Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Use reco not MC PDG hypothesis & isPrimary boolean for Pandora CAFs #95

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 7, 2025

Conversation

jback08
Copy link
Member

@jback08 jback08 commented Mar 6, 2025

Update the PDG hypothesis & isPrimary boolean to use the reconstruction not MC truth info for Pandora.

Also moved the filling of the interaction information from FillInteractions() (which is now removed) to the FillTracks() and FillShowers() functions, depending if the Pandora clusters are tracks or showers, respectively.

The input Pandora ROOT file stores the reco PDG hypothesis & isPrimary variables for each cluster, and it is easier to set these interaction variables when the track & shower Standard Record objects are being created, rather than retrieving them from the Standard Record, as was done by the previous FillInteractions() function, and then trying to work out which Pandora cluster ntuple entry they should correspond to (e.g. using a map).

This update requires LArRecoND v01-01-05 for adding the two new reco ROOT variables isRecoPrimary and recoPDG, as well as LArContent v04_14_00 for adding functionality to say whether a reconstructed cluster is a primary one or not.

Copy link
Collaborator

@chenel chenel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

hey John: I don't have the bandwidth to give these careful reviews like Noë was doing, but this looks ok to me on a quick read-through. If you need/want a more detailed review, we can see if @noeroy has the cycles for it 😄

Copy link
Contributor

@noeroy noeroy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't see much issue with it.
Can I assume you tried to run and it gave sensible results?

@jback08
Copy link
Member Author

jback08 commented Mar 7, 2025

Yes, I have ran this on an example MiniRun6.2 file and the results look OK.

@jback08 jback08 merged commit 2743d57 into main Mar 7, 2025
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