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

back to BackwardFitBH for iters without bw search #349

Closed

Conversation

slava77
Copy link
Collaborator

@slava77 slava77 commented Aug 28, 2021

#345 was not in an obvious way supposed to modify the iterations without the backward search. This PR recovers that behavior.

plots are available for mkfit=all option compiled with AVX2:=1 USE_INTRINSICS:=-DMPT_SIZE=1

black (this PR) vs the reference as of #344 are clearly the same based on the ratio plots, e.g. in ttbar initialStep built tracks
image

If the change from #345 for e.g. this initialStep case was an improvement, I guess we'd be fine to pick it up. Since this is a regression (a clear increase in fakes), I propose to take this PR and then perhaps investigate if the non-BH solution can be improved (IIUC, it is more flexible).

@osschar
I've updated both the run_OneIteration and runBtpCe_MultiIter, but the CMSSW MTV test covers only run_OneIteration.
Please check and if that seems correct, perhaps consider merging.

@osschar
Copy link
Collaborator

osschar commented Aug 28, 2021

Can you please rather figure out where the difference comes from? We will need this for seed region rebuilding and will need to figure it out anyway.

@slava77
Copy link
Collaborator Author

slava77 commented Aug 28, 2021

Can you please rather figure out where the difference comes from? We will need this for seed region rebuilding and will need to figure it out anyway.

OK, I'll give it a try (not before Monday), although I'd guess that you may be more familiar with this part of the code.

if me or someone gets to this before Friday, this PR can wait; otherwise for the next CMSSW update, I'd like to fall back to this revert PR.

@slava77
Copy link
Collaborator Author

slava77 commented Aug 28, 2021

OK, I'll give it a try (not before Monday), although I'd guess that you may be more familiar with this part of the code.

it's likely later than Monday. My next item is the pixel bad modules.

@osschar
Copy link
Collaborator

osschar commented Aug 28, 2021

OK, then it's on me, I can start looking into this Monday morning. I agree we fall back to this if we can't figure it out in time :)

@osschar osschar mentioned this pull request Sep 3, 2021
@slava77
Copy link
Collaborator Author

slava77 commented Sep 3, 2021

superseded by #351

@slava77 slava77 closed this Sep 3, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants