Hip mitigation #15114

PS
275828 is declared BAD by Tracker because of large inefficiencies in TID
due to noise.
The fact that this PR happens to mitigate also that inefficiency will
not change the decision....

I missed this.
Rerunning with something with a similar PU and apparently good (276092)

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#15114 (comment), or
mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AEdcbvAeBBNzoLWPTEO5TGeUAKVHCqn-ks5qTKNwgaJpZM4JE9VO.

VinInn · 2016-07-12T09:33:52Z

In any case "somebody" has to decide

cut a (special)-release, make relvals and ask POGs to validate
ask to neutralize GSF and conversions (as done in the past for other optimizations) and then proceed with 1)

slava77 · 2016-07-12T13:32:02Z

I tried with Simon's simulation PR and see somewhat similar behavior in data and MC.

Here is a comparison of JetHT 276092 with MC ttbar PU 35 (with HIP simulation scaled to PU35; APVSaturationProbScaling = cms.double(1.34) )

data: {collection: change (count of objects in original, comments}

    muons + 7.6% (7276 mostly bad TMID
    glob mu tks: +2.4%
    particleFlowEgamma: -16% (7719
    gsfTracks: - 24% (14726
    pf ch +0.5%
    pf ele: -18% (989
    pf mu: +11% (1175
    CDC: +42% (166
    generalTracks: +2.3% (732585
    IVFs: +49% (1616
    gedGsfEle: -11% (1467;
    gedPhotons: -18% (3022; mostly at low E

MC

    muons: +14% mostly with bad TMID
    globalMuonTracks: +1: 74->75
    ele gsf tk: -27% (974
    particleFlowEgamma -20% (577
    pf ch: +0.2% (50682; mostly around 1 GeV
    pf el: -18% (101
    pf mu: +16% (151
    generalTracks +1.4% (61927
    IVFs + 50% (132
    gedGsfEle: -15% (148
    gedPhotons -20% (267

If I can trust MC plots with HIP simulation on particle gun events and on high-pt dijets,
then there isn't much visible effect on isolated electrons and photons (for guns), and not much of an effect from jetCore behavior in high-pt dijets.

Some plots for comparisons:
pfEgamma in data

and in MC:

GED GSF data

and MC

gedPhotons data

and MC

TTbar MC for these inclusive plots is still rather dominated by non-W leptons and fake photons.
So, the similarity in changes from the mitigation are encouraging.

slava77 · 2016-07-12T13:41:20Z

Here are some technical numbers, based on 276092 JetHT
(I was running 8-threads on 1000 events)

There is about 1s/event increase (about 5% of total CPU).
The largest contributors are in tracking:

   -0.392600      -0.10%        56.29 ms/ev ->        37.82 ms/ev pfTrackElec
   -0.295850      -0.27%       193.69 ms/ev ->       143.77 ms/ev electronGsfTracks
   +0.192923      +0.16%       135.01 ms/ev ->       163.84 ms/ev particleFlowDisplacedVertex
   -0.190227      -0.08%        86.89 ms/ev ->        71.80 ms/ev allConversions
   +0.132258      +0.14%       181.57 ms/ev ->       207.28 ms/ev unsortedOfflinePrimaryVertices
   +0.071275      +0.07%       177.71 ms/ev ->       190.84 ms/ev earlyDisplacedMuons
   +0.070947      +0.07%       176.74 ms/ev ->       189.73 ms/ev earlyMuons
   +0.047114      +0.21%       813.70 ms/ev ->       852.96 ms/ev muons1stStep
   -0.064891      -0.05%       154.73 ms/ev ->       145.00 ms/ev trackExtrapolator
   +0.046377      +0.05%       196.45 ms/ev ->       205.78 ms/ev conversionTrackCandidates

