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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

remove nonsense error along trajectory #17056

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Dec 20, 2016
Merged

remove nonsense error along trajectory #17056

merged 1 commit into from Dec 20, 2016

Conversation

VinInn
Copy link
Contributor

@VinInn VinInn commented Dec 16, 2016

Pretty obvious
in case you really wonder:

it seems to me that the author is trying to compute the trajectory error along the track direction.
At best of my understanding the trajectory is evaluated at fixed "path length" (or on the surface) and given such a constrain the error along the track direction shall be zero

If I add

+  std::cout << "Conv decayLenErrors " << std::sqrt(trackError2) << ' ' << std::sqrt(vertexError2) << std::endl;

I get [1] that seems to confirm my argument...

This PR goes in the direction of getting rid of Trajectory clients outside Pattern-Recognition and track fitting

v.

[1]

Conv decayLenErrors 8.08985e-09 0.303271
Conv decayLenErrors 1.0178e-08 0.308193
Conv decayLenErrors 3.5792e-11 0.18766
Conv decayLenErrors 6.88417e-11 0.18766
Conv decayLenErrors 4.80717e-10 0.127311
Conv decayLenErrors 2.18407e-10 0.13478
Conv decayLenErrors 6.20932e-10 0.0773271
Conv decayLenErrors 6.61983e-10 0.07734
Conv decayLenErrors 2.09942e-11 0.0376943
Conv decayLenErrors 1.00645e-11 0.037656
Conv decayLenErrors 4.66109e-10 0.90796
Conv decayLenErrors -nan 0.910426
Conv decayLenErrors 1.41406e-09 0.481755
Conv decayLenErrors 9.55233e-11 0.48931
Conv decayLenErrors 1.09899e-10 1.36467
Conv decayLenErrors 7.66701e-09 1.36451
Conv decayLenErrors 1.71128e-08 0.648829
Conv decayLenErrors 5.35681e-10 0.649918
Conv decayLenErrors 6.62235e-11 0.325768
Conv decayLenErrors 1.29224e-09 0.293336
Conv decayLenErrors 4.17621e-10 0.549151
Conv decayLenErrors 1.57907e-11 0.584518
Conv decayLenErrors 1.24353e-09 0.922273
Conv decayLenErrors 1.41729e-11 0.922496
Conv decayLenErrors 8.10341e-12 0.667636
Conv decayLenErrors 1.92729e-11 0.667601
Conv decayLenErrors 6.80979e-10 0.910948
Conv decayLenErrors 3.4351e-11 0.914169
Conv decayLenErrors 5.96534e-12 0.0216508
Conv decayLenErrors 3.13757e-11 0.0217808
Conv decayLenErrors 2.11458e-11 0.0399453
Conv decayLenErrors 7.23228e-12 0.0399368
Conv decayLenErrors 6.52953e-10 0.319295
Conv decayLenErrors 2.04955e-09 0.33336
Conv decayLenErrors 6.71637e-12 0.795876
Conv decayLenErrors 9.35454e-12 0.795864
Conv decayLenErrors 9.35454e-12 0.392259
Conv decayLenErrors 1.34314e-11 0.392277
Conv decayLenErrors 1.34314e-11 0.700822
Conv decayLenErrors 5.35559e-11 0.708999
Conv decayLenErrors 1.03494e-11 0.94411
Conv decayLenErrors 4.50016e-12 0.944118
Conv decayLenErrors 4.73188e-12 0.492338

@cmsbuild cmsbuild added this to the Next CMSSW_9_0_X milestone Dec 16, 2016
@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @VinInn (Vincenzo Innocente) for CMSSW_9_0_X.

It involves the following packages:

RecoEgamma/EgammaPhotonAlgos

@cmsbuild, @cvuosalo, @slava77, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@Sam-Harper, @rafaellopesdesa, @lgray this is something you requested to watch as well.
@slava77, @smuzaffar you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here #13028

@VinInn
Copy link
Contributor Author

VinInn commented Dec 16, 2016

@cmsbuild , please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Dec 16, 2016 •
edited

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/17083/console Started: 2016/12/16 14:14

@slava77
Copy link
Contributor

slava77 commented Dec 16, 2016

@VinInn
which sample did you use to print these?
Can you try with if (std::sqrt(trackError2) > 1e-3)

@VinInn
Copy link
Contributor Author

VinInn commented Dec 16, 2016

phase0 ttbar PU35 25ns in aout 420 events
[innocent@vinavx3 pu35]$ grep Error convErr.log | grep e-06 | wc
0 0 0
[innocent@vinavx3 pu35]$ grep Error convErr.log | grep e-07 | wc
32 128 1284
[innocent@vinavx3 pu35]$ grep Error convErr.log | grep e-08 | wc
301 1204 12127

@slava77
Copy link
Contributor

slava77 commented Dec 16, 2016

thanks, seems clear enough for this sample.
What about a photon gun to have some real conversion enrichment? (even though the cut logic there aims at selecting/rejecting non-conversions)

@slava77
Copy link
Contributor

slava77 commented Dec 16, 2016

after clarifying in the email thread, it looks like the error along momentum is indeed zero by construction (modulo numerical precision)

