ~\ref{fig:sin1}) allows calculation of the

489: longitudinal radius $R_{L}$ with high precision $\Delta P/P

490: \approx 10^{-4}$ due to the large distance between the lobes in

491: comparison with their size.

492: 

493: 

494: A two stage procedure was developed to provide the pattern

495: recognition in the transverse tracker:\\

496: 

497: $\bullet$ {\bf pattern recognition without drift time.} At this step only

498: information on centers of straw hits is used. The parameters of

499: the reconstructed average helix are considered as a starting point

500: to find an approximate helix

501: which fits the straw hit centers.\\

502: 

503: $\bullet$ {\bf pattern recognition with drift time.} A deterministic annealing 

504: filter DAF  ~\cite{daf} ~is applied to make a final background 

505: suppression and provide a starting 

506: point for track momentum reconstruction by the Kalman 

507: filter technique ~\cite{rkalm}, ~\cite{kalman}. 

508: 

509: 

510: \subsection*{Pattern recognition  without drift time information}

511: 

512: In the first level  of the analysis procedure (the straw hit center

513: approximation) only centers of straw hits were used as chamber hit

514: coordinates $x^{\prime}$, z.

515: It was assumed that there is only one useful muon conversion 

516: or DIO track. 

517: 

518: 

519: It is important to note that the straw hits allow us to

520: reconstruct the helix parameters with high precision even without

521: drift time information. Indeed, the uncertainty in the helix

522: radius $\Delta R_{T}$ is approximately  $\sigma \sim D/\sqrt12

523: \approx$ 0.14 cm for the diameter of a straw tube $D = $5 mm. The

524: average helix radius for muon conversion events is $R_T \sim $ 25

525: cm . We can therefore expect the momentum resolution $\Delta P/P 

526: \sim 0.5 - 1\%$

527: for a straw diameter of 5 mm.

528: It is worth noting that  using straw tube center positions

529: without drift time information we can reconstruct the total

530: momentum with the standard deviation $\sigma $ = 0.45 MeV/c for 

531: a straw diameter of 5 mm.

532: 

533: \begin{figure}[htb!]

534: \centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=pin_100k.eps,height=3.0in,clip=on}}}

535:  \caption{

536:  Momentum distribution of electrons entering the tracker.

537:  }

538: \label{fig:Pin}

539: \end{figure}

540: 

541: 

542: \bigskip

543: 

544:  The initial momentum distribution of electrons entering the

545: tracker and satisfying the criteria mentioned above is shown in

546: Figure ~\ref{fig:Pin}. This distribution is the a narrow one 

547: and  can be fitted by a Gaussian with a

548: standard deviation $\sigma $ = 0.21 MeV/c  and average momentum

549: P$_{in}$ = 104.4 MeV/c in the range 104.2 MeV/c - 105 MeV/c. 

550: The width of

551: the initial distribution of electrons is small in comparison with

552: the total width of the momentum distribution reconstructed in the

553: straw hit center approximation.

554: 

555: In Figure  ~\ref{fig:sel_0} an initial map of real and background tracker 

556: hits in all tracker's views is shown as an example for a first simulated  event.

557: We will call it the sample event in the following.

558: The number of real tracker hits is 29 and the number of background 

559: hits is 260 in this event. The real hits are depicted as cyan spots 

560: and the background ones are shown as red spots. Note that in the 

561: figure all 12 views were joined in one for all 18 tracker modules. 

562: 

563: \begin{figure}[htb!]

564: \centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=sel_0.eps,height=2.5in,clip=on}}}

565:  \caption{

566:  Plot of real + background tracker hits before the selection procedure.

567:  }

568: \label{fig:sel_0}

569: \end{figure}

570: 

571: One can see from the initial distribution of tracker hits that 

572: some of background hits are concentrated along straight lines

573: ( Figure  ~\ref{fig:sel_0}) providing a typical signature of Compton 

574: electrons from photon background.

575: 

576:  The procedure of the pattern recognition and

577: fitting without drift time in the presence of background 

578: can be described by the following steps:

579: 

580: 

581: \bigskip

582: 1) {\bf Rejection of hits produced by Compton electrons.} \\

583: 

584: 

585: $\bullet$ 

586: A grouping containing 6 modules is taken for a given view. If in

587: this grouping there are $N_{1}>2$ hits with the same tube number

588: (same straw (x$^{\prime}$) coordinate) the corresponding hit numbers 

589: are recorded. 

590: If, in a second  grouping displaced by one module from the first, 

591: there are $N_{2}>2$ hits with the

592: same tube numbers as at the initial position of the grouping then 

593: hits from the first and the second grouping are marked as Compton electron hits. The 

594: procedure is repeated in forward and backward directions. At the

595: end of this step all marked hits are temporary removed from

596: the following analysis. This selection typically reduces twofold the number of 

597: background hits. 

598: Also about 5$\% $ of

599: the real hits are rejected by the procedure 

600: but later they can be restored. 

601: 

602: 

603: Figure  ~\ref{fig:sel_1} demonstrates the remaining tracker hits after application

604: of the rejection procedure to the sample event. The suppression of background hits 

605: is evident.    

606: 

607: \begin{figure}[htb!]

608: \centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=sel_1.eps,height=2.5in,clip=on}}}

609:  \caption{

610:  Plot of real + background tracker hits after the first selection procedure.

611:  }

612: \label{fig:sel_1}

613: \end{figure}

614: 

615: \bigskip

616: 

617: 2) {\bf Selection based on calorimeter and tracker hits.} \\

618: 

619: To reconstruct the helix parameters four hits are needed.

620: To reduce the number of four hit combinations 

621: the calorimeter hit is used in each combination. 

622: The  calorimeter coordinate resolution is $\sigma = 1.5$ cm which is

623: ten times greater than tracker hit resolution in the straw hit center

624: approximation. 

625: In spite of the poor coordinate calorimeter resolution 

626: it is possible to get a significant background suppression. 

627: 

628: This procedure is described by the following steps:

629: 

630: $\bullet$ For a given view all possible three hit

631: combinations are chosen and four hits are formed by adding 

632: a calorimeter hit to the three hit combinations.

633: The mathematical approach described above

634: is applied to four hits.

635: The algorithm allows us to calculate $R$ , $\cos \theta $ ,

636: $z_{0}^{\prime }$ , $x_{0}^{\prime }$ in the chamber system of

637: coordinates. Only the combinations that survive a cut-off in the

638: particle

639: momentum $p_{\min }=94MeV/c<p<p_{\max }=114MeV/c$ and pitch angle 

640: $\theta _{\min }=41.4^{\circ }<\theta <\theta _{\max }=66.4^{\circ }$ are

641: retained for subsequent analysis.

642: 

643: \bigskip

644: $\bullet$ A fifth hit from a different view than

645: the four hit combination is added. 

646: This allows us to calculate all 5 helix

647: parameters in the global system of coordinates. A cut-off in $x_{0}$ and 

648: $y_{0}$ is applied at this step to five hits.

649: The coordinates $x_{0}, y_{0}$ are required to be in an acceptable range

650:  $-40 < x_{0},y_{0} < 40 $ cm,

651: where the range is determined by the GEANT simulation  

652: 

653: 

654: \bigskip

655: $\bullet$ We look for hits correlated in 3 dimensions to choose

656: good five hit combinations. For each selected five hit

657: combination using the found helix parameters we reconstruct the

658: helix, calculate all crossings of the tracker chambers for the

659: reconstructed trajectory and define the total number of crossings

660: N. Then we calculate how many times M at least one tracker hit

661: matches the crossing in a road $\pm $ 3 cm. In an

662: ideal case M should be equal to N.

663: 

664: \bigskip

665: $\bullet$ The probability is evaluated to get M hits in the  road. 

666: The probability that M  of N crossings  are in the road

667: is estimated by a trial function

668: 

669: \[

670: \mathit{Prob

671: }=\frac{N!}{M!(N-M)!}\epsilon^{M}(1-\epsilon)^{N-M}

672: \]

673: 

674: where ~~$\epsilon$ is 

675: the probability of that there is a hit 

676: in the road within $\pm$3 cm.

677: 

678: If the total probability \textit{Prob} is greater than the threshold

679: probability then the

680: given helix is considered as a good candidate.

681: The threshold probability and ~$\epsilon$ were found empirically

682: to be 0.001 and 0.95, respectively.

683: 

684: As an output of the previous steps we get a collection of valid

685: five hit combinations (helices). 

686: An individual hit is kept if it is in any valid hit

687: combination, providing a list of good tracker hits. It is worth

688: emphasizing that, due to the strong spatial correlations between the

689: helix hits in comparison with the un-correlated background, the

690: number of false hits is reduced drastically on applying the

691: road requirement. On average the number of background hits is 

692: reduced due to this step by a factor 20. 

693:  

694: In Figure  ~\ref{fig:sel_2} 

695: the surviving hits are shown. 

696: The significant reduction of background hits can be seen by comparing 

697:  Figure  ~\ref{fig:sel_1} and  Figure  ~\ref{fig:sel_2}.

698: 

699: 

700: \begin{figure}[htb!]

701: \centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=sel_2.eps,height=2.5in,clip=on}}}

702:  \caption{

703:  Plot of real + background tracker hits after the second selection procedure.

