-
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
perf: use analytical solution for straight tracks during impact point estimation #2506
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2506 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 49.77% 49.77% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 466 466
Lines 26298 26310 +12
Branches 12084 12093 +9
==========================================
+ Hits 13091 13095 +4
+ Misses 4617 4616 -1
- Partials 8590 8599 +9
📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more |
The actual output checks on the failed jobs seem to succeed:
But then the q442 AOD metadata checks reports a mismatch. However, I don't see how this could be caused by these changes. Also, this exact job failed with this exact difference also after #2460 went in, but then succeeded when #2516 was merged. Could be an unrelated issue? |
When retrying, the job still fails (maybe something about the build is off?) but when I trigger a clean job it succeeds. I think we're good. |
We use the Newton method to find the 3D PCA for helical tracks. Straight tracks are currently approximated by setting the helix radius to a very large value.
In this PR, the approximation is replaced by an analytical solution (which exists for straight tracks). This should lead to a better performance and (slightly) more precise results. To check the analytical solution, a unit test is added.
A derivation of the analytical solution can be found in the updated reference: Track_Linearization_and_3D_PCA.pdf