-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 21
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
Factor out tracking, update all CIs to full sequence #1551
Conversation
dbb0de1
to
3c474fd
Compare
3c474fd
to
61bf3e7
Compare
Maybe I should have done this in two steps... But let's concentrate on the tracking changes first:
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]() [Now moving to the tagger]
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
@EBerzin @bloodyyugo are these changes according to your expectations? |
OK so in this I kept the CKF the usual DQM, and introduced new ones for the GSF. Things pass the K-S test... This is a bit surprising to be since I changed to the digis + changed the variables. But if it's true that means everything in my prev comment comes from the combination of the ambiguity resolution and the GSF |
Ignore all the workflows that got triggered by my command line testing, it doesnt check out the correct branch. Now I triggered test with the usual "go to draft, ready for review" way |
Well this has not much to do with this PR's developments, but I guess it got revealed it now:
|
I will delay adding the tracking to the signal, and made an issue about it: #1562 |
/run-validation |
The validation workflow is running here: https://github.com/LDMX-Software/ldmx-sw/actions/runs/13140200480. |
/run-validation |
The validation workflow is running here: https://github.com/LDMX-Software/ldmx-sw/actions/runs/13188891225. |
Validation with the version where the min num hit is back to 6: |
I will close this PR and have the content done in pieces |
I am updating ldmx-sw, here are the details.
What are the issues that this addresses?
This resolves #1549
Check List
I tested with the ecal PN sample.
I did two things in this PR
update the CIs to use the latest tracking, for this I made a new file so I dont have to copy a lot of things, I also updated reco.py @bloodyyugo I took the numbers from Add ambiguity resolution to tracking #1526 (and rounded them).
Ecal Veto now relies on the tracking for the photon projection, when it can (i.e. if a recoil track exists). With this we also introduced another ep angle as measured at the target, or as it used to be measured at the ECAL face. Much of this work was done by @JYoo001