chi2_vs_drj and pull_vs_pt validation plots #31400

vberta · 2020-09-09T00:07:43Z

PR description:

This PR include some additional validation tracking plots:

chi2 vs dR(track,jet): reco,associated,prob
pull vs pT: 2D distribution, mean, sigma
the deltaR(jet,track) upper limit has been moved to dRj=0.5

In addition, this PR setup the MTV to be able to easily switch to associator by chi2 (commented lines with proper documentation).

These new features are useful to monitor jetCore iteration and high-pT kinematic region more in general. Another PR will follow in next releases, with a relevant fix in Cluster Repair (on Edge Hits) integration. The plots of this PR are needed to check the improvement of the fix.

PR validation:

This PR has been validated on small number of events of QCD_Pt_1800to2400_TuneCP5_13TeV_pythia8 sample, with the following path:

cmsDriver.py step2 --conditions auto:phase1_2018_realistic -s DIGI:pdigi_valid,L1,DIGI2RAW,HLT:@relval2018 --datatier GEN-SIM-DIGI-RAW -n 20000 --geometry DB:Extended --era Run2_2018 --eventcontent FEVTDEBUGHLT --filein file:step1.root --fileout file:step2.root --no_exec
cmsDriver.py step3 --conditions auto:phase1_2018_realistic -n 20000 --era Run2_2018 --eventcontent RECOSIM,MINIAODSIM,DQM --runUnscheduled -s RAW2DIGI,L1Reco,RECO,RECOSIM,EI,PAT,VALIDATION:@standardValidation+@miniAODValidation,DQM:@standardDQM+@ExtraHLT+@miniAODDQM --datatier GEN-SIM-RECO,MINIAODSIM,DQMIO --geometry DB:Extended --filein file:step2.root --fileout file:step3.root --no_exec
cmsDriver.py step4 --conditions auto:phase1_2018_realistic -s HARVESTING:@standardValidation+@standardDQM+@ExtraHLT+@miniAODValidation+@miniAODDQM --scenario pp --filetype DQM --geometry DB:Extended --era Run2_2018 --mc -n 20000 --filein file:step3_inDQM.root --fileout file:step4.root --no_exec

A validation on 20k events is currently ongoing.

cmsbuild · 2020-09-09T00:08:07Z

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

cmsbuild · 2020-09-09T00:15:43Z

-code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-31400/18249

This PR adds an extra 52KB to repository
There are other open Pull requests which might conflict with changes you have proposed:
- File Validation/RecoTrack/python/PostProcessorTracker_cfi.py modified in PR(s): Squash all Patatrack developments on top of CMSSW_11_3_0_pre5 #27983
- File Validation/RecoTrack/python/TrackValidation_cff.py modified in PR(s): Squash all Patatrack developments on top of CMSSW_11_3_0_pre5 #27983

Code check has found code style and quality issues which could be resolved by applying following patch(s)

code-format:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-31400/18249/code-format.patch
e.g. curl https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-31400/18249/code-format.patch | patch -p1
You can also run scram build code-format to apply code format directly

cmsbuild · 2020-09-09T00:27:15Z

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

cmsbuild · 2020-09-09T00:32:29Z

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-31400/18250

This PR adds an extra 52KB to repository
There are other open Pull requests which might conflict with changes you have proposed:
- File Validation/RecoTrack/python/PostProcessorTracker_cfi.py modified in PR(s): Squash all Patatrack developments on top of CMSSW_11_3_0_pre5 #27983
- File Validation/RecoTrack/python/TrackValidation_cff.py modified in PR(s): Squash all Patatrack developments on top of CMSSW_11_3_0_pre5 #27983

cmsbuild · 2020-09-09T00:32:54Z

A new Pull Request was created by @vberta for master.

It involves the following packages:

SimTracker/TrackAssociation
SimTracker/TrackAssociatorProducers
Validation/RecoTrack

@andrius-k, @kmaeshima, @civanch, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @fioriNTU can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@makortel, @felicepantaleo, @abbiendi, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @JanFSchulte, @jhgoh, @VinInn, @rovere, @wmtford, @mtosi, @ebrondol, @threus, @dgulhan this is something you requested to watch as well.
@silviodonato, @dpiparo, @qliphy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

mmusich · 2020-09-09T05:03:07Z

@cmsbuild, please test

cmsbuild · 2020-09-09T05:03:28Z

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.

CMSSW_11_2_X_2020-09-08-2300/slc7_amd64_gcc820: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-run-pr-tests/9211/console Started: 2020/09/09 07:03

mmusich · 2020-09-09T05:08:11Z

urgent

cmsbuild · 2020-09-09T06:22:58Z

+1
Tested at: 5bed2bc
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-4e4e18/9211/summary.html
CMSSW: CMSSW_11_2_X_2020-09-08-2300
SCRAM_ARCH: slc7_amd64_gcc820

cmsbuild · 2020-09-09T06:23:00Z

Comparison job queued.

mtosi · 2020-09-09T18:47:01Z

could this PR be approved, please ?

jfernan2 · 2020-09-09T18:58:41Z

I'm referring to all workflows which either runs FakeHLT or not run the HLT at all

So, when is Tracking DQM expecting to perform such cleaning?

mtosi · 2020-09-09T19:36:38Z

this has nothing to do with the tracking DQM,
but it should be related to the HLT validation workflow, right ?
or better, to the definition of the workflow to be run in runTheMatrix
which should be under the responsibility of PdmV (and maybe DQM) ?

cmsbuild · 2020-09-09T19:55:55Z

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-4e4e18/9232/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

No significant changes to the logs found
Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 35
DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2609667
DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 4935
DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 9778
DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2594932
DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 71561.987 KiB( 34 files compared)
DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 10024.0,... ): 2273.004 KiB Tracking/Track
DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 10024.0,... ): 1430.106 KiB Tracking/TrackBuilding
DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 10024.0,... ): 671.399 KiB HLT/Tracking
DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 10024.0,... ): 384.744 KiB HLT/Muon
DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 10024.0,... ): 383.602 KiB Tracking/TrackFromPV
DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 10024.0,... ): 95.804 KiB HLT/EGM
DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 10024.0,... ): 87.500 KiB Tracking/TrackTPPtLess09
DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 10024.0,... ): 43.359 KiB Tracking/TrackConversion
DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 10024.0,... ): 37.244 KiB Tracking/TrackFromPVAllTP
DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 10024.0,... ): 21.694 KiB Tracking/TrackAllTPEffic
DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 10024.0 ): ...
Checked 149 log files, 22 edm output root files, 35 DQM output files

civanch · 2020-09-10T07:03:58Z

+1

jfernan2 · 2020-09-10T07:07:34Z

this has nothing to do with the tracking DQM,
but it should be related to the HLT validation workflow, right ?
or better, to the definition of the workflow to be run in runTheMatrix
which should be under the responsibility of PdmV (and maybe DQM) ?

I don't fully agree: Tracking sequences are on the HLT validation paths, they were introduced at some point, you see it now with this PR, once you increase the number of Tracking MEs, it gets propagated.

mtosi · 2020-09-10T08:29:04Z

this discussion I think does not have anything to do w/ this PR, which was supposed to be urgent
and therefore I'm really sorry for this situation

said that, I see that for instance the workflow 10024.0 has this issue w/ the HLT validation

I have just run
runTheMatrix.py -l 10024.0 --what upgrade --dryRun
and I find
cmsDriver.py step2 --conditions auto:phase1_2017_realistic -s DIGI:pdigi_valid,L1,DIGI2RAW,HLT:@relval2017 --datatier GEN-SIM-DIGI-RAW -n 10 --geometry DB:Extended --era Run2_2017 --eventcontent FEVTDEBUGHLT --filein file:step1.root --fileout file:step2.root > step2_TTbar_13+2017+TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_GenSim+Digi+Reco+HARVEST+ALCA+Nano.log 2>&1

and looking for HLT:@relval2017, I find the config
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/dxr/CMSSW/source/Configuration/HLT/python/autoHLT.py#11
which, indeed, it seems to call a fake menu
=> the HLT validation should not be run at all on this workflow

