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

Include charge reweighting for Phase-2 IT planar sensors #40417

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Jan 16, 2023

Conversation

tvami
Copy link
Contributor

@tvami tvami commented Jan 2, 2023

PR description:

Follow-up to #40349
Add the boolean UseReweighting to Phase-2 Tracker digitizers in order to simulate charge loss due to irradiation. This uses the same (now generalized) method that is use in the Phase-0/1 simulations. For now it's set to False by default. For now I didn't touch the late charge reweighting, I believe it's not (yet) relevant for Phase-2

PR validation:

20834.0 ran fine with the default False value.
After the compilation issue for Phase-1, I also ran 250202.184 which tests the late charge rew (this failed with some input error), and 11634.0 which is for realistic 2021.

when UseReweighting = True, I used the 20834.0 wf but modified the step2 to

cmsDriver.py step2 -s DIGI:pdigi_valid,L1TrackTrigger,L1,DIGI2RAW,HLT:@fake2 --conditions 125X_mcRun4_realistic_Candidate_2023_01_03_23_47_45 --datatier GEN-SIM-DIGI-RAW -n 10 --eventcontent FEVTDEBUGHLT --geometry Extended2026D88 --era Phase2C17I13M9 --filein file:step1.root --fileout file:step2.root

where 125X_mcRun4_realistic_Candidate_2023_01_03_23_47_45 contains the 2D templates needed for the charge reweighting. This runs fine as well.

Run LA trees and showed the charge vs depth profiles with the True option, the outcome looks as expected.

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 and no backport is needed.

@tvami
Copy link
Contributor Author

tvami commented Jan 2, 2023

test parameters:

  • workflows = 20834.0,24434.0

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jan 2, 2023

-code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-40417/33545

  • This PR adds an extra 40KB to repository

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

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jan 2, 2023

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-40417/33546

  • This PR adds an extra 40KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jan 2, 2023

A new Pull Request was created by @tvami (Tamas Vami) for master.

It involves the following packages:

  • SimTracker/Common (simulation)
  • SimTracker/SiPhase2Digitizer (upgrade, simulation)

@cmsbuild, @AdrianoDee, @srimanob, @civanch, @mdhildreth can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@JanFSchulte, @echabert, @VourMa, @robervalwalsh, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @gbenelli, @rovere, @VinInn, @missirol, @prolay, @mtosi, @trtomei, @beaucero, @mmusich, @threus, @dgulhan 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

@tvami tvami marked this pull request as draft January 2, 2023 21:07
@tvami
Copy link
Contributor Author

tvami commented Jan 3, 2023

@cmsbuild , please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jan 3, 2023

-1

Failed Tests: Build ClangBuild
Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-dc9d1c/29784/summary.html
COMMIT: f51f8c2
CMSSW: CMSSW_13_0_X_2023-01-02-2300/el8_amd64_gcc11
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/40417/29784/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Build

I found compilation error when building:

>> Compiling edm plugin /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/ib-run-pr-tests/CMSSW_13_0_X_2023-01-02-2300/src/SimTracker/SiPixelDigitizer/plugins/PreMixingSiPixelWorker.cc
>> Compiling edm plugin /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/ib-run-pr-tests/CMSSW_13_0_X_2023-01-02-2300/src/SimTracker/SiPixelDigitizer/plugins/SealModule.cc
>> Compiling edm plugin /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/ib-run-pr-tests/CMSSW_13_0_X_2023-01-02-2300/src/SimTracker/SiPixelDigitizer/plugins/SiPixelDigitizer.cc
>> Compiling edm plugin /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/ib-run-pr-tests/CMSSW_13_0_X_2023-01-02-2300/src/SimTracker/SiPixelDigitizer/plugins/SiPixelDigitizerAlgorithm.cc
/data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/ib-run-pr-tests/CMSSW_13_0_X_2023-01-02-2300/src/SimTracker/SiPixelDigitizer/plugins/SiPixelDigitizerAlgorithm.cc: In member function 'void SiPixelDigitizerAlgorithm::induce_signal(std::vector::const_iterator, std::vector::const_iterator, const PSimHit&, size_t, size_t, unsigned int, const PixelGeomDetUnit*, const std::vector&)':
/data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/ib-run-pr-tests/CMSSW_13_0_X_2023-01-02-2300/src/SimTracker/SiPixelDigitizer/plugins/SiPixelDigitizerAlgorithm.cc:1567:83: error: no matching function for call to 'SiPixelChargeReweightingAlgorithm::hitSignalReweight(const PSimHit&, hit_map_type&, const size_t&, size_t&, const unsigned int&, const PixelTopology*&, uint32_t&, SiPixelDigitizerAlgorithm::signal_map_type&, short unsigned int, bool&)'
 1567 |       reweighted = TheNewSiPixelChargeReweightingAlgorithmClass->hitSignalReweight(
      |                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^
 1568 |           hit, hit_signal, hitIndex, ReferenceIndex4CR, tofBin, topol, detID, theSignal, hit.processType(), makeDSLinks);
      |           ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In file included from /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/ib-run-pr-tests/CMSSW_13_0_X_2023-01-02-2300/src/SimTracker/SiPixelDigitizer/plugins/SiPixelDigitizerAlgorithm.cc:87:


Clang Build

I found compilation warning while trying to compile with clang. Command used:

USER_CUDA_FLAGS='--expt-relaxed-constexpr' USER_CXXFLAGS='-Wno-register -fsyntax-only' scram build -k -j 32 COMPILER='llvm compile'

See details on the summary page.

@tvami
Copy link
Contributor Author

tvami commented Jan 3, 2023

Ok so the real issue is that

  template argument deduction/substitution failed: couldn't deduce template parameter 'AmplitudeType'

I see what needs to be changed for the Phase-1 algo to work again.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jan 9, 2023

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-dc9d1c/29848/summary.html
COMMIT: b26a2dd
CMSSW: CMSSW_13_0_X_2023-01-09-1100/el8_amd64_gcc11
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/40417/29848/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

The following merge commits were also included on top of IB + this PR after doing git cms-merge-topic:

You can see more details here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-dc9d1c/29848/git-recent-commits.json
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-dc9d1c/29848/git-merge-result

Comparison Summary

Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 13 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 50
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3649878
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 160
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3649696
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 49 files compared)
  • Checked 216 log files, 166 edm output root files, 50 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor

mmusich commented Jan 10, 2023

DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 160

Comparisons at #40417 (comment) now look good.
Differences are either

On the other hand we might want to re-trigger tests to have a cleaner picture. I am not sure if the profiling option would also check on the SIM step.

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

@cmsbuild, please test
(to have some cleaner test, as requested above)

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-dc9d1c/29876/summary.html
COMMIT: b26a2dd
CMSSW: CMSSW_13_0_X_2023-01-09-2300/el8_amd64_gcc11
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/40417/29876/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: 0 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 50
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3649878
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3649856
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 49 files compared)
  • Checked 216 log files, 166 edm output root files, 50 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@tvami
Copy link
Contributor Author

tvami commented Jan 10, 2023

Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons

Yay!
@cms-sw/simulation-l2 @cms-sw/upgrade-l2 do you have any comments?

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor

mmusich commented Jan 11, 2023

type trk

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor

mmusich commented Jan 13, 2023

new-feature

@cmsbuild cmsbuild added the trk label Jan 13, 2023
@civanch
Copy link
Contributor

civanch commented Jan 15, 2023

+1

@srimanob
Copy link
Contributor

srimanob commented Jan 16, 2023

+upgrade

New feature as explained in the PR description. The default is still not to use it, so no change is expected.

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

@perrotta
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

6 participants