alert.json describes AHDC::track and AHDC::kftrack both as reco track.
A better clarification would be appreciated.
My guess from the PR#1368 is that one is track before running KF and kftrack is one after running KF. Then, AHDC::track should not be used for physics analysis?
In any case, AHDC::track:n_hits does not match with the number of rows of AHDC::hits.
Instead, the number of rows of AHDC::hits with the AHDC::hits:trackid that matches with AHDC::kftrack:trackid is the same with AHDC::kftrack:n_hits`.
Is this understood or intended? Or, is this a software problem?
alert.json describes
AHDC::trackandAHDC::kftrackboth as reco track.A better clarification would be appreciated.
My guess from the PR#1368 is that one is track before running KF and kftrack is one after running KF. Then,
AHDC::trackshould not be used for physics analysis?In any case,
AHDC::track:n_hitsdoes not match with the number of rows ofAHDC::hits.Instead, the number of rows of
AHDC::hitswith theAHDC::hits:trackidthat matches withAHDC::kftrack:trackidis the same with AHDC::kftrack:n_hits`.Is this understood or intended? Or, is this a software problem?