while the workflow runs
cmsDriver.py step3 --conditions auto:phase1_2017_realistic -s RAW2DIGI,L1Reco,RECO,RECOSIM,EI,PAT,VALIDATION:@standardValidation+@miniAODValidation,DQM:@standardDQM+@ExtraHLT+@miniAODDQM --datatier GEN-SIM-RECO,MINIAODSIM,DQMIO -n 10 --geometry DB:Extended --era Run2_2017 --eventcontent RECOSIM,MINIAODSIM,DQM --filein file:step2.root --fileout file:step3.root > step3_TTbar_13+2017+TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_GenSim+Digi+Reco+HARVEST+ALCA+Nano.log 2>&1

=> the VALIDATION step pretends to run the whole HLT validation sequence
VALIDATION:@standardValidation+@miniAODValidation,DQM:@standardDQM+@ExtraHLT+@miniAODDQM
on a fake menu, which is instead running only
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/dxr/CMSSW/source/HLTrigger/Configuration/python/HLT_Fake2_cff.py#203

as said, this does not have anything do to w/ the tracking DQM/Validation
one should update the workflow to use
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/dxr/CMSSW/source/Validation/Configuration/python/autoValidation.py#17
instead of
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/dxr/CMSSW/source/Validation/Configuration/python/autoValidation.py#16
I guess

mtosi · 2020-09-10T08:29:48Z

@silviodonato could this PR still be integrated in 11_2_0_pre6 ?
thanks

jfernan2 · 2020-09-10T08:38:52Z

Using FakeHLT is not the way to go since phase2 workflows are the ones to test new HLT menus until data taking.
The point is that any addition/change you do to _trackingParticleRefSelector
is automatically propagated to all the HLT modules doing their own Tracking validation which uses that exactly module through trackValidation_cff, i.e.
https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/search?q=TrackValidation_cff&unscoped_q=TrackValidation_cff

Nevertheless I agree this has nothing to do with this PR itself, but it appears everytime TrackValidation is touched. resulting in 1k new MEs being added in one single shot

jfernan2 · 2020-09-10T08:40:02Z

+1

cmsbuild · 2020-09-10T08:40:19Z

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

mmusich · 2020-09-10T08:42:30Z

Using FakeHLT is not the way to go since phase2 workflows are the ones to test new HLT menus until data taking.

You mean Run 3 workflows .. right?

silviodonato · 2020-09-10T08:42:59Z

+1

jfernan2 · 2020-09-10T08:49:16Z

Using FakeHLT is not the way to go since phase2 workflows are the ones to test new HLT menus until data taking.

You mean Run 3 workflows .. right?

Yes, sorry my typo...

mtosi · 2020-09-10T08:53:47Z

@silviodonato @jfernan2 thanks

I would suggest opening a CMSSW issue for handling the problem stressed by @jfernan2
where all the involved parties (DQM, PdmV and probably STEAM) can contribute
in parallel the TRK POG/DQM could add some flags in order to handle part of the plots which are maybe not that relevant in specific phase-space, but let me stress that these new plots have been added because they were missing ...

mmusich · 2020-09-10T08:56:06Z

@jfernan2

The point is that any addition/change you do to _trackingParticleRefSelector
is automatically propagated to all the HLT modules doing their own Tracking validation which uses that exactly module through trackValidation_cff, i.e.
https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/search?q=TrackValidation_cff&unscoped_q=TrackValidation_cff

Mia can chime in, but I think that's done (for the time being) on purpose. I can agree that possibly not all the plots are necessary for all clones, though the problem of having a real HLT validation sequence being run for a workflow which does not run the HLT, is a true issue, IMHO.
Perhaps it's time for another round of cleaning as done here #28156 ?

jfernan2 · 2020-09-10T08:58:37Z

I do think so @mmusich even if it has not been a year since such cleaning was performed...
Thanks

chi2_vs_drj and pull_vs_pt validation plots

556be35

cmsbuild added this to the CMSSW_11_2_X milestone Sep 9, 2020

cmsbuild added code-checks-pending comparison-pending dqm-pending orp-pending pending-signatures simulation-pending tests-pending labels Sep 9, 2020

cmsbuild added code-checks-rejected and removed code-checks-pending labels Sep 9, 2020

code format fix

5bed2bc

cmsbuild added code-checks-pending and removed code-checks-rejected labels Sep 9, 2020

cmsbuild added code-checks-approved and removed code-checks-pending labels Sep 9, 2020

cmsbuild added tests-started and removed tests-pending labels Sep 9, 2020

cmsbuild added tests-approved and removed tests-started labels Sep 9, 2020

cmsbuild added comparison-available and removed comparison-pending labels Sep 9, 2020

cmsbuild added simulation-approved and removed simulation-pending labels Sep 10, 2020

cmsbuild added dqm-approved fully-signed and removed dqm-pending pending-signatures labels Sep 10, 2020

cmsbuild added orp-approved and removed orp-pending labels Sep 10, 2020

cmsbuild merged commit 715db98 into cms-sw:master Sep 10, 2020

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

chi2_vs_drj and pull_vs_pt validation plots #31400

chi2_vs_drj and pull_vs_pt validation plots #31400

vberta commented Sep 9, 2020 •

edited

cmsbuild commented Sep 9, 2020

cmsbuild commented Sep 9, 2020

cmsbuild commented Sep 9, 2020

cmsbuild commented Sep 9, 2020

cmsbuild commented Sep 9, 2020

mmusich commented Sep 9, 2020

cmsbuild commented Sep 9, 2020 •

edited

mmusich commented Sep 9, 2020

cmsbuild commented Sep 9, 2020

cmsbuild commented Sep 9, 2020

mtosi commented Sep 9, 2020

jfernan2 commented Sep 9, 2020

mtosi commented Sep 9, 2020 •

edited

cmsbuild commented Sep 9, 2020

civanch commented Sep 10, 2020

jfernan2 commented Sep 10, 2020

mtosi commented Sep 10, 2020

mtosi commented Sep 10, 2020

jfernan2 commented Sep 10, 2020 •

edited

jfernan2 commented Sep 10, 2020

cmsbuild commented Sep 10, 2020

mmusich commented Sep 10, 2020

silviodonato commented Sep 10, 2020

jfernan2 commented Sep 10, 2020

mtosi commented Sep 10, 2020

mmusich commented Sep 10, 2020

jfernan2 commented Sep 10, 2020

chi2_vs_drj and pull_vs_pt validation plots #31400

chi2_vs_drj and pull_vs_pt validation plots #31400

Conversation

vberta commented Sep 9, 2020 • edited

PR description:

PR validation:

cmsbuild commented Sep 9, 2020

cmsbuild commented Sep 9, 2020

cmsbuild commented Sep 9, 2020

cmsbuild commented Sep 9, 2020

cmsbuild commented Sep 9, 2020

mmusich commented Sep 9, 2020

cmsbuild commented Sep 9, 2020 • edited

mmusich commented Sep 9, 2020

cmsbuild commented Sep 9, 2020

cmsbuild commented Sep 9, 2020

mtosi commented Sep 9, 2020

jfernan2 commented Sep 9, 2020

mtosi commented Sep 9, 2020 • edited

cmsbuild commented Sep 9, 2020

civanch commented Sep 10, 2020

jfernan2 commented Sep 10, 2020

mtosi commented Sep 10, 2020

mtosi commented Sep 10, 2020

jfernan2 commented Sep 10, 2020 • edited

jfernan2 commented Sep 10, 2020

cmsbuild commented Sep 10, 2020

mmusich commented Sep 10, 2020

silviodonato commented Sep 10, 2020

jfernan2 commented Sep 10, 2020

mtosi commented Sep 10, 2020

mmusich commented Sep 10, 2020

jfernan2 commented Sep 10, 2020

vberta commented Sep 9, 2020 •

edited

cmsbuild commented Sep 9, 2020 •

edited

mtosi commented Sep 9, 2020 •

edited

jfernan2 commented Sep 10, 2020 •

edited