Edit PFMultiLinksTC to store refs

[laurenhay]

PR description:

As mentioned in issue #31280, we switch PFMultiLinksTC to store a ref instead of the ref's eta and phi values to make the linking safer.
No changes are expected in the output.

PR validation:

Checked that the packedPFCandidates four vector values matched exactly in step4_inMINIAODSIM.py produced by the 250202.181_TTbar_13UP18+TTbar_13UP18INPUT+PREMIXUP18_PU25+DIGIPRMXLOCALUP18_PU25+RECOPRMXUP18_PU25+HARVESTUP18_PU25/ workflow.

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

NA

@rappoccio @hatakeyamak @marksan87 @bendavid

[cmsbuild]

@laurenhay, CMSSW_12_0_X branch is closed for direct updates. cms-bot is going to move this PR to master branch.
In future, please use cmssw master branch to submit your changes.

[cmsbuild]

-code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-34385/23772

• This PR adds an extra 28KB to repository

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-34385/23772/code-format.patch
  e.g. curl https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-34385/23772/code-format.patch | patch -p1
  You can also run scram build code-format to apply code format directly

[slava77]

I think that the changes look reasonable.

[hatakeyamak]

Thank you @laurenhay!
I wonder if we should take this opportunity to rename linkedClusters to something like linkedPFObjects or linkedPFElements, given that linkedClusters actually refer to PFtracks in one case.

[laurenhay]

Sure! I'll change that when I apply the patch for code checks.

…

On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 6:01 PM Kenichi Hatakeyama ***@***.***> wrote: Thank you @laurenhay <https://github.com/laurenhay>! I wonder if we should take this opportunity to rename linkedClusters to something like linkedPFObjects or linkedPFElements, given that linkedClusters actually refer to PFtracks in one case. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#34385 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGD2P4XNQ6D4ZMDJKOY6XC3TWR24TANCNFSM476ZZTCQ> .

[mariadalfonso]

PR validation:

runTheMatrix tests were run and the contents of NANOAODSIM were checked for a QCDflat sample.

why this PR should affect NANOAODSIM ?
better test the PF reco with the appropiate data tier ?

[rappoccio]

@mariadalfonso if there was something broken, it would show up in the PFCandidates themselves, so this was a quick check to make sure nothing broke. There should be no changes at all due to this PR. If there are, it may be corner cases where the previous floating point comparison had numerical errors (was "eta1 == eta2 && phi1 == phi2", so very prone to roundoff and other FP errors).

[mariadalfonso]

@mariadalfonso if there was something broken, it would show up in the PFCandidates themselves, so this was a quick check to make sure nothing broke. There should be no changes at all due to this PR. If there are, it may be corner cases where the previous floating point comparison had numerical errors (was "eta1 == eta2 && phi1 == phi2", so very prone to roundoff and other FP errors).

runTheMatrix nano are very limited (i.e. do nano from already made mini), so you need a wf that go from RAW to nano
better use dedicated PF-validation from @hatakeyamak to validate RECO changes

[hatakeyamak]

Perhaps @laurenhay can specify what matrix tests she ran? If it's using a matrix test from that re-run reco step (not just re-doing from mini to nano, which won't test this PR indeed), it seems sufficient for this basic check. Automatic jenkins tests will be re-running the reco step, so I think we can rely on that too.

[rappoccio]

Of course, @laurenhay ran several matrix tests that are from scratch (ttbar for Run 3, I don't remember the number). That's just a technical check, she also checked the outputs for the PF candidates at the end (numerically).

[hatakeyamak]

Sounds good and thank you for clarification. I assumed so, but it wasn't quite clear from the description above and comments Maria made. (probably Lauren just can add a few more words on the check she did when she finishes this up.)

[laurenhay]

Yes sorry for the confusion! After re-reading it I realized what I said made no sense. Specifically I checked that the packedPFcand 4 vector values matched in step4_inMINIAODSIM.py produced by the 250202.181_TTbar_13UP18+TTbar_13UP18INPUT+PREMIXUP18_PU25+DIGIPRMXLOCALUP18_PU25+RECOPRMXUP18_PU25+HARVESTUP18_PU25/ workflow. I've also updated the code checks + format and given the linked objects a clearer name.

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-34385/24001

• This PR adds an extra 32KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

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

It involves the following packages:

• DataFormats/ParticleFlowReco (reconstruction)
• RecoParticleFlow/PFProducer (reconstruction)

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

cms-bot commands are listed here

[hatakeyamak]

Hi @laurenhay
Thank you!
How about updating the PR validation in the heading based on your description: #34385 (comment)
and also changing this PR from draft to a real PR, and asking reco conveners to trigger jenkins?
Is there anything you are still trying to do for this PR?

[laurenhay]

@jpata I've addressed this and re-ran matrix tests and validated. Everything looks okay now. Also not a draft anymore sorry about that.

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-34385/24079

• This PR adds an extra 16KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #34385 was updated. @perrotta, @jpata, @cmsbuild, @slava77 can you please check and sign again.

[jpata]

@cmsbuild please test

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-88d945/17003/summary.html
COMMIT: 646b703
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_0_X_2021-07-19-1100/slc7_amd64_gcc900
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/34385/17003/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: 39
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2996268
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 6
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 1
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2996239
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: -0.004 KiB( 38 files compared)
• DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 312.0 ): -0.004 KiB MessageLogger/Warnings
• Checked 165 log files, 37 edm output root files, 39 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[jpata]

+reconstruction

• technical, refactors PF linking to use ref comparison instead of eta/phi equality (addresses PFMultiLinksType in PFBlockAlgo uses the equality of (eta, phi) doubles to determine link status #31280)
• no changes expected or observed

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

[qliphy]

+1