The optimization of charged-particle tracking detectors has traditionally been addressed through sequential workflows, in which the hardware design (sensor geometry, materials, electromagnetic fields, readout schemes) is frozen before the development of reconstruction software (seeding, pattern recognition, track fitting, alignment, identification, and background subtraction) begins. This work formally characterizes when such sequentiality is valid and when it constitutes a suboptimal approximation, employing the framework of block-decomposability and non-factorizable objective functions $f(\mathbf{h},\mathbf{s}) = \Phi(A(\mathbf{h}), B(\mathbf{s}))$ versus genuine couplings of the form $f(\mathbf{h},\mathbf{s}) = A(\mathbf{h}) + B(\mathbf{s}) + \mathbf{h}^{\mathsf{T}} M \mathbf{s}$, where the coupling matrix $M$ encodes the cross-dependence between hardware parameters $\mathbf{h}$.
It is first shown, using a simplified analytical example — a silicon strip tracker with $N$ layers measuring the vertical position of a particle — that in an idealized regime without background noise, inefficiencies, or misalignments, the problem becomes exactly soluble via classical statistical inference (Rao–Cramér–Fréchet bound from Fisher information). In this limit, the optimal hardware (number and positioning of layers) can be determined without any reference to the reconstruction method: the problem is trivially factorizable. However, merely introducing a non-analytic resolution — obtainable only through expensive simulations — and a budget constraint that couples hardware cost to the computational cost of inference suffices to break this separability: co-design then becomes inevitable. This distinction — between problems with closed-form likelihood and problems that depend on simulation-based inference or approximate models — constitutes the conceptual axis of the work.
Building on this framework, six persistent dimensions of hardware–software coupling observed in real trackers are identified and developed:
1. MuOnE detector
This silicon strip tracker, designed to measure the differential distribution of muon–electron scattering with a focus on the high-$q^2$ region, illustrates a hardware–software coupling mediated by data-driven extraction of geometric parameters. The layer position $z_i$ and tilt angle $\theta_i$ are not determined by direct metrology, but rather via a global fit over real scattering events, leaving each $z_i$ or $\theta_i$ as a free parameter in successive turns, achieving 1.5 μm precision with $10^7$ reconstructed events. The finding that the dependence of the $q^2$-resolution on the longitudinal vertex position is only relevant under a reconstruction scheme with a constrained vertex (as opposed to an independent fit of the three tracks) motivated a direct hardware redesign: segmenting the beryllium target into carbon-fiber foils of $\le 50~\mu$m spaced in air or vacuum, reducing the $z$-uncertainty and directly impacting the resolution in the high-$q^2$ region of physical interest.
2. Sensor positioning and mechanical tolerances
The previous case is generalized: the intrinsic sensor resolution (strips vs. pixels) is modulated by alignment precision and by the axial magnetic field, which determines whether transverse $(x,y)$ or longitudinal $(z)$ resolution dominates. The higher channel density of pixels introduces an overall cost trade-off, while position determination via high-precision laser holographic systems — independently of the data-driven fit — defines a separate Pareto frontier between mechanical/calibration cost and geometric precision.
3. Material budget and interaction length $\lambda_I$
Passive material (parameterized in units of radiation length $X_0$ and nuclear interaction length $\lambda_I$) simultaneously couples multiple physical channels: the characteristic multiple-Coulomb-scattering angle
$$
\theta_0 \approx \frac{13.6~\text{MeV}}{\beta p} \sqrt{\frac{x}{X_0}} \left[1 + 0.038 \ln\left(\frac{x}{X_0}\right)\right],
$$
the photon conversion probability, and the rate of nuclear interactions that generate fake tracks and spurious secondary vertices. It is argued that the optimal material distribution (few thick layers vs. many thin layers for fixed $x/X_0$) depends explicitly on the track model employed — standard Kalman filter versus treatments with adaptive outlier rejection or smoothing — so that the same hardware configuration yields different effective resolutions and efficiencies depending on the downstream software. It is further discussed how real-time trigger modules ($p_T$-type modules such as those in the CMS Outer Tracker) introduce additional material that degrades offline tracking but enables Level-1 selection based on transverse momentum, rendering the system utility a non-monotonic function of the isolated material budget.
---
### 4. Electron reconstruction and tracker–calorimeter interaction
Bremsstrahlung, whose probability grows with $x/X_0$ and with electron energy, generates a strongly non-Gaussian momentum-loss distribution with a long tail of hard emissions. This invalidates the Gaussian process-noise assumption of the standard Kalman filter, motivating the use of Gaussian-Sum Filters (GSF) that represent the electron state as a weighted mixture of momentum hypotheses. It is shown that the marginal benefit of investing in a GSF depends sensitively on whether the material is concentrated in a few well-defined layers or distributed heterogeneously (services, supports), establishing an explicit coupling between hardware architecture and justifiable algorithmic complexity. On the calorimeter side, it is discussed how supercluster construction (e.g., elongated in $\phi$ in CMS) and the longitudinal granularity of the ECAL are co-determined with the expected bremsstrahlung patterns, so that a calorimeter design that is "optimal" under the simplistic assumption of compact showers ceases to be so when realistic reconstruction is considered.
---
### 5. 4D seeding versus pile-up occupancy at the HL-LHC
With up to $\mathcal{O}(200)$ interactions per bunch crossing and a vertex time spread $\sigma_{\mathrm{PU}} \sim 180$ ps, precision timing layers (CMS MTD, ATLAS HGTD, $\sigma_t \sim 30$–50 ps) allow hit filtering via a window $\Delta t$ around the predicted time. The scaling of the number of seed combinations is derived as
$$
N_{\mathrm{seed}}(\Delta t) \propto \left( \frac{\lambda_0 \, \Delta t}{T_{\mathrm{eff}}} \right)^k
$$
for $k$-layer seeds, and the hit acceptance efficiency as
$$
p_{\mathrm{hit}}(\Delta t, \sigma_{\mathrm{eff}}) = \operatorname{erf}\left( \frac{\Delta t}{2\sqrt{2}\,\sigma_{\mathrm{eff}}} \right),
$$
showing that achieving $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{seed}} \gtrsim 95\%$ for triplet seeds requires $\Delta t \sim (5\text{--}6)\,\sigma_{\mathrm{eff}}$. This establishes that the combinatorial gain depends critically on the ratio $\Delta t / \sigma_{\mathrm{eff}}$ and not on the hardware alone: only if the software dynamically adapts the time window (4D Kalman filter with temporal covariance) does the hardware timing-resolution improvement translate into a superlinear combinatorial reduction, given $N_{\mathrm{seed}} \propto \Delta t^k$.
---
### 6. Converted photons in the $H \to \gamma\gamma$ search
The trade-off exploited by CMS in the Higgs discovery is analyzed: the tracker material ($0.4$–$1.0\,X_0$ in the barrel, up to $1.8\,X_0$ in the endcaps) produces photon conversion into $e^+e^-$ pairs with 40–60% probability, enabling high-precision direction reconstruction via track-based conversion fits combined with ECAL clusters. However, the same material increases multiple scattering, bremsstrahlung, and the rate of secondary interactions, degrading the global resolution of unconverted photons. CMS's final decision to prioritize material reduction in Phase-1/Phase-2 upgrades, despite sacrificing conversion statistics, illustrates a case where the quantitative evaluation of the hardware–software coupling directly determined the long-term design strategy.
Conclusion
Collectively, these six examples — addressed with a level of formalism ranging from Fisher information to combinatorial scaling arguments — demonstrate that sequential optimization (hardware-first, software-second) is systematically suboptimal in modern trackers, precisely because the relevant inference rarely admits a closed-form likelihood.