-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 176
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
refactor: Align overstep limit #2441
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2441 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 49.71% 49.71%
=======================================
Files 461 461
Lines 25986 25988 +2
Branches 11935 11935
=======================================
+ Hits 12918 12920 +2
Misses 4600 4600
Partials 8468 8468
📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more |
Co-authored-by: Benjamin Huth <[email protected]>
I looked at the tracksummary and it seems like we reconstruct 4 additional tracks which have some holes and bad pT estimate. I do not think existing performance is impacted but I could double check if necessary Opinion @paulgessinger @benjaminhuth ? |
This means, the fitted params in the tracksummary of particles that were reconstructed before don't change significantly, right? |
This or it was a fit with errors before. I guess I could also try to diff the particles/hits to see if my hypothesis holds. But I guess a bunch of them also have some slight numerical differences |
The ttbar job is pretty low-stats in any case, so not sure how much we need to read into fluctuations there. |
Overstep limits are defined differently in our 3 steppers. This PR aligns them to the convention in the
EigenStepper
. TheStraightLineStepper
returned the wrong sign which might have affected Fatras simulation for neutral particles.Pulled out of #2336