704:  }

705: \label{fig:sel_2}

706: \end{figure}

707: 

708: 

709: 

710: Note that at this step no real hits are removed for the sample event. 

711: 

712: \bigskip

713: 

714: 

715: 3) {\bf Selection based on tracker hits.}\\

716: 

717: In this selection procedure the tracker hits found in step 2 are used.

718: This procedure repeats the previous one with the following changes:\\

719: 

720: $\bullet$ Hits are chosen only from the tracker hits which allows to

721: improve the performance of the selection procedure since tracker hit 

722: coordinates are defined significantly better than calorimeter hit 

723: coordinates. 

724: 

725: 

726: A plot of the number of four hit and five hit

727: combinations in the presence of the background (in average about 120 

728: and 630 respectively) is shown in Figure ~\ref{fig:comb} (a) and (b).

729: 

730: \begin{figure}[htb!]

731: \centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=3plus1.eps,height=2.0in,clip=on}

732:                   \psfig{figure=3plus2.eps,height=2.0in,clip=on}}}

733:  \caption{

734: Number of four hit and five hit combinations.

735:  }

736: \label{fig:comb}

737: \end{figure}

738: 

739: As seen in Figure ~\ref{fig:comb} these distributions are

740: broad ones reaching a few thousand combinations.

741: 

742: 

743: \bigskip

744: $\bullet$ For each five hit combination selected above we evaluate

745: the position of a hit in the

746: calorimeter $x_{eval}$ , z$_{eval}$ on the basis of the defined helix parameters.

747: The hit combination is accepted

748: only if the evaluated hit matches the calorimeter hit within a road : $%

749: \left| x_{calo}-x_{eval}\right| < 7 cm$ . 

750: 

751: 

752: $\bullet$ Parameters at this step are more

753: restrictive: the road width is taken to be 0.75 cm and the

754: probability to be within the road $\epsilon$ = 0.97. 

755: 

756:  Figure  ~\ref{fig:sel_3} shows tracker hits 

757: remaining after this step for the  sample event. 

758: The number of background hits is 

759: reduced typically by a factor 4 - 5 due to this step. 

760: 

761: 

762: \begin{figure}[htb!]

763: \centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=sel_3.eps,height=2.5in,clip=on}}}

764:  \caption{

765:  Plot of real + background tracker hits after the third selection procedure.

766:  }

767: \label{fig:sel_3}

768: \end{figure}

769: 

770: 

771: 

772: \bigskip

773: 4) {\bf Selection including restored tracker hits.} \\

774: 

775: $\bullet$ Some real tracker hits are lost

776: at previous steps of the procedure especially at Compton electron hits

777: rejection. To restore the lost hits an average helix for a given event is

778: reconstructed and tracker hits that match the average helix in a road

779: $\pm$1 straw are added to the list of valid tracker hits obtained above.

780: 

781: 

782: $\bullet$ Step 3 of the procedure is repeated for the extended list of tracker 

783: hits. On average the list of valid

784: hits is extended by 1 real and 2 background hits. 

785: 

786: 

787: $\bullet$ The union of all hits in valid five hit combinations 

788: in the extended list is

789: used to provide an input for an average helix.

790: A global fit is applied to reconstruct the helix parameters on the basis of

791: the list of the selected tracker hits and the parameters of the average helix are

792: considered as a starting point for the fit.  \\ 

793: 

794: In this section the pattern recognition procedure without drift time

795: based on the straw hit center approximation was developed.

796: In this approximation no ambiguity due to mirror hits arises 

797: and the total momentum is reconstructed  

798: with the standard deviation $\sigma $ = 0.45 MeV/c. 

799: The  selection procedure based on 3D space correlations between real

800: tracker hits inside the road significantly reduces background.

801: The overall background rejection factor is about 130

802: for the pattern recognition procedure without drift time.

803: 

804: 

805: 

806: \subsection*{Pattern recognition with drift time }

807: 

808: The second stage in the pattern recognition procedure uses the

809: fitted helix and drift time for hits selected at the first stage.

810: The reconstruction of helix parameters can be improved by taking

811: into account that in addition to a straw coordinate for

812: each hit a chamber gives the radius r calculated from the measured drift

813: time $t_{i}^{meas}$. The errors ($\sigma $) in radius measurements

814: were taken to be 0.2 mm. This radius r carries an ambiguity as to

815: whether the track passed left or right of the wire. The search of

816: two possible up and down hit positions lying on the circle of

817: radius r is based on the fitted helix obtained previously in the straw

818: hit center approximation. 

819: We can call these up and down points as true and mirror ones.

820: Up and down points are extracted (see

821: Figure ~\ref{fig:TTRS1}) from the intersections of a normal to the

822: helix through the straw center and the circle of the drift radius

823: r. In this case coordinates of up and down points are given by

824: 

825: \begin{equation}

826: x_{\prime} = x_{c} \mp r sin \beta ;

827: ~~~~~z = z_{c} \pm r cos \beta ;\\

828: ~~~~~tan\beta = -(R_{T}/R_{L})sin((z_c-z_{0}^{\prime})/R_{L})

829: \label{equpdown}

830: \end{equation}

831: 

832: \begin{figure}[htb!]

833: \centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=ttrs1.eps,height=2.2in,clip=on}}}

834:  \caption{

835:  Reconstruction of up and down points by the helix obtained in the

836:  straw hit center approximation.

837:  }

838: \label{fig:TTRS1}

839: \end{figure}

840: 

841: 

842: The uncertainties $\Delta s$ (see Figure ~\ref{fig:TTRS2}) 

843: in the determination of up and down point

844: positions are

845: small and can be evaluated in the following way.

846: The direction of 2D helix in the chamber coordinate system is given by

847: $ tan\beta $ (see Figure ~\ref{fig:TTRS2} and Eq.(\ref{equpdown})).

848: 

849: \begin{figure}[htb!]

850: \centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=ttrs2.eps,height=2.0in,clip=on}}}

851:  \caption{

852: Uncertainties in up and down point positions.

853:  }

854: \label{fig:TTRS2}

855: \end{figure}

856: 

857: Since the uncertainty in $R_{T}$ is the dominant one the uncertainty in the

858: direction of the helix is of the order 

859: $\Delta \beta /\beta \sim \Delta

860: R_{T}/R_{T} \sim \Delta

861: R/R \sim \Delta P/P$  where $\Delta P/P<0.01, \beta \sim 1$.

862: 

863: The uncertainty in the determination of up or down point

864: position \\

865: $\Delta s \sim \Delta \beta $ r  $ <

866: \beta (\Delta P/P)r_{tube} \sim 1 \times 10^{-2} \times 0.25$ cm $ \sim 25 \mu$m

867: which is much less than a measurement precision 200 $\mu $m.

868: 

869: To reject background hits remaining after pre-selection  stage and

870: to resolve the up - down ambiguity

871: the deterministic annealing filter (DAF) and the Kalman filter (KF) 

872: are applied.

873: 

874: 

875: In principle at this stage the Kalman filter (KF) approach \cite{kalman}

876: could be applied. However an application of the Kalman filter 

877: (see Appendix A) requires that the problem of assignment of hits to a track

878: has been entirely resolved by the preceding selection procedure. 

879: If this is not the case the filter has to run on every possible 

880: assignment choosing the best one according to the chi-square 

881: criterion. For the number of tracker hits greater than 15 this 

882: combinatorial search is computationally expensive and practically

883: unfeasible. Therefore as the last step of pattern recognition 

884: we will use the deterministic annealing filter (DAF) ~\cite{daf}. 

885: 

886: 

887: DAF is a Kalman filter with re-weighted observations (see Appendix B).

888: For the DAF procedure we introduce artificial layers placed at the chamber straw centers 

889: in order to have competing true and mirror points in one  layer. 

890: To overcome the problem of insufficient information in the initial

891: phase of the filter, an iterative procedure is applied. After a first

892: pass of filter and after smoothing, the track position can be predicted 

893: in every layer of the tracker. Based on these predictions, the assignment

894: probabilities for all competing hits can be calculated in every layer.

895: If the probability falls below a certain threshold, the hit is excluded 

896: from the following consideration. The assignment probabilities of

897: the remaining hits are normalized to one and used as the weights

898: in the next iterations of the filter.

899: 

900: In our case the operation of DAF is described by the following steps:\\

901: 

902: $\bullet$ every true and mirror  point is projected on a 

903: layer corresponding to the center of straw in the direction

904: defined by the fitted helix for a given event.\\

905: 

906: $\bullet$ initial probabilities of competing points

907: in the layer are assumed to be equal.\\

908: 

909: $\bullet$ annealing schedule is chosen according to the following

910: formula\\

911:   $V_{n}=V (\frac{50}{f^{n}}+1)$ for a variance of observations,

912: where V = $\sigma^{2}$ and $\sigma$ = 200 $\mu$m. 

913: The annealing factor f is chosen to be either 1.4 or 2.\\

914: 

915: $\bullet$ standard Kalman filter runs on all layers taking 

916: observations as weighted mean according to assignment probabilities.\\

917: 

918: $\bullet$ the filter runs in the opposite direction, using the

919: same weighted mean as the forward filter. By taking a weighted mean of

920: the predictions of both filters at every layer, a smoothed state vector

921: and its covariance matrix are obtained.\\ 

922: 

923: $\bullet$ based on these predictions and the  covariance matrix, the

924: assignment probabilities of the hits are calculated. If combined 

925: hit probability for true and mirror point  falls below a 

926: certain threshold ($10^{-7}$), the hit is rejected. The assignment probabilities of

927: the remaining points in the layer are normalized 

928: to one and used as the weights

929: in the next iterations of the filter.\\ 

930: 

931: $\bullet$ iterations in n stop if one of the following

932: conditions is satisfied:\\

933: 1)for the reconstructed track $\chi^2 > \chi^2_{max}$ 

934: where $\chi^2_{max}$ = 1000 or $\chi^2 < 0$.\\

935: 2)for the reconstructed initial momentum $P_{in} < 94 MeV/c$ or

936: $P_{in} > 114 MeV/c$\\

937: 3)variation of $\chi^2$ is small in comparison with the 

938: previous iteration $|\chi^2_{n+1}-\chi^2_{n}|/\chi^2_{n}<0.01$.\\   

939: 

940: $\bullet$ when iterations stop (on average after 7 iterations) 

941: The DAF procedure is repeated for the different annealing factor f.

942: From results corresponding to two annealing factors we choose 

943: that one corresponding to the minimum $\chi^2$.\\

944: 

945: Figure  ~\ref{fig:sel_5} shows the distribution of tracker hits for the sample event

946: (recall that initially we had 260 background hits for this event).  

947: There are no surviving background hits and missing real hits

948: in this case. Reconstructed lobes are clearly seen in the 

949: Figure. We conclude that DAF is effective in rejection

950: of background hits remaining after pre-selection procedure and 

951: also it provides a good starting point for the track reconstruction.      

952: 

953: 

954: \begin{figure}[htb!]

955: \centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=sel_5.eps,height=2.5in,clip=on}}}

956:  \caption{

957:  Plot of real + background tracker hits after the DAF selection procedure.

958:  }

959: \label{fig:sel_5}

960: \end{figure}

961: 

962: 

963: 

964: Figure  ~\ref{fig:Nback}(a) represents the number of real

965: hits lost by the pattern recognition procedure. Some of the real

966: tracker hits (0.8 hits $\sim 2.7\%$) are lost due to the selection

967: procedure.

968: 

969: Figure  ~\ref{fig:Nback}(b) represents the number of background

970: hits remaining after the selection procedure. As one

971: can see from Figure ~\ref{fig:Nback}(b) the number of 

972: background hits remaining is 0.38 hits in comparison with the

973: primary 300 hits. So a total background suppression factor is

974: 300/0.38 $\approx$ 800.

975: 

976: 

977: \begin{figure}[htb!]

978: \centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=Nmiss.eps,height=2.0in,clip=on}

979:                    \psfig{figure=Nback.eps,height=2.0in,clip=on}}}

980:   \caption{

981:   Distributions in the number of missing real hits and

982:   remaining background hits.

983:  }

984: \label{fig:Nback}

985: \end{figure}

986: 

987: \section{Reconstruction based on Kalman filter }

988: 

989: Background studies presented in this subsection are based on the

990: application of the Kalman filter to hits selected by previous pattern 

991: recognition procedure.

992: 

993: At this stage the reconstruction is based on the hits selected by the

994: pattern recognition procedure described above.

995: 

996: In principle we could use the results obtained by DAF for the track

997: reconstruction but our analysis shows that an application of

998: a combinatorial Kalman filter to hits selected by DAF provides better

999: precision. 

1000: 

1001: In the last decade the Kalman filter (KF) approach \cite{kalman}

1002: has been extensively exploited for track fitting in high energy

1003: physics. This approach possesses the following

1004: features for effective track fitting: \\

1005: \noindent

1006: $\bullet$ multiple scattering and energy losses are included in a natural way;\\

1007: $\bullet$ a 3D trajectory is restored that approximates closely the real one; \\

1008: $\bullet$ complex tracker geometries are handled in a simple way;\\

1009: $\bullet$ N$\times $N matrix inversion, where N is the total number of measurements,

1010: is avoided; \\

1011: $\bullet$ control for error propagation is provided; \\

1012: $\bullet$ trajectory is reconstructed progressively from one measurement to the next,

1013: improving the precision  with each step; \\

1014: $\bullet$ initial and final momenta of a particle crossing the

1015: tracker are reconstructed. \\

1016: 

1017: The KF is very useful because it simultaneously finds and fits 

1018: the track;

1019: it is much more economical than the

1020: conventional least-squares global fit. The KF is a ``progressive"

1021: step by step method whose predictions are rather poor at the

1022: beginning of the track at the first stage of filtering. Since a

1023: state vector ${\bf{x}_k}=(x,y,t_x,t_y,1/p_{L})$ at point k (see

1024: definitions in Appendix A) has five parameters we need

1025: approximately $\simeq$ 6-7 straw hits to get good KF prediction

1026: precision. The prediction step, in which an estimate is made for

1027: the next measurement from the current knowledge of the state

1028: vector, is very useful to discard noise signal and hits from other

1029: tracks. Assuming the validity of the helix track model for each

1030: step, the KF propagates the track in 3D space, from one 2D surface

1031: to the next.

1032: 

1033: Below we will use the standard notations:

1034: 

1035: $\bf{x}_{k+1}^{k}$ is a prediction, i.e. the estimation of the

1036: ``future" state vector at position ``k+1" using all the ``past"

1037: measurements up to and including ``k".

1038: 

1039: $\bf{x}_{k}^{k}$ is a filtered state vector, i.e. the

1040: estimation of the state vector at position ``k" based upon all

1041: ``past" and ``present" measurements up to and including ``k".

1042: 

1043: The same notations will be held for the covariance matrix

1044: $\bf{C}$, noise matrix $\bf{Q}$ and so on.

1045: 

1046: The Kalman filter algorithm can be divided into three major steps. \\

1047: 

1048: INITIALIZATION

1049: 

1050: The KF can start from arbitrary parameters and an infinite

1051: covariance matrix but for track finding applications it is

1052: significantly better to fix somehow the initial state if possible.

1053: 

1054: The initialization of forward and backward KF algorithms is quite

1055: simple. It starts from the artificial point and initial

1056: parameters calculated from the previous stage of reconstruction

1057: procedure. The initial covariance matrix is empirically found to be diagonal

1058: with matrix elements being much greater than the corresponding

1059: uncertainties: $\bf{C}_{0}^{0}$ = (0.3,0.3,0.03,0.03,0.000003).\\

1060: 

1061: FILTERING

1062: 

1063: Once the KF is initialized it makes standard consequent steps. The

1064: current state at the k-th step is defined by the state vector

1065: $\bf{x}_k$, the state covariance matrix $\bf{C}_{k}^{k}$

1066: and the current straw hit.

1067: To take the (k+1)-th step it is necessary to:\\

1068: 

1069: \noindent

1070: $\bullet$ update $\bf{x}_{k}^{k}, \bf{C}_{k}^{k}$ to take into account the ionization losses \\

1071: $\bullet$ define the next hit object (up or down point) \\

1072: $\bullet$ propagate the parameters and the covariance matrix

1073: to: $\bf{x}_{k}^{k} \rightarrow \bf{x}_{k+1}^k$, $\bf{C}_{k}^{k} \rightarrow \bf{C}_{k+1}^k$\\

1074: $\bullet$ update $\bf{C}_{k+1}^k$ to take into account

1075: multiple scattering $\bf{C}_{k+1}^k \rightarrow \bf{C}_{k+1}^k + \bf{Q}_k$\\

1076: $\bullet$ calculate the Kalman matrix $\bf{K}_{k+1}$ \\

1077: $\bullet$ update the covariance matrix $\bf{C}_{k+1}^{k+1}$ \\

1078: $\bullet$ calculate residuals $\bf{r}_{k+1}^{k+1} $ and their covariance matrices $\bf{R}_{k+1}^{k+1} $ \\

1079: $\bullet$ calculate the incremental $\chi^2 =

1080: (\bf{r}_{k+1}^{k+1})^T (\bf{R}_{k+1}^{k+1})^{-1} \bf{r}_{k+1}^{k+1}$ \\

1081: $\bullet$ store all information defining the new state\\

1082: 

1083: SMOOTHING

1084: 

1085: In the standard Kalman filter algorithm the smoothing is a well

1086: defined procedure. Smoothing allows one to obtain the best

1087: estimate of the track parameters at any trajectory point using all

1088: hit information accumulated during the KF propagation.

1089: 

1090: 

1091: Figure ~\ref{fig:forw} (a) displays the results of the KF

1092: forward filtering for the total momentum Ptot

1093: reconstruction at each tracker hit position. Figure

1094: ~\ref{fig:forw} (b) displays how the KF smoother, based on all

1095: hit information accumulated during the KF filtering, improves the

1096: total momentum Ptot reconstruction at each tracker hit

1097: position.

1098: 

1099: 

1100: \begin{figure}[htb!]

1101: \centerline{\hbox{%

1102: \psfig{figure=forw_p_f.eps,height=2.0in,clip=on}

1103:  \psfig{figure=forw_p_s.eps,height=2.0in,clip=on}}}

1104: \caption{

1105:  The total momentum reconstructed by the

1106:  forward Kalman filtering a) and by the smoothing b)

1107: for each hit of a selected event. The y-axis is Ptot, the

1108: x-axis is the z-ordered hit number.

