New Calibration for D11 Geometry

[atricomi]

New cluster shape calibrations have been produced to take into account of the axis orientation in the T5 Tracker Geometry (barrel pixel geometry)

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @atricomi (Alessia Tricomi) for CMSSW_9_1_X.

It involves the following packages:

RecoPixelVertexing/PixelLowPtUtilities

@perrotta, @cmsbuild, @slava77, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@makortel, @felicepantaleo, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @rovere, @VinInn, @ebrondol, @dgulhan this is something you requested to watch as well.
@davidlange6 you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[VinInn]

@cmsbuild , please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/19716/console Started: 2017/05/10 14:53

[slava77]

assign upgrade

[cmsbuild]

New categories assigned: upgrade

@kpedro88 you have been requested to review this Pull request/Issue and eventually sign? Thanks

[slava77]

@atricomi
does this new shape calibration work OK with T3?

I think that we need both efficiency/fake plots and timing estimates on PU200 before this can be signed off.

[boudoul]

hello @slava77 - T3 is going to be deprecated - We just discuss this at the UPSG meeting - Therefore we should focus our attention to T5 now (cleaning of the T3 to make it deprecated will come in a separated PR) - Thanks

[slava77]

On 5/10/17 5:45 AM, boudoul wrote: hello @slava77 <https://github.com/slava77> - T3 is going to be deprecated - We just discuss this at the UPSG meeting - Therefore we should focus our attention to T5 now (cleaning of the T3 to make it deprecated will come in a separated PR) - Thanks

Do we have relvals already made and signed off with T5? Please confirm. Thank you.

…

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#18658 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEdcbvB6vFPITjwGX-fRNN2g1rNLNh0Yks5r4bFngaJpZM4NWmPj>.

[atricomi]

T3 will be deprecated soon @boudul to confirm PU samples are not yet available in RelVal as soon as they will be available I will produce plots. You can have a look at https://atricomi.web.cern.ch/atricomi/910pre3_NewClusterShape/SingleMuPt10/ <https://atricomi.web.cern.ch/atricomi/910pre3_NewClusterShape/SingleMuPt10/> and https://atricomi.web.cern.ch/atricomi/910pre3_NewClusterShape/TTBar/ <https://atricomi.web.cern.ch/atricomi/910pre3_NewClusterShape/TTBar/> for validation wo PU

…

Il giorno 10 mag 2017, alle ore 14:42, Slava Krutelyov ***@***.***> ha scritto: @atricomi <https://github.com/atricomi> does this new shape calibration work OK with T3? I think that we need both efficiency/fake plots and timing estimates on PU200 before this can be signed off. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#18658 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE88kegWn23zTay3WxdXp0Or41s9T-s5ks5r4bDDgaJpZM4NWmPj>.

[VinInn]

I hope that T5 RelVal are NOT signed off for pre3

[slava77]

@atricomi
now I also notice that this is a 91X PR.
Do you and UPSG want to delay 91X release and have this PR included in the TDR release?

[slava77]

in any case, please create a PR for 92X, since integration starts there.

[VinInn]

Please submit it to master as well!

[boudoul]

ok good point for 91X, I don't know but will inquire/ discuss with UPSG
In any case, please @atricomi , create a PR for master (I also missed that this one was for 91X)

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 7dafeac
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-18658/19716/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[ebrondol]

We put the full set of plots here and we will update the page when the pu sample are ready.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-18658/19716/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 2942 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 24
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 1831084
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 26409
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 1804495
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 180
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• Checked 98 log files, 14 edm output root files, 24 DQM output files

[kpedro88]

@boudoul will deprecation of T3 imply deprecation of T4 also? Will there be a need for T6 = T4 w/ extra disk?

[boudoul]

hi @kpedro88 , this is a good question - the main usage of T4 is related to the flat tracker for track trigger purpose (and therefore the config of the pixel is not relevant, since the track trigger occurs only in the outer part ) - so for sure no need for T6 as you are suggesting. Now the question of the removal of T4 should be adressed- I know that there will be discussion during the tracker week (next week) where presumably we will get answer to this question

[VinInn]

Has this been submitted to master (sorry cannot find it)?
what the plan to merge in master?: clearly any development base on D11 requires this PR...

