DisplacedGeneralStep in tracking #32036

doujadarej · 2020-11-05T14:49:18Z

PR description:

Added a tracking iteration after tobTecStep and PixelLess step

which reconstructs the seeds in the strip detector
has a bigger tracking region
for displaced track reconstruction
Parameters for seeding, track building and track selection have been tuned in order to lower the fake rate and the extra timing.
Quality flags used are the same as the ones defined for TobTec Step.
Additional information and global presentation of the step can be found in these presentations in the TRKPOG :
https://indico.cern.ch/event/915033/contributions/3847313/attachments/2040507/3417260/trkpog_180520_DoujaDarej.pdf
https://indico.cern.ch/event/961478/contributions/4046679/attachments/2125576/3578591/trkpog_191020_DoujaDarej.pdf

PR validation:

Tests have been made on different samples :
Run3 MC :
DisplacedSUSY_stopToBottom_M_800_500mm_TuneCP5_14TeV_pythia8/Run3Summer19DR-106X_mcRun3_2021_realistic_v3-v2/GEN-SIM-DIGI-RAW
/TTbar_14TeV_TuneCP5_Pythia8/Run3Summer19DR-106X_mcRun3_2021_realistic_v3-v2/GEN-SIM-DIGI-RAW
WminusH_HToSSTobbbb_WToLNu_MH-125_MS-40_ctauS-500_TuneCUETP8M1_14TeV-powheg-pythia8/

Run2 MC :
/TTbar_13TeV_TuneCP5_Pythia8/RunIISummer19UL17DIGI-106X_mc2017_realistic_v6-v1/GEN-SIM-DIGI-RAW

Data :
/MET/Run2017B-HighMET-17Nov2017-v1/RAW-RECO

and several runTheMatrix workflows (basic test procedure suggested in the CMSSW PR instructions and using reconstruction:trackingOnly, trackingOnlyDQM and trackingOnlyValidation for seed monitoring.

commit 'add DisplacedGeneralStep' :
Change name of iteration  SiStripTripletStep -> DisplacedGeneralStep
Add modifier to switch from default tracking to displacedTracking  for Phase1 tracking flavour
Remove from ParticleFlow (for now?)
Replace reservedForUpgrades1 (step25) by SiStripTriplet instead of adding it (Step46)

cmsbuild · 2020-11-05T14:49:47Z

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

cmsbuild · 2020-11-05T14:58:12Z

-code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-32036/19587

This PR adds an extra 84KB to repository
There are other open Pull requests which might conflict with changes you have proposed:
- File Validation/RecoTrack/python/plotting/html.py modified in PR(s): Patatrack integration - Pixel track reconstruction (10/N) #31722, Squash all Patatrack developments on top of CMSSW_11_3_0_pre5 #27983
- File Validation/RecoTrack/python/plotting/trackingPlots.py modified in PR(s): Patatrack integration - Pixel track reconstruction (10/N) #31722, 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-32036/19587/code-format.patch
e.g. curl https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-32036/19587/code-format.patch | patch -p1
You can also run scram build code-format to apply code format directly

cmsbuild · 2020-11-05T15:13:21Z

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

cmsbuild · 2020-11-05T15:19:26Z

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-32036/19589

This PR adds an extra 84KB to repository
There are other open Pull requests which might conflict with changes you have proposed:
- File Validation/RecoTrack/python/plotting/html.py modified in PR(s): Patatrack integration - Pixel track reconstruction (10/N) #31722, Squash all Patatrack developments on top of CMSSW_11_3_0_pre5 #27983
- File Validation/RecoTrack/python/plotting/trackingPlots.py modified in PR(s): Patatrack integration - Pixel track reconstruction (10/N) #31722, Squash all Patatrack developments on top of CMSSW_11_3_0_pre5 #27983

cmsbuild · 2020-11-05T15:19:55Z

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

It involves the following packages:

DQM/TrackingMonitorSource
DataFormats/TrackReco
RecoParticleFlow/PFTracking
RecoTracker/FinalTrackSelectors
RecoTracker/IterativeTracking
RecoTracker/TkSeedingLayers
Validation/RecoTrack

@perrotta, @andrius-k, @kmaeshima, @ErnestaP, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @fioriNTU, @slava77, @jpata can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@wmtford, @felicepantaleo, @jandrea, @fioriNTU, @threus, @seemasharmafnal, @mmarionncern, @hdelanno, @makortel, @JanFSchulte, @lgray, @sroychow, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @rovere, @VinInn, @hatakeyamak, @mschrode, @idebruyn, @ebrondol, @mtosi, @dgulhan, @arossi83, @lecriste, @cbernet, @gpetruc 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

jfernan2 · 2020-11-05T15:25:12Z

please test

cmsbuild · 2020-11-05T15:25:37Z

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.