1109:  }

1110: \label{fig:forw}

1111: \end{figure}

1112: 

1113: 

1114: Figure ~\ref{fig:back} (a) displays the results of the KF

1115: backward filtering for the total momentum Ptot 

1116: reconstruction at each tracker hit position. Figure

1117: ~\ref{fig:back} (b) displays how the KF smoother, based on all

1118: hit information accumulated during the KF filtering, improves the

1119: total momentum Ptot reconstruction at each tracker hit

1120: position.

1121: 

1122: \begin{figure}[htb!]

1123: \centerline{\hbox{%

1124: \psfig{figure=back_p_f.eps,height=2.0in,clip=on}

1125:  \psfig{figure=back_p_s.eps,height=2.0in,clip=on}}}

1126: \caption{ The total momentum reconstructed by the

1127:  backward Kalman filtering a) and by the smoothing b)

1128: for each hit of a selected event. The y-axis is Ptot, the

1129: x-axis is the z-ordered hit number.

1130:   }

1131: \label{fig:back}

1132: \end{figure}

1133: 

1134: 

1135: The Kalman filter approach is effective in the resolving 

1136: of up - down ambiguity. By

1137: applying the Kalman filter at each step up and down points are

1138: considered and the point providing the best $\chi^{2}$ for the

1139: trajectory is selected as the true point. This procedure is

1140: approximately linear in the number of tracker hits in comparison with

1141: the a combinatorial search, which is not feasible.

1142: 

1143: At this reconstruction stage due to left-right ambiguity for the

1144: straw drift chamber we have a set of true and mirror  points for

1145: each straw hit. As discussed above the reconstruction procedure

1146: for each tracker hit defines true and mirror  points and one of

1147: them is close to the real point with high precision $\simeq$

1148: 25 $\mu$m. 

1149: So we can formulate our goal as to find a true point

1150: combination for N straw hits in the presence of N mirror points.

1151: 

1152: The procedure to find the best approximation to the true point

1153: combination for N straw hits in the presence of N mirror  points

1154: for one track from a muon-electron conversion event

1155: is based on the following steps:\\

1156: 

1157: $\bullet$ chose the first eight straw hits and built $2^8$ (256)

1158: possible hit combinations corresponding to up and down points.

1159: The KF forward and backward procedures described above are applied

1160: to these combinations. Only those combinations which satisfy a

1161: rather loose $\chi^2$ cut, $\chi^2 <$ 30,

1162: are retained (typically about 10 out of the initial 256 combinations);\\

1163: 

1164: $\bullet$ make a loop for all retained combinations with fixed up

1165: and down points for the first eight straw hits. For the 9th and

1166: higher straw hit, the up and down point choices are take into

1167: account and the point  with minimal incremental $\chi^2$ for

1168: this point is selected for the further KF propagation step. If

1169: both incremental $\chi^2$ satisfy the cut $\chi^2 < $ 10 the

1170: second point is stored in the stack to make an iterative loop.

1171: A single combination of all possible steps defines a candidate

1172: track. At this stage on average 45 candidate tracks are stored

1173: in the stack per event; \\

1174: 

1175: 

1176: $\bullet$ make a loop for all combinations from the stack. For

1177: each new hit added to the hits restored from the stack again the

1178: two up and down point choices are taken into account and the

1179: point with the minimal incremental $\chi^2$ for this point

1180: is selected for the further KF propagation step; \\

1181: 

1182: 

1183: $\bullet$ select up and down track combinations with the minimal $\chi^2$ for the track; \\

1184: 

1185: $\bullet$ select a track satisfying the cut $\chi^2 < $ 70; \\

1186: 

1187: $\bullet$ select a track with the difference between the forward

1188: (Pin\_f) and backward  (Pin\_b)

1189:  reconstructed input momentum satisfying the cut $\vert Pin\_f - Pin\_b \vert <$ 0.7 MeV/c.  \\

1190: 

1191: 

1192: 

1193: 

1194:    The Kalman filter reconstructs a trajectory of a particle

1195: in three dimensions. The trajectory is bent

1196: each time it crosses a tracker plane due to multiple 

1197: scattering. Therefore, the reconstructed track is a set of

1198: helices that intersect at the  planes.

1199: This is the track followed by the particle. 

1200:    

1201:    Figure ~\ref{fig:ev2}  displays a 2D projection of 3D trajectory

1202: reconstructed by the Kalman filter for the sample event.

1203: As above in this figure all 12 views were joined in one 

1204: for all 18 tracker modules. The 2D trajectory is shown 

1205: only for sensitive area of the tracker and for each view 

1206: the trajectory is in a different color. 

1207: For the sample event real hits are in four 

1208: tracker's views and the reconstructed

1209: lobes for these views are clearly seen in the figure.

1210: 

1211:    Due to a scale in this figure the 2D trajectory looks

1212: as an ideal sine curve and tracker hits look like spots of

1213: different size. In order to see a detailed behavior of the

1214: trajectory and hit positions a dynamical zoom is applied 

1215: to a rectangular region indicated in  Figure ~\ref{fig:ev2} 

1216: in the x-range 49-50 cm and

1217: z-range 1029-1029.5 cm. 

1218:    

1219: Figure ~\ref{fig:ev21} demonstrates the magnified region of the tracker.

1220: Blue line in the figure represents the reconstructed trajectory.

1221: Two circles represent two hits in  chamber. 

1222: These circles look like ellipses due to different axis scales. 

1223: 

1224: 

1225: 

1226: \begin{figure}[htb!]

1227: \centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=ev2.eps,height=3.0in,clip=on}}}

1228:  \caption{

1229:  Plot of real + background tracker hits after the DAF selection procedure.

1230:  }

1231: \label{fig:ev2}

1232: \end{figure}

1233: 

1234: \begin{figure}[htb!]

1235: \centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=ev2_1.eps,height=2.5in,clip=on}}}

1236:  \caption{

1237:  Zoom enlargement of the region in Figure ~\ref{fig:ev2}.

1238:  }

1239: \label{fig:ev21}

1240: \end{figure}

1241: 

1242: 

1243: Radii of the circles are directly

1244: proportional to the drift times. 

1245: For illustrative 

1246: purposes two nearest to the straw center points corresponding to the real

1247: trajectory   obtained in Monte Carlo

1248: simulation are shown in the Figure in the form of diamonds

1249: ~ (note that in the pattern recognition procedure only 

1250: radii were used but not these points).

1251: The measurement uncertainty was taken into account assuming

1252: that circle radii are distributed normally about the simulated 

1253: radii with $\sigma = 200 \mu$m. For this reason the position 

1254: of one of the  nearest points is not on a circle in Figure ~\ref{fig:ev21}.

1255:   

1256: In Figure ~\ref{fig:ev21} due to the corresponding scale the trajectory 

1257: looks like a straight line. It is tangent to one of two circles

1258: obtained on the basis of drift time.  

1259: In the region under consideration the deviation of the 

1260: trajectory from the  nearest point is less than 0.2 mm. 

1261: The change in the direction of the trajectory due to 

1262: multiple scattering can not be seen in the Figure because of 

1263: the smallness of the average angle of the scattering.        

1264: 

1265: Figure ~\ref{fig:fig_3D3}

1266: shows transverse xy-projection of the 

1267: trajectory for the sample event. 

1268: In this projection the trajectory looks approximately 

1269: as a circle.

1270: 

1271: \begin{figure}[htb!]

1272: \centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=fig_3D3.eps,height=3.0in,clip=on}}}

1273:  \caption{

1274:  The transverse projection of the 3D trajectory reconstructed for the sample event.

1275:  }

1276: \label{fig:fig_3D3}

1277: \end{figure}

1278: 

1279: However if a specific region of the tracker is magnified 

1280: by the dynamical zoom one can see in Figure ~\ref{fig:fig_3D4} 

1281: that the shape of the

1282: circle is distorted due to multiple scattering and energy

1283: loss. More than two turns of trajectory are clearly 

1284: seen in the Figure.

1285: 

1286: 

1287: \begin{figure}[htb!]

1288: \centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=fig_3D4.eps,height=2.0in,clip=on}}}

1289:  \caption{

1290:  Zoom enlargement of the region in Figure ~\ref{fig:fig_3D3}.

1291:  }

1292: \label{fig:fig_3D4}

1293: \end{figure}

1294: 

1295: 

1296:  Note that by using the KF filter a momentum of a particle can be

1297:  reconstructed at any point of the tracker. For our purposes the most

1298:  important is the momentum of a particle entering the tracker,

1299: which in the following we will call  the input momentum.

1300: 

1301: Figure ~\ref{fig:fig_3D1}

1302: demonstrate 3D trajectory  reconstructed for the 

1303: sample event. 

1304: The trajectory looks in this scale as a helix, but we remind that it 

1305: consists of many helix parts.

1306: Also in the Figure tracker's hits 

1307: generated by Monte Carlo simulation program are shown. 

1308: 

1309: 

1310: \begin{figure}[htb!]

1311: \centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=fig_3D1.eps,height=4.5in,clip=on}}}

1312:  \caption{

1313:  3D trajectory reconstructed for the sample event.

