Skip to content

[ALICE3] TRK/FT3 digitizer: noise rate set in hits/px/s instead of hits/px/ROF + uniform ToA for noise digits within ROF - #16050

Merged
njacazio merged 1 commit into
AliceO2Group:devfrom
atriolo:timestamp
Nov 5, 2026
Merged

njacazio merged 1 commit into
AliceO2Group:devfrom
atriolo:timestamp

Conversation

@atriolo

@atriolo atriolo commented Nov 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor
  • The noise is now configured as a rate in hits/pixel/s and converted to hits per ROF using the ROF length of each layer. This keeps the noise level independent of the ROF length. The default is 0.2 hits/pixel/s for both TRK and FT3, which corresponds to ~1e-7 hits/pixel/ROF with 18-BC ROFs (default used until now)
  • Now it can be passed as configKeyValue as before, but the value to be passed should be 0.2 (or similar values) to simulate a correct amount of noise, instead of the old 1e-7. The definitive noise value is still to be decided, though.
  • The ToA of noise digits is now generated uniformly within the ROF instead of being 0 as it was in the first draft

…ts/px/ROF + uniform ToA within ROF for noise digits
@njacazio
njacazio enabled auto-merge (squash) November 5, 2026 04:46
@atriolo

atriolo commented Nov 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Hello @shahor02, @sawenzel, could you please review/approve this PR? Thanks!

@shahor02

shahor02 commented Nov 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@atriolo The code looks fine, but I am wondering if the logic is correct. At least for the Alpide, my understanding is that the noise is defined per ROF, regardless of its duration. Is it different in case of Alice3?

@atriolo

atriolo commented Nov 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Hello @shahor02, thanks for your comment. Actually, I was explicitly asked to change the noise definition from "per ROF" to "per second", in order to make it independent of the ROF length, since the designers will be studying the noise values independently of the ROF length. It will help to introduce the noise in the simulation as foreseen/studied by the designers.
Of course, if this changes in the future, or if we notice that this definition does not suit well our needs, I will revert the change. Hope this clarifies, and of course, if you think this should not be done this way, we can discuss a better way

@shahor02 shahor02 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Chip designers surely know better than me.

@njacazio
njacazio merged commit 09403ed into AliceO2Group:dev Nov 5, 2026
13 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants