refactor(gx2f): make material work for |eta| > 2

[AJPfleger]

Drastically improve the material effects with the following technique:

1. Converge the GX2F System, ignoring material effects (=no material case).
2. Do one iteration with material effects.

This avoids the observed instabilities introduced by fitting the material. We can see in physmon, that the pullwidth is 1 for all eta, as well as for all pT. In very low pT regions, the efficiency drops to 92%, which still needs further investigation.

I relaxed the material-effects unit test a bit. I assume, our constructed test is really extreme and hard to fit with the current model.

--- END COMMIT MESSAGE ---

pullwidth_d0_vs_eta

pullwidth_d0_vs_pT

trackeff_vs_pT

blocked:

• refactor(gx2f): analyse temporary track in an extra function #3799
• refactor(gx2f): improve logging #3801
• refactor(gx2f): container to represent the mathematical gx2f-system #3806
• refactor(gx2f): pull out material counting #3839
• refactor(gx2f): make function to update parameter #3840

[github-actions]

📊: Physics performance monitoring for 7670579

Full contents

physmon summary

• ✅ Particles fatras
• ✅ Particles geant4
• ✅ Particles ttbar
• ✅ Vertices ttbar
• ✅ Truth tracking (KF)
• ✅ Truth tracking (GSF)
• ✅ Truth tracking (GX2F)
• ✅ Truth tracking (KF refit)
• ✅ Truth tracking (GSF refit)
• ✅ CKF finding performance | trackfinding | single muon | truth smeared seeding
• ✅ CKF fitting performance | trackfinding | single muon | truth smeared seeding
• ✅ CKF track summary | trackfinding | single muon | truth smeared seeding
• ✅ Seeding trackfinding | single muon | truth estimated seeding
• ✅ CKF finding performance | trackfinding | single muon | truth estimated seeding
• ✅ CKF fitting performance | trackfinding | single muon | truth estimated seeding
• ✅ CKF track summary | trackfinding | single muon | truth estimated seeding
• ✅ Seeding trackfinding | single muon | default seeding
• ✅ CKF finding performance | trackfinding | single muon | default seeding
• ✅ CKF fitting performance | trackfinding | single muon | default seeding
• ✅ CKF track summary | trackfinding | single muon | default seeding
• ✅ Seeding trackfinding | single muon | orthogonal seeding
• ✅ CKF finding performance | trackfinding | single muon | orthogonal seeding
• ✅ CKF fitting performance | trackfinding | single muon | orthogonal seeding
• ✅ CKF track summary | trackfinding | single muon | orthogonal seeding
• ✅ Seeding trackfinding | 4 muon x 50 vertices | default seeding
• ✅ CKF finding performance | trackfinding | 4 muon x 50 vertices | default seeding
• ✅ CKF fitting performance | trackfinding | 4 muon x 50 vertices | default seeding
• ✅ CKF track summary | trackfinding | 4 muon x 50 vertices | default seeding
• ✅ Ambisolver finding performance | trackfinding | 4 muon x 50 vertices | default seeding
• ✅ IVF notime | trackfinding | 4 muon x 50 vertices | default seeding
• ✅ AMVF gauss notime | trackfinding | 4 muon x 50 vertices | default seeding
• ✅ AMVF grid time | trackfinding | 4 muon x 50 vertices | default seeding
• ✅ Seeding trackfinding | ttbar with 200 pileup | default seeding
• ✅ CKF finding performance | trackfinding | ttbar with 200 pileup | default seeding
• ✅ CKF fitting performance | trackfinding | ttbar with 200 pileup | default seeding
• ✅ CKF track summary | trackfinding | ttbar with 200 pileup | default seeding
• ✅ Ambisolver finding performance | trackfinding | ttbar with 200 pileup | default seeding
• ✅ AMVF gauss notime | trackfinding | ttbar with 200 pileup | default seeding
• ✅ AMVF grid time | trackfinding | ttbar with 200 pileup | default seeding

[coderabbitai]

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are limited to specific labels.

🏷️ Labels to auto review (1)

• coderabbit

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

---

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

• You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
• Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
• If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[andiwand]

Code changes look fine to me.

I still think the separation of fitting with and without material is only required because the underlying system is unstable as there are just too many degreed of freedom and too few measurements.

It looks to me as applying our material model naively to this fitter simply does not work. Potential alternatives might be

• Use a different tracking geometry for the GX2F with fewer material surfaces
• Accumulate the material in the GX2F and only insert scatter surfaces when we reach a certain threshold
• Also fit the location of the scattering. This might be hardest as we would need to work the combinatorics

Ultimately the ACTS surface material model is also just an approximation and there is no reason to stick to it for the GX2F if this is not optimal.

My 2 cents.

[sonarcloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
1 New issue
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
44.7% Coverage on New Code
54.1% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[acts-project-service]

✅ Athena integration test results [3aeba0c]

✅ All tests successful

status	job	report
🟢	report_pull_request
🟢	run_art_test: test_run4_acts_vertex_PU200
🟢	run_art_test: test_run4_ttbar_PU200
🟢	run_art_test: test_data18_13TeV_1000evt
🟢	run_art_test: test_ttbarPU40_reco
🟢	run_workflow_tests_run4_mc
🟢	run_workflow_tests_run2_mc
🟢	run_workflow_tests_run2_data
🟢	run_workflow_tests_run3_mc
🟢	run_workflow_tests_run3_data
🟢	test_ActsDumpGeometryIdentifiers
🟢	test_ActsCheckObjectCountsWorkflowHgtd
🟢	test_ActsCheckObjectCountsCachedWorkflow
🟢	test_ActsCheckObjectCountsWorkflow
🟢	test_ActsEFTrackFit
🟢	test_ActsPersistifySeeds
🟢	test_ActsBenchmarkWithSpot
🟢	test_ActsAnalogueClustering
🟢	test_ActsWorkflowHeavyIons
🟢	test_ActsWorkflowFastTracking
🟢	test_ActsWorkflowCached
🟢	test_ActsWorkflow
🟢	test_ActsValidateAmbiguityResolution
🟢	test_ActsValidateResolvedTracks
🟢	test_ActsValidateTracks
🟢	test_ActsValidateActsCoreSpacePoints
🟢	test_ActsValidateActsSpacePoints
🟢	test_ActsValidateSeeds
🟢	test_ActsValidateOrthogonalSeeds
🟢	test_ActsValidateClusters
🟢	test_ActsPersistifyEDM
🟢	test_ActsGSFRefitting
🟢	test_ActsKfRefitting
🟢	test_ActsExtrapolationAlgTest
🟢	test_ActsITkTest
🟢	run_unit_tests