Quadruplet seeding by propagating triplet to 4th layer #13753

makortel · 2016-03-17T12:10:02Z

This PR adds code for the first prototype of quadruplet seeding by "propagating triplet to 4th layer and searching for compatible hits", discussed in TRK POG meetings March 14 https://indico.cern.ch/event/508493/contribution/3/attachments/1242946/1828945/slides.pdf and Feb 23 2015 https://indico.cern.ch/event/361404/contribution/3/attachments/719405/987513/slides.pdf. The algorithm is disabled by default, but a customize --customise RecoTracker/Configuration/customiseForQuadrupletsByPropagation.customiseForQuadrupletsByPropagation switching all triplet-merging cases to propagation in PixelTrackProducer and in seeding.

Although being still work in progress and disabled by default, integrating the code eases its maintenance and testing by other people.

Tested in 8_0_1_pre1, no changes expected in standard workflows.

I have here two sets of MTV plots (with 1000 TTbar+PU events in CMSSW_8_1_X_2016-03-15-1100)

IB vs. this PR with customization https://mkortela.web.cern.ch/mkortela/tracking/validation/CMSSW_8_1_X_newquad_Phase1PU70/
IB + Introduce new tracking sequence for phase1 (2017) #13736 vs. this PR with customization https://mkortela.web.cern.ch/mkortela/tracking/validation/CMSSW_8_1_X_newquad_Phase1New/

@rovere @VinInn

…uplicate rate

cmsbuild · 2016-03-17T12:12:39Z

A new Pull Request was created by @makortel (Matti Kortelainen) for CMSSW_8_1_X.

It involves the following packages:

Calibration/IsolatedParticles
HLTrigger/Configuration
RecoHI/HiTracking
RecoMuon/L3MuonProducer
RecoPixelVertexing/PixelTrackFitting
RecoPixelVertexing/PixelTriplets
RecoTracker/Configuration

@perrotta, @cmsbuild, @diguida, @cvuosalo, @fwyzard, @cerminar, @Martin-Grunewald, @franzoni, @slava77, @mmusich, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@ghellwig, @abbiendi, @echapon, @geoff-smith, @battibass, @jhgoh, @dgulhan, @cerati, @trocino, @yetkinyilmaz, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @rovere, @VinInn, @bellan, @tocheng, @jalimena, @mschrode, @richard-cms, @Martin-Grunewald, @mandrenguyen, @jazzitup, @yenjie, @kurtejung, @gpetruc, @istaslis, @rociovilar, @bachtis this is something you requested to watch as well.
@slava77, @Degano, @smuzaffar you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are list here #13028

VinInn · 2016-03-17T12:51:39Z

@cmsbuild , please test

cmsbuild · 2016-03-17T12:52:02Z

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/11942/console

cmsbuild · 2016-03-17T14:28:25Z

-1
Tested at: 244c235
I found a compilation error while trying to compile with clang:
I used this command:
scram b vclean && scram build -k -j 16 USER_CXXFLAGS='-fsyntax-only' COMPILER='llvm compile'

               ^
/cvmfs/cms-ib.cern.ch/week0/slc6_amd64_gcc530/cms/cmssw-patch/CMSSW_8_1_X_2016-03-16-2300/src/FWCore/Framework/interface/one/EDAnalyzerBase.h:98:20: note: overridden virtual function is here
      virtual void beginJob() {}
                   ^
>> Compiling edm plugin /build/cmsbuild/jenkins-workarea/workspace/ib-any-integration/CMSSW_8_1_X_2016-03-16-2300/src/RecoPixelVertexing/PixelTriplets/plugins/SealModule.cc 
/build/cmsbuild/jenkins-workarea/workspace/ib-any-integration/CMSSW_8_1_X_2016-03-16-2300/src/RecoPixelVertexing/PixelTriplets/plugins/PixelQuadrupletGenerator.cc:66:46: error: variable length array of non-POD element type 'ThirdHitRZPrediction'
  ThirdHitRZPrediction preds[size];
                                             ^
/build/cmsbuild/jenkins-workarea/workspace/ib-any-integration/CMSSW_8_1_X_2016-03-16-2300/src/RecoPixelVertexing/PixelTriplets/plugins/PixelQuadrupletGenerator.cc:112:21: error: constexpr variable 'nSigmaRZ' must be initialized by a constant expression
    constexpr float nSigmaRZ = std::sqrt(12.f);
                    ^          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

you can see the results of the tests here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-13753/11942/summary.html

cmsbuild · 2016-03-17T14:51:00Z

Pull request #13753 was updated. @perrotta, @cmsbuild, @diguida, @cvuosalo, @fwyzard, @cerminar, @Martin-Grunewald, @franzoni, @slava77, @mmusich, @davidlange6 can you please check and sign again.