1314:  }

1315: \label{fig:fig_3D1}

1316: \end{figure}

1317: 

1318: 

1319:  The distribution in the difference between the initial momentum (Pin\_f) 

1320: reconstructed by

1321:  the Kalman filter and the generated initial momentum (Pin) is shown in

1322: Figure ~\ref{fig:pin_difb} in linear (a) and logarithmic (b) scale.

1323: According to this distribution the intrinsic tracker resolution is

1324: $\sigma$ = 0.12 MeV/c if one fits the distribution by a Gaussian in the range

1325: -0.3 - 0.7 MeV/c.

1326: 

1327: 

1328: \begin{figure}[htb!]

1329: \centerline{\hbox{%

1330: \psfig{figure=dif_back_lin.eps,height=3.0in,clip=on}

1331:  \psfig{figure=dif_back_log.eps,height=3.0in,clip=on}}}

1332: \caption{

1333:  Distribution in the difference between the input reconstructed momentum based on

1334:  the Kalman filter and the simulated input momentum with background.

1335:  }

1336: \label{fig:pin_difb}

1337: \end{figure}

1338: 

1339: 

1340: \begin{figure}[htb!]

1341: \centerline{\hbox{%

1342: \psfig{figure=pin_back_lin.eps,height=3.0in,clip=on}

1343:  \psfig{figure=pin_back_log.eps,height=3.0in,clip=on}}}

1344: \caption{

1345:  Distribution in the input momentum reconstructed by the

1346:  Kalman filter  with background.

1347:  }

1348: \label{fig:pin_kalb}

1349: \end{figure}

1350: 

1351: 

1352: Figure ~\ref{fig:pin_kalb} shows a distribution in the input

1353: momentum (Pin\_f) reconstructed by the Kalman filter 

1354: in linear (a) and logarithmic (b) scale with background.  

1355: This distribution is characterized by the standard deviation $\sigma$ = 0.25 MeV/c of the

1356: reconstructed input momentum  for a Gaussian fit

1357: in the range 104-106 MeV/c. 

1358: 

1359: 

1360: Note that the trajectory

1361: reconstructed by the Kalman filter consists of

1362: many helix parts.  

1363: The reconstructed input momentum resolution by the  

1364: Kalman filter is $\sigma$ = 0.25 MeV/c. This resolution significantly

1365: better than the resolution $\sigma = 0.35$ MeV/c obtained 

1366: by a single helix fit.  

1367: 

1368: 

1369: The overall reconstruction acceptance is 22.1 $\%$ for muon conversion

1370: events with the momentum above a threshold momentum of 103.6

1371: MeV/c.

1372: 

1373: 

1374: Comparing these results with the results of the reconstruction

1375: without background we get the difference in tracker

1376: resolution 1.5 \% and the difference 2.7 \% in overall acceptance

1377: (see Appendix C).

1378: Therefore the tracker resolution and overall acceptance are not

1379: affected significantly at the considered background level 

1380: (explained in Section 3).

1381: 

1382: 

1383: 

1384: 

1385: A summary of the critical selection criteria used in the momentum

1386: reconstruction is shown in Table ~\ref{table:tab5}. The

1387: efficiencies are for the selection criteria applied in consecutive

1388: order. 

1389: 

1390: 

1391: An overall acceptance for muon conversion events with momentum

1392: above threshold momentum $P_{th}$ is 22.1\% .

1393: We define a threshold

1394: momentum,

1395: above which events are considered as the useful ones by

1396:  $P_{th} = P_{max} - \Delta $, where $P_{max}$ = 104.3 MeV/c

1397: the  most probable reconstructed momentum. If $\Delta $ = 0.7 MeV/c

1398: is chosen then $P_{th}$ = 103.6 MeV/c.

1399: 

1400: \begin{center}

1401: \begin{table}[htb!]

1402: \caption {A summary of the reconstruction selection criteria }

1403: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|}

1404: \hline

1405:  Selection criterion & Efficiency\\

1406: \hline

1407: Calorimeter energy above 80 MeV & 0.53\\

1408: Required pitch angle at the tracker & 0.86\\

1409: At least 15 hits in the tracker & 0.87\\

1410: Position match in the calorimeter & 0.95\\

1411: Requirements on fit quality & 0.79\\

1412: Detected energy above 103.6 MeV & 0.74\\

1413: \hline

1414: Overall acceptance & 0.22\\

1415: \hline

1416: \end{tabular}

1417: \label{table:tab5}

1418: \end{table}

1419: \end{center}

1420: 

1421: The main factors entering into the experimental sensitivity are

1422: the running time, the proton intensity, the probability per proton

1423: that a $\mu$ is produced, transported and stopped in the stopping

1424: target, the fraction of stopped muons that are captured (as opposed to decay),

1425: the trigger efficiency and the tracker reconstruction acceptance.

1426: We do not include in this table loss of events due to accidental

1427: cosmic ray vetoes, dead-time losses and losses due to straw

1428: chamber inefficiencies, all of which are expected to be small.

1429: According to our analysis taking into account the straw efficiency

1430: 97\% the overall acceptance is reduced from 22.1\% to 21.7\% . 

1431: 

1432: 

1433: 

1434: Table ~\ref{table:tab6} shows expected MECO sensitivity for a one

1435: year ($10^7$ s) run.

1436: 

1437: \begin{center}

1438: \begin{table}[htb!]

1439: \caption {A summary of the expected MECO sensitivity.}

1440: \begin{tabular}{|l|r|}

1441: \hline

1442: Running time (s)& $10^7$\\

1443: Proton flux (Hz)& $4 \cdot 10^{13}$\\

1444: \hline

1445: Probability of $\mu$/p transported and stopped in target & 0.0025\\

1446: $\mu$ capture probability & 0.6 \\

1447: Fraction of $\mu$ which are captured in time window & 0.49 \\

1448: Trigger efficiency and the selection criteria & 0.22 \\

1449: \hline

1450: Detected events for $R_{\mu e} = 10^{-16}$ & 6.5\\

1451: \hline

1452: \end{tabular}

1453: \label{table:tab6}

1454: \end{table}

1455: \end{center}

1456: 

1457: Muon DIO events are the most important background for the experiment.

1458: The main background from muon DIO events in the presence of background tracker hits

1459: was simulated and reconstructed.

1460: Based on the simulated DIO events

1461: in the momentum range

1462: above 100 MeV/c the track pattern recognition and momentum reconstruction

1463: were performed in the presence of background tracker hits

1464: (protons, neutrons, photons, DIO) by applying the  selection criteria

1465: discussed above.

1466: 

1467: 

1468: \begin{figure}[htb!]

1469: \centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=dio_gt_100.eps,height=3.5in,clip=on}}}

1470:   \caption{

1471:   Distributions of DIO reconstructed momentum in the presence of the background 

1472:  above 100 MeV/c .

1473:  }

1474: \label{fig:dio}

1475: \end{figure}

1476: 

1477: 

1478: The number of primary DIO events  simulated in the momentum range above 100 MeV/c

1479: was  10 times more

1480: than expected and 3 background events were found (see Figure ~\ref{fig:dio}).

1481: So the background is expected to be 0.3 events.

1482: 

1483: It is important to note that input reconstructed momenta for 

1484: these three background events are very close to  

1485: simulated input momenta. The input simulated 

1486: momenta 103.48, 103.6 and 103.74 MeV/c for these events have to be

1487: compared with input reconstructed momenta 103.6, 103.76 and 103.8 MeV/c, 

1488: respectively.

1489: 

1490: At the present level of pattern recognition and momentum

1491: reconstruction studies we can expect the background from DIO

1492: events in the range above 100 MeV/c $\sim $0.3 events compared 

1493: to 6.5 signal events  for $R_{\mu e} = 10^{-16}$.

1494: 

1495: 

1496: \section{Conclusion}

1497: 

1498: A study of the impact of background on the performance of the 

1499: transverse tracker proposed for the MECO experiment is presented.

1500: Background from capture protons, neutrons and photons, and from

1501: muon decay in orbit was generated using GEANT3. 

1502: The effective average straw tube rate from these sources was 800 kHz

1503: at the proposed muon beam intensity of $2\times 10^{11} \mu^{-}/sec$. 

1504:    

1505: A pattern recognition

1506: procedure based on a Kalman filter technique was developed to 

1507: suppress background and assign hits to tracks.

1508: In the first stage of this procedure, straw hit center 

1509: coordinates, without drift time information, were used to reduce 

1510: the background by a factor $\sim$ 130. In the second stage, the full 

1511: drift time information

1512: and a deterministic annealing filter were used to obtain an 

1513: additional six-fold suppression. The total suppression of 800 reduces

1514: the number of background hits on average from an initial value of

1515: 300 to approximately 0.4 per event. About 0.8 hits of the 29 real hits

1516: typically recorded, or 2.7 $\%$, are lost in the process.

1517: 

1518: It was found that in the presence

1519: of background the

1520: resolution of the tracker is $\sigma = 0.12$ MeV/c and the overall 

1521: setup acceptance for muon conversion

1522: events with momentum above the threshold momentum 103.6 MeV/c is 

1523: about 22 $\%$. 

1524: At the considered background level the tracker resolution and the 

1525: overall acceptance are not affected significantly by presence of 

1526: the background: the tracker resolution is changed by 1.5 \% and the 

1527: overall acceptance by 2.7 \%.

1528: 

1529: Additional constraints on the background, not considered here, may be

1530: imposed if the drift time measurement is supplemented by a 

1531: measurement of the pulse amplitude at the anode wire. A straightforward, 

1532: crude measurement of the amplitude is sufficient to reduce significantly

1533: the background from heavily ionizing particles, i.e., the capture

1534: protons that comprise 30 \% of the background hits in the above study. 

1535: We estimate too that a significant background suppression, of 10-20,

1536: would be achieved if resistive anode wires were used in place of 

1537: conducting wires to obtain a measurement of the hit position along

1538: the wire. This would improve the resolution as well. 

1539: 

1540: At the present level of pattern recognition and momentum

1541: reconstruction studies the background from DIO events above 100 MeV/c

1542: is about 0.3 events. This is to be compared 

1543: to 6.5 signal events  for $R_{\mu e} = 10^{-16}$.

1544: 

1545: The study carried out shows that the developed procedures of pattern 

1546: recognition and momentum reconstruction in the case of the transverse tracker 

1547: provide a required precision for lepton number violation search at a sensitivity

1548: level about $10^{-17}$.

1549: 

1550: We wish to thank A. Mincer, P.Nemethy, J.Sculli and one of us (R.K.) thanks

1551: W.Willis for fruitful discussions and helpful remarks.

1552: 

1553: \begin{references}

1554: \bibitem{kuno} J.D.Vergados, Phys.Rep. {\bf 133}, 1, (1986); 

1555: Y.Kuno and Y.Okada, Rev.Mod.Phys.{\bf 73}, 151 ,(2001).

1556: \bibitem{psi} P.Wintz, Proc. of the 1st Int.Symp. on Lepton and Baryon

1557: Number Violation, 1998, ed. by H.V.Klapdor-Kleingrothaus and 

1558: I.V.Krivosheina (Inst. of Physics Publishing, Bristol and Philadelphia), 534.

1559: \bibitem{psigold} A. van der Schaaf, J.Phys.G: Nucl.Part.Phys. {\bf 29}, 1503, (2003).   

1560: \bibitem{rashid} R.M.Djilkibaev and V.M.Lobashev, Sov.J.Nucl.Phys. {\bf 49}, 384, (1989).

1561: \bibitem{abadj} V.Abadjev {\it et al}, MELC proposal, INR preprint 786/92, (1992). 

1562: \bibitem{bnl} M.Bachman {\it et al}, a research proposal to BNL AGS, (1997);

1563: NSF RSVP proposal (MECO), (1999).

1564: \bibitem{prime} S.Machida {\it et al}, a letter of intent to the J-PARC 50-GeV Proton

1565: Synchrotron Experiment, The PRIME Working Group, (2003).

1566: \bibitem{daf} R. Fr\"uhwirth and A. Stradlie, Comp.Phys.Comm. {\bf 120}, 197, (1999).

1567: \bibitem{rkalm} R.E.Kalman, Transactions of the ASME: J.Basic Engineering, {\bf D82}, 

1568: 35, (1960).

1569: \bibitem{kalman} P.Billoir, Nucl.Instr.Meth. {\bf 225}, 352, (1984); R.Fr\"uhwirth, 

1570: {\it ibid}. {\bf A262}, 444, (1987); P.Billoir and S.Qian, {\it ibid}. {\bf A294}, 

1571: 219, (1990); E.J.Wolin and L.L.Ho, {\it ibid}. {\bf A329}, 493, (1993).    

1572: \bibitem{mank} R.Mankel, Hera B note (1997).

1573: \end{references}

1574: 

1575: \newpage

1576: 

1577: 

1578: 

1579: \section*{APPENDIX\ A. KALMAN FILTER AND ITS\ APPLICATION\ TO\ TRACK\ FITTING}

1580: 

1581: The Kalman filter is an algorithm that processes measurements to deduce an

1582: optimum estimate of the past, present, or future state of \ a dynamic system

1583: by using a time sequence of measurements of the system behavior, plus a

1584: statistical model that characterizes the system and measurements errors,

1585: plus initial condition information.

1586: 

1587: The Kalman filter addresses the general problem of trying to

1588: estimate at different points ($1\leq k\leq n$) the state

1589: $\bf{x}_{k}$ of a discrete process that is governed by the

1590: linear stochastic difference equation

1591: 

1592: \begin{equation}

1593: \bf{x}_{k}=\bf{F}_{k-1}\bf{x}_{k-1}+\bf{w}_{k-1}

1594: \label{1ap}

1595: \end{equation}

1596: 

1597: with a measurement $\bf{m}_{k}$ that is

1598: 

1599: \begin{equation}

1600: \bf{m}_{k}=\bf{H}\bf{x}_{k}+\bf{\varepsilon} _{k}.

1601: \label{2ap}

1602: \end{equation}

1603: 

1604: 

1605: 

1606: 

1607: The system equation (\ref{1ap}) is not deterministic since the

1608: track experiences stochastic processes such as multiple

1609: scattering, bremsstrahlung, etc. These processes are taken into

1610: account by the process noise $\bf{w}_{k}$ .

1611: $\bf{\varepsilon} _{k}$ represents the measurement noise.

1612: $\bf{w}_{k}$ and $\bf{\varepsilon} _{k}$ are assumed to be

1613: independent of each other with zero expectation values:

1614: 

1615: $E\{\bf{w}_{k}\}=0,\qquad

1616: cov\{\bf{w}_{k}\}=\bf{Q}_{k}$ , \qquad $1\leq k\leq n,$

1617: 

1618: $E\{\bf{\varepsilon} _{k}\}=0,\qquad cov\{\bf{\varepsilon} _{k}\}=\bf{V}_{k}$ , \qquad $%

1619: 1\leq k\leq n,$

1620: 

1621: where $\bf{Q}_{k}$ and $\bf{V}_{k}$  are process noise and

1622: measurement noise covariances, respectively.

1623: 

1624: 

1625: Eq.(\ref{1ap}) in the absence of the last term is the standard

1626: equation of motion with a propagator $\bf{F}_{k-1}$ (transport

1627: matrix). Note that at the moment $\bf{F}_{k-1}$ is assumed to

1628: be constant.

1629: 

1630: Regarding a track in space as a dynamic system the filtering

1631: technique is applied to the track fitting. For example, in the

1632: case of a particle moving in magnetic field this can be done

1633: naturally by

1634: identifying the state vector $\bf{x}_{k}$ of the dynamic system with a vector $%

1635: \bf{x}_{k}=(x,y,\tan \theta _{x},\tan \theta _{y},1/p_{L})$ of

1636: 5 parameters uniquely describing the track at each point of the

1637: trajectory. The $\bf{F}$ matrix propagates the state vector on

1638: one plane to the state vector on the next plane combining position

1639: information with directional information. The transport matrix

1640: implicitly contains information about a gap between planes.

1641: 

1642: In general the set of parameters  $\bf{x}_{k}$ is not measured

1643: directly; only a function of $\bf{x}_{k}$ ,

1644: $\bf{H}\bf{x}_{k}$ is observed. For example, in the case

1645: of the transverse tracker one does not measure $\bf{x}_{k}$

1646: but $x\prime =x\cos \alpha +y\sin \alpha $ in the chamber

1647: coordinate system which corresponds to

1648: 

1649: \begin{equation}

1650: \bf{H}=(\cos\alpha ,\sin \alpha ,0,0,0)  \label{2ap1}

1651: \end{equation}

1652: 

1653: 

1654: 

1655: There are three types of operations to be performed in the analysis of a

1656: track.

1657: 

1658: \begin{itemize}

1659: \item \textbf{Prediction} is the estimation of the ``future" state

1660: vector at

1661: position ``k" using all the ``past" measurements up to and including ``k-1". $%

1662: \bf{x}_{k}^{k-1}$ is a prediction (a priori state estimation).

1663: 

1664: \item \textbf{Filtering }is the estimation of the state vector at

1665: position ``k" based upon all  ``past" and ``present" measurements

1666: up to and including ``k". $\bf{x}_{k}^{k}$ is a filtered state

1667: vector (a posteriori state estimation).

1668: 

1669: \item \textbf{Smoothing }is the estimation of the ``past" state

1670: vector at

1671: position ``k" based on all ``n" measurements taken up to the present time. $%

1672: \bf{x}_{k}^{n}$ is a smoothed state vector.

1673: \end{itemize}

1674: 

1675: The first step to estimate $\bf{x}_{k}$ is \textbf{the

1676: prediction} (time update):

1677: 

1678: \begin{equation}

1679: \bf{x}_{k}^{k-1}=\bf{F}_{k-1}\bf{x}_{k-1}^{k-1}

1680: \label{3ap}

1681: \end{equation}

1682: 

1683: \begin{equation}

1684: \bf{C}_{k}^{k-1}=\bf{F}_{k-1}\bf{C}_{k-1}^{k-1}\bf{F}_{k-1}^{T}+\bf{Q}_{k-1}

1685: \label{4ap}

1686: \end{equation}

1687: 

1688: where Eq.(\ref{3ap}) projects the state ahead and  Eq.(\ref{4ap}) projects

1689: the error covariance ahead.

