1. LCFIVertex with Jupiter - brief report - S. Uozumi Apr-9 2008 ACFA-sim-j meeting

2. c-tagging performance (full tracking+Pandora+LCFIVertex, very preliminary) b c (b-bkgr) c open: BRAHMS, LC-note full: MARLIN (Mokka), Si-only track cheater GLD LDC00Sc Z-pole by Sonja, Z-pole c c (b-bkgr) b open: Wolf PFA full: PandoraPFA FullLDCTracking, LDC01_05Sc May 2007 Mar 2008

3. Flavor-tagging input variables GLD LDC00Sc List of parameters used for the Flavor-tagging : D0significance of a jet Z0significance of a jet Momentum of a jet JoingProbRphi JointProbZ DecayLength DecayLengthSignificance PTCorrectedMass RawMomentum NumTracksInVertices SecondaryVertexProbability

4. Status & Plans Still comparing input variables for flavor tagging between GLD and LDC. Problem with the Mokka data I’ve generated? Will look at Sonja’s data (only LDC01 available). After getting reasonable conclusion with GLD and LDC00 (or LDC01), compare tagging performance with GLD, GLDprim, J4LDC.

5. b c (b-bkgr) c open: BRAHMS, LC-note full: MARLIN (Mokka), Si-only track cheater Resulting purity vs efficiency at the Z-peak (Sonja, May 2007)  at high efficiency MARLIN(MOKKA) with “Silicon-only” track cheater gives better performance compared to LC-note result using tracking with pattern recognition