Skip to content

Conversation

@lynnt20
Copy link
Contributor

@lynnt20 lynnt20 commented Dec 10, 2025

Description

Adds info from SimEnergyDeposits and light calorimetry into cafmaker.

SBND is currently keeping SimEnergyDeposits throughout the workflow. We can take better advantage of this information (truth level number of electrons, photons, and true energy deposits for true neutrino interactions) by adding it to the cafs in a new class called SRTrueDeposit. Default will be empty if no SimEnergyDeposits are available in the input files. Only adds 3 floats per neutrino interaction (obtained from length of MCTruth).

Accompanying PRs: SBNSoftware/sbndcode#878, SBNSoftware/sbnanaobj#181, SBNSoftware/sbnobj#158

  • Have you added a label? (bug/enhancement/physics etc.)
  • Have you assigned at least 1 reviewer?
  • Is this PR related to an open issue / project?
  • Does this PR affect CAF data format? If so, please assign a CAF maintainer as additional reviewer.
  • Does this PR require merging another PR in a different repository (such as sbnanobj/sbnobj etc.)? If so, please link it in the description.

@kjplows
Copy link
Contributor

kjplows commented Dec 14, 2025

@lynnt20 could you nominate reviewers please?

@kjplows kjplows moved this to Open pull requests in SBN software development Dec 14, 2025
@linyan-w linyan-w moved this to Expected for Later in SBND 2025 Fall Production Dec 15, 2025
@linyan-w linyan-w moved this from Expected for Later to Waiting on Reviewer in SBND 2025 Fall Production Jan 22, 2026
@henrylay97 henrylay97 self-requested a review January 29, 2026 16:53
@lynnt20
Copy link
Contributor Author

lynnt20 commented Jan 29, 2026

@PetrilloAtWork would you mind taking a look at this PR? It's the last of the light calorimetry stack of PRs 😃 Thank you advance!

sbncode v10_14_02_01 for larsoft v10_14_02_01
Copy link
Member

@henrylay97 henrylay97 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looking really good. Couple of small queries before I approve :D

Atom<art::InputTag> SimEnergyDepositLabel {
Name("SimEnergyDepositLabel"),
Comment("Label of input sim::SimEnergyDeposit objects."),
art::InputTag("ionandscint", "priorSCE","G4")
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What's the motivation for explicitly naming the process name as "G4"? Are we expecting scenarios where multiple fcl processes have created SimEnergyDeposits? Definitely not asking for a change here as this is nice and fcl flexible. Just interested in why this came up!

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hmm, no particular reason. I think I had paralleled the syntax for the trigger emulation in the same file!


srtruthbranch.dep.reserve(mctruths.size());
for (size_t n=0; n<mctruths.size();n++){
SRTrueDeposit init;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is the name SRTrueDeposit a little confusing when the object is actually going to store the sum of all relevant deposits? I wonder whether we want to call it something like SRTotalTrueDeposition or something catchier you can think of? Maybe this isn't a problem 🤔 🤷

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I could go either way about it, not sure that I feel very strongly as long as you think it's documented well in the corresponding header. It may be confusing if one expects it to be exactly what's in SimEnergyDeposits, but I think what the branch is actually accessible with (which is rec.mc.dep.energy, etc., is not too bad?

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

Labels

enhancement New feature or request

Projects

Status: Open pull requests
Status: Waiting on Reviewer

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants