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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Rearraging of the PDHD PDS simulation worflow #140

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Rearraging of the PDHD PDS simulation worflow #140

wants to merge 2 commits into from
+85 −7

Conversation

jroto
Copy link
Member

@jroto jroto commented Oct 14, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Changes:

  • I removed the Rn generator from the generators, since this applies only underground.
  • I removed the 1GeV tag from the cosmic generator, since there are no beam generator inside, which is confusing.
  • I updated the g4 fhicl to optimize the simulation workflow. It is simpler now, and it only remains as it was when using the seminanalytical model. The G4 fhicl for computable graph is also added.

Jose Soto added 2 commits October 14, 2024 02:36
Delete Rn from pdhd generators.
2c53ff0 
Change name of prod_cosmics_1GeV to prod_cosmics, since there is no beam generator
Review of the pdhd light simulation workflow.
208166c 
Now only the semianalytical model will have a two separated ionandscint instances.
New fhicl added for computable graph.
lpaulucc
lpaulucc reviewed Oct 21, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@lpaulucc lpaulucc left a comment •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hi José, this looks good but we should have the semi-ana model in the standard fhicl instead of the optical library. Could you change that?

@lpaulucc
Copy link
Member

José, one other thing is that there needs to be checked is if the Optical Backtracker is receiving both acitve and external volumes information. I think Shuaixiang identified this was not the case.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@lpaulucc lpaulucc lpaulucc left review comments

@calcuttj calcuttj Awaiting requested review from calcuttj

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@jroto @lpaulucc