[PWGCF] Adding an option to reject the inner or outher rings of the FT0 detectors, and adding the option to fill the 'dead' parts of the detector with the mirrored parts. #14268

MartijnLaarhoven · 2025-12-17T15:35:31Z

Adding an option to reject the inner or outher rings of the FT0 detectors, and adding the option to fill the 'dead' parts of the detector with the mirrored parts.

Added option to reject the inside or the outside of the detector ring of FT0

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

making the rejection of the rejection of part of the detector more distinctive

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

github-actions · 2025-12-17T15:35:49Z

O2 linter results: ❌ 9 errors, ⚠️ 0 warnings, 🔕 0 disabled

Copilot

Pull request overview

This PR adds functionality to handle dead channels and selectively reject detector rings in the FT0A and FT0C detectors for long-range dihadron correlation analysis. The implementation allows remapping dead detector channels to mirror working channels and provides options to exclude inner or outer rings from the analysis.

Key changes:

Added six new configuration options to control FT0 detector channel rejection and remapping
Introduced a DetectorChannels enum defining inner/outer ring boundaries for FT0A and FT0C
Implemented dead channel remapping and ring rejection logic in the getChannel function

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Copilot · 2025-12-17T15:41:42Z

PWGCF/TwoParticleCorrelations/Tasks/longRangeDihadronCor.cxx

+          ampl = ft0.amplitudeA()[92];
+        else if (id == 61)
+          ampl = ft0.amplitudeA()[93];
+        else if (id == 62)
+          ampl = ft0.amplitudeA()[94];
+        else if (id == 63)
+          ampl = ft0.amplitudeA()[95];


The channel remapping does not match the PR description. The description states "remap FT0A channels 60-63 to amplitudes from 28,30,29,31 respectively", but the code maps channels 60-63 to amplitudes from indices 92,93,94,95. Please verify which mapping is correct and update either the code or the description accordingly.

Suggested change

ampl = ft0.amplitudeA()[92];

else if (id == 61)

ampl = ft0.amplitudeA()[93];

else if (id == 62)

ampl = ft0.amplitudeA()[94];

else if (id == 63)

ampl = ft0.amplitudeA()[95];

ampl = ft0.amplitudeA()[28];

else if (id == 61)

ampl = ft0.amplitudeA()[30];

else if (id == 62)

ampl = ft0.amplitudeA()[29];

else if (id == 63)

ampl = ft0.amplitudeA()[31];

Copilot · 2025-12-17T15:41:43Z

PWGCF/TwoParticleCorrelations/Tasks/longRangeDihadronCor.cxx

      id = ft0.channelC()[iCh];
      id = id + Ft0IndexA;
      ampl = ft0.amplitudeC()[iCh];
+      if (cfgRemapFT0CDeadCha        if (id == 177)
+          ampl = ft0.amplitudeC()[145];
+        else if (id == 176)
+          ampl = ft0.amplitudeC()[144];
+        else if (id == 178)
+          ampl = ft0.amplitudeC()[146];
+        else if (id == 179)
+          ampl = ft0.amplitudeC()[147];
+        else if (id == 139)
+          ampl = ft0.amplitudeC()[115];
+      }
+      if ((cfgRejectFT0CInside && (id >= kFT0CInnerRingMin && id <= kFT0CInnerRingMax)) || (cfgRejectFT0COutside && (id >= kFT0COuterRingMin && id <= kFT0COuterRingMax)))
+        ampl = 0.;
      registry.fill(HIST("FT0Amp"), id, ampl);
      ampl = ampl / cstFT0RelGain[iCh];
      registry.fill(HIST("FT0AmpCorrect"), id, ampl);
    } else if (fitType == kFT0A) {
      id = ft0.channelA()[iCh];
      ampl = ft0.amplitudeA()[iCh];
+      if (cfgRemapFT0ADeadChannels) {
+        if (id == 60)
+          ampl = ft0.amplitudeA()[92];
+        else if (id == 61)
+          ampl = ft0.amplitudeA()[93];
+        else if (id == 62)
+          ampl = ft0.amplitudeA()[94];
+        else if (id == 63)
+          ampl = ft0.amplitudeA()[95];
+      }
+      if ((cfgRejectFT0AInside && (id >= kFT0AInnerRingMin && id <= kFT0AInnerRingMax)) || (cfgRejectFT0AOutside && (id >= kFT0AOuterRingMin && id <= kFT0AOuterRingMax)))
+        ampl = 0.;


The remapping logic incorrectly uses adjusted channel IDs as array indices. The arrays channelC() and amplitudeC() are indexed by position (0 to size-1), not by channel ID. To remap channel 177 to use the amplitude from channel 145, you need to: (1) find the position in the array where channelC()[j] + 96 == 145 (i.e., where channelC()[j] == 49), then (2) use amplitudeC()[j]. The current implementation directly accesses amplitudeC()[145] which attempts to access array index 145, likely causing out-of-bounds access if the array has fewer than 146 elements. The same issue affects all remapping statements in this block.

