-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 168
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
fix: use correct path length derivatives when computing the curvilinear covariance for a zero step propagation #2910
fix: use correct path length derivatives when computing the curvilinear covariance for a zero step propagation #2910
Conversation
Thanks @goetzgaycken! This would have to be rebased on top of |
@beomki-yeo and @andiwand could you maybe have a look at this? |
560d9e7
to
f9938dd
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
for my understanding: is the missing term from the covariance depending on the magnetic field? because I would have thought the contribution from the direction should be 0 since we always arrive perpendicular on the curvilinear surface
Tests/UnitTests/Core/Propagator/BoundToCurvilinearConversionTests.cpp
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
It depends on both the direction but also the cross product of the magnetic field and the time components on the propagation velocity. Even without a magnetic field a small correction results from the path length derivatives. |
f9938dd
to
8b49619
Compare
Propagation using the AtlasStepper and /MultiEigenStepperLoop have not been tested and/or fixed. |
ae55147
to
62b007c
Compare
📊: Physics performance monitoring for be0ac1dphysmon summary
|
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2910 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 48.82% 48.82% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 489 489
Lines 28860 28891 +31
Branches 13695 13711 +16
==========================================
+ Hits 14092 14105 +13
- Misses 4953 4957 +4
- Partials 9815 9829 +14 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
62b007c
to
5ec58b2
Compare
5ec58b2
to
e53fd71
Compare
The PR looks good to me as long as the comments from others are resolved! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I left a few more comments and suggestions.
Generally I feel like there should be an easier solution to this but I also don't have a concrete idea for that so no objection from my side to merge this as it is since it fixes a problem.
@goetzgaycken there is a |
e53fd71
to
97a96a8
Compare
update from 5ec58b2 to 97a96a8
|
The test shows how to compute the Jacobian for the bound to curvilinear conversion and compares the results from a propagation with various step sizes.
97a96a8
to
472d018
Compare
There seems to be a problem in "CI Bridge / build_linux_ubuntu". Though I do not see a particular what goes wrong exactly. Is this just an infrastructure problem ? |
I think this is an OOM. I'm retrying. |
…ar covariance for a zero step propagation (acts-project#2910) The propagate can use curvilinear parametrisation for the returned parameters and covariance, However if the propagation step size is below the limit, the propagator does not compute the path length derivatives which leads to an incorrect covariance matrix when enabling curvilinear parameterization.
…ar covariance for a zero step propagation (acts-project#2910) The propagate can use curvilinear parametrisation for the returned parameters and covariance, However if the propagation step size is below the limit, the propagator does not compute the path length derivatives which leads to an incorrect covariance matrix when enabling curvilinear parameterization.
The propagate can use curvilinear parametrisation for the returned parameters and covariance, However if the propagation step size is below the limit, the propagator does not compute the path length derivatives which leads to an incorrect covariance matrix when enabling curvilinear parameterization.