sPHENIX tracking discussion

[Hugo Pereira Da Costa <hugo.pereira.da.costa AT gmail.com>]

On 12/5/24 8:39 PM, Anthony Frawley wrote:

        Well, it is not at all clear that we should require the same
        parameters in zero field and field-on macros. The TPC behaves
        differently in those two cases.

Hi Tony,

agreed.

Hugo

        The problem pointed out by Hugo is why I am not a big fan of
        hiding configuration details in common macros - at least until
        they become well established and stable, which they presently
        very much are not.
      
        
      
      
        When Dave recently committed zero-field matching changes to the
        macros, I encouraged him to move the matching calls from
        Trkr_Reco.C to Fun4All_ZFAllTrackers.C, so we can see what is
        being used.
      
        
      
      
        I agree we need to get it all sorted out in the workfest.
      
        
      
      
        Tony

---

From: sphenix-tracking-l-request AT lists.bnl.gov <sphenix-tracking-l-request AT lists.bnl.gov> on behalf of "Pereira Da Costa, Hugo Denis Antonio" <sphenix-tracking-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2024 5:26 PM
To: Osborn, Joseph <josborn1 AT bnl.gov>; Anthony Frawley via sPHENIX-tracking-l <sphenix-tracking-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Cc: Hugo Pereira Da Costa <hugo.pereira.da.costa AT gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [[Sphenix-tracking-l] ] Tracking parameters

 

Yeah so, concerning e.g. the seeder parameters, they are set ‘properly’ in Fun4All_FullReconstruction and in Fun4All_FieldOnAllTrackersCalos, but not in Fun4All_ZFAllTrackers (which uses a seeder configuration from Common/Trkr_Reco, unlike Fun4All_FullReconstruction)

Same for the micromegas matching windows.

 

I guess I understand the need for having ‘standalone’ TrackingProduction macros, but then we need to keep up doing so consistently and duplicate everything in those.

Right now, those macros partly call stuff from Common (e.g. the decoding and clustering), then some duplicate and modify the seeding, matching, fitting, and some other don’t …

 

 

From: sphenix-tracking-l-request AT lists.bnl.gov <sphenix-tracking-l-request AT lists.bnl.gov> On Behalf Of Osborn, Joseph
Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2024 3:13 PM
To: Pereira Da Costa, Hugo Denis Antonio <hugo.pereira-da-costa AT lanl.gov>; Anthony Frawley via sPHENIX-tracking-l <sphenix-tracking-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Cc: Hugo Pereira Da Costa <hugo.pereira.da.costa AT gmail.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [[Sphenix-tracking-l] ] Tracking parameters

 

Hi Hugo,

 

While I agree this is confusing, it was intentionally done earlier in the run. As we were tuning the seeders and understanding their region of validity, we decided to keep the modules in the data reconstruction macros separate from the modules in the "common" area of macros. The reason was to ensure the tracking in simulation world stayed the same as we had tuned it on, while when running macros over data we could tune the various parameters and find what worked. This has the negative consequence as you point out that there are many copies of the same code, and one the "main" one gets modified, the others don't necessarily keep up. The main macro we have been developing on is Fun4All_FullReconstruction. We should probably consolidate the macros so that this is less confusing, as you point out.

 

Regarding the TPC gas, that is an outstanding item that needs to be addressed that I hope we can assign to someone at the workfest. A while ago Cameron changed the gas composition in the TPC geometry but for some reason that we did not identify at the time it modified the tracking in a negative, seemingly unrealistic, way. We left it at NeCF4 but need to trace down why changing the gas causes some unrealistic changes in the simulation.

 

Joe

 

 

___________________________

Joe Osborn, Ph.D

Physics Department

Brookhaven National Laboratory

josborn1 AT bnl.gov

---

From: sphenix-tracking-l-request AT lists.bnl.gov <sphenix-tracking-l-request AT lists.bnl.gov> on behalf of "Pereira Da Costa, Hugo Denis Antonio" <sphenix-tracking-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2024 5:00 PM
To: Pereira Da Costa, Hugo Denis Antonio <hugo.pereira-da-costa AT lanl.gov>; Anthony Frawley via sPHENIX-tracking-l <sphenix-tracking-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Cc: Hugo Pereira Da Costa <hugo.pereira.da.costa AT gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [[Sphenix-tracking-l] ] Tracking parameters

 

Another one:
Another one (this time about seeder search windows)
grep 'seeder->SetSearchWindow' `find -iname "*.c"`

./common/Trkr_Reco.C:  seeder->SetSearchWindow(1.5, 0.05);  // (z width, phi width)
./common/Trkr_Reco.C:  seeder->SetSearchWindow(1.5, 0.05);  // (z width, phi width)
./common/Trkr_Reco.C:  seeder->SetSearchWindow(1.5, 0.05);  // (z width, phi width)
./common/Trkr_TruthReco.C:      seeder->SetSearchWindow(1.5, 0.05);  // (z width, phi width)
./common/Trkr_TruthReco.C:  seeder->SetSearchWindow(1.5, 0.05);  // (z width, phi width)
./TrackingProduction/Fun4All_FullReconstruction.C: seeder->SetSearchWindow(2.,0.05); // z-width and phi-width, default in macro at 1.5 and 0.05
./TrackingProduction/Fun4All_FieldOnAllTrackersCalos.C: seeder->SetSearchWindow(2.,0.05); // z-width and phi-width, default in macro at 1.5 and 0.05
./TrackingProduction/Fun4All_TrackSeeding.C: seeder->SetSearchWindow(2.,0.05); // z-width and phi-width, default in macro at 1.5 and 0.05
./calibrations/tpc/TpcDVCalib/Fun4All_FieldOnAllTrackersCalos.C: seeder->SetSearchWindow(2.,0.05); // z-width and phi-width, default in macro at 1.5 and 0.05

The macro I am using locally uses 2.0 and 0.05 (I think I got that from Tony some time ago), as do 'some' of our macros. But the default macro now use 1.5, 0.05
There is also a call to SetClusAdd_delta_window(3.0,0.06), found in some macros, but not all.
If I remember right, these were some parameters adjusted by Tony a while ago to improve the number of found seed.
My observation is that this also works for the zero-field runs.


Hugo

-----Original Message-----
From: sphenix-tracking-l-request AT lists.bnl.gov <sphenix-tracking-l-request AT lists.bnl.gov> On Behalf Of "Pereira Da Costa, Hugo Denis Antonio"
Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2024 2:59 PM
To: Anthony Frawley via sPHENIX-tracking-l <sphenix-tracking-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Cc: Hugo Pereira Da Costa <hugo.pereira.da.costa AT gmail.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [[Sphenix-tracking-l] ] Tracking parameters

All,

So unfortunately, using the latest code from Macros, I still see very very few tracks mathcing to TPOT in our zero-field data, as soon as I require a silicon match. I might still be doing something wrong.

Now: looking at recent commit and discussing with Bade, I realized that our macro repository is somewhat of a mess, and makes it difficult to understand what we are running or talk to each other.

As an example, I looked into micromegas matching windows. There are 4 parameters to be set there, controlled by:

     mm_match->set_rphi_search_window_lyr1();
     mm_match->set_rphi_search_window_lyr2();
     mm_match->set_z_search_window_lyr1();
     mm_match->set_z_search_window_lyr2();

Now, a simple grep into vanilla macro gives:

grep set_rphi_search_window_lyr1 `find -iname "*.C"`
./common/Trkr_Reco.C: mm_match->set_rphi_search_window_lyr1(0.2);
./common/Trkr_Reco.C: mm_match->set_rphi_search_window_lyr1(0.2);
./common/Trkr_Reco.C: mm_match->set_rphi_search_window_lyr1(0.4);
./common/Trkr_TruthReco.C: mm_match->set_rphi_search_window_lyr1(0.2);
./common/Trkr_TruthReco.C: mm_match->set_rphi_search_window_lyr1(0.2);
./common/Trkr_TruthReco.C: mm_match->set_rphi_search_window_lyr1(0.4);
./TrackingProduction/Fun4All_FullReconstruction.C:
mm_match->set_rphi_search_window_lyr1(3.);
./TrackingProduction/Fun4All_ZFAllTrackers.C:
mm_match->set_rphi_search_window_lyr1(0.4);
./TrackingProduction/Fun4All_FieldOnAllTrackersCalos.C:
mm_match->set_rphi_search_window_lyr1(0.4);
./TrackingProduction/Fun4All_TrackSeeding.C:
mm_match->set_rphi_search_window_lyr1(3.);
./calibrations/tpc/TpcDVCalib/Fun4All_FieldOnAllTrackersCalos.C:
mm_match->set_rphi_search_window_lyr1(0.4);

So three different values, assigned at 11 different places. It is very difficult to know which one is used by one.

The ones commited yesterday in Fun4All_ZFAllTrackers are not the correct one.

I will move forward and make all the values consistent and consistent with what they should be with real pp data (3cm) and commit.

Another thing which I noticed:

in Tracking_Reco_TrackSeed_ZeroField and elsewhere (from
common/Trkr_Reco.C) there are some parameters assigned to the ca_seeder and simplekfprop which depend on the gas mixture in the TPC, G4TPC::TPC_GAS_MIXTURE

I don't know how critical those are, but as much as I can tell, this variable is assigned to

./common/G4_TrkrVariables.C:  std::string TPC_GAS_MIXTURE = "NeCF4";

and never overwritten.

All in all I think one of the objectives of the workfest could be to make sure that our tracking parameters make sense and are consistent everywhere, in the repository and among users. Otherwise, it makes it very difficult to draw any conclusion about anything.

Opinion ?

Hugo