CMSSW_11_2_X_2020-11-05-1100/slc7_amd64_gcc820: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-run-pr-tests/10531/console Started: 2020/11/05 18:24

slava77 · 2020-11-05T15:29:33Z

Parameters for seeding, track building and track selection have been tuned in order to lower the fake rate and the extra timing.

IIUC, the new iteration is included by default.

please provide timing comparisons with a recent 11_2_X release as a baseline and this PR for the full reco workflow.
for Run-3 workflow 11834.21, around 100 events will be good.
CPU cost increase of O(1%) to the total reco time will need some significant scrutiny/justification.

a standard set of tracking MTV plots for a Run3 workflow with PU would be useful as well (I guess out of the box matrix it can be 11834.0 or 11834.99).

makortel · 2020-11-05T16:31:31Z

DataFormats/TrackReco/interface/TrackBase.h

@@ -138,7 +138,8 @@ namespace reco {
      hiRegitMuTobTecStep = 43,
      hiRegitMuMuonSeededStepInOut = 44,
      hiRegitMuMuonSeededStepOutIn = 45,
-      algoSize = 46
+      siStripTripletStep = 46,
+      algoSize = 47


How about using the value of reservedForUpgrades1 instead? (at the time I meant it exactly for this kind of situation)

makes sense; I guess the idea is to rename it.
BTW, isn't the siStripTriplet confusing? pixel-less iteration is also a strip triplet iteration
also, what if down the road we decide to make it use 4 hits?

makes sense; I guess the idea is to rename it.

Exactly, do

detachedQuadStep = 24, - reservedForUpgrades1 = 25, + siStripTiripletStep = 25, reservedForUpgrades2 = 26,

That would avoid the class version changes.

it might be that a new dedicated step (again targeting displaced tracking) would be added for Run3, in that case how should we proceed ?

From what I see there is room for another one (reservedForUpgrades2)
Replacing reservedForUpgrades1 by SiStripTripletStep indeed makes it much simpler without changing much the structure (already tried)

if another "regional" displaced iteration is planned, how about we plan to use the reservedForUpgrades1 and reservedForUpgrades2
and name the proposed iteration displacedGeneralStep while the one from Andrew will be displacedRegionalStep?

thanks, sounds good to me, indeed

doujadarej · 2020-11-05T16:57:33Z

@slava77 @makortel thanks for your comments. What if we add a nonDefaultEraName like trackingLowPU, trackingPhase1... e.g "displacedTracking" in which we would enable the iteration in the sequence? That was actually the first intention
@jandrea @mtosi

cmsbuild · 2020-11-05T18:29:56Z

-1

Tested at: cf75f2b

CMSSW: CMSSW_11_2_X_2020-11-05-1100
SCRAM_ARCH: slc7_amd64_gcc820
You can see the results of the tests here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-f8f7ff/10531/summary.html

I found follow errors while testing this PR

Failed tests: Build

Build:

I found compilation error when building:

>> Building LCG reflex dict from header file src/DataFormats/GsfTrackReco/src/classes.h
>> Compiling LCG dictionary: tmp/slc7_amd64_gcc820/src/DataFormats/GsfTrackReco/src/DataFormatsGsfTrackReco/a/DataFormatsGsfTrackReco_xr.cc
>> Building  shared library tmp/slc7_amd64_gcc820/src/DataFormats/GsfTrackReco/src/DataFormatsGsfTrackReco/libDataFormatsGsfTrackReco.so
Copying tmp/slc7_amd64_gcc820/src/DataFormats/GsfTrackReco/src/DataFormatsGsfTrackReco/libDataFormatsGsfTrackReco.so to productstore area:
>> Checking EDM Class Version for src/DataFormats/GsfTrackReco/src/classes_def.xml in libDataFormatsGsfTrackReco.so
error: class 'reco::GsfTrack' has a different checksum for ClassVersion 20. Increment ClassVersion to 21 and assign it to checksum 866972163
Suggestion: You can run 'scram build updateclassversion' to generate src/DataFormats/GsfTrackReco/src/classes_def.xml.generated with updated ClassVersion
gmake: *** [tmp/slc7_amd64_gcc820/src/DataFormats/GsfTrackReco/src/DataFormatsGsfTrackReco/libDataFormatsGsfTrackReco.so] Error 1
Leaving library rule at DataFormats/GsfTrackReco
>> Leaving Package DataFormats/GsfTrackReco
>> Package DataFormats/GsfTrackReco built

cmsbuild · 2020-11-05T18:29:58Z

Comparison job queued.

doujadarej · 2021-01-25T15:18:05Z

@slava77
In last commit

changed number of maxElement for doublets to the same as PixelLess and TobTec (50000000)
Impact of onlyPixelHitsForSeedCleaner : No big difference from the tests I ran, but no loss of good tracks when I turn it off. It will probably help with fakes, but need to run on more stats. Thanks for pointing this out. Used false, like in PixelLess
Applied SiStripClusterChargeCutTight for all layers after tests
Changed the cluster names to the right one
put the line breaks back

cmsbuild · 2021-01-25T15:19:07Z

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-32036/20881

This PR adds an extra 20KB to repository
There are other open Pull requests which might conflict with changes you have proposed:
- File Validation/RecoTrack/python/plotting/html.py modified in PR(s): Patatrack integration - Pixel track reconstruction (10/N) #31722, Displaced tracking validation for Run 3 and Phase 2 #32157, Squash all Patatrack developments on top of CMSSW_11_3_0_pre5 #27983
- File Validation/RecoTrack/python/plotting/trackingPlots.py modified in PR(s): Patatrack integration - Pixel track reconstruction (10/N) #31722, Displaced tracking validation for Run 3 and Phase 2 #32157, Squash all Patatrack developments on top of CMSSW_11_3_0_pre5 #27983
- File Validation/RecoTrack/test/trackingPerformanceValidation.py modified in PR(s): Displaced tracking validation for Run 3 and Phase 2 #32157

cmsbuild · 2021-01-25T15:19:31Z

Pull request #32036 was updated. @perrotta, @andrius-k, @kmaeshima, @ErnestaP, @cmsbuild, @silviodonato, @franzoni, @jfernan2, @fioriNTU, @slava77, @jpata, @qliphy, @fabiocos, @davidlange6 can you please check and sign again.

slava77 · 2021-01-25T16:00:40Z

@cmsbuild please test

cmsbuild · 2021-01-25T19:44:06Z

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-f8f7ff/12517/summary.html
COMMIT: 6d6a987
CMSSW: CMSSW_11_3_X_2021-01-24-2300/slc7_amd64_gcc900
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/32036/12517/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

No significant changes to the logs found
Reco comparison results: 4 differences found in the comparisons
DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 37
DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2716961
DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 7
DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2716932
DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 1.794 KiB( 36 files compared)
DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 1000.0,... ): 0.078 KiB Tracking/MessageLog
Checked 156 log files, 37 edm output root files, 37 DQM output files

jfernan2 · 2021-01-26T09:18:19Z

@doujadarej this PR only modifies Tracking/MessageLog folders in DQM, I understand that plots are being added in
#32157

From your PR description I would have expected some DQM modifications. Can you confirm?

doujadarej · 2021-01-26T09:26:32Z

@doujadarej this PR only modifies Tracking/MessageLog folders in DQM, I understand that plots are being added in
#32157

From your PR description I would have expected some DQM modifications. Can you confirm?

@jfernan2 , I'm not sure what you mean, sorry.
The extra iteration appears in the DQM plots when it's enabled, in the track collections and also in the seeding and track building monitoring. But it's independent from #32157 which is for all collections. Of course when both of them are enabled, they work together (already tested).

jfernan2 · 2021-01-26T09:30:56Z

Hi @doujadarej
Now it is clear. Thanks

jfernan2 · 2021-01-26T09:31:05Z

+1

slava77 · 2021-01-26T18:53:31Z

+1

for #32036 6d6a987

code changes are in line with the PR description and the follow up review
- the default tracking setup is not changed
- the new iteration is available via --procModifiers displacedTracking; following the discussion(s) in the RECO meeting of Nov 17 https://indico.cern.ch/event/978240/ (and other means) this is still a work in progress and may need improvements for a more general use, although special rerecos with a specific focus on displaced track signals may already use it as it
jenkins tests pass and comparisons with the baseline show no (relevant) differences as expected
a local test based on 2021 workflow using ttbar with PU (11834) with a modification to use displacedTracking shows roughly expected result
- reco time about doubles, dominated by displacedGeneralStepTrackCandidates and displacedGeneralStepHitTriplets
- there is some increase in efficiency for tracks with higher vtxpos, although the fakerate increase is more substantial (the ttbar sample doesn't really have much real displaced signal tracks though).

