do not drop pixel duplicates for phase-2 IT reconstruction

[mmusich]

PR description:

Poor man solution to #39007.
PR #37559 has created a serious deterioration of the phase-2 track reconstruction (see https://cms-talk.web.cern.ch/t/new-validation-campaign-12-5-0-pre5-phase2-d88-added/14722/15), likely due to pixels being killed in the middle of the cluster when a PU simHit comes to overlap with a signal simHit.
This PR introduces a DropDuplicates parameters in PixelThresholdClusterizer.cc and turns that off for all phase-2 reconstruction.
Same mechanism was introduced (only for the heterogeneous version of the reconstruction) at #38761, that would have to be rebased if this PR is merged.

PR validation:

cmssw compiles

If this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR. If this PR will be backported please specify to which release cycle the backport is meant for:

Not a backport, but will have to be backported if accepted

cc:
@AdrianoDee

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-39407/32115

• This PR adds an extra 20KB to repository

• There are other open Pull requests which might conflict with changes you have proposed:

  • File RecoLocalTracker/SiPixelClusterizer/plugins/PixelThresholdClusterizer.cc modified in PR(s): Tracker Traits and Enabling Phase2 for Inner Tracker Reconstruction on GPU #38761
  • File RecoLocalTracker/SiPixelClusterizer/plugins/PixelThresholdClusterizer.h modified in PR(s): Tracker Traits and Enabling Phase2 for Inner Tracker Reconstruction on GPU #38761
  • File RecoLocalTracker/SiPixelClusterizer/python/SiPixelClusterizer_cfi.py modified in PR(s): Tracker Traits and Enabling Phase2 for Inner Tracker Reconstruction on GPU #38761

[cmsbuild]

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

It involves the following packages:

• RecoLocalTracker/SiPixelClusterizer (reconstruction)

@cmsbuild, @mandrenguyen, @clacaputo can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@mtosi, @VourMa, @felicepantaleo, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @JanFSchulte, @rovere, @VinInn, @OzAmram, @missirol, @dkotlins, @ferencek, @gpetruc, @mmusich, @threus, @tvami this is something you requested to watch as well.
@perrotta, @dpiparo, @rappoccio you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[mmusich]

please test

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-42dd8f/27580/summary.html
COMMIT: 218f9de
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_6_X_2022-09-15-1100/el8_amd64_gcc10
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/39407/27580/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: 3549 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 51
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3618326
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 54867
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 19
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3563418
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 50 files compared)
• Checked 212 log files, 49 edm output root files, 51 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[mandrenguyen]

Seems to have the desired effect, consistent with 2% recovery of tracks for Phase 2:
all_OldVSNew_TTbar14TeV2026D88PUwPRMXwf39634p999c_log10recoTracks_generalTracks__RECO_obj_p

Reading thru the issue, it would be good to have some feedback from @cms-sw/simulation-l2

[mmusich]

I am not sure we can have a fix from "first principles" in the time-frame of CMSSW_12_5_0 (@cms-sw/orp-l2 can you comment on the ETA ?) and the backport of this PR #39443 afaiu would be needed (see discussion at #39007 (comment))

[tvami]

My understanding is that 12_5_0 is to be cut tomorrow. So @mandrenguyen I think it would be nice to merge this in master asap (so the backport can see this aired in an IB for 24 hours)

[clacaputo]

+reconstruction

• temporary solution for Phase2 duplicate pixels handling #39007
• reco changes involve only phase2 workflows and seem in line with the expectations
  

[cmsbuild]

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

[perrotta]

+1

• It only affects Phase2, as it should