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

PFDisplacedVertexCandidateFinder: fix deltaPhi cut, don't use std::abs #38080

Merged
merged 1 commit into from May 30, 2022

Conversation

mmusich
Copy link
Contributor

@mmusich mmusich commented May 25, 2022

resolves #38068

PR description:

Implements suggestion at #38068 (comment).

PR validation:

cmssw compiles, waiting for a more thorough validation from PF group.

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

N/A

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor Author

mmusich commented May 25, 2022

enable profiling

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor Author

mmusich commented May 25, 2022

type pf

@cmsbuild cmsbuild added the pf label May 25, 2022
@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-38080/30170

  • This PR adds an extra 12KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @mmusich (Marco Musich) for master.

It involves the following packages:

  • RecoParticleFlow/PFTracking (reconstruction)

@jpata, @cmsbuild, @clacaputo, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@mmarionncern, @rovere, @lgray, @lecriste, @hatakeyamak, @ebrondol, @seemasharmafnal this is something you requested to watch as well.
@perrotta, @dpiparo, @qliphy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

@jpata
Copy link
Contributor

jpata commented May 25, 2022

@cmsbuild please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-38080/30178

  • This PR adds an extra 12KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Pull request #38080 was updated. @jpata, @cmsbuild, @clacaputo, @slava77 can you please check and sign again.

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor Author

mmusich commented May 25, 2022

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-7c08e5/25002/summary.html
COMMIT: 16b3837
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_5_X_2022-05-24-2300/el8_amd64_gcc10
Additional Tests: PROFILING
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/38080/25002/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: 320 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 50
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3650985
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 21
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3650942
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 49 files compared)
  • Checked 208 log files, 45 edm output root files, 50 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@jpata
Copy link
Contributor

jpata commented May 26, 2022

baseline
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/cgi-bin/igprof-navigator/CMSSW_12_5_X_2022-05-24-2300/el8_amd64_gcc10/profiling/11834.21/igprofCPU_step3/16
Screenshot 2022-05-26 at 10 52 53

PR
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/cgi-bin/igprof-navigator/CMSSW_12_5_X_2022-05-24-2300/el8_amd64_gcc10/profiling/11834.21/PR-7c08e5/25002/igprofCPU_step3/16
Screenshot 2022-05-26 at 10 53 11

Although it's a reasonable physics fix, it looks like the timing is not appreciably different. Maybe some tuning of cuts in the PFDisplacedVertexProducer is still in order?

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor Author

mmusich commented May 30, 2022

Although it's a reasonable physics fix, it looks like the timing is not appreciably different. Maybe some tuning of cuts in the PFDisplacedVertexProducer is still in order?

certainly it looks like it is, but I would let this to be handled by the PF group (@rappoccio mentioned in #38068 (comment) that a fix was available?). I was just curious to see if this relatively easy change could have mitigated the problem and it looks like it's not.
If it's preferred to have both the physics fix and the computational fix in the same PR I will gladly close this one.

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

@mmusich @jpata I think that the fix is uncontroversial. the code currently in CMSSW being simply wrong.
I'd suggest that the computational optimization will be investigated separately

@jpata
Copy link
Contributor

jpata commented May 30, 2022

+reconstruction

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

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@cmsbuild cmsbuild merged commit ad54d8f into cms-sw:master May 30, 2022
@rappoccio
Copy link
Contributor

Yes, @laurenhay and I went through this for a few hours last week but still have not discovered the other bug. Stay tuned, we will work on it more this week.

@hatakeyamak
Copy link
Contributor

I doubt this is a bug per se. It's just that linking criteria is currently loose, and given large number of tracks, we are connecting too many tracks into a leading block (displaced vertex candidate). So, I think the easiest route is to find the effective criteria to tighten links.

@rappoccio
Copy link
Contributor

Hi, @hatakeyamak I'm not convinced that tightening track cuts will reduce the number of tracks from 1500 to 4. Considering that this is always in the first event, I think there really is a bug. We'll keep looking at it.

@hatakeyamak
Copy link
Contributor

hatakeyamak commented Jun 3, 2022

From the current way of how iteratively tracks get linked, the observed certainly-undesired feature is not too surprising to me at least, but we will see. Probably we can look at this from two different angles.

@rappoccio
Copy link
Contributor

Could be. We can check.

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.

Phi wraparound bug in PFDisplacedVertexCandidateFinder?
7 participants