Skip to content

Adding steering files for 2019 pass2#1166

Merged
mgignac merged 2 commits intomasterfrom
eb-2019
Mar 18, 2026
Merged

Adding steering files for 2019 pass2#1166
mgignac merged 2 commits intomasterfrom
eb-2019

Conversation

@EBerzin
Copy link
Contributor

@EBerzin EBerzin commented Mar 18, 2026

Added ability to skip sensor in RawTrackerHitFitterDriver.

Added steering files with new seeding strategies, masking L5b.

@EBerzin EBerzin requested review from mghrear and mgignac March 18, 2026 00:54
@mgignac mgignac merged commit 8f0fbbf into master Mar 18, 2026
1 of 2 checks passed
@mghrear
Copy link
Collaborator

mghrear commented Mar 19, 2026

I was digging into this line-by-line to make the corresponding MC file, and I noticed something I wanted to run by both of you.

The beam variables under KalmanPatRecDriver are:

<beamPositionZ> 0.0 </beamPositionZ>
<beamSigmaZ> 0.02 </beamSigmaZ>
<beamPositionX> 0.0 </beamPositionX>
<beamSigmaX> 0.05 </beamSigmaX>
<beamPositionY> 0.0 </beamPositionY>
<beamSigmaY> 1.0 </beamSigmaY>

The beam variables under ReconParticleDriver_Kalman are:

<beamPositionX>0.200</beamPositionX>
<beamSigmaX>0.100</beamSigmaX>
<beamPositionY>0.02</beamPositionY>
<beamSigmaY>0.01</beamSigmaY>
<beamPositionZ>-7.5</beamPositionZ>

and the actual beam parameters are:
x: 0.11 +- 0.09
y: -0.01 +- 0.01
z: -7.54 +- 0.17

Are these differences meaningful / should we updated this?

@mgignac
Copy link
Collaborator

mgignac commented Mar 19, 2026

Ah good catch! Yes, we should update this. For the 2021 dataset processing, are using a dynamic beam spot loaded through the conditions DB. In order for that to work, we will need this first pass so we can characterize the beam spot and then add it to the conditions DB. So for this first pass, we'll need to use a fixed one.

@EBerzin , from your multi-track vertex fits, can you put in sensible (x,y) beam spot positions and uncertainties? The uncertainty on the 100 track fit will be quite a bit smaller than what we'd expect for 2-track vertex fits, so for the uncertainty I'd make it artificially large for the time being, OR we could use the values from 2021 which are probably pretty good (sigmaX 0.055 and sigmaY 0.045). It's not too important at this point. Forsure we need to make sure the vertex Z position is the same across both drivers.

@mghrear Note: for MC, we've typically generated beamspots at (x,y) = (0,0) until we have a better idea of how the data looks.

@EBerzin
Copy link
Contributor Author

EBerzin commented Mar 19, 2026

I updated the beam positions and used the 2021 uncertainties.

@mgignac
Copy link
Collaborator

mgignac commented Mar 19, 2026

Do we need a separate PR to get those changes in?

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