GSI Forum: Tracking » riemann track finding

Home » PANDA » PandaRoot » Tracking » riemann track finding

Show: Today's Messages :: Polls :: Message Navigator

Re: riemann track finding [message #5814 is a reply to message #5813]

Tue, 05 February 2008 12:25

StefanoSpataro
Messages: 2736
Registered: June 2005
Location: Torino

first-grade participant

From: *physik.uni-giessen.de

Quote:

1) I simply do not understand why we need a standard hit. Maybe you can explain.

If you have a base class for the points, you do not have to care about which kind of detector is giving you a point (and use its Get functions). You take an object of (CbmHit*) kind whatever detector is providing you this information.

Quote:

2) If we talk about errors, this makes only sense if we have an error MATRIX. And we agreed that the object that is to be used for such kinds of applications is the RecoHit of genfit!

I can agree, but one should provide a standard for all kinds of possible algorythms that should be implemented for pattern recognition. Maybe in the future one could need even the error (size of the cluster? size of the mvd strip? size of the straw tube?) for pattern recognition.

Quote:

3) That CbmHit is A KIND OF TVector3 is exactly what I do not like. Would it use the TVector3 as a member directly one would have access to all the nice features of TVector3 for example in a Draw-Command. Anyway CbmHit can calculate a TVector3 with the Position method, so why not make a member variable of type TVector3 instead of three doubles??

The TVector3 has nothing that links the points to the track (or detector hit) that has produced them. So when you want to evaluate efficiency/purity a simple TVector3 is maybe too much simple, and does not help you. The CbmHit has more space inside, and it contains even the TVector3, so you have already all its features by a simple Get function.

But this is just my opinion.

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]

		riemann track finding By: Sebastian Neubert on Wed, 23 January 2008 18:07
		Re: riemann track finding By: Tobias Stockmanns on Thu, 24 January 2008 17:15
		Re: riemann track finding By: Sebastian Neubert on Thu, 24 January 2008 17:23
		Re: riemann track finding By: Tobias Stockmanns on Thu, 24 January 2008 17:29
		Re: riemann track finding By: Sebastian Neubert on Mon, 28 January 2008 11:51
		Re: riemann track finding By: Tobias Stockmanns on Mon, 28 January 2008 12:37
		Re: riemann track finding By: Sebastian Neubert on Mon, 28 January 2008 13:19
		Re: riemann track finding By: Tobias Stockmanns on Mon, 28 January 2008 14:04
		Re: riemann track finding By: Tobias Stockmanns on Mon, 28 January 2008 15:51
		Re: riemann track finding By: Tobias Stockmanns on Mon, 28 January 2008 16:36
		Re: riemann track finding By: Sebastian Neubert on Tue, 05 February 2008 10:32
		Re: riemann track finding By: StefanoSpataro on Tue, 05 February 2008 11:04
		Re: riemann track finding By: Sebastian Neubert on Tue, 05 February 2008 12:08
		Re: riemann track finding By: StefanoSpataro on Tue, 05 February 2008 12:25
		Re: riemann track finding By: Sebastian Neubert on Tue, 05 February 2008 12:34
		Re: riemann track finding By: Sebastian Neubert on Tue, 05 February 2008 12:37
		Re: riemann track finding By: Tobias Stockmanns on Wed, 06 February 2008 09:05
		Re: riemann track finding By: Sebastian Neubert on Wed, 06 February 2008 10:01
		Re: riemann track finding By: Tobias Stockmanns on Wed, 06 February 2008 10:42
		Re: riemann track finding By: Sebastian Neubert on Tue, 12 February 2008 14:30
		Re: riemann track finding By: Tobias Stockmanns on Tue, 12 February 2008 14:36
		Re: riemann track finding By: Tobias Stockmanns on Tue, 12 February 2008 14:44

Previous Topic:	track finder
Next Topic:	covariances in global coordinates

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Fri Sep 20 22:56:25 CEST 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00735 seconds