-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Unify vertex association between CHS and PUPPI #33885
Unify vertex association between CHS and PUPPI #33885
Conversation
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-33885/22925
|
A new Pull Request was created by @ahinzmann for master. It involves the following packages: CommonTools/ParticleFlow @perrotta, @jpata, @cmsbuild, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
@ahinzmann |
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-33885/22954
|
Pull request #33885 was updated. @perrotta, @andrius-k, @jordan-martins, @kmaeshima, @wajidalikhan, @ErnestaP, @kpedro88, @cmsbuild, @chayanit, @srimanob, @jfernan2, @ahmad3213, @slava77, @jpata, @rvenditti can you please check and sign again. |
4f0c836
to
ffeca50
Compare
ffeca50
to
b84be9a
Compare
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-33885/25091
|
@cmsbuild please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-ae744e/18334/summary.html CMS StaticAnalyzer warnings: There are 4 EventSetupRecord::get warnings. See https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-ae744e/18334/llvm-analysis/esrget-sa.txt for details. Comparison SummarySummary:
|
+reconstruction
|
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next master IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @perrotta, @dpiparo, @qliphy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
+1
|
can you clarify if the association information can be retrieved from MiniAOD and if this is breaking the usage of PackedCandidate format PV related accessors? |
iVertex = vtxIdMinSignif; | ||
// protect high pT particles from association to pileup vertices and assign them to the first vertex | ||
if ((fPtMaxCharged_ > 0) && (vtxIdMinSignif >= 0) && (track->pt() > fPtMaxCharged_)) { | ||
iVertex = 0; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
how can we correctly compute the score of the PV for ranking if we protect "iVertex = 0 " ??
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
in fact why this need to be done here? the pt check / protection can be done in the calling code!
PR description:
Track-vertex association handling is quite inhomogeneous across CMSSW.
While the ultimate goal is to fully unify vertex association across CHS and PUPPI for Run3 and the use of timing information in CHS and PUPPI for Phase-2, this PR enables technically to study+synchronize them, while not significantly changing the current behavior of CHS and PUPPI.
"CommonTools/RecoAlgos/src/PrimaryVertexAssignment.cc"
"packedPrimaryVertexAssociationJME"
"CommonTools/ParticleFlow/python/pfCHS_cff.py"
"CommonTools/ParticleFlow/plugins/PFPileUp.cc" (AOD)
"CommonTools/ParticleFlow/plugins/PFNoPileUpPacked.cc" (MiniAOD)
Performance tested in CMSSW_11_1_8 using HLT-TDR samples with this backport:
https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/compare/CMSSW_11_1_X...ahinzmann:primaryVertexAssociationJME?expand=1
Validation presented at RECO on Aug 20th and PF meetings on June 4th:
https://indico.cern.ch/event/1067481/#67-unified-vertex-association
https://indico.cern.ch/event/1045967/#40-track-primary-vertex-associ
PR validation:
scram b runtests
runTheMatrix -l limited
MiniAOD output of 25202.0 CHS jets were found to agree 100%. PUPPI jets were found to agree within <1%.
if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR:
No backport planned.
Will provide a synchronized analysis recipe for studies based on HLT-TDR samples.