|Message: Re: Best way to score radially symmetric quantities||Not Logged In (login)|
Click on the Forum title, e.g. on the "Forums by Category" page, to read a sequence of postings to the Forum and its threads all in one page. If you are only interested in one thread or the thread following a specific posting, click the thread or the posting, which takes you to a smaller page, which contains only the part you are interested in and may be easier to navigate.
Messages are "chained" if there are only replies at the first level, i.e. 1/1.html, 1/1/1.html etc. In case of "chained" messages the message number is replaced by the icon and there is no indentation.
Inline: Display the subject line only or also the text of the posting(s); for the choice "All" the "Outline" choices are switched off.
|1||0||1||no text / full text of posting|
|2||1||All||text for level 1 only / text for All postings|
Outline: Choose the depth of the posting thread, successive toggle controls provide increasing detail.
|1||2||1||2 levels / 1 level (original posting)|
|2||3||2||3 levels / 2 levels|
|3||3||All||3 levels / all levels (all postings)|
On Sat, 27 Jan 2018 17:30:54 GMT, William Donahue wrote:
> Hi, > > I am embarking on a radial dose model validation study and would like to > find the best way to score doses radially. > > Basically, I want to score in r and z but not theta. I am planning on > using the multi-threaded kernel so I can't decide if I want to use the > command-based scoring or a sensitive detector. I eventually want to > score things like LET and other quantities so I need it to be flexible. > Additionally I would like to score the central core of the track > separately, preferably only with primaries. > > If someone could point to a good direction, with a little bit of a > starting hint that would be great. I am very comfortable with C++ so the > coding shouldn't be an issue. > > My thoughts so far have been > > 1) Command based scoring: but the inputs of the command are ambiguous > for cylindrical volumes. > > 2) Construct many ring like geometries in r and depth, and assign each a > primitive scorer. This seems a little time consuming, even with > replicas. Also keeping track of all the scorers could be a pain. > > 3) Do a hit collection and post process at end of run. This might be a > pain because then I have to deal with the calculations of correctly > distributing the dose into my sub-volumes. > > 4) Step based scoring. Once again need to deal with all the dose > distributions in each step across my boundaries. > > So if you have any suggestions on which way is most efficient please > elaborate more. Expanding/explaining techniques to implement one of my > thoughts is a good place to start too. > > Thanks, > > William Donahue >
1- You are not obliged to use scorers or hits collections (many examples in electromagnetic or hadronic do not). See TestEm2 (the closest of your geometry) or TestEm3 2- TestEm11 or TestEm12 show option : stepMax versus replica 3- basic/B4 illustrates the different strategies to record informations : user actions, hits collections, scorers.