[atricomi]

Hi Vincenzo PR #18663 should be the one in the master.

…

Il giorno 13 mag 2017, alle ore 08:56, Vincenzo Innocente ***@***.***> ha scritto: Has this been submitted to master (sorry cannot find it)? what the plan to merge in master?: clearly any development base on D11 requires this PR... — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#18658 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE88kStx6sCXxAf7aC3X-FJ2__XuEbRoks5r5VQDgaJpZM4NWmPj>.

[slava77]

I was waiting for tests with PU.

This is in response to #18658 (comment)

[atricomi]

Hi Slava we are waiting for the PU samples. They are arriving. Asap we will let you know

…

Il giorno 13 mag 2017, alle ore 14:46, Slava Krutelyov ***@***.***> ha scritto: I was waiting for tests with PU. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#18658 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE88kUVUtMyo2QnPoPapOEDpSd5bjX3Wks5r5aYTgaJpZM4NWmPj>.

[slava77]

@kpedro88 is this development still needed for 91X?
Please clarify.
Thank you.
I guess we'll know better on Tuesday in the release planning.

[kpedro88]

I am also wondering that. I asked the UPS coordinators for their input.

[slava77]

@kpedro88
one related question: was it intentional still to not have T5 in the jenkins PR tests?
Currently running D4, D8, D12, and D15 are all T3

[kpedro88]

@slava77 at the time I updated the matrix tests, the T3 vs T5 decision hadn't been made yet. Now apparently it has (in favor of T5), so the set of tests could be updated again. But maybe this can wait until T3 is officially deprecated.

[ebrondol]

I have produced the comparison for 10 events with ttbar+PU200: link
The efficiency increase. Also does the fake, but in the HP collection: link the effect is almost negligible.
It can be double-checked later, the overall effect of this PR is very good and needed for any production with 910 release.

[slava77]

The following is based on 910pre3:

• Looking at muon gun events: increase in efficiency for T3 (D12 in plots below) appears to be more significant than for T5 (D14). In both cases the final eff is pretty close to 100%

T3/D12

T5/D14

For T5/D14 with PU200:

• efficiency increases more significantly for "inclusive" tracks (this is quite similar to the no-PU sample posted here earlier in New Calibration for D11 Geometry #18658 (comment))

Fake rate is up somewhat moderately (well, it nearly doubles in eta ~0.8 region)

high purity is much more stable

At higher level:

• electronGsfTracks yield is down by 14% , based on MTV plots it is all from fakes (efficiency plot is almost unchanged)

There is somewhat noticeable improvement in b-tagging performance (MVA v2 change is less impressive; so a part of this may be a fluctuation)

CPU time in PU200 is up overall by about 3%;

• most of it is in iterative tracking which is up by about 10% (building steps are slower by 40% for pixelPair and by 15-20% for triplet steps and low-pt and detached quadruplet steps). This looks OK given the efficiency increase.
• electron tracking module times are down in total by about 10% (with no apparent loss in efficiency. Good.).

[slava77]

+1

for #18658 7dafeac

• update in the pixel cluster shape files for phase-2
• jenkins tests pass and comparisons show differences only in phase-2 workflows
• local tested confirm expected behavior without bad side-effects for high-level reco, including improvements even for the T3 tracker which was not the main target of this update.
  • CPU time is up by 3% in PU200

[kpedro88]

+1
thanks to @slava77 for the careful review
todo: address deprecation of T3

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_9_1_X IBs (tests are also fine) and once validation in the development release cycle CMSSW_9_2_X is complete. This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @davidlange6, @smuzaffar

[boudoul]

thanks @kpedro88 and @slava77 for the review, the deprecation of T3 is going to happen within a few days (for master ) , I delayed my homework a bit due to the ongoing tracker week

[davidlange6]

+1