Add TaggerHitFilter and no-cals detectors #1424
Conversation
|
|
||
| void TaggerHitFilter::checkAbortEvent(G4Track* track) { | ||
| if ((layer_count_.size() < layers_hit_) || | ||
| ((layer_count_.count(10) == 0) && (layer_count_.count(20) == 0))) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I just have a general question based on this selection:
I think these hit constraints are tighter than what is currently in place for truth tracking and track reconstruction, where we just require a minimum number of hits (unless this is implicitly accounted for in the target extrapolation step in the CKFProcessor). If so, do we want to add something to track reconstruction to also check for hit placement close to the target? Or maybe just for truth tracks?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good question...in Omar's presentation, he suggested this requirement and it seems sensible. I think, currently, the strategies may require these layers be hit anyway, [https://github.com/user-attachments/files/16818852/acts-v19-v36-tagger-comparisons-4gev.pdf](see this plot included for v36 upgrade), though we will want to extend the strategies used,. The extrapolation doesn't require any sort of layers-hit-pattern as far as I know (and if it does, we should get rid of it).
That said, I personally haven't studied the 2-sensors-closest to target requirement in this context...I don't know how much it a) cuts down on the background we might see, and b) how much is speeds up generation. With the way the code is right now, I don't think we loose any efficiency because I'm pretty sure they are required anyway. Or at least they are always included in tracks we see.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe have these numbers as named constexpr so they dont look more like magic number too?
Co-authored-by: Tamas Vami <[email protected]>
This resolves issue 1423...as title says, add a filter on the tagger hits and adds detectors with no calorimeters.