Suggested change

id = ft0.channelC()[iCh];

id = id + Ft0IndexA;

ampl = ft0.amplitudeC()[iCh];

if (cfgRemapFT0CDeadCha if (id == 177)

ampl = ft0.amplitudeC()[145];

else if (id == 176)

ampl = ft0.amplitudeC()[144];

else if (id == 178)

ampl = ft0.amplitudeC()[146];

else if (id == 179)

ampl = ft0.amplitudeC()[147];

else if (id == 139)

ampl = ft0.amplitudeC()[115];

}

if ((cfgRejectFT0CInside && (id >= kFT0CInnerRingMin && id <= kFT0CInnerRingMax)) || (cfgRejectFT0COutside && (id >= kFT0COuterRingMin && id <= kFT0COuterRingMax)))

ampl = 0.;

registry.fill(HIST("FT0Amp"), id, ampl);

ampl = ampl / cstFT0RelGain[iCh];

registry.fill(HIST("FT0AmpCorrect"), id, ampl);

} else if (fitType == kFT0A) {

id = ft0.channelA()[iCh];

ampl = ft0.amplitudeA()[iCh];

if (cfgRemapFT0ADeadChannels) {

if (id == 60)

ampl = ft0.amplitudeA()[92];

else if (id == 61)

ampl = ft0.amplitudeA()[93];

else if (id == 62)

ampl = ft0.amplitudeA()[94];

else if (id == 63)

ampl = ft0.amplitudeA()[95];

}

if ((cfgRejectFT0AInside && (id >= kFT0AInnerRingMin && id <= kFT0AInnerRingMax)) || (cfgRejectFT0AOutside && (id >= kFT0AOuterRingMin && id <= kFT0AOuterRingMax)))

ampl = 0.;

const auto& channelsC = ft0.channelC();

const auto& amplitudesC = ft0.amplitudeC();

id = channelsC[iCh];

id = id + Ft0IndexA;

ampl = amplitudesC[iCh];

if (cfgRemapFT0CDeadCha) {

auto getRemappedAmplitudeC = [&](int sourceChannelId) -> float {

for (std::size_t j = 0; j < channelsC.size(); ++j) {

if (channelsC[j] + Ft0IndexA == sourceChannelId) {

return amplitudesC[j];

}

}

// If the requested source channel is not present, treat it as having zero amplitude.

return 0.f;

};

if (id == 177) {

ampl = getRemappedAmplitudeC(145);

} else if (id == 176) {

ampl = getRemappedAmplitudeC(144);

} else if (id == 178) {

ampl = getRemappedAmplitudeC(146);

} else if (id == 179) {

ampl = getRemappedAmplitudeC(147);

} else if (id == 139) {

ampl = getRemappedAmplitudeC(115);

}

}

if ((cfgRejectFT0CInside && (id >= kFT0CInnerRingMin && id <= kFT0CInnerRingMax)) || (cfgRejectFT0COutside && (id >= kFT0COuterRingMin && id <= kFT0COuterRingMax)))

ampl = 0.f;

registry.fill(HIST("FT0Amp"), id, ampl);

ampl = ampl / cstFT0RelGain[iCh];

registry.fill(HIST("FT0AmpCorrect"), id, ampl);

} else if (fitType == kFT0A) {

const auto& channelsA = ft0.channelA();

const auto& amplitudesA = ft0.amplitudeA();

id = channelsA[iCh];

ampl = amplitudesA[iCh];

if (cfgRemapFT0ADeadChannels) {

auto getRemappedAmplitudeA = [&](int sourceChannelId) -> float {

for (std::size_t j = 0; j < channelsA.size(); ++j) {

if (channelsA[j] == sourceChannelId) {

return amplitudesA[j];

}

}

// If the requested source channel is not present, treat it as having zero amplitude.

return 0.f;

};

if (id == 60) {

ampl = getRemappedAmplitudeA(92);

