Summary of SiD Tracking Discussions, May 7-11, 2007 at SLAC

This is a summary of some issues that we decided or agreed to leave open. A separate page contains a list of work packages.

The summary is written by Rob Kutschke and me personal comments are in italics.

Persistency

I view this as much too confining. We must be able to persist anything we put into the event, even if that information is not useful to the other collaborations. I do agree that track objects and all those downstream of them should be compatible with those used by other collaborations.

Treatment of Real Data

For now we are not considering the use case that we will (hopefully) someday use this framework to analyze data from a testbeam or from a real experiment. Therefore the hit and cluster classes all contain methods that return MC truth information. We did not define separate datahit classes and mchit classes in which the datahit classes are free from MC information.

New Geometry

The new geometry is well underway but not yet finished. This is the geometry that can describe the detector made of wafers. It can also describe a detector made of cylinders.

RawTrackerHit

We will get LCIO to approve several mods to the RawTrackerHit class and use it as the persistent representation of a single hit pixel or strip.

Needed Changes

Consequences:

Recommendation:

People who write RawTrackerHit creators must be reminded to sum contributions before digitization. There is no support for this is in the class system we have specfied so they will need to do it themselves.

Clusters

Track Fitters

There are a several track fitters in various states of readiness:

Track Classes

We need improved Track classes:

TrackerHits

Cheaters

A variety of pattern recognition cheaters exist. So far as I know they only work in the barrel and only work for the cylindrical tracker geometry.

Configuration and Metadata

Old Style Geometries

There are many existing lcio files containing events simulated with the cylindrical vertex and tracking detectors. It will still be possible to read these files and instantiate the geometry representation. Old code will continue to work. Pattern recognition code developed for the planar detectors is unlikely to work with this old files.

How did we do with our Goals?

Our goals stated on Monday were:

  1. Define classes for tracking infrastructure
  2. Define a cheater for SimTrackHit to whatever it is that is used as input for pattern recognition.
  3. Re: links back and forth between Geometry and TrackerHits
  4. Re: Forward geometry.
  5. How does the above affect tracking algorithms?

Here is how we did:

  1. We have narrowed down the options considerably. The main remaining choice is whether to go with Dima's option for clusters or with something else.
  2. This will be done as soon as 1) is implemented.
  3. This was not decided. Most of us agree that there should be a clear distinction between event scope information and run scope or job scope information. So access to hits should be via the event no the geometry system. Jeremy feels that the correct method to access the events is via a hasReadOut() method implemented on elements of the geometry system.
  4. Hans prepared material but we did not get to it. The material is attached.
  5. We made progress on the cylindrical vs polyhedral issue by reducing the scope of disagreement: see Monday. We did not make progress on version control.