This page shows a comparison of DGO vs momentum or radius in the MUID for different alignment corrections. The used data sample for the testing was lvl2-filtered (dimuon) events from Run5 p+p.
Towards the end is a comparison of the estimated efficiency values with the default geometry ("MinJung") and the corrected geometry ("MuidSurvey").

Melynda's MuTR + MuID (black)
Catherine's MuTR + MuID (yellow)
MinJung's MuTR only (blue)
MuidSurvey: Corrections based on MuID survey + Melyndas MuTR corrections (green); survey_correction.dat
MuidSurvey2: MuID Corrections applied backwards + Melyndas MuTR corrections (red); antisurvey_correction.dat

Produced with the plot.C and plot_south.C macros in this dir.

[Above] DG0_sqrt(x*x + y*y) vs momentum [Below] Same for North.

Melynda's corrections (black) and the MuidSurvey (green) work approx. equally well. MuidSurvey2 (reversed correction) does poorly.

Produced with the plot2.C and plot2_south.C macros in this dir.

[Avove] DG0_sqrt(x*x + y*y) vs radius of road position in MUID (gap 0) [Below] Same for North.

The MuidSurvey works better at larger radii. MuidSurvey2 (reversed correction) does worse.

Produced with the compare.C macro in this dir.

[Above] Difference (in %) between estimated efficiencies [Below] Same for North.

Lower right panel for each plot shows the difference for all HV groups in all gaps with reasonable statistics. The mean difference is within 0.1-0.2% between estimates with the default/previous/fake geometry and the new MuidSurvey geometry. This is approx. an order of magnitude smaller than the quoted systematics for the MuidEff (DataDriven) method.