@VinInn
Copy link
Contributor Author

VinInn commented Dec 16, 2016 

[innocent@vinavx3 19.0_SingleGammaPt35+SingleGammaPt35INPUT+DIGI+RECO+HARVEST]$ grep Error convErr.log | head -n 50
Conv decayLenErrors 8.24762e-10 0.221448
Conv decayLenErrors 7.8123e-10 0.221396
Conv decayLenErrors 3.20101e-08 0.229157
Conv decayLenErrors -nan 0.224429
Conv decayLenErrors 6.73911e-10 1.46095
Conv decayLenErrors 1.39161e-10 1.46127
Conv decayLenErrors 6.73911e-10 1.22417
Conv decayLenErrors 3.74064e-09 1.22416
Conv decayLenErrors 6.73911e-10 1.65337
Conv decayLenErrors 2.04534e-09 1.65363
Conv decayLenErrors 6.73911e-10 2.28248
Conv decayLenErrors 1.0663e-09 2.28267
Conv decayLenErrors 1.12539e-09 0.383042
Conv decayLenErrors 3.74064e-09 0.383084
Conv decayLenErrors 1.12539e-09 0.66255
Conv decayLenErrors 2.04534e-09 0.662548
Conv decayLenErrors 1.12539e-09 0.383042
Conv decayLenErrors 3.74064e-09 0.383084
Conv decayLenErrors 3.83477e-10 1.83786
Conv decayLenErrors 4.91881e-10 1.83779
Conv decayLenErrors 5.74644e-10 3.19821
Conv decayLenErrors 4.91881e-10 3.19896
Conv decayLenErrors 7.50193e-10 0.355987
Conv decayLenErrors 1.81437e-11 0.356585
Conv decayLenErrors 7.50193e-10 0.32208
Conv decayLenErrors 6.03926e-12 0.322665
Conv decayLenErrors 7.50193e-10 0.364807
Conv decayLenErrors 1.43582e-11 0.365396
Conv decayLenErrors 1.81437e-11 0.685471
Conv decayLenErrors 4.05783e-12 0.685477
Conv decayLenErrors 6.03926e-12 0.261002
Conv decayLenErrors 4.05783e-12 0.261006
Conv decayLenErrors 1.43582e-11 0.32864
Conv decayLenErrors 4.05783e-12 0.328644
Conv decayLenErrors 7.50193e-10 0.32208
Conv decayLenErrors 6.03926e-12 0.322665
Conv decayLenErrors 6.03926e-12 0.261002
Conv decayLenErrors 4.05783e-12 0.261006
Conv decayLenErrors 2.52923e-10 0.590148
Conv decayLenErrors 1.47228e-10 0.590154
Conv decayLenErrors 2.52923e-10 0.590148
Conv decayLenErrors 1.47228e-10 0.590154
Conv decayLenErrors 2.87532e-08 3.26501
Conv decayLenErrors 2.84725e-08 3.1328
Conv decayLenErrors 1.95273e-07 2.6668
Conv decayLenErrors 2.84725e-08 2.6663
Conv decayLenErrors -nan 0.463273
Conv decayLenErrors 1.35492e-07 0.464146
Conv decayLenErrors 6.6858e-10 1.9341
Conv decayLenErrors 1.97168e-09 1.93877

[innocent@vinavx3 19.0_SingleGammaPt35+SingleGammaPt35INPUT+DIGI+RECO+HARVEST]$ grep Error convErr.log | grep e-06 | wc
      0       0       0
[innocent@vinavx3 19.0_SingleGammaPt35+SingleGammaPt35INPUT+DIGI+RECO+HARVEST]$ grep Error convErr.log | grep e-07 | wc
     18      72     720
[innocent@vinavx3 19.0_SingleGammaPt35+SingleGammaPt35INPUT+DIGI+RECO+HARVEST]$ grep Error convErr.log | grep e-08 | wc
     52     208    2081
[innocent@vinavx3 19.0_SingleGammaPt35+SingleGammaPt35INPUT+DIGI+RECO+HARVEST]$ grep Error convErr.log | grep e-05 | wc
      0       0       0

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1
Tested at: 11a8c9a
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-17056/17083/summary.html

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Comparison job queued.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-17056/17083/summary.html

@cvuosalo
Copy link
Contributor

+1

For #17056 11a8c9a

Eliminating pointless calculation of a trajectory error that is always essentially zero. There should be no change in monitored quantities.

The code change is satisfactory, and Jenkins tests against baseline CMSSW_9_0_X_2016-12-16-1100 show no significant differences, as expected. Additional tests of workflows 1318.0_SingleGammaPt10 and 25202.0_TTbar_13 with 200 events each against baseline CMSSW_9_0_X_2016-12-16-1100 also show no significant differences.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_9_0_X IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @slava77, @davidlange6, @smuzaffar

@davidlange6
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@cmsbuild cmsbuild merged commit c50b849 into cms-sw:CMSSW_9_0_X Dec 20, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
comparison-available fully-signed orp-approved reconstruction-approved tests-approved
Projects
None yet
Milestone
CMSSW_9_0_X
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
5 participants
@VinInn @cmsbuild @slava77 @cvuosalo @davidlange6