silviodonato · 2021-01-29T17:55:54Z

+1

cmsbuild · 2021-01-29T17:56:17Z

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 be automatically merged.

cmsbuild added this to the CMSSW_11_2_X milestone Nov 5, 2020

cmsbuild added code-checks-pending comparison-pending dqm-pending orp-pending pending-signatures reconstruction-pending tests-pending labels Nov 5, 2020

cmsbuild added code-checks-rejected code-checks-pending and removed code-checks-pending code-checks-rejected labels Nov 5, 2020

cmsbuild added code-checks-approved and removed code-checks-pending labels Nov 5, 2020

cmsbuild added tests-started and removed tests-pending labels Nov 5, 2020

makortel reviewed Nov 5, 2020

View reviewed changes

cmsbuild added tests-rejected and removed tests-started labels Nov 5, 2020

cmsbuild added code-checks-approved and removed code-checks-pending labels Jan 25, 2021

cmsbuild added tests-started and removed tests-pending labels Jan 25, 2021

cmsbuild added tests-approved and removed tests-started labels Jan 25, 2021

cmsbuild added dqm-approved and removed dqm-pending labels Jan 26, 2021

cmsbuild added reconstruction-approved and removed reconstruction-pending labels Jan 26, 2021

cmsbuild added fully-signed operations-approved orp-approved and removed operations-pending orp-pending pending-signatures labels Jan 29, 2021

cmsbuild merged commit b3eca32 into cms-sw:master Jan 29, 2021

aehart mentioned this pull request Mar 24, 2021

EXO regional tracking iteration #32806

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

DisplacedGeneralStep in tracking #32036

DisplacedGeneralStep in tracking #32036

doujadarej commented Nov 5, 2020 •

edited

cmsbuild commented Nov 5, 2020

cmsbuild commented Nov 5, 2020

cmsbuild commented Nov 5, 2020

cmsbuild commented Nov 5, 2020

cmsbuild commented Nov 5, 2020

jfernan2 commented Nov 5, 2020

cmsbuild commented Nov 5, 2020 •

edited

slava77 commented Nov 5, 2020

makortel Nov 5, 2020

slava77 Nov 5, 2020

makortel Nov 5, 2020

mtosi Nov 6, 2020

doujadarej Nov 6, 2020

slava77 Nov 6, 2020

mtosi Nov 6, 2020

doujadarej commented Nov 5, 2020

cmsbuild commented Nov 5, 2020

cmsbuild commented Nov 5, 2020

doujadarej commented Jan 25, 2021

cmsbuild commented Jan 25, 2021

cmsbuild commented Jan 25, 2021

slava77 commented Jan 25, 2021

cmsbuild commented Jan 25, 2021

jfernan2 commented Jan 26, 2021

doujadarej commented Jan 26, 2021

jfernan2 commented Jan 26, 2021

jfernan2 commented Jan 26, 2021

slava77 commented Jan 26, 2021

silviodonato commented Jan 29, 2021

cmsbuild commented Jan 29, 2021

DisplacedGeneralStep in tracking #32036

DisplacedGeneralStep in tracking #32036

Conversation

doujadarej commented Nov 5, 2020 • edited

PR description:

PR validation:

cmsbuild commented Nov 5, 2020

cmsbuild commented Nov 5, 2020

cmsbuild commented Nov 5, 2020

cmsbuild commented Nov 5, 2020

cmsbuild commented Nov 5, 2020

jfernan2 commented Nov 5, 2020

cmsbuild commented Nov 5, 2020 • edited

slava77 commented Nov 5, 2020

makortel Nov 5, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

slava77 Nov 5, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

makortel Nov 5, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mtosi Nov 6, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

doujadarej Nov 6, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

slava77 Nov 6, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mtosi Nov 6, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

doujadarej commented Nov 5, 2020

cmsbuild commented Nov 5, 2020

cmsbuild commented Nov 5, 2020

doujadarej commented Jan 25, 2021

cmsbuild commented Jan 25, 2021

cmsbuild commented Jan 25, 2021

slava77 commented Jan 25, 2021

cmsbuild commented Jan 25, 2021

Comparison Summary

jfernan2 commented Jan 26, 2021

doujadarej commented Jan 26, 2021

jfernan2 commented Jan 26, 2021

jfernan2 commented Jan 26, 2021

slava77 commented Jan 26, 2021

silviodonato commented Jan 29, 2021

cmsbuild commented Jan 29, 2021

doujadarej commented Nov 5, 2020 •

edited

cmsbuild commented Nov 5, 2020 •

edited