   +0.281431      +1.21%       678.74 ms/ev ->       901.04 ms/ev jetCoreRegionalStepTrackCandidates
   +0.257997      +2.01%      1247.71 ms/ev ->      1617.29 ms/ev pixelPairStepTrackCandidates
   +0.232694      +0.06%        43.27 ms/ev ->        54.67 ms/ev pixelPairStep
   +0.160113      +0.37%       392.62 ms/ev ->       460.96 ms/ev pixelPairStepTracks
   +0.121924      +0.03%        49.29 ms/ev ->        55.69 ms/ev firstStepPrimaryVerticesPreSplitting
   +0.118777      +0.04%        53.46 ms/ev ->        60.21 ms/ev firstStepPrimaryVertices
   +0.115772      +0.03%        50.09 ms/ev ->        56.25 ms/ev earlyGeneralTracks
   +0.107825      +0.40%       650.55 ms/ev ->       724.70 ms/ev detachedTripletStepTrackCandidates
   -0.086483      -0.04%        86.31 ms/ev ->        79.15 ms/ev tobTecStepSeedsTripl
   +0.084617      +0.24%       496.86 ms/ev ->       540.76 ms/ev initialStepTrackCandidatesPreSplitting
   +0.084475      +0.13%       272.08 ms/ev ->       296.08 ms/ev pixelLessStepTrackCandidates
   +0.080211      +0.23%       497.29 ms/ev ->       538.85 ms/ev initialStepTrackCandidates
   +0.078741      +0.03%        68.01 ms/ev ->        73.59 ms/ev pixelLessStepTracks
   +0.069524      +0.24%       609.70 ms/ev ->       653.61 ms/ev lowPtTripletStepTrackCandidates
   +0.039383      +0.04%       204.66 ms/ev ->       212.88 ms/ev lowPtTripletStepTracks
   -0.034641      -0.09%       473.37 ms/ev ->       457.25 ms/ev pixelLessStepSeeds
   +0.025208      +0.04%       271.02 ms/ev ->       277.94 ms/ev detachedTripletStepTracks
Total printed: 8317.81 -> 9277.74

The event sizes go up and down per product. The net change is about 1%, mainly coming from generalTracks. Changes in the reco file:

    821.4 ->       724.9        -96    -12.5  -0.01     recoPFCandidates_particleFlowEGamma__RECO.
     81.0 ->       106.9         26     27.5   0.00     recoTracks_cosmicsVetoTracks__RECO.
   3362.4 ->      3615.8        253      7.3   0.01     recoMuons_muons__RECO.
  79518.1 ->     81801.3       2283      2.8   0.13     recoTracks_generalTracks__RECO.
   2368.7 ->      1866.6       -502    -23.7  -0.03     recoGsfTracks_electronGsfTracks__RECO.
   1053.4 ->       966.1        -87     -8.6  -0.00     recoGsfElectrons_gedGsfElectrons__RECO.
   1232.2 ->      1054.9       -177    -15.5  -0.01     recoPhotons_gedPhotons__RECO.
  60173.7 ->     60149.9        -24     -0.0  -0.00     recoPFCandidates_particleFlow__RECO.
    727.2 ->       985.1        258     30.1   0.01     recoVertexs_inclusiveSecondaryVertices__RECO.

slava77 · 2016-07-12T13:49:54Z

+1

for #15114 ce75214

code change is as described
jenkins tests pass and show changes in many workflows
local tests with HIP simulation from HIP simulation in SiStrips #15062 and with JetHT 276092 (and 275828 earlier, which is a bit problematic in TID, but has fairly similar changes from this PR) show changes in line with the presentation linked in the description for general iterative tracks; changes in higher level objects appear to be somewhat reproducible in MC (larger effects on fake-like leptons and photons).

cmsbuild · 2016-07-12T13:50:33Z

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_8_1_X IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @slava77, @davidlange6, @Degano, @smuzaffar

VinInn · 2016-07-12T14:23:48Z

Thanks Slava for these tests: you are indeed the first to try this new HIP simulation/mitigation chain!
We really need higher stat
@arizzi fyi

arizzi · 2016-07-12T15:27:03Z

@VinInn is it possible to make a 80X backport to possibly have a dedicated 80X patch release to do a selected rereco of some runs/PDs ?

