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
Pixel cluster shape: new calibration for Phase1 and Phase2 #19824
Conversation
A new Pull Request was created by @VinInn (Vincenzo Innocente) for master. It involves the following packages: DQM/SiPixelPhase1TrackClusters @perrotta, @vazzolini, @kmaeshima, @dmitrijus, @cmsbuild, @slava77, @vanbesien, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
@cmsbuild , please test |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
On 7/19/17 7:27 AM, Vincenzo Innocente wrote:
for phase1 there is also a comparison of using
1. the calibration obtained considering all layers
2. the calibration obtained considering all layers but BPIX1
3. and using the file " obtained considering all layers but BPIX1" for
all layers but BPIX1 (for BPIX1 the file
obtained considering all layers is used)
http://innocent.home.cern.ch/innocent/RelVal/pu35_newpcsf/plots_highPurity/effandfake1.pdf
please clarify which of the 4 histograms is the baseline (which 93X is it?)
and which one is the proposed version with this PR.
I couldn't understand it from the text in this PR description.
Thank you.
|
@slava77 look at http://innocent.home.cern.ch/innocent/RelVal/pu35_candpcsf/ |
everything is with IBs of the last 10 days relval is pre2 |
-1 Tested at: 5cb6086 The following merge commits were also included on top of IB + this PR after doing git cms-merge-topic: You can see the results of the tests here: I found follow errors while testing this PR Failed tests: RelVals AddOn
When I ran the RelVals I found an error in the following worklfows: runTheMatrix-results/10042.0_ZMM_13+ZMM_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2017_GenSimFull+DigiFull_2017+RecoFull_2017+ALCAFull_2017+HARVESTFull_2017/step2_ZMM_13+ZMM_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2017_GenSimFull+DigiFull_2017+RecoFull_2017+ALCAFull_2017+HARVESTFull_2017.log10824.0 step2 runTheMatrix-results/10824.0_TTbar_13+TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2018_GenSimFull+DigiFull_2018+RecoFull_2018+ALCAFull_2018+HARVESTFull_2018/step2_TTbar_13+TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2018_GenSimFull+DigiFull_2018+RecoFull_2018+ALCAFull_2018+HARVESTFull_2018.log10024.0 step2 runTheMatrix-results/10024.0_TTbar_13+TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2017_GenSimFull+DigiFull_2017+RecoFull_2017+ALCAFull_2017+HARVESTFull_2017/step2_TTbar_13+TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2017_GenSimFull+DigiFull_2017+RecoFull_2017+ALCAFull_2017+HARVESTFull_2017.log
I found errors in the following addon tests: cmsRun /cvmfs/cms-ib.cern.ch/nweek-02481/slc6_amd64_gcc630/cms/cmssw-patch/CMSSW_9_3_X_2017-07-19-1100/src/HLTrigger/Configuration/test/OnLine_HLT_PRef.py realData=True globalTag=@ inputFiles=@ : FAILED - time: date Wed Jul 19 21:38:47 2017-date Wed Jul 19 21:37:33 2017 s - exit: 18688 The following merge commits were also included on top of IB + this PR after doing git cms-merge-topic: |
Comparison not run due to runTheMatrix errors (RelVals and Igprof tests were also skipped) |
10024 step2: |
HLT? I run the matrix.... will have a look |
could somebody remind me which file need to be edited to fix HLT config? |
Temporary custimizations to be applied before the updates are parsed
in ConfDb are dealt with by
https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/master/HLTrigger/Configuration/python/customizeHLTforCMSSW.py
Vincenzo Innocente <notifications@github.com> ha scritto:
… could somebody remind me which file need to be edited to fix HLT config?
--
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#19824 (comment)
|
ok, how one deals with eras? |
I would do it there... but probably @Martin-Grunewald can suggest you which is the best and most up to date procedure for it. |
I see at the end of the file something done for pixel calib...
will add in there |
Comparison job queued. |
On 7/26/17 2:11 AM, Vincenzo Innocente wrote:
for the record: the cluster shape filter is significantly less efficient
in Phase0 for BPIX1 at least at high lumi
here beginning of run 283408 blue compared to 299592 (black) and 297620
(orange)
Is this for a "what if we run this on phase0" scenario?
The last version of this PR I looked at did not change phase-0 behavior.
…
image
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/4143702/28613599-1b9f6776-71f3-11e7-8b0b-8c324c576e5f.png>
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#19824 (comment)>, or
mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEdcbmy0rBRSdasCp-eiXJEzFVXLqM8Zks5sRwLdgaJpZM4Ocz93>.
|
did not change phase-0. Just a side comment... |
assign upgrade |
New categories assigned: upgrade @kpedro88 you have been requested to review this Pull request/Issue and eventually sign? Thanks |
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
+1 |
@vazzolini, @kmaeshima, @dmitrijus, @vanbesien, @Martin-Grunewald |
+1 |
merge |
I believe this pull request has broken 40+ RelVal workflows in last nights IB. E.g. With
|
make sense: still how it passed validation? |
no poison data! |
#19824 fixit |
thanks! |
fix HLT customize for "Pixel cluster shape: new calibration for Phase1 and Phase2" #19824
This PR is composed of several components
The main reason of a new calibration is the changes in geometry (in particular for the forward pixel)
that happened in 910_pre3.
The new calibrations are based on 90K MinBias events from recent RelVal
MVA
for phase1
http://innocent.home.cern.ch/innocent/RelVal/pu35_candpcsf/
for phase2
http://innocent.home.cern.ch/innocent/RelVal/newPCSF2/
for phase1 there is also a comparison of using
http://innocent.home.cern.ch/innocent/RelVal/pu35_newpcsf/plots_highPurity/effandfake1.pdf
for Phase2 there is no difference.
for Phase1 there is no obvious improvements but more seeds in the forward region
(this is observable also in DQM for both data and mc) i.e. higher efficiency for quadruplets at eta~2
there is also an increase in fake rate in the barrel (the effect on late iterations are more difficult to establish as they are affected by the changes in the previous one)
Still this is the best calibration we can produce and the previous one was wrong as not covering properly the phasespace in the forward region (this calibration is the solution of an inverse problem, so it depends on the sample on which is trained)
It shall be noted that MVA (in particular for low-pt) is under retraining and shall be retrained once this PR is merged.