} else if (id == 61) {

ampl = getRemappedAmplitudeA(93);

} else if (id == 62) {

ampl = getRemappedAmplitudeA(94);

} else if (id == 63) {

ampl = getRemappedAmplitudeA(95);

}

}

if ((cfgRejectFT0AInside && (id >= kFT0AInnerRingMin && id <= kFT0AInnerRingMax)) || (cfgRejectFT0AOutside && (id >= kFT0AOuterRingMin && id <= kFT0AOuterRingMax)))

ampl = 0.f;

Copilot · 2025-12-17T15:41:43Z

PWGCF/TwoParticleCorrelations/Tasks/longRangeDihadronCor.cxx

      id = ft0.channelC()[iCh];
      id = id + Ft0IndexA;
      ampl = ft0.amplitudeC()[iCh];
+      if (cfgRemapFT0CDeadCha        if (id == 177)


Syntax error: The line appears to be corrupted or incomplete. The condition if (cfgRemapFT0CDeadCha is truncated and missing the closing parenthesis and opening brace. It should likely be if (cfgRemapFT0CDeadChannels) { to match the pattern used for FT0A on line 677.

Suggested change

if (cfgRemapFT0CDeadCha if (id == 177)

if (cfgRemapFT0CDeadChannels) {

if (id == 177)

vkucera · 2025-12-17T15:55:59Z

Please always validate your formatting before opening a PR for review to avoid useless compilation tests.

vkucera · 2025-12-17T15:58:49Z

Please always validate your formatting before opening a PR for review to avoid useless compilation tests.

Your code doesn't even compile!

MartijnLaarhoven and others added 12 commits December 12, 2025 15:01

Add files via upload

e63b492

Added option to reject the inside or the outside of the detector ring of FT0

Add files via upload

5c3b91b

Added option to reject the inside or the outside of the detector ring of FT0

Update PWGCF/TwoParticleCorrelations/Tasks/longRangeDihadronCor.cxx

7b918e4

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Merge branch 'AliceO2Group:master' into master

d691be8

Merge branch 'AliceO2Group:master' into master

24189d9

Add files via upload

3468fb2

making the rejection of the rejection of part of the detector more distinctive

Apply suggestions from code review

3a692c9

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Add files via upload

d6fd502

Merge branch 'AliceO2Group:master' into master

ee2a012

Merge branch 'AliceO2Group:master' into master

711bad4

Add files via upload

cbc0620

Add files via upload

ae4c78e

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings December 17, 2025 15:35

MartijnLaarhoven requested review from alibuild, ariedel-cern, glromane, lauraser, lgraczykCern, otonvd, prchakra, shouqiye, victor-gonzalez and zchochul as code owners December 17, 2025 15:35

github-actions bot added the pwgcf label Dec 17, 2025

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of MartijnLaarhoven December 17, 2025 15:35 View session

alibuild mentioned this pull request Dec 17, 2025

Please consider the following formatting changes to #14268 MartijnLaarhoven/O2Physics#1

Open

Copilot AI reviewed Dec 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

vkucera marked this pull request as draft December 17, 2025 15:54

MartijnLaarhoven closed this Dec 17, 2025

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

[PWGCF] Adding an option to reject the inner or outher rings of the FT0 detectors, and adding the option to fill the 'dead' parts of the detector with the mirrored parts. #14268

[PWGCF] Adding an option to reject the inner or outher rings of the FT0 detectors, and adding the option to fill the 'dead' parts of the detector with the mirrored parts. #14268

Uh oh!

MartijnLaarhoven commented Dec 17, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Dec 17, 2025

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 17, 2025

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 17, 2025

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 17, 2025

Uh oh!

vkucera commented Dec 17, 2025

Uh oh!

vkucera commented Dec 17, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

	if (cfgRemapFT0CDeadCha if (id == 177)
	if (cfgRemapFT0CDeadChannels) {
	if (id == 177)

[PWGCF] Adding an option to reject the inner or outher rings of the FT0 detectors, and adding the option to fill the 'dead' parts of the detector with the mirrored parts. #14268

[PWGCF] Adding an option to reject the inner or outher rings of the FT0 detectors, and adding the option to fill the 'dead' parts of the detector with the mirrored parts. #14268

Uh oh!

Conversation

MartijnLaarhoven commented Dec 17, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Dec 17, 2025

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

vkucera commented Dec 17, 2025

Uh oh!

vkucera commented Dec 17, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants