Low pT electrons (up to GsfTracks) #25455

bainbrid · 2018-12-07T22:59:15Z

This pull request concerns very low pT electron reconstruction, which is intended for use with the B Parking project. It contains a cms.Sequence configured to produce GsfTracks.

This is done with improved performance in the region 0.5 < pT < ~10 GeV with respect to the nominal EGamma chain.

Existing modules are cloned, a new EDProducer is provided, and new collections are made using existing DataFormats, to provide a fully standalone chain that does not touch the existing EGamma reconstruction.

The new LowPtGsfElectronSeedProducer relies on the output of two BDTs, which are provided via this pull request:
cms-data/RecoEgamma-ElectronIdentification#10

An additional pull request will be made on a short time scale that complete the electron reconstruction chain (adding SuperClusters, GsfElectronCores, GsfElectron, and ID).

Potential further PRs may be made that define workflows for 1) a skim of the B parked data set, enriched in B->K(*)ll events, and 2) a data control sample of photon conversions to soft electrons.

@mverzett , @Sam-Harper , @nancymarinelli , and @gkaratha are interested to follow this thread.

Cheers,
rob

cmsbuild · 2018-12-07T22:59:32Z

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

cmsbuild · 2018-12-07T23:02:26Z

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-25455/7535

cmsbuild · 2018-12-07T23:03:42Z

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

It involves the following packages:

Configuration/StandardSequences
RecoEgamma/Configuration
RecoEgamma/EgammaElectronProducers

@perrotta, @cmsbuild, @franzoni, @slava77, @fabiocos, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@varuns23, @Sam-Harper, @makortel, @felicepantaleo, @jainshilpi, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @rovere, @lgray, @Martin-Grunewald, @VinInn, @dgulhan this is something you requested to watch as well.
@davidlange6, @slava77, @fabiocos you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

slava77 · 2018-12-07T23:09:02Z

@cmsbuild please test

this will fail at run time due to missing external.
The goal is to get all relevant compile/build time checks to be done (a large fraction of them is not run in a build with an external).

cmsbuild · 2018-12-07T23:09:19Z

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/32076/console Started: 2018/12/08 00:09

makortel · 2018-12-07T23:09:17Z

RecoEgamma/EgammaElectronProducers/plugins/LowPtGsfElectronSeedProducer.cc

+LowPtGsfElectronSeedProducer::LowPtGsfElectronSeedProducer( const edm::ParameterSet& conf, 
+							    const lowptgsfeleseed::HeavyObjectCache* ) :
+  kfTracks_{consumes<reco::TrackCollection>(conf.getParameter<edm::InputTag>("tracks"))},
+  pfTracks_{consumes<reco::PFRecTrackCollection>(conf.getParameter<edm::InputTag>("pfTracks"))},


It would be better to consume "tracks" only if usePfTracks_ == false (and "pfTracks" if it is true).

makortel · 2018-12-07T23:09:48Z

RecoEgamma/EgammaElectronProducers/plugins/LowPtGsfElectronSeedProducer.cc

+
+  // PF tracks
+  edm::Handle<reco::PFRecTrackCollection> pfTracks;
+  event.getByToken(pfTracks_, pfTracks);


Same here, it would better to get only the collection that is needed.

makortel · 2018-12-07T23:14:33Z

RecoEgamma/EgammaElectronProducers/plugins/LowPtGsfElectronSeedProducer.h

+
+  void produce( edm::Event&, const edm::EventSetup& ) override;
+
+  static void fillDescription( edm::ParameterSetDescription& );


The proper signature is

Suggested change

static void fillDescription( edm::ParameterSetDescription& );

static void fillDescriptions( edm::ConfigurationDescriptions& );

cmsbuild · 2018-12-08T00:37:14Z

-1

Tested at: a556a68

You can see the results of the tests here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-25455/32076/summary.html

I found follow errors while testing this PR

Failed tests: RelVals AddOn

RelVals:

When I ran the RelVals I found an error in the following workflows:
5.1 step1

runTheMatrix-results/5.1_TTbar+TTbarFS+HARVESTFS/step1_TTbar+TTbarFS+HARVESTFS.log

4.53 step3

runTheMatrix-results/4.53_RunPhoton2012B+RunPhoton2012B+HLTD+RECODR1reHLT+HARVESTDR1reHLT/step3_RunPhoton2012B+RunPhoton2012B+HLTD+RECODR1reHLT+HARVESTDR1reHLT.log

135.4 step1

runTheMatrix-results/135.4_ZEE_13+ZEEFS_13+HARVESTUP15FS+MINIAODMCUP15FS/step1_ZEE_13+ZEEFS_13+HARVESTUP15FS+MINIAODMCUP15FS.log

9.0 step3

runTheMatrix-results/9.0_Higgs200ChargedTaus+Higgs200ChargedTaus+DIGI+RECO+HARVEST/step3_Higgs200ChargedTaus+Higgs200ChargedTaus+DIGI+RECO+HARVEST.log

136.731 step3

runTheMatrix-results/136.731_RunSinglePh2016B+RunSinglePh2016B+HLTDR2_2016+RECODR2_2016reHLT_skimSinglePh_HIPM+HARVESTDR2/step3_RunSinglePh2016B+RunSinglePh2016B+HLTDR2_2016+RECODR2_2016reHLT_skimSinglePh_HIPM+HARVESTDR2.log

136.788 step3

runTheMatrix-results/136.788_RunSinglePh2017B+RunSinglePh2017B+HLTDR2_2017+RECODR2_2017reHLT_skimSinglePh_Prompt+HARVEST2017/step3_RunSinglePh2017B+RunSinglePh2017B+HLTDR2_2017+RECODR2_2017reHLT_skimSinglePh_Prompt+HARVEST2017.log

25.0 step3

runTheMatrix-results/25.0_TTbar+TTbar+DIGI+RECOAlCaCalo+HARVEST+ALCATT/step3_TTbar+TTbar+DIGI+RECOAlCaCalo+HARVEST+ALCATT.log

140.56 step2

runTheMatrix-results/140.56_RunHI2018+RunHI2018+RECOHID18+HARVESTDHI18/step2_RunHI2018+RunHI2018+RECOHID18+HARVESTDHI18.log

1306.0 step3

runTheMatrix-results/1306.0_SingleMuPt1_UP15+SingleMuPt1_UP15+DIGIUP15+RECOUP15+HARVESTUP15/step3_SingleMuPt1_UP15+SingleMuPt1_UP15+DIGIUP15+RECOUP15+HARVESTUP15.log

136.85 step3

runTheMatrix-results/136.85_RunEGamma2018A+RunEGamma2018A+HLTDR2_2018+RECODR2_2018reHLT_skimEGamma_Prompt_L1TEgDQM+HARVEST2018_L1TEgDQM/step3_RunEGamma2018A+RunEGamma2018A+HLTDR2_2018+RECODR2_2018reHLT_skimEGamma_Prompt_L1TEgDQM+HARVEST2018_L1TEgDQM.log

158.0 step3

runTheMatrix-results/158.0_HydjetQ_B12_5020GeV_2018_ppReco+HydjetQ_B12_5020GeV_2018_ppReco+DIGIHI2018PPRECO+RECOHI2018PPRECO+ALCARECOHI2018PPRECO+HARVESTHI2018PPRECO/step3_HydjetQ_B12_5020GeV_2018_ppReco+HydjetQ_B12_5020GeV_2018_ppReco+DIGIHI2018PPRECO+RECOHI2018PPRECO+ALCARECOHI2018PPRECO+HARVESTHI2018PPRECO.log

1000.0 step2

runTheMatrix-results/1000.0_RunMinBias2011A+RunMinBias2011A+TIER0+SKIMD+HARVESTDfst2+ALCASPLIT/step2_RunMinBias2011A+RunMinBias2011A+TIER0+SKIMD+HARVESTDfst2+ALCASPLIT.log

1001.0 step2

runTheMatrix-results/1001.0_RunMinBias2011A+RunMinBias2011A+TIER0EXP+ALCAEXP+ALCAHARVDSIPIXELCALRUN1+ALCAHARVD1+ALCAHARVD2+ALCAHARVD3+ALCAHARVD4+ALCAHARVD5/step2_RunMinBias2011A+RunMinBias2011A+TIER0EXP+ALCAEXP+ALCAHARVDSIPIXELCALRUN1+ALCAHARVD1+ALCAHARVD2+ALCAHARVD3+ALCAHARVD4+ALCAHARVD5.log

1330.0 step3

runTheMatrix-results/1330.0_ZMM_13+ZMM_13+DIGIUP15+RECOUP15_L1TMuDQM+HARVESTUP15_L1TMuDQM/step3_ZMM_13+ZMM_13+DIGIUP15+RECOUP15_L1TMuDQM+HARVESTUP15_L1TMuDQM.log

10042.0 step3

runTheMatrix-results/10042.0_ZMM_13+ZMM_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2017_GenSimFull+DigiFull_2017+RecoFull_2017+HARVESTFull_2017+ALCAFull_2017/step3_ZMM_13+ZMM_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2017_GenSimFull+DigiFull_2017+RecoFull_2017+HARVESTFull_2017+ALCAFull_2017.log

10024.0 step3

runTheMatrix-results/10024.0_TTbar_13+TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2017_GenSimFull+DigiFull_2017+RecoFull_2017+HARVESTFull_2017+ALCAFull_2017/step3_TTbar_13+TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2017_GenSimFull+DigiFull_2017+RecoFull_2017+HARVESTFull_2017+ALCAFull_2017.log

25202.0 step3

runTheMatrix-results/25202.0_TTbar_13+TTbar_13+DIGIUP15_PU25+RECOUP15_PU25+HARVESTUP15_PU25/step3_TTbar_13+TTbar_13+DIGIUP15_PU25+RECOUP15_PU25+HARVESTUP15_PU25.log

11624.0 step3

runTheMatrix-results/11624.0_TTbar_13+TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2019_GenSimFull+DigiFull_2019+RecoFull_2019+HARVESTFull_2019+ALCAFull_2019/step3_TTbar_13+TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2019_GenSimFull+DigiFull_2019+RecoFull_2019+HARVESTFull_2019+ALCAFull_2019.log

10824.0 step3

runTheMatrix-results/10824.0_TTbar_13+TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2018_GenSimFull+DigiFull_2018+RecoFull_2018+HARVESTFull_2018+ALCAFull_2018+NanoFull_2018/step3_TTbar_13+TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2018_GenSimFull+DigiFull_2018+RecoFull_2018+HARVESTFull_2018+ALCAFull_2018+NanoFull_2018.log

10224.0 step3

runTheMatrix-results/10224.0_TTbar_13+TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2017PU_GenSimFull+DigiFullPU_2017PU+RecoFullPU_2017PU+HARVESTFullPU_2017PU/step3_TTbar_13+TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2017PU_GenSimFull+DigiFullPU_2017PU+RecoFullPU_2017PU+HARVESTFullPU_2017PU.log

20034.0 step3

runTheMatrix-results/20034.0_TTbar_14TeV+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2023D17_GenSimHLBeamSpotFull14+DigiFullTrigger_2023D17+RecoFullGlobal_2023D17+HARVESTFullGlobal_2023D17/step3_TTbar_14TeV+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2023D17_GenSimHLBeamSpotFull14+DigiFullTrigger_2023D17+RecoFullGlobal_2023D17+HARVESTFullGlobal_2023D17.log

21234.0 step3

runTheMatrix-results/21234.0_TTbar_14TeV+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2023D21_GenSimHLBeamSpotFull14+DigiFullTrigger_2023D21+RecoFullGlobal_2023D21+HARVESTFullGlobal_2023D21/step3_TTbar_14TeV+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2023D21_GenSimHLBeamSpotFull14+DigiFullTrigger_2023D21+RecoFullGlobal_2023D21+HARVESTFullGlobal_2023D21.log

27434.0 step3

runTheMatrix-results/27434.0_TTbar_14TeV+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2023D35_GenSimHLBeamSpotFull14+DigiFullTrigger_2023D35+RecoFullGlobal_2023D35+HARVESTFullGlobal_2023D35/step3_TTbar_14TeV+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2023D35_GenSimHLBeamSpotFull14+DigiFullTrigger_2023D35+RecoFullGlobal_2023D35+HARVESTFullGlobal_2023D35.log

250202.181 step4

runTheMatrix-results/250202.181_TTbar_13UP18+TTbar_13UP18+PREMIXUP18_PU25+DIGIPRMXLOCALUP18_PU25+RECOPRMXUP18_PU25+HARVESTUP18_PU25/step4_TTbar_13UP18+TTbar_13UP18+PREMIXUP18_PU25+DIGIPRMXLOCALUP18_PU25+RECOPRMXUP18_PU25+HARVESTUP18_PU25.log

