Home » PANDA » PandaRoot » Bugs, Fixes, Releases » TPC MVD and GEM correlators
| Re: TPC MVD and GEM correlators [message #12026 is a reply to message #12019] |
Thu, 16 June 2011 15:56   |
StefanoSpataro
Messages: 2736
Registered: June 2005
Location: Torino
|
first-grade participant |
From: *to.infn.it
|
|
Hi,
| Felix Boehmer wrote on Thu, 16 June 2011 14:52 |
Hi Stefano,
do you have the latest version of the KalmanTask? It looks like you don't and there is one of the RecoHitProducers not properly defined.
|
It is the 12357, but I have seen you have done a modification at 14:30 which I had not. I will run again.
| Quote: |
To your questions:
| Quote: |
Ca we move the tpc clusterization to the digi macro, or remove it in the digi? At present we are running the same code, even if with different parameters, twice
|
I removed the clustering from the reco macro.
|
This means that the cluster code in the run_digi_tpc_*.C is fine, isn't it? I have seen it was a bit different from the one in the reco macro.
In the digi:
PndTpcClusterFinderTask* tpcCF = new PndTpcClusterFinderTask();
tpcCF->SetDigiPersistence(); // keep Digis refs in clusters
tpcCF->SetPersistence(); // keep Clusters
tpcCF->timeslice(10); //in samples
tpcCF->SetErrorPars(600,300);
tpcCF->SetSimpleClustering(); // use PndTpcClusterFinderSimple
fRun->AddTask(tpcCF);
In the reco:
PndTpcClusterFinderTask* tpcCF = new PndTpcClusterFinderTask();
//tpcCF->SetDigiPersistence(); // keep reference to digis in clusters
tpcCF->SetPersistence(); // keep Clusters
tpcCF->timeslice(4); //in samples
tpcCF->SetThreshold(1);
tpcCF->SetSingleDigiClusterAmpCut(0.);
tpcCF->SetClusterAmpCut(0.); // cut on mean digi amplitude
tpcCF->SetErrorPars(600.,400.);
tpcCF->SetSimpleClustering(); // use PndTpcClusterFinderSimple
fRun->AddTask(tpcCF);
Which of them?
| Quote: |
What you describe was my first approach. However, using the MVD hits after TPC+MVD correlation in a fit gives better results for the (possibly very long) extrapolation into the GEMs. I would keep it that way. I agree that it is slow, but it is the best I have right now. The crashes are completely isoloated to GEANE extrapolations into the GEMs as far as I can tell right now... I am working on it, as I said.
|
So maybe we can take out the first kalman. I am not scared by code crashes or geane crashed, these we can fix, it is matter of track cleaning, taking out tracks which could give errors in arithmetical calculations. I am more scared by crashes connected to memory usage, geane seems to eat a bit of memory and running it three times in the same macro... let's cross the fingers!
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Which particle hypothesis are you using for the kalman?
Is there a way to reduce all those messages? They make the log output file large
|
The particle hypothesis is obtained from MC information isndie the PndTpcRiemannTrackingTask. I can build in a setter if you want to have manual control during the reco.
|
Just to know, in stt case we are using the fixed particle hypothesis (muon as default). Probably the mc method should be also implemented in the RecoKalmanTask version.
But a flag, also for the verbose of the kalman, would be great (I suppose with lower priority).
| Quote: |
I can take a look at this after I have fixed all the other, more urgent problem. I would be very grateful if you could have a lokk at this. Probably the exchange would be a very technical task, but rather easy.
|
Ok, I have also some objections about the enum fDetectorId, because ti breaks a bit also the pid and analysis part, but first let's see what is happening with the "normal" version.
|
|
|
|
Current Time: Sat Apr 20 00:39:40 CEST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01179 seconds
|
GSI Forum
Search
Help
Members
Login
Home