makortel · 2016-03-17T14:51:11Z

Some modernizations were missing, should be fixed now.

cmsbuild · 2016-03-17T15:31:55Z

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-13753/11942/summary.html

slava77 · 2016-03-17T17:33:13Z

@cmsbuild please test

cmsbuild · 2016-03-17T17:33:36Z

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/11946/console

cvuosalo · 2016-03-22T21:48:11Z

An extended test of workflow 10224.0_TTbar_13 (which is a 2017 workflow) with the algorithm enabled (as explained in the description) and with 70 events against baseline CMSSW_8_1_X_2016-03-10-2300 with the algorithm disabled shows no significant increase in time or memory usage. Note these tests included both the DQM and Validation steps.
Summary of time and memory:

Baseline
Max VSIZ 2835.09 on evt 67 ; max RSS 2189.01 on evt 68
Time av 100.102 s/evt   max 148.093 s on evt 1
M1 Time av 99.4069 s/evt   max 124.892 s on evt 20
M8 Time av 99.3914 s/evt   max 124.892 s on evt 20

PR 13753
Max VSIZ 2821.64 on evt 66 ; max RSS 2202.91 on evt 68
Time av 99.7959 s/evt   max 148.632 s on evt 1
M1 Time av 99.0882 s/evt   max 124.447 s on evt 20
M8 Time av 98.8341 s/evt   max 124.447 s on evt 20

The time for various tracking steps increased or decreased, but the overall time showed a slight decrease (times exclude first event):

  delta/mean delta/orJob     original                   new       module name
  ---------- ------------     --------                  ----       ------------
   -1.035849      -0.80%      1145.45 ms/ev ->       363.78 ms/ev lowPtQuadStepTrackCandidates
   -0.970964      -0.11%       164.94 ms/ev ->        57.13 ms/ev lowPtQuadStepTracks
   -0.764124      -0.12%       217.07 ms/ev ->        97.05 ms/ev initialStepSeeds
   -0.755311      -0.34%       601.11 ms/ev ->       271.55 ms/ev lowPtQuadStepSeeds
   -0.680000      -0.21%       410.38 ms/ev ->       202.13 ms/ev detachedQuadStepSeeds
   +0.281839      +0.36%      1061.51 ms/ev ->      1409.76 ms/ev lowPtTripletStepTrackCandidates

Another measurement gives a similar picture:

    initialStepSeeds     154.156 ms/ev -> 68.7239 ms/ev
    initialStepTrackCandidates   523.191 ms/ev -> 482.233 ms/ev
    initialStepTracks    119.491 ms/ev -> 99.0642 ms/ev
    highPtTripletStepTrackCandidates     539.739 ms/ev -> 576.283 ms/ev
    lowPtQuadStepSeeds   425.07 ms/ev -> 191.984 ms/ev
    lowPtQuadStepTrackCandidates     812.064 ms/ev -> 258.176 ms/ev
    lowPtQuadStepTracks      117.154 ms/ev -> 40.6786 ms/ev
    lowPtTripletStepSeeds    238.74 ms/ev -> 285.617 ms/ev
    lowPtTripletStepTrackCandidates      752.196 ms/ev -> 1003.15 ms/ev
    lowPtTripletStepTracks   94.8293 ms/ev -> 116.024 ms/ev
    detachedQuadStepSeeds    290.684 ms/ev -> 143.29 ms/ev
    detachedQuadStepTrackCandidates      86.5754 ms/ev -> 44.9036 ms/ev
    detachedQuadStepTracks   50.5428 ms/ev -> 26.9334 ms/ev
    mixedTripletStepSeedsA   234.518 ms/ev -> 255.705 ms/ev
    mixedTripletStepSeedsB   116.791 ms/ev -> 142.697 ms/ev

cvuosalo · 2016-03-22T21:54:55Z

The same extended test described above produces extensive differences in tracking quantities, as might be expected. However, most all of the changes preserve the shapes of distributions even while possibly changing the number of histogram entries. But at least two DQM plots show significant shape changes:

cvuosalo · 2016-03-22T22:01:22Z

The same extended test described above shows a 2% decrease in the size of RECO event content. The largest changes are:

-----------------------------------------------------------------
   or, B         new, B      delta, B   delta, %   deltaJ, %    branch 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
   1641.9 ->      1484.4       -157    -10.1  -0.01     recoJetedmRefToBaseProdrecoTracksrecoTrackrecoTracksTorecoTrackedmrefhelperFindUsingAdvanceedmRefVectorsAssociationVector_ak4JetTracksAssociatorAtVertexPF__RECO.
   5618.4 ->      5055.6       -563    -10.5  -0.03     TrackingParticlesrecoTrackedmViewdoubleuintTrackingParticlesedmRefProdrecoTrackedmRefToBaseProdTrackingParticlesTrackingParticleTrackingParticlesTrackingParticleedmrefhelperFindUsingAdvanceedmRefrecoTrackedmRefToBaseedmOneToManyWithQualityGenericedmAssociationMap_trackingParticleRecoTrackAsssociation__RECO.
  98606.3 ->     88713.7      -9893    -10.6  -0.46     recoTracks_generalTracks__RECO.
   5723.4 ->      5178.5       -545    -10.0  -0.03     recoTrackedmViewTrackingParticlesdoubleuintrecoTrackedmRefToBaseProdTrackingParticlesedmRefProdrecoTrackedmRefToBaseTrackingParticlesTrackingParticleTrackingParticlesTrackingParticleedmrefhelperFindUsingAdvanceedmRefedmOneToManyWithQualityGenericedmAssociationMap_trackingParticleRecoTrackAsssociation__RECO.
 175488.0 ->    157087.0     -18401    -11.1  -0.86     recoTrackExtras_generalTracks__RECO.

slava77 · 2016-03-22T22:12:34Z

@cvuosalo what are the totals of time changes in the reco steps/tracking steps?
From the middle printout it looks like a net decrease of 1.3s (40% net reduction in the printed set; it's probably about 10% of full reco step, unless some other module takes over) #13753 (comment)

10% is a large difference (maybe that fits the "slight decrease" in your summary).

Is the DQM comparison appropriately normalized? There is a ~40% discrepancy.

cvuosalo · 2016-03-22T23:00:23Z

@slava77:
The wall-clock time difference is:

Job total:  97.3583 s/ev ==> 96.9674 s/ev (-0.416 s/ev, -0.4%)

The module time difference is:

Total in detailed printout:     5951.88 ms/ev -> 5041.42 ms/ev          delta: -910.462 (-15%)

Note that the DQM/Validation step was included in these workflows.

Concerning the DQM comparison, many of the plots have similar numbers of entries and similar shapes. I presented two plots where neither the number of entries nor the shapes match.

slava77 · 2016-03-22T23:06:55Z

On 3/22/16 4:00 PM, Carl Vuosalo wrote:

@slava77 https://github.com/slava77:
The wall-clock time difference is:

|Job total: 97.3583 s/ev ==> 96.9674 s/ev (-0.416 s/ev, -0.4%) |

this includes mixing module and validation in the job and, because of
this, is not useful as a comparison.

The module time difference is:

|Total in detailed printout: 5951.88 ms/ev -> 5041.42 ms/ev delta:
-910.462 (-15%) |

This is a sum for modules with differences (>5% for heavier or >10% for
lighter).
There is a total printout per reconstruction_step in the line after.
What is it?

Note that the DQM/Validation step was included in these workflows.

Concerning the DQM comparison, many of the plots have similar numbers of
entries and similar shapes. I presented two plots where neither the
number of entries nor the shapes match.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#13753 (comment)

cvuosalo · 2016-03-22T23:15:00Z

@slava77:
The totals for the reco step are:

Total times: 9593.26 ms/ev -> 8678.51 ms/ev      delta: -914.753 (-9.5%)

slava77 · 2016-03-23T00:16:59Z

On 3/22/16 4:15 PM, Carl Vuosalo wrote:

@slava77 https://github.com/slava77:
The totals for the reco step is:

|Total times: 9593.26 ms/ev -> 8678.51 ms/ev delta: -914.753 (-9.5%) |

Thank you.

So, it is indeed about 10% decrease.
Something rather welcome, if it wasn't loosing efficiency at low pt (if
I understood the slides from TRK POG meeting correctly).

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#13753 (comment)

cvuosalo · 2016-03-23T15:26:13Z

+1

For #13753 e4daef5

Adding quadruplet seeding using the new fourth layer of the 2017 pixel tracker. There should be no changes in standard workflows.

The code changes are satisfactory, and Jenkins tests against baseline CMSSW_8_1_X_2016-03-21-1100 show no significant differences, as expected. An extended test of workflow 10224.0_TTbar_13 (which is a 2017 workflow) with 70 events against baseline CMSSW_8_1_X_2016-03-10-2300 also show no significant differences with the new algorithm disabled. Test results with the new algorithm are discussed above, and they are satisfactory.

makortel · 2016-03-24T19:23:20Z

@slava77 Indeed this version suffers from efficiency loss at low pT. One symptom is migration of tracks from quadrupled steps to triplet steps (best visible in lowPt*Step plots e.g. in @cvuosalo's comment #13753 (comment)). I'm experimenting ways to recover the low-pT efficiency.

mmusich · 2016-03-24T21:05:57Z

+1
AlCa packages affected marginally via Calibration/IsolatedParticles in which the useQuadrupletAlgo is switched off.

