Skip to content
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

Adding LUT approach for PackedCandidates #34446

Merged
merged 12 commits into from
Aug 12, 2021
Merged

Conversation

AdrianoDee
Copy link
Contributor

PR description:

This PR adds setTrackPropertiesLite to PackedCandidate to set custom track properties when no track is associated to the candidate. The LUTPackedCandidatesProducer uses this method to produce a new collection from the original packedPFCandidates in miniAODs. Further discussion in #33622.

This PR would need cms-data/DataFormats-PatCandidates#2 to be integrated to properly run.

AdrianoDee added 2 commits July 12, 2021 18:01
- adding setTrackPropertiesLite
- adding LUTPackedCandidatesProducer for creating a new collection
@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-34446/23876

  • This PR adds an extra 28KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @AdrianoDee for master.

It involves the following packages:

  • DataFormats/PatCandidates (reconstruction)
  • PhysicsTools/PatUtils (reconstruction)

@perrotta, @jpata, @cmsbuild, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@mmarionncern, @gouskos, @JyothsnaKomaragiri, @ahinzmann, @schoef, @rappoccio, @rovere, @jdamgov, @jdolen, @nhanvtran, @gkasieczka, @clelange, @emilbols, @hatakeyamak, @gpetruc, @andrzejnovak, @mariadalfonso, @seemasharmafnal, @cbernet this is something you requested to watch as well.
@silviodonato, @dpiparo, @qliphy, @perrotta you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

@AdrianoDee AdrianoDee changed the title Adding LUT Adding LUT approach for PackedCandidates Jul 12, 2021
@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-34446/23877

  • This PR adds an extra 28KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Pull request #34446 was updated. @perrotta, @jpata, @cmsbuild, @slava77 can you please check and sign again.

- avoid no track (at aÃll) candidates
@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-34446/23878

  • This PR adds an extra 28KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Pull request #34446 was updated. @perrotta, @jpata, @cmsbuild, @slava77 can you please check and sign again.

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

perrotta commented Jul 13, 2021

test parameters:

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Aug 6, 2021

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-34446/24543

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Aug 6, 2021

Pull request #34446 was updated. @perrotta, @jpata, @cmsbuild, @slava77 can you please check and sign again.

@slava77
Copy link
Contributor

slava77 commented Aug 6, 2021

The last updates were suggestive that the new code was not tested exhaustively enough.
@AdrianoDee please provide some pointers to perhaps some plots confirming what is expected from the new producer.
Thank you.

@slava77
Copy link
Contributor

slava77 commented Aug 7, 2021

test parameters:

@slava77
Copy link
Contributor

slava77 commented Aug 7, 2021

@cmsbuild please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Aug 7, 2021

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-8dddc6/17626/summary.html
COMMIT: fc256e5
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_1_X_2021-08-06-1100/slc7_amd64_gcc900
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/34446/17626/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 4 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 39
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2999410
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 6
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 1
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2999381
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: -0.004 KiB( 38 files compared)
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 312.0 ): -0.004 KiB MessageLogger/Warnings
  • Checked 165 log files, 37 edm output root files, 39 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@slava77
Copy link
Contributor

slava77 commented Aug 11, 2021

+reconstruction

for #34446 fc256e5

  • code changes are in line with the PR description and the follow up review; the related external is merged Update tag for DataFormats-PatCandidates to V01-01-00 cmsdist#7203
  • jenkins tests pass and comparisons with the baseline show no differences (the new producer is not in the standard workflows)
  • I ran the packedCandidatesTrackLiteModifier on 2016 and 2018 inputs using input files from 136.7722 (Run2016H/JetHT/MINIAOD/18Apr2017-v1) and 136.8521 (Run2018A/JetHT/MINIAOD/PromptReco-v1) by using process.packedCandidatesTrackLite = packedCandidatesTrackLiteModifier.clone(covVersion = 0) for 2016 and version 1 for 2018. The results appear to be roughly as expected:
    • packedCandidatesTrackLite objects are aligned with packedPFCandidates
    • the Lite objects differ in their hasTrackDetails() and in these cases the number of hits and pixel hits in these candidates come out at 8 and 3, respectively
    • whenever the original cands have hasTrackDetails()==false and the lite ones have hasTrackDetails() == true, the cov elements, e.g. dzError() and dxyError() are accessible with TTree::Draw or Scan and the values are somewhat sensible with values O(0.03).

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

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)

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants