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

Add muon ID selectors for packed candidate collections #30253

Merged

Conversation

stahlleiton
Copy link
Contributor

@stahlleiton stahlleiton commented Jun 15, 2020

PR description:

This PR adds muon ID selectors (isTrackerMuon and TMOneStationTight), as PackedCandidateRefVectors, associated the packedPFCandidates and lostTracks collections.

These are part of the HIN developments for MiniAOD event content.

Running over ~1000 events from the HIDoubleMuon PD of 2018 PbPb data, the average compressed size of the output collections (PackedCandidateRefVectors) were ~9 bytes/event for packedPFCandidates and ~6 bytes/event for lostTracks.

PR validation:

Tested with workflow 159

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

@mandrenguyen

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-30253/16154

  • This PR adds an extra 20KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @stahlleiton (Andre Stahl) for master.

It involves the following packages:

PhysicsTools/PatAlgos

@perrotta, @cmsbuild, @santocch, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@rappoccio, @gouskos, @hatakeyamak, @emilbols, @peruzzim, @seemasharmafnal, @mmarionncern, @ahinzmann, @smoortga, @jdolen, @ferencek, @jdamgov, @nhanvtran, @gkasieczka, @schoef, @andrzejnovak, @clelange, @riga, @JyothsnaKomaragiri, @mverzett, @gpetruc, @mariadalfonso this is something you requested to watch as well.
@silviodonato, @dpiparo you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

// check if candidate and muon are compatible
const auto& candTrack = cand->pseudoTrack();
if (muonTrack.charge() == candTrack.charge() && muonTrack.numberOfValidHits() == candTrack.numberOfValidHits() &&
std::abs(muonTrack.eta() - candTrack.eta()) < 1E-3 && std::abs(muonTrack.phi() - candTrack.phi()) < 1E-3 &&
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this phi subtraction safe in case of wraparound? I think one might also use a deltaR method from the framework: https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/master/DataFormats/Math/interface/deltaR.h
In addition, perhaps it can be considered to put these cutoffs 1E-3, 1E-2 at the top of the file as a static const, or otherwise as a configurable parameter in a visible spot?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the suggestions. I replaced the deltaPhi and deltaEta for a deltaR, and changed the cutoffs to be configurable parameters.

@santocch
Copy link

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jun 17, 2020

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1
Tested at: f8e85bd
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-423326/7124/summary.html
CMSSW: CMSSW_11_2_X_2020-06-16-2300
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-423326/7124/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 36
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2778811
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2778760
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 50
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 35 files compared)
  • Checked 152 log files, 16 edm output root files, 36 DQM output files

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jul 1, 2020

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
Test Parameters:

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jul 1, 2020

+1
Tested at: 68a6b85
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-423326/7558/summary.html
CMSSW: CMSSW_11_2_X_2020-06-30-2300
SCRAM_ARCH: slc7_amd64_gcc820

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jul 1, 2020

Comparison job queued.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jul 1, 2020

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-423326/7558/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • ROOTFileChecks: Some differences in event products or their sizes found
  • Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 37
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2784120
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2784069
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 50
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 36 files compared)
  • Checked 154 log files, 17 edm output root files, 37 DQM output files

@slava77
Copy link
Contributor

slava77 commented Jul 3, 2020

+1

for #30253 68a6b85

  • code changes are in line with the PR description and the follow up review
  • jenkins tests pass and comparisons with the baseline show differences in the new products of the HI reminiAOD workflow, as expected

@santocch
Copy link

santocch commented Jul 3, 2020

+1

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jul 3, 2020

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. @silviodonato, @dpiparo (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

@slava77
Copy link
Contributor

slava77 commented Jul 3, 2020

@silviodonato
please check this PR.
Merging it would help to disentangle from the overlap in #30313

@silviodonato
Copy link
Contributor

+1

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

7 participants