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

track selection DNN update and relative working points #39715

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 25, 2022

Conversation

leonardogiannini
Copy link
Contributor

@leonardogiannini leonardogiannini commented Oct 12, 2022

PR description:

  • the track selection DNN is updated with a retraining under more recent Run3 conditions (CMSSW 12_5_0_pre5) and relative working points
  • two trainings are performed: mkFit for 7 iterations + CKF for the rest and CKF for all the iterations
  • for the current tracking, where mkFit is used in 4 iterations + InitialStepPreSplitting (5), the first DNN is used for the 4 mkFit iterations (initial , high pt triplet, detached quad and triplet) and the iterations where both trainings use CKF (pixel pair, mixed triplet, tobtec, jetCore), while the CKF training and working points is used as a fallback for pixelLess, low pT quad and triplet, trained with mkFit in the first training.
  • the update was presented at the TRK POG -> link

PR validation:

the MTV plots for TTbar and QCD high pT (1800-2400) are linked below

NB: the cand DNN cut for mkFit high pT triplet is kept the same, as it doesn't change the performance (same as before retraining)

for testing one needs to include this PR to cms-data
cms-data/RecoTracker-FinalTrackSelectors#12

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-39715/32547

  • This PR adds an extra 24KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

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

It involves the following packages:

  • RecoTracker/FinalTrackSelectors (reconstruction)
  • RecoTracker/IterativeTracking (reconstruction)

@cmsbuild, @mandrenguyen, @clacaputo can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@VourMa, @felicepantaleo, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @JanFSchulte, @rovere, @VinInn, @missirol, @ebrondol, @gpetruc, @mmusich, @mtosi, @dgulhan this is something you requested to watch as well.
@perrotta, @dpiparo, @rappoccio you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor

mmusich commented Oct 12, 2022

test parameters:

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor

mmusich commented Oct 12, 2022

type tracking

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor

mmusich commented Oct 13, 2022

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-06172f/28219/summary.html
COMMIT: bef89f3
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_6_X_2022-10-12-2300/el8_amd64_gcc10
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/39715/28219/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

The following merge commits were also included on top of IB + this PR after doing git cms-merge-topic:

You can see more details here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-06172f/28219/git-recent-commits.json
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-06172f/28219/git-merge-result

Comparison Summary

@slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:

  • /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/data/PR-06172f/20834.0_TTbar_14TeV+2026D88+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCP5_GenSimHLBeamSpot14+DigiTrigger+RecoGlobal+HARVESTGlobal
  • /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/data/PR-06172f/20834.75_TTbar_14TeV+2026D88_HLT75e33+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCP5_GenSimHLBeamSpot14+DigiTrigger+RecoGlobal+HLT75e33+HARVESTGlobal
  • /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/data/PR-06172f/20896.0_CloseByPGun_CE_E_Front_120um+2026D88+CE_E_Front_120um_GenSimHLBeamSpotHGCALCloseBy+DigiTrigger+RecoGlobal+HARVESTGlobal
  • /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/data/PR-06172f/20900.0_CloseByPGun_CE_H_Coarse_Scint+2026D88+CE_H_Coarse_Scint_GenSimHLBeamSpotHGCALCloseBy+DigiTrigger+RecoGlobal+HARVESTGlobal
  • /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/data/PR-06172f/21034.999_TTbar_14TeV+2026D88PU_PMXS1S2PR+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCP5_GenSimHLBeamSpot14+PREMIX_PremixHLBeamSpot14PU+DigiTriggerPU+RecoGlobalPU+HARVESTGlobalPU
  • /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/data/PR-06172f/23234.0_TTbar_14TeV+2026D94+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCP5_GenSimHLBeamSpot14+DigiTrigger+RecoGlobal+HARVESTGlobal

Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 20456 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 49
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3392309
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 111888
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 2
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3280397
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: -0.016 KiB( 48 files compared)
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 138.5 ): -0.016 KiB JetMET/SUSYDQM
  • Checked 204 log files, 49 edm output root files, 49 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: found differences in 2 / 48 workflows

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor

mmusich commented Oct 21, 2022

@cms-sw/reconstruction-l2 do you have any comment on this PR?

@clacaputo
Copy link
Contributor

Hi, I'm checking the reco differences and they are minimal. I see a ~1% decrease in the number of general tracks, maybe it is expected, could you please confirm it?

all_OldVSNew_TTbar14TeVPU2021wf11834p0c_log10recoTracks_generalTracks__RECO_obj_pt

@slava77
Copy link
Contributor

slava77 commented Oct 24, 2022

Hi, I'm checking the reco differences and they are minimal. I see a ~1% decrease in the number of general tracks, maybe it is expected, could you please confirm it?

all_OldVSNew_TTbar14TeVPU2021wf11834p0c_log10recoTracks_generalTracks__RECO_obj_pt

which workflow is this?
In events with PU the number of fake tracks is expected to be lower, as shown in the slides linked in the PR description.
A link to the internal validation (available in the slides), somewhat representative to the inclusive distribution you have picked up is in http://uaf-10.t2.ucsd.edu/~legianni/DNN-retraining-eval/MKWP/TTbar_epoch4-4/plots_ootb/distPtEtaPhi.pdf

@clacaputo
Copy link
Contributor

which workflow is this?

Sorry, it's 11834p0

@slava77
Copy link
Contributor

slava77 commented Oct 24, 2022

which workflow is this?

Sorry, it's 11834p0

OK, then my link is supposed to be equivalent (ttbar with PU in run3)

@clacaputo
Copy link
Contributor

which workflow is this?

Sorry, it's 11834p0

OK, then my link is supposed to be equivalent (ttbar with PU in run3)

Indeed, I can see the decrease in number of tracks, thanks

@clacaputo
Copy link
Contributor

+reconstruction

@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, @rappoccio (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

@rappoccio
Copy link
Contributor

@clacaputo do you mind also signing the external (cms-data/RecoTracker-FinalTrackSelectors#12) and then this can be merged.

@slava77
Copy link
Contributor

slava77 commented Oct 25, 2022

@rappoccio @perrotta
it looks like the external PR was signed by reco.

@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