slava77 · 2016-03-28T22:02:22Z

@Martin-Grunewald @perrotta we need your signature here

Martin-Grunewald · 2016-03-29T04:47:58Z

+1

cmsbuild · 2016-03-29T04:48:23Z

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_8_1_X IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @slava77, @davidlange6, @Degano, @smuzaffar

davidlange6 · 2016-03-29T08:37:27Z

+1

makortel added 3 commits March 17, 2016 11:28

First version of the new quadruplet algorithm

a966e43

Add new algorithm for pixel track cleaner for quadruplets to reduce d…

0d4fbf8

…uplicate rate

Add customisation to enable new quadruplets

244c235

makortel force-pushed the new_quadruplets_v4 branch from 334a641 to 244c235 Compare March 17, 2016 12:12

cmsbuild added this to the Next CMSSW_8_1_X milestone Mar 17, 2016

cmsbuild added reconstruction-pending hlt-pending alca-pending pending-signatures tests-pending orp-pending comparison-pending labels Mar 17, 2016

makortel changed the title ~~First prototype of quadruplet seeding algorithm for 2017~~ Quadruplet seeding by propagating triplet to 4th layer Mar 17, 2016

cmsbuild added tests-started and removed tests-pending labels Mar 17, 2016

cmsbuild added tests-rejected and removed tests-started labels Mar 17, 2016

Fixes for clang

831dc23

cmsbuild added tests-pending and removed tests-rejected labels Mar 17, 2016

cmsbuild removed the tests-pending label Mar 17, 2016

cmsbuild added comparison-available and removed comparison-pending labels Mar 21, 2016

cmsbuild added reconstruction-approved and removed reconstruction-pending labels Mar 23, 2016

cmsbuild added alca-approved and removed alca-pending labels Mar 24, 2016

cmsbuild added hlt-approved fully-signed and removed hlt-pending pending-signatures labels Mar 29, 2016

cmsbuild added orp-approved and removed orp-pending labels Mar 29, 2016

cmsbuild merged commit 161217c into cms-sw:CMSSW_8_1_X Mar 29, 2016

makortel mentioned this pull request May 2, 2016

Improve low-pT performance of "quadruplets by propagation", and use it in phase1 tracking instead of "triplet merging" #14327

Merged

makortel deleted the new_quadruplets_v4 branch October 20, 2016 11:53

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Quadruplet seeding by propagating triplet to 4th layer #13753

Quadruplet seeding by propagating triplet to 4th layer #13753

makortel commented Mar 17, 2016

cmsbuild commented Mar 17, 2016

VinInn commented Mar 17, 2016

cmsbuild commented Mar 17, 2016

cmsbuild commented Mar 17, 2016

cmsbuild commented Mar 17, 2016

makortel commented Mar 17, 2016

cmsbuild commented Mar 17, 2016

slava77 commented Mar 17, 2016

cmsbuild commented Mar 17, 2016

cvuosalo commented Mar 22, 2016

cvuosalo commented Mar 22, 2016

cvuosalo commented Mar 22, 2016

slava77 commented Mar 22, 2016

cvuosalo commented Mar 22, 2016

slava77 commented Mar 22, 2016

cvuosalo commented Mar 22, 2016

slava77 commented Mar 23, 2016

cvuosalo commented Mar 23, 2016

makortel commented Mar 24, 2016

mmusich commented Mar 24, 2016

slava77 commented Mar 28, 2016

Martin-Grunewald commented Mar 29, 2016

cmsbuild commented Mar 29, 2016

davidlange6 commented Mar 29, 2016

Quadruplet seeding by propagating triplet to 4th layer #13753

Quadruplet seeding by propagating triplet to 4th layer #13753

Conversation

makortel commented Mar 17, 2016

cmsbuild commented Mar 17, 2016

VinInn commented Mar 17, 2016

cmsbuild commented Mar 17, 2016

cmsbuild commented Mar 17, 2016

cmsbuild commented Mar 17, 2016

makortel commented Mar 17, 2016

cmsbuild commented Mar 17, 2016

slava77 commented Mar 17, 2016

cmsbuild commented Mar 17, 2016

cvuosalo commented Mar 22, 2016

cvuosalo commented Mar 22, 2016

cvuosalo commented Mar 22, 2016

slava77 commented Mar 22, 2016

cvuosalo commented Mar 22, 2016

slava77 commented Mar 22, 2016

cvuosalo commented Mar 22, 2016

slava77 commented Mar 23, 2016

cvuosalo commented Mar 23, 2016

makortel commented Mar 24, 2016

mmusich commented Mar 24, 2016

slava77 commented Mar 28, 2016

Martin-Grunewald commented Mar 29, 2016

cmsbuild commented Mar 29, 2016

davidlange6 commented Mar 29, 2016