Back to use PXB layer combination 134 and 124 for triplets (phase2 tracking) #17228
Conversation
|
A new Pull Request was created by @ebrondol for CMSSW_9_0_X. It involves the following packages: RecoTracker/IterativeTracking @cmsbuild, @cvuosalo, @slava77, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here #13028 |
|
@slava77 I did not test the timing effect, I suppose this PR will not make much difference. |
|
@cmsbuild, please test |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
@cmsbuild , please test |
|
In any case at the moment it is mandatory to recover the efficiency in the barrel |
|
if the timing is roughly under control (should be, since most badness is in the endcaps), it'd be good to go. |
|
Comparison job queued. |
| @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ | |||
| trackingPhase2PU140.toModify(highPtTripletStepSeedLayers, | |||
| # combination with gap removed as only source of fakes in current geometry (kept for doc) | |||
| layerList = ['BPix1+BPix2+BPix3', 'BPix2+BPix3+BPix4', | |||
| # 'BPix1+BPix3+BPix4', 'BPix1+BPix2+BPix4', | |||
| 'BPix1+BPix3+BPix4', 'BPix1+BPix2+BPix4', | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is either of these two more useful than the other?
Given the large increase in fake rate, maybe some optimization can be done
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We tried to include just one but this was not enough to recover all the efficiency.
|
in PU200 setup: there are ~2% more general tracks, mostly coming from the highpt triplet iteration most of them are short with 4-5 hits the number of gsf tracks doubles in the barrel General track efficiency is slightly higher (apparently, less of an improvement than it is seen in the muon reco) Fake rate goes up in the barrel by about a factor of 2
The underlying seed rate is a bit more flat now btagging may be worse, but the 100 events in the test are not enough for a more conclusive statement Some numerology to go with the plots, showing changes in the yields
In ten mu wf 22811 On a technical side:
IMO, this is a rather questionable change: ~1% efficiency increase visible mostly just in muons at a cost of 15% of fake rate. For muons, shouldn't the efficiency be more effectively recovered with outside-in iteration? |
cannot disagree in general terms, that was the rationale that move me to remove those combinations: outIn is not yet commissioned in phaseII, pixelless iterations as well. |
|
On 1/23/17 11:58 PM, Vincenzo Innocente wrote:
IMO, this is a rather questionable change: ~1% efficiency increase
visible mostly just in muons at a cost of 15% of fake rate. For
muons, shouldn't the efficiency be more effectively recovered with
outside-in iteration?
cannot disagree in general terms, that was the rationale that move me to
remove those combinations: outIn is not yet commissioned in phaseII,
pixelless iterations as well.
On the other hand it is clear that at some point we need to address
failure scenarios as well.
I think this issue need to be addressed in the context of the TDR:
personally I think that for physics most probably is better w/o this PR,
still the single muon efficiency plot for the TDR will raise questions...
In the TDR for the single-muon efficiency plot one can always say that
further efficiency increase is possible by adding the OutIn iteration
and cite the successful implementation in run2.
If this change spreads with problems to physics, there may be more
damage than gain.
About the failure scenarios, the seeding should eventually be made aware
of bad detector elements and have the layer combinations with gaps only
with a bad detector in the gap.
What is the plan for failure scenarios studies in the context of the TDR?
…
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#17228 (comment)>, or
mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEdcbm8vGrfO5OZfnfWrI7VCh-E4YzZAks5rVa8SgaJpZM4LpYGr>.
|
|
On 24 Jan, 2017, at 2:50 PM, Slava Krutelyov ***@***.***> wrote:
About the failure scenarios, the seeding should eventually be made aware
of bad detector elements and have the layer combinations with gaps only
with a bad detector in the gap.
Cannot agree more, it is in the plan for PhaseI (only in the plan though)
What is the plan for failure scenarios studies in the context of the TDR?
Most probably we will wait for questions on the subject....
v.
|
|
In my personal opinion, I think that the fake rate is something that we need to fix. And we are working on that pretty hardly and once we have fixed that, even if this PR increase the fake (maybe it won't at that point anymore) it will not be a huge problem as it is now. |
|
@ebrondol |
|
@slava77 |
|
general track fake rate, to complement pt09 plot posted earlier
|
|
+1
|
cmsbuild
added
fully-signed
reconstruction-approved
and removed
pending-signatures
reconstruction-pending
labels
|
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. @davidlange6, @smuzaffar |
The validation between pre1 and pre2 shows some inefficiency in the barrel region for single mu w/o PU0. This has been presented here. In order to recover it, two of the Pixel barrel layer combination have been re-introduced. Here are the results for eff/fake on a ttbar saple w/o PU: baseline (blue), +PR (red)
These two layer combination were considered redundant and eliminated in order to speed up the tracking process. A deep validation showed that the effect of removing them was not negligible due to a pixel local reconstruction inefficiency which is under investigation.
@atricomi @suchandradutta @delaere if you have any more information on the local reconstruction, please comment this PR.