VinInn · 2016-07-12T15:31:43Z

why in 80X?
the difference is so large that at this point is a joke to pretend bitwise compatibility in other areas...

btw we then need also a backport of HIP Simulation...

arizzi · 2016-07-12T15:45:45Z

it would make easy to compare w/ prompt reco and faster to prepare the campaign given that GT is already there

slava77 · 2016-07-12T15:55:10Z

On 7/12/16 8:27 AM, arizzi wrote:

@VinInn https://github.com/VinInn is it possible to make a 80X
backport to possibly have a dedicated 80X patch release to do a selected
rereco of some runs/PDs ?

If this can be made configurable for 80X (or even 81X), off by default
in 80X,
then backport and special reprocessing requests in 80X are going to be
transparent.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#15114 (comment), or
mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AEdcbtEknKGiFd4tMQ3c2c7n-FnGD_0Iks5qU7JIgaJpZM4JE9VO.

\

VinInn · 2016-07-12T16:06:32Z

a straight backport is trivial (a few line patch)
I was planning to add configurability using "MeasurementEstimator" as a carrier.
This will take a while and will require the usual HLT gym.
I still suggest to create a special release for HIPMitigation at this round....

slava77 · 2016-07-12T16:49:07Z

On 7/12/16 9:06 AM, Vincenzo Innocente wrote:

a straight backport is trivial (a few line patch)
I was planning to add configurability using "MeasurementEstimator" as a
carrier.
This will take a while and will require the usual HLT gym.
I still suggest to create a special release for HIPMitigation at this
round....

It should be possible to do all the tests and comparisons in 81X,
as long as the idea is not to reprocess O(10%) of all data at which
point doing in 80X gives some savings.

The development of things appears to go in the direction of having the
mitigation in rereco.
That's probably still 80X.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#15114 (comment), or
mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AEdcbvOvDvkU0YPQcCXrV5-5LJbs1Jlbks5qU7uKgaJpZM4JE9VO.

VinInn · 2016-07-12T16:53:39Z

So, what shall we do?

backport this?
integrate this in 81X (possibly asap)?
hold and add configurability?

btw keep in mind that we still hope to be able to identify affected APVs from data themselves and make the mitigation more local

@venturia fyi as well

slava77 · 2016-07-12T17:18:40Z

On 7/12/16 9:53 AM, Vincenzo Innocente wrote:

So, what shall we do?

backport this?

No, only when it's configurable.

integrate this in 81X (possibly asap)?

hold and add configurability?
I think that on/off switch is helpful for 81X validation as well
(given more physics changes coming in the next pre-release).
If I understand correctly, this can be implemented in about a day,
which is on schedule for the next pre-release.

btw keep in mind that we still hope to be able to identify affected APVs
from data themselves and make the mitigation more local

What is the time scale for this?

@venturia https://github.com/venturia fyi as well

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#15114 (comment), or
mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AEdcbgRr7dmda8wumDByiFxcVwfZ_ZSFks5qU8aUgaJpZM4JE9VO.

VinInn · 2016-07-12T17:34:06Z

the new parameter will make the pair with this for instance http://cmslxr.fnal.gov/dxr/CMSSW_8_0_5/search?q=MaxSagitta&case=true
what we prefer: neutralize GSF and conversions or not? (muon steps for sure not!)

what what concern APV identification: no-ETA

davidlange6 · 2016-07-12T18:05:14Z

+1

slava77 · 2016-07-12T18:06:49Z

On 7/12/16 10:34 AM, Vincenzo Innocente wrote:

the new parameter will make the pair with this for instance
http://cmslxr.fnal.gov/dxr/CMSSW_8_0_5/search?q=MaxSagitta&case=true

what we prefer: neutralize GSF and conversions or not? (muon steps for
sure not!)

I may be misunderstanding the term "neutralize".

At this point I was just thinking of a global on/off switch for the
mitigation in this PR

Your comments point to further improvements that would run differently
for different iterations.
This is good, but I'm somewhat out of the context.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#15114 (comment), or
mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AEdcboDEA8BCCh7R1_XiQjgrAMdw3Ibxks5qU9APgaJpZM4JE9VO.

\

VinInn added 9 commits June 17, 2016 19:33

tib1,2mtob1,2 always inactive

20ceb22

only TOB1

d16dce0

collect crap in case of no match

98899d9

stereo as well

89ca319

only for 900 MeV

9e09d7f

add tib as well

8ac0ec6

extend mitigation to endcaps

6dab5b6

Merged HipMitigation from repository VinInn

b7adf32

mitigate inactive (or instead of and)

d5168db

cmsbuild added this to the Next CMSSW_8_1_X milestone Jul 5, 2016

cmsbuild added reconstruction-pending pending-signatures tests-pending orp-pending comparison-pending labels Jul 5, 2016

cmsbuild added tests-started and removed tests-pending labels Jul 5, 2016

cmsbuild added tests-approved and removed tests-started labels Jul 5, 2016

cmsbuild added tests-pending and removed tests-approved labels Jul 5, 2016

cmsbuild added tests-started and removed tests-pending labels Jul 5, 2016

cmsbuild added reconstruction-approved fully-signed and removed pending-signatures reconstruction-pending labels Jul 12, 2016

cmsbuild added orp-approved and removed orp-pending labels Jul 12, 2016

cmsbuild merged commit 7ff241d into cms-sw:CMSSW_8_1_X Jul 12, 2016

This was referenced Jul 13, 2016

Make Hip mitigation configurable #15194

Merged

HIP simulation in SiStrips #15062

Closed

makortel mentioned this pull request Jul 21, 2016

Backport HIP mitigation to 80X #15251

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Hip mitigation #15114

Hip mitigation #15114

VinInn commented Jul 5, 2016

cmsbuild commented Jul 5, 2016

VinInn commented Jul 5, 2016

cmsbuild commented Jul 5, 2016 •

edited

cmsbuild commented Jul 5, 2016

slava77 commented Jul 5, 2016

cmsbuild commented Jul 5, 2016 •

edited

cmsbuild commented Jul 5, 2016

VinInn commented Jul 8, 2016

slava77 commented Jul 8, 2016

slava77 commented Jul 12, 2016

VinInn commented Jul 12, 2016 •

edited

slava77 commented Jul 12, 2016

slava77 commented Jul 12, 2016

slava77 commented Jul 12, 2016

cmsbuild commented Jul 12, 2016

VinInn commented Jul 12, 2016

arizzi commented Jul 12, 2016

VinInn commented Jul 12, 2016 •

edited

arizzi commented Jul 12, 2016

slava77 commented Jul 12, 2016

VinInn commented Jul 12, 2016

slava77 commented Jul 12, 2016

VinInn commented Jul 12, 2016

slava77 commented Jul 12, 2016

VinInn commented Jul 12, 2016

davidlange6 commented Jul 12, 2016

slava77 commented Jul 12, 2016

Hip mitigation #15114

Hip mitigation #15114

Conversation

VinInn commented Jul 5, 2016

cmsbuild commented Jul 5, 2016

VinInn commented Jul 5, 2016

cmsbuild commented Jul 5, 2016 • edited

cmsbuild commented Jul 5, 2016

slava77 commented Jul 5, 2016

cmsbuild commented Jul 5, 2016 • edited

cmsbuild commented Jul 5, 2016

VinInn commented Jul 8, 2016

slava77 commented Jul 8, 2016

slava77 commented Jul 12, 2016

VinInn commented Jul 12, 2016 • edited

slava77 commented Jul 12, 2016

slava77 commented Jul 12, 2016

slava77 commented Jul 12, 2016

cmsbuild commented Jul 12, 2016

VinInn commented Jul 12, 2016

arizzi commented Jul 12, 2016

VinInn commented Jul 12, 2016 • edited

arizzi commented Jul 12, 2016

slava77 commented Jul 12, 2016

VinInn commented Jul 12, 2016

slava77 commented Jul 12, 2016

VinInn commented Jul 12, 2016

slava77 commented Jul 12, 2016

VinInn commented Jul 12, 2016

davidlange6 commented Jul 12, 2016

slava77 commented Jul 12, 2016

cmsbuild commented Jul 5, 2016 •

edited

cmsbuild commented Jul 5, 2016 •

edited

VinInn commented Jul 12, 2016 •

edited

VinInn commented Jul 12, 2016 •

edited