Allowing Cluster Splitting with HLT Vertices

[AdrianoDee]

PR description:

This PR proposes the introduction of a new process modifier hltClusterSplitting that:

• enables to write the hltPixelVertices in FEVTDEBUGHLTEventContent;
  • one could test also just the hltTrimmedPixelVertices that are just 1-2 for Run3 HLT;
• uses those vertices for the ak4CaloJetsForTrkPreSplitting and the cluster splitter;
  • these producers actually use only the coordinates so the content to be stored could be actually slimmed down to be just a collection of floats;
• removes the InitialStepPreSplitting iteration from iterative tracking.

Running on 14_2_0_pre2 RelVals with Run3 PU:

• TTbar (400 events);
• QCD_Pt15To7000_Flat (500 events);

the tracking performance seems untouched.

I don't know how much this would be useful for Run3, but it may be interesting to check it for Phase2. For Run3 I've measured (roughly) a speedup of 1.5-2% on a TTbar Run3 PU 2025 conditions sample.

I took the chance also to add a specific wf with offset .19003 (to be aligned to the other cluster splitting related wfs) and a ProdLike version with .1900321.

PR validation:

runTheMatrix.py -w upgrade -l 17434.19003,17434.1900321

[AdrianoDee]

type tracking

[cmsbuild]

cms-bot internal usage

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-46694/42636

• There are other open Pull requests which might conflict with changes you have proposed:
  • File Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/upgradeWorkflowComponents.py modified in PR(s): Add run3 tracking low pu era #33532, CMSSW Integration of LST #45117, ECAL RecHit producer Alpaka migration #46453, Phase2-hgx360F First attempt to make a Phase2 scenario with 0 overlaps with zero tolerance in lieu of #46565 #46610, Rename 2021 Wfs with 2022 #46649

[cmsbuild]

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

It involves the following packages:

• Configuration/EventContent (operations)
• Configuration/ProcessModifiers (operations)
• Configuration/PyReleaseValidation (upgrade, pdmv)
• RecoTracker/IterativeTracking (reconstruction)
• Validation/RecoTrack (dqm)

@AdrianoDee, @Moanwar, @antoniovagnerini, @antoniovilela, @cmsbuild, @davidlange6, @DickyChant, @fabiocos, @jfernan2, @mandrenguyen, @miquork, @rappoccio, @rseidita, @srimanob, @subirsarkar can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@GiacomoSguazzoni, @Martin-Grunewald, @VinInn, @VourMa, @dgulhan, @fabiocos, @felicepantaleo, @gpetruc, @makortel, @missirol, @mmusich, @mtosi, @rovere, @slomeo, @wmtford this is something you requested to watch as well.
@antoniovilela, @mandrenguyen, @rappoccio, @sextonkennedy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[AdrianoDee]

test parameters:

• relval_opts = -w upgrade
• workflow = 17434.19003

[AdrianoDee]

please test

[AdrianoDee]

Forgot to remove these comments.

[AdrianoDee]

Also these, will do a cleanup after the tests.

[cmsbuild]

+1

Size: This PR adds an extra 60KB to repository
Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-ae3468/42814/summary.html
COMMIT: 675550f
CMSSW: CMSSW_14_2_X_2024-11-13-1300/el8_amd64_gcc12
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/46694/42814/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: 282 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 47
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3450336
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 2307
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3448009
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 20
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 46 files compared)
• Checked 206 log files, 177 edm output root files, 47 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[antoniovagnerini]

+1

• spurious differences seen from unstable WF 12434.7 (open issue spurious differences in outputs of Run-3 wfs *.7 #39803 )
• spurious differences from HGCal DQM test (open issue Non reproducibility in HGCal DQM #46416)

[Moanwar]

+Upgrade

[AdrianoDee]

+pdmv

[jfernan2]

+1

[AdrianoDee]

@cms-sw/dqm-l2 w.r.t. the latest sign-off I only removed a couple of comments. Could you have a look? Thanks ( :

[antoniovagnerini]

+dqm

[cmsbuild]

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

[mandrenguyen]

+1

[mmusich]

It looks like after this PR was merged several DQM online client related tests started failing, (see e.g. here). I propose #46892 to fix it.