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.

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

PF track propagator fix for pixel tracks #29307

Merged

Conversation

hatakeyamak
Copy link
Contributor

@hatakeyamak hatakeyamak commented Mar 26, 2020

PR description:

This PR will fix the PF track propagator for pixel tracks for which the outer state is not defined. If the outer state is not defined, now it will use the position and momentum at the closest approach for propagation to calorimeters.

Results shown in this talk [1] is a good proof that this propagator fix does a reasonable job for patatrack pixel tracks in PF.

This PR should have no effect on PF based on full tracking (i.e. any matrix tests in jenkins).

[1] https://indico.cern.ch/event/894094/contributions/3797556/

PR validation:

Results presented in [1] may serve as validation.
Also, I made sure the that 11634.0 (TTbar_14TeV+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCP5_2021_....) runs fine.

if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR:

This is not a backport.

@bendavid @jsalfeld

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

@hatakeyamak hatakeyamak changed the title PF track propagator for pixel tracks PF track propagator fix for pixel tracks Mar 26, 2020
@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-29307/14380

  • This PR adds an extra 20KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @hatakeyamak (Kenichi Hatakeyama) for master.

It involves the following packages:

RecoParticleFlow/PFTracking

@perrotta, @cmsbuild, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@mmarionncern, @makortel, @rovere, @lgray, @seemasharmafnal, @lecriste, @cbernet, @bachtis this is something you requested to watch as well.
@davidlange6, @silviodonato, @fabiocos you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

@slava77
Copy link
Contributor

slava77 commented Mar 26, 2020

@cmsbuild please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Mar 26, 2020

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-run-pr-tests/5389/console Started: 2020/03/26 02:51

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1
Tested at: c52dad2
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-40bdfc/5389/summary.html
CMSSW: CMSSW_11_1_X_2020-03-25-2300
SCRAM_ARCH: slc7_amd64_gcc820

@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-40bdfc/5389/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 34
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2692110
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 15
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2691776
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 319
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 33 files compared)
  • Checked 147 log files, 16 edm output root files, 34 DQM output files

@slava77
Copy link
Contributor

slava77 commented Mar 27, 2020

+1

for #29307 c52dad2

  • code changes are in line with the PR description
  • jenkins tests pass and comparisons with the baseline show no differences (the bugfix does not affect standard workflows with "normal" tracks)

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next master IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @davidlange6, @silviodonato, @fabiocos (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

@silviodonato
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@cmsbuild cmsbuild merged commit ca10079 into cms-sw:master Mar 27, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants