Skip to content
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

Add ACTS-based full reconstruction flow (no filter) #9

Open
wants to merge 15 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

kkrizka
Copy link

@kkrizka kkrizka commented Sep 12, 2022

Adds an example reconstruction flow that replaces the tracking with the ACTS processor. It targets events without BIB as there is no track filter to remove fake tracks. The filter is available in the unreleased TrackPerf package. It is added as 20-acts-nobib, with the idea being that 2#-* will correspond to ACTS configurations.

The ACTS tracking is added as an extra option to TrackingChoices. Selecting ACTS enabled the following algorithms:

  • ACTSSeededCKFTrackingProc
  • ACTSDuplicateRemoval

The output of ACTSDuplicateRemoval is the SiTracks collection that is then refit by RefitFinal. The RefitFinal is already part of the usual workflow for the other tracking configurations. Its purpose for ACTS is to create the track state at the calorimeter (needed for pandora). The ACTS processor currently does not do this.

Implemented by @Benzillaist presentation. Electron gen/sim taken from #7 .

@gianelle
Copy link
Contributor

@kkrizka
Copy link
Author

kkrizka commented Sep 14, 2022

  1. This PR is based on the steering file introduced in MC electron gun: added the Pandora settings #7 and reuses the gen/sim steps in the CI. I am happy to rebase and merge this after MC electron gun: added the Pandora settings #7 is done. Is there something preventing it from being merged?
  2. The 005 is an example of how to use ACTS for tracking. This PR puts the ACTS tracking in the full reconstruction chain. Do you think this should replace 005 to reduce any confusion?

@gianelle
Copy link
Contributor

gianelle commented Oct 6, 2022

  1. No, I don't see any problem in merging it
  2. I prefer to keep the 005 configuration because it has been used in many official reconstructions

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants