New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Addition of new algorithms to TOFEstimator processor #88
Conversation
@dudarboh Can you:
? |
Hi, @rete. Done. Please check. |
@dudarboh When you open the pull request there is message:
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for addressing the comments @dudarboh . I have just one last comment about one change in the xml steering file, that I have missed before. Is that an intentional change or is it left from testing?
…ailed documentation is added in header file
Proper exception throw of invalid ProcVersion Co-authored-by: Thomas Madlener <thomas.madlener@desy.de>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I missed a parenthesis...
@dudarboh Last thing to sort out probably is the release notes. Can you just provide a few bullet points for summary? |
Release notes are now only brief bullet points. |
#include "DDRec/Vector3D.h" | ||
#include "EVENT/LCCollection.h" | ||
#include "EVENT/ReconstructedParticle.h" | ||
using EVENT::LCCollection, EVENT::ReconstructedParticle; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This does not work!
error: expected ';' before ',' token
using EVENT::LCCollection, EVENT::ReconstructedParticle;
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That is interesting. It compiles successfully in the CI workflows. But maybe that is only true for the limited number of compilers that we use there. Where did you test this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
one of the pipelines that creates the cvmfs nighly https://gitlab.cern.ch/CLICdp/SoftwareConfigurations/iLCSoft/-/pipelines/2360644
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This valid c++17 code that gcc 6 does not seem to support. Do we still need gcc6 to work here ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@andresailer has to decide if he still wants that pipeline. But in my opinion it's easier to fix this and keep the current system running.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are we moving to c++17 for iLCSoft?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I thought we did a long time ago ? At least we are using it for our iLCSoft release > 15 months or so ...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I must have missed that memo 😃
Probably should move to base on the nightly key4hep installation for the CI, which includes the iLCSoft packages
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So we stop the old nightly CI in this project?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yes
BEGINRELEASENOTES
ENDRELEASENOTES
Important notes
Currently new algorithms work only with simple cases of PFO, meaning: only one cluster and only one track associated with PFO. Other PFOs are ignored.
Flight length calculation are done using the assumption of less than 2*pi change in the phi angle. Meaning that the flight length gives the wrong results for the tracks with more than one helix curls.
Thus, the new algorithms are still optimized to work in the barrel part only. Performance of the TOF estimators in the endcap is currently unknown.
What's new
We added new TOF estimators that show a better performance in terms of less bias in the measurement of pions, kaons and protons masses.
Steering parameter
New steering parameter
ProcessorVersion
has been added with the possible values:"idr"
(default) and"dev"
.The previous behavior is set by default for the backwards compatibility.
Output
In the new version the output parameters are modified to:
{"TOFClosest", "TOFFastest", "TOFCylFit", "TOFClosestFit", "FlightLength", "MomAtCalo"}
Using these parameters the mass of a particle can be calculated.
TOF estimators
The four estimators are available in the new version: