-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 52
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
Determine succesfully fitted tracks #869
Conversation
@niermann999 I don't know how to set the min/max mask tolerance so I just set them to the same value. Let me know if it has to be changed. |
The maximum mask tolerance should not be made smaller than it is currently, I believe (making it larger should be fine, as it determines the mask tolerance for surfaces that are far away from the track). The minimum mask tolerance is effectively what we require when the track is already on the surface. Not sure that should be much looser than it is (which corresponds to the propagation position error that was found in the ATLAS paper, if I remember correctly). The two tolerances should however not be set to the same value imo. |
d51a9ba
to
74ac140
Compare
@stephenswat I made a new enum class of |
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.
LGTM, but we will need to fix the tests.
performance/include/traccc/resolution/fitting_performance_writer.hpp
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
aae7ee3
to
fb367b3
Compare
fb367b3
to
6ad8656
Compare
|
Now depends on #881
This PR adds a boolean variable in
fitting_result
to determine whether the fitting was successful. This should be harmonized with #862 as wellSuccess conditions:
The second condition will be much easier to be met once we implement the direct navigator.
Some plots about fitting efficiency will follow soon...
Here is the plot of fitting efficiency (Number of successfully fitted track / Total number of tracks) as a function of mask tolerance.
Fitting efficiency drops a lot for momentum < 10 GeV/c, which is expected due to the larger material effect + unstable navigation.
Following is the script used:
Script
@niermann999 advised that mask tolerances of the first figure should not be touched. I also think the mask tolerance won't be even an issue once we implement the direct navigator. However, the current default overstep tolerance of (-300 um) may be too small for small momentum particle. It would be nice to make it larger or adaptive for different values of momentum.