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

Protect against particles with zero weight and pt being given as input to njettiness #40081

Merged

Conversation

laurenhay
Copy link
Contributor

PR description:

As discussed in issue #40032 , BoostedDoubleSVProducer caused an abort signal in a reco job.
We found that there were unrealistic kinematic values in fjParticles being input to njettiness and are protecting against it by requiring a nonzero weight and pt > epsilon.

PR validation:

Verified that this fix solves the issues in CMSSW_12_4_10_patch3. In current build (12_6_0_pre4) ran usual code check and that basic runTheMatrix workflows run.

@rappoccio

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-40081/33058

  • This PR adds an extra 16KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @laurenhay (Lauren Hay) for master.

It involves the following packages:

  • RecoBTag/SecondaryVertex (reconstruction)

@cmsbuild, @mandrenguyen, @clacaputo can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@AlexDeMoor, @emilbols, @JyothsnaKomaragiri, @AnnikaStein, @missirol, @andrzejnovak, @demuller 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

@mandrenguyen
Copy link
Contributor

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-ec3186/29031/summary.html
COMMIT: a5e79c8
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_6_X_2022-11-15-2300/el8_amd64_gcc10
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/40081/29031/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: 48
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3417074
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 3
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3417049
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 47 files compared)
  • Checked 206 log files, 48 edm output root files, 48 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@mandrenguyen
Copy link
Contributor

+1
No changes, as expected, since these anomalous particles are rare.
Code changes are in line with description.

@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)

@rappoccio
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Should include in next 12_4

@cmsbuild cmsbuild merged commit 9677f6d into cms-sw:master Nov 16, 2022
@francescobrivio
Copy link
Contributor

Should include in next 12_4

I think we need the backports of this PR right?
(I'm testing this solution on the failing job in the meanwhile)

@laurenhay
Copy link
Contributor Author

Just created! Need anything other than 12_4?

@francescobrivio
Copy link
Contributor

Just created! Need anything other than 12_4?

Thanks Lauren! we need a 12_5_X backport as well!

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

perrotta commented Nov 17, 2022

I think we need the backports of this PR right? (I'm testing this solution on the failing job in the meanwhile)

@francescobrivio did you test this with the failing jobs finally?
I see the newly submitted #40093: would it also be needed for 12_4_X (hopefuly not)

@francescobrivio
Copy link
Contributor

@francescobrivio did you test this with the failing jobs finally?

Sorry Andrea I commented directly in the 12_4_X backport (see #40088 (comment)), yes I tested the failing job and the fix proposed here works!

I see the newly submitted #40093: would it also be needed for 12_4_X (hopefuly not)

Well the jobs were crashing due to the error fixed by this PR (#40081), I don't know about #40093: seems a very similar fix, but in a different producer which hasn't crashed in prompt (so far).
Personally I'd build a new 12_4_X now without #40093, and we can eventually merge it later.

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