AddOn:

I found errors in the following addon tests:

cmsDriver.py TTbar_8TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_cfi --conditions auto:run1_mc --fast -n 100 --eventcontent AODSIM,DQM --relval 100000,1000 -s GEN,SIM,RECOBEFMIX,DIGI:pdigi_valid,L1,DIGI2RAW,L1Reco,RECO,EI,VALIDATION --customise=HLTrigger/Configuration/CustomConfigs.L1THLT --datatier GEN-SIM-DIGI-RECO,DQMIO --beamspot Realistic8TeVCollision : FAILED - time: date Sat Dec 8 01:20:31 2018-date Sat Dec 8 01:19:40 2018 s - exit: 21248
cmsDriver.py RelVal -s HLT:Fake2,RAW2DIGI,L1Reco,RECO --data --scenario=pp -n 10 --conditions auto:run2_data_Fake2 --relval 9000,50 --datatier "RAW-HLT-RECO" --eventcontent FEVTDEBUGHLT --customise=HLTrigger/Configuration/CustomConfigs.L1THLT --era Run2_2016 --processName=HLTRECO --filein file:RelVal_Raw_Fake2_DATA.root --fileout file:RelVal_Raw_Fake2_DATA_HLT_RECO.root : FAILED - time: date Sat Dec 8 01:22:06 2018-date Sat Dec 8 01:19:46 2018 s - exit: 21248
cmsDriver.py RelVal -s HLT:PRef,RAW2DIGI,L1Reco,RECO --data --scenario=pp -n 10 --conditions auto:run2_data_PRef --relval 9000,50 --datatier "RAW-HLT-RECO" --eventcontent FEVTDEBUGHLT --customise=HLTrigger/Configuration/CustomConfigs.L1THLT --era Run2_2018 --processName=HLTRECO --filein file:RelVal_Raw_PRef_DATA.root --fileout file:RelVal_Raw_PRef_DATA_HLT_RECO.root : FAILED - time: date Sat Dec 8 01:23:38 2018-date Sat Dec 8 01:19:48 2018 s - exit: 21248
cmsDriver.py RelVal -s HLT:HIon,RAW2DIGI,L1Reco,RECO --data --scenario=pp -n 10 --conditions auto:run2_data_HIon --relval 9000,50 --datatier "RAW-HLT-RECO" --eventcontent FEVTDEBUGHLT --customise=HLTrigger/Configuration/CustomConfigs.L1THLT --era Run2_2018_pp_on_AA --processName=HLTRECO --filein file:RelVal_Raw_HIon_DATA.root --fileout file:RelVal_Raw_HIon_DATA_HLT_RECO.root : FAILED - time: date Sat Dec 8 01:25:21 2018-date Sat Dec 8 01:19:49 2018 s - exit: 21248
cmsDriver.py RelVal -s HLT:GRun,RAW2DIGI,L1Reco,RECO --mc --scenario=pp -n 10 --conditions auto:run2_mc_GRun --relval 9000,50 --datatier "RAW-HLT-RECO" --eventcontent FEVTDEBUGHLT --customise=HLTrigger/Configuration/CustomConfigs.L1THLT --era Run2_2018 --processName=HLTRECO --filein file:RelVal_Raw_GRun_MC.root --fileout file:RelVal_Raw_GRun_MC_HLT_RECO.root : FAILED - time: date Sat Dec 8 01:29:57 2018-date Sat Dec 8 01:19:54 2018 s - exit: 21248
cmsDriver.py TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_cfi --conditions auto:run2_mc_l1stage1 --fast -n 100 --eventcontent AODSIM,DQM --relval 100000,1000 -s GEN,SIM,RECOBEFMIX,DIGI:pdigi_valid,L1,DIGI2RAW,L1Reco,RECO,EI,VALIDATION --customise=HLTrigger/Configuration/CustomConfigs.L1THLT --datatier GEN-SIM-DIGI-RECO,DQMIO --beamspot NominalCollision2015 --era Run2_25ns : FAILED - time: date Sat Dec 8 01:20:46 2018-date Sat Dec 8 01:19:56 2018 s - exit: 21248
cmsDriver.py RelVal -s HLT:PRef,RAW2DIGI,L1Reco,