1690: 

1691: \textbf{The filtered estimate} (measurement update)

1692: $\bf{x}_{k}^{k}$ is calculated as a weighted mean of the

1693: prediction and the observation:

1694: 

1695: \begin{equation}

1696: \bf{K}_{k}=\bf{C}_{k}^{k-1}\bf{H}_{k}^{T}[\bf{H}_{k}\bf{C}_{k}^

1697: {k-1}\bf{H}_{k}^{T}+\bf{V}_{k}]^{-1}

1698: \label{5ap}

1699: \end{equation}

1700: 

1701: \begin{equation}

1702: \bf{x}_{k}^{k}=\bf{x}_{k}^{k-1}+\bf{K}_{k}[\bf{m}_{k}-\bf{H}_{k}\bf{x}_{k}^{k-1}]

1703: \label{6ap}

1704: \end{equation}

1705: 

1706: \begin{equation}

1707: \bf{C}_{k}^{k}=[\bf{I}-\bf{K}_{k}\bf{H}_{k}]\bf{C}_{k}^{k-1}.

1708: \label{7ap}

1709: \end{equation}

1710: 

1711: Eq.(\ref{5ap}) computes the Kalman gain matrix defining the

1712: correction to the predicted state due to the current observation.

1713: Eq.(\ref{6ap}) updates the prediction with the measurement and

1714: Eq.(\ref{7ap}) updates the error covariance. The error covariance

1715: may be also expressed in a computationally superior form

1716: 

1717: \begin{equation}

1718: \bf{C}_{k}^{k}=[\bf{I}-\bf{K}_{k}\bf{H}_{k}]

1719: \bf{C}_{k}^{k-1}[\bf{I}-\bf{K}_{k}\bf{H}_{k}]^{T}+\bf{K}_{k}\bf{V}_{k}\bf{K}_{k}^{T}.

1720: \end{equation}

1721: 

1722: The filtering is a recursive operation. The prediction step and

1723: the filtering step are repeated for the next plane proceeding

1724: progressively from plane ``1" to plane ``n". The state vector at

1725: the last filtered point contains always the full information from

1726: all points.

1727: 

1728: At each step one can calculate the filtered residuals

1729: $\bf{r}_{k}^{k}$ , the covariance matrix of the filtered

1730: residuals $\bf{R}_{k}^{k}$\ and the filtered $\chi ^{2}$:

1731: 

1732: \[

1733: \bf{r}_{k}^{k}=\bf{m}_{k}-\bf{H}_{k}\bf{x}_{k}^{k}

1734: \]

1735: 

1736: \[

1737: \bf{R}_{k}^{k}=\bf{V}_{k}-\bf{H}_{k}\bf{C}_{k}^{k}\bf{H}_{k}^{T}

1738: \]

1739: 

1740: \[

1741: \chi

1742: _{k}^{2}=\bf{r}_{k}^{kT}(\bf{R}_{k}^{k})^{-1}\bf{r}_{k}^{k}

1743: \]

1744: 

1745: where $\chi _{k}^{2}$ is $\chi ^{2}$ - distributed with

1746: dim($\bf{m}_{k}$) degrees

1747: of freedom. The total $\chi ^{2}$ of the track is given by the sum of the $%

1748: \chi _{k}^{2}$ contributions for each plane.

1749: 

1750: The system of equations defining the Kalman filter represents an

1751: asymptotically stable system, and therefore, the estimate of the state

1752: vector $\bf{x}_{k}^{k}$ becomes independent on the starting point $\bf{x}_{0}^{0}$ , $%

1753: \bf{C}_{0}^{0}$ as k is increased.

1754: 

1755: When the last plane (nth) is taken into account the Kalman filter

1756: performs the final step which is a smoothing. The filter runs

1757: backward in time updating all filtered state vectors on the basis

1758: of information from all n planes. The equations describing

1759: \textbf{the smoothing} are given by

1760: 

1761: \[

1762: \bf{A}_{k}=\bf{C}_{k}^{k}\bf{F}_{k}^{T}(\bf{C}_{k+1}^{k})^{-1}

1763: \]

1764: 

1765: \[

1766: \bf{x}_{k}^{n}=\bf{x}_{k}^{k}+\bf{A}_{k}(\bf{x}_{k+1}^{n}-\bf{x}_{k+1}^{k})

1767: \]

1768: 

1769: \[

1770: \bf{C}_{k}^{n}=\bf{C}_{k}^{k}+\bf{A}_{k}(\bf{C}_{k+1}^{n}-\bf{C}_{k+1}^{k})\bf{A}_{k}^{T}

1771: \]

1772: 

1773: \[

1774: \bf{r}_{k}^{n}=\bf{m}_{k}-\bf{H}_{k}\bf{x}_{k}^{n}

1775: \]

1776: 

1777: \[

1778: \bf{R}_{k}^{n}=\bf{V}_{k}-\bf{H}_{k}\bf{C}_{k}^{n}\bf{H}_{k}^{T}

1779: \]

1780: 

1781:    Until now it was assumed that the problem of estimation of a discrete-time

1782: process is described by a linear stochastic differential equation.

1783: However for example in the presence of a magnetic field the track

1784: propagator $\bf{F}$ is non-linear.

1785:    Let's assume that the process of a particle propagation is governed by the

1786: non-linear stochastic differential equation

1787: 

1788: \begin{equation}

1789: x_{k}=f(x_{k-1})+w_{k-1}  \label{8ap}

1790: \end{equation}

1791: 

1792: with a measurement m in the form Eq.(\ref{2ap}). f is a non-linear

1793: function. The Kalman filter can be applied to this system by

1794: linearizing the system for example about the estimated trajectory.

1795: If deviations between the estimated trajectory and the actual

1796: trajectory remain sufficiently small the linear approximation is

1797: valid.

1798:    The non-linear equation (\ref{8ap}) can be written down in the linearized form

1799: as

1800: 

1801: \begin{equation}

1802: \bf{x}_{k}=\bf{f}(\bf{x}_{k-1}^{k-1})+\bf{F}

1803: \cdot(\bf{x}_{k-1}-\bf{x}_{k-1}^{k-1})+\bf{w}_{k-1}\label{10ap}

1804: \end{equation}

1805: 

1806: where as before $\bf{x}_{k}$,$\bf{m}_{k}$ are the actual

1807: state and measurement vectors, $\bf{x}_{k}^{k}$ is a filtered

1808: estimate of the state at step k. $\bf{F}$ is Jacobian matrix

1809: 

1810: \begin{equation}

1811: \bf{F}_{ij}=\partial

1812: \bf{f}_{i}(\bf{x}_{k-1}^{k-1})/\partial x_{j} \label{11ap}

1813: \end{equation}

1814: 

1815: Therefore the complete set of extended Kalman filter equations is

1816: given by Eqs.(\ref{4ap})-(\ref{7ap}),(\ref{10ap}) by using F in

1817: the form (\ref{11ap}).

1818: 

1819: In order to apply the extended Kalman filter to a track fitting

1820: for a particle moving in uniform magnetic field (the magnetic

1821: field is in z direction) one has to choose the state vector

1822: parameters, define the initial state vector and calculate the

1823: transport matrix $\bf{F}$, the projection matrix $\bf{H}$, and

1824: the noise matrix $\bf{Q}$.

1825:    As it was mentioned above in this case the state vector can be chosen

1826: in the form ${\bf{x}_{k}}=(x,y,t_{x},t_{y},1/p_{L})$ where x, y

1827: are the track coordinates in the tracker system,

1828: $t_{x}=p_{x}/p_{L}$, $t_{y}=p_{y}/p_{L}$ define the track

1829: direction.

1830:    The projection matrix H is given by Eq.(\ref{2ap1}).

1831:    Due to multiple scattering the absolute value of electron momentum

1832: remains unaffected, while the direction is changed. This

1833: deflection can be described using two orthogonal scattering

1834: angles, which are also orthogonal to the particle momentum ~\cite{mank}.

1835:  In terms of these variables the noise

1836: matrix is given by

1837: 

1838: %\begin{equation}

1839: $$

1840: \bf{Q}_{k}=<\Theta ^{2}>(t_{x}^{2}+t_{y}^{2}+1) \left.\left(

1841: \begin{array}{ccccc}

1842: 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\

1843: 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\

1844: 0 & 0 & t_{x}^{2}+1 & t_{x}t_{y} & t_{x}/p_{L} \\

1845: 0 & 0 & t_{x}t_{y} & t_{y}^{2}+1 & t_{y}/p_{L} \\

1846: 0 & 0 & t_{x}/p_{L} & t_{y}/p_{L} & \frac{(t_{x}^{2}+t_{y}^{2})}{

1847: p_{L}^{2}(t_{x}^{2}+t_{y}^{2}+1)}

1848: \end{array}

1849: \right.\right)$$

1850: %\end{equation}

1851: 

1852:    For the variance of the multiple scattering angle the well-known

1853: expression is used

1854: 

1855: \begin{equation}

1856: <\Theta^{2}>=(13.6MeV/p)^{2}[1+0.038\ln(t/X_{R})]t/X_{R}

1857: \end{equation}

1858: 

1859: where $X_{R}$ is a radiation length, t is a distance traveled by

1860: the particle inside a scatterer.

1861:    Energy losses are taken into account by

1862: 

1863: \begin{equation}

1864: p\prime = p - <dE/dx>t.

1865: \end{equation}

1866: 

1867: \qquad

1868: 

1869: 

1870: \section*{APPENDIX\ B. DETERMINISTIC ANNEALING FILTER}

1871: 

1872: Track reconstruction in modern high energy physics 

1873: experiments faces a significant

1874: amount of noise hits in a detector. The track fit thus is 

1875: confronted with several competing hits in detector's layers.

1876: The Kalman filter (see Appendix A) is 

1877: now widely used

1878: for the reconstruction of the track parameters in high energy

1879: physics. However the 

1880: application of the Kalman filter requires that the problem 

1881: of assignment of the detector hits to track candidates has been

1882: entirely resolved by the preceding selection procedure. 

1883: If this is not the case, the filter has to run on every 

1884: possible assignment to select the best one by chi-square

1885: criterion. Obviously this approach is computationally expensive

1886: and practically unfeasible for a considerable amount of noise

1887: hits. For this reason the Deterministic Annealing Filter (DAF)

1888: was developed ~\cite{daf}. In DAF there is an additional 

1889: validation feature eliminating hits which are not compatible

1890: with the predicted track position.

1891: 

1892: The deterministic annealing filter itself is a Kalman filter

1893: with re-weighted observations. The propagation part of DAF is

1894: identical to the standard Kalman filter. 

1895: 

1896: \textbf{The filtered estimate} (measurement update)

1897: $\bf{x}_{k}^{k}$ at layer k is calculated as a weighted mean of the

1898: prediction $\bf{x}_{k}^{k-1}$ and the observations 

1899: {$\bf m_{k}^{i}, i=1,2,...n_{k}$}:

1900: 

1901: \begin{equation}

1902: \bf x_{k}^{k}=\bf x_{k}^{k-1}+\bf K_{k}\sum _{i=1}^{{n}_{k}} 

1903: p_{k}^{i}[\bf{m}_{k}^{i}-\bf{H}_{k}\bf{x}_{k}^{k-1}]

1904: \label{1bp}

1905: \end{equation}

1906: 

1907: where ${\bf p_{k}^{i}}$ is the assignment probability of observation $\bf m_{k}^{i}$.

1908: $\bf{K}_{k}$ is the Kalman gain matrix which is given by  

1909: 

1910: \begin{equation}

1911: \bf{K}_{k}=[[\bf{C}_{k}^{k-1}]^{-1}+p_{k}\bf{H}_{k}^{T}\bf{V}_{k}^{-1}\bf{H}_{k}]^{-1}

1912: \bf{H}_{k}^{T}\bf{V}_{k}^{-1}

1913: \label{2bp}

1914: \end{equation}

1915: 

1916: where ${\bf p_{k}}$ is the sum over all weights ${\bf p_{k}^{i}}$, $\bf{H}_{k}$ is the 

1917: measurement matrix, $\bf{V}_{k}$ is the variance of the observations.

1918: 

1919: The covariance matrix $\bf{C}_{k}^{k}$ of the updated estimate

1920: $\bf{x}_{k}^{k}$ is written as 

1921: 

1922: \begin{equation}

1923: \bf{C}_{k}^{k}=[[\bf{C}_{k}^{k-1}]^{-1}+p_{k}\bf{H}_{k}^{T}\bf{V}_{k}^{-1}\bf{H}_{k}]^{-1}.

1924: \label{3bp}

1925: \end{equation}

1926:   

1927: After completion of the forward filter a backward filter runs

1928: in opposite direction, using the same weights as the forward

1929: filter. By taking a weighted mean of the filtered states of 

1930: both filters at every layer a prediction for the state vector 

1931: $\bf x_{k}^{n*}$ along with its covariance matrix $\bf {C}_{k}^{n*}$ 

1932: is obtained, using all hits except the ones at layer k. (The asterisk

1933: indicates that the information from layer k is not used in 

1934: this prediction.) Initially all assignment probabilities for the

1935: hits in each layer 

1936: are set

1937: to be equal but based on the estimated state vector 

1938: $\bf x_{k}^{n*}$ and its covariance 

1939: matrix, the assignment probabilities of all competing hits are then 

1940: recalculated in the following way:

1941: 

1942: \begin{equation}

1943: {\bf {p}_{k}^{i}} \sim \varphi(\bf{m}_{k}^{i};

1944: \bf{H}_{k}\bf x_{k}^{n*}, \bf{V}_{k}+\bf{H}_{k}\bf{C}_{k}^{n*}\bf{H}_{k}^{T})

1945: \label{4bp}

1946: \end{equation}

1947: 

1948: where $\varphi(\bf x ; {\bf \mu},\bf V$) is a multivariate Gaussian 

1949: probability density with mean vector ${\bf \mu}$ and covariance

1950: matrix $\bf V$. 

1951: 

1952: If the probability falls below a certain threshold, the hit is 

1953: considered as the false one and is excluded from the list of the

1954: hits assigned to the track. 

1955: 

1956: However at this step we cannot be sure in calculated probabilities

1957: especially in the initial phase due to insufficient information for

1958: the filter. This problem is overcome by adopting a simulated annealing     

1959: iterative procedure. This is an additional feature of DAF.

1960: 

1961: The simulated annealing optimization algorithm is based on an

1962: analogy between the behavior of a material heated past its

1963: melting point that is slowly cooled (annealed) to form a single

1964: crystal. If the cooling proceeds slowly enough, the crystalline 

1965: state reached at zero temperature will have all the atoms fixed 

1966: in a perfect lattice structure, corresponding to the lowest 

1967: possible energy of the system (global minimum).

1968: 

1969: In the same way in track fitting the simulated annealing allows

1970: to avoid a local minimum and find the global one corresponding to

1971: the minimum chi-square for the track.

1972: 

1973: DAF annealing algorithm can be described in the following way.

1974: The annealing schedule is chosen for example in the form

1975: ${\bf V_{N}}={\bf V}(A/f^{N}+1)$ where the annealing factor 

1976: $f>1$ and factor $A>>1$. This provides that the initial 

1977: variance  is well above the nominal value 

1978: ${\bf V}$ of the observation error but the final one tends 

1979: to ${\bf V}$. After each iteration the assignment 

1980: probabilities exceeding the threshold are normalized to 1

1981: and used again as weights in the next iteration, and so on.

1982: The iterations generally are stopped if the relative change in 

1983: chi-square is less than correspondent control parameter

1984: (typically of the order 0.01). 

1985: 

1986: Since we deal with the stochastic process the best result

1987: can be reached repeating the DAF procedure for a few different

1988: annealing factors f and then choosing the result 

1989: corresponding to the minimum chi-square. 

1990: 

1991: 

1992:    

1993: \newpage

1994: 

1995: 

1996: \section*{APPENDIX\ C. Tracker Resolution}

1997: 

1998: This appendix demonstrates the results of application of the pattern

1999: recognition and reconstruction procedure for the conversion events 

2000: without background.

2001: 

2002: 

2003:  The distribution in the difference between the input reconstructed momentum (Pin\_f) based on

2004:  the Kalman filter and the simulated input momentum (Pin) is shown in

2005: Figure ~\ref{fig:pin_dif} in linear (a) and logarithmic (b) scale.

2006: According to this distribution the intrinsic tracker resolution is

2007: $\sigma$ = 0.12 MeV if one fits the distribution by a Gaussian in the range

2008: -0.3 - 0.7 MeV.

2009: 

2010: 

2011: \begin{figure}[htb!]

2012: \centerline{\hbox{%

2013: \psfig{figure=dif_lin.eps,height=3.0in,clip=on}

2014:  \psfig{figure=dif_log.eps,height=3.0in,clip=on}}}

2015: \caption{

2016:  Distribution in the difference between the input reconstructed momentum based on

2017:  the Kalman filter and the simulated input momentum without background.

2018:  }

2019: \label{fig:pin_dif}

2020: \end{figure}

2021: 

2022: 

2023: \begin{figure}[htb!]

2024: \centerline{\hbox{%

2025: \psfig{figure=pin_real_lin.eps,height=3.0in,clip=on}

2026:  \psfig{figure=pin_real_log.eps,height=3.0in,clip=on}}}

2027: \caption{

2028:  Distribution in the input momentum reconstructed by the

2029:  Kalman filter  without background.

2030:  }

2031: \label{fig:pin_kal}

2032: \end{figure}

2033: 

2034: 

2035: Figure ~\ref{fig:pin_kal} shows a distribution in the input

2036: momentum (Pin\_f) reconstructed by the Kalman filter 

2037: in linear (a) and logarithmic (b) scale without background.  

2038: This distribution is characterized by the standard deviation $\sigma$ = 0.25 MeV of the

2039: reconstructed input momentum  for a Gaussian fit

2040: in the range 104-106 MeV. 

2041: The overall reconstruction acceptance is 22.7 $\%$ for muon conversion

2042: events with the momentum above a threshold momentum of 103.6

2043: MeV/c.

2044: 

2045: Comparing these results with the results of the reconstruction

2046: in the presence of the background we get the difference in tracker

2047: resolution 1.5 \% and the difference 2.7 \% in overall acceptance.

2048: Therefore the tracker resolution and overall acceptance are not

2049: affected significantly at the considered background level.

2050: 

2051: \end{document}

2052: