enable possibility to apply different set of cuts to Muon and Global Muon Tracks

[lmassacr]

Change in the asynch QC config file for MFTMCHMID objects in order to apply different sets of cuts on MCH, MCH+MID tracks with respect to MCH+MFT or MCH+MID+MFT tracks.
A new variable to cut on the Chi^2 between MFT and MCH was introduced. It is defined in the TrackTasks.cxx class in QualityControl/Modules/MUON/Common/src (PR 2382)

[github-actions]

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION RELEASES:
To request your PR to be included in production software, please add the corresponding labels called "async-" to your PR. Add the labels directly (if you have the permissions) or add a comment of the form (note that labels are separated by a ",")

+async-label <label1>, <label2>, !<label3> ...

This will add <label1> and <label2> and removes <label3>.

The following labels are available
async-2023-pbpb-apass3
async-2023-pbpb-apass4
async-2023-pp-apass4
async-2024-pp-apass1
async-2022-pp-apass7
async-2024-pp-cpass0

[aferrero2707]

@lmassacr In order to have the possibility to evaluate the tracks matching fraction between MFT and MCH-MID, the GID parameter should be modified as

                 "GID" : "MFT-MCH,MCH-MID,MFT-MCH-MID"

This is to have MCH-MID tracks with the same kinematic cuts as the MFT-MCH-MID ones.

In case one needs to reduce the number of QC objects that are produced by the task, I would propose to eventually remove the MFT-MCH tracks from the selection:

                 "GID" : "MCH-MID,MFT-MCH-MID"

[lmassacr]

Hi @aferrero2707 thanks for the comment.
I just did the modification with "GID" : "MFT-MCH,MCH-MID,MFT-MCH-MID" to follow what you did also for the synch QC.

[aferrero2707]

@lmassacr actually I just realized that MFT-MCH in the GID list is useless without adding MCH as well, because you need the set of MCH-only plots with the same cuts as MFT-MCH for the comparisons.

If the number of plots becomes too big, you would need to restrict to the tracks with MID:

"GID" : "MCH-MID,MFT-MCH-MID"

[lmassacr]

Hi @aferrero2707,
For the moment I commited the config file adding the MCH standalone tracks with the same cuts as MCH-MFT tracks.
I will see if there are concerns from DPG regarding the number of plots, I will modify according to your proposal if this is the case. Otherwise, we can go with the current configuration now.

[chiarazampolli]

Hello @lmassacr ,

The change looks fine. How much will the output increase?

@JianLIUhep , @botta (I actually don't know her git account, Jian, can you add her?), FYI.

Chiara

[lmassacr]

Hi @chiarazampolli,

I ran the two QC configurations on one ctf file, and I obtain an increase of the output size by 10% with the new proposed configuration. Would this be acceptable?

Cheers,
Laure

[chiarazampolli]

Hello @lmassacr ,

I guess this is 10% of the MFT output, right? I don't recall what is the MFT total size, maybe @JianLIUhep does, from the exercise to reduce the size? In any case, it seems ok to me.
I will merge, while @JianLIUhep takes the time to answer (he is away till Monday 23rd). If you see that this is overlooked, please, Laure, ping us.

Chiara

[lmassacr]

Hi @chiarazampolli,

This is a 10% increase of the outputs for the global muon tracks objects (which are additional objects on top of MCH, MID and MFT individual detector QCs). I can compare with the MFT output size (I have asked for their standalone workflows to run them, in case you want this number). I would expect that the global muon objects have sizes much smaller with respect to MFT outputs, because you have much less MCH+MID+MFT and MCH-MID matched tracks than the MFT standalone tracks, even if we duplicate some of the matched track types to apply different sets of cuts.
But I am not very familiar with the MFT QC content.

Hope this clarify the number I circulated.

Cheers,
Laure