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

Count the number of holes in the KF #778

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Nov 26, 2024

Conversation

beomki-yeo
Copy link
Contributor

@beomki-yeo beomki-yeo commented Nov 22, 2024

Based on #774

The number of holes will be required in the ambiguity solver.
To count the number of holes even after all track candidates are visited, the abort condition in the KF is removed. This will increase the CPU computing time but impact on the GPU KF will be much smaller.

Also added a test to make sure the new feature works correctly

@stephenswat
Copy link
Member

Don't we already have the hole count form the CKF? Why do we need to recalculate it in the KF?

@beomki-yeo
Copy link
Contributor Author

I added it because CKF and KF may have different propagation setup (particle hypothesis, navigator config, etc.). The propagation of CKF also stops if the number of holes hit a certain number (max_num_skipping_per_cand) defined in the finding config.

Copy link
Member

@stephenswat stephenswat left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Makes sense to me, thank you for the explanation.

@beomki-yeo
Copy link
Contributor Author

OK I didn't change the propagator algorithm and KF and CKF might yield the same result for the holes. But it is not bad to have the hole counting in KF in case we combine with other track finding methods that don't do any hole counting (e.g. GNN...)

@beomki-yeo beomki-yeo merged commit 03ba36c into acts-project:main Nov 26, 2024
26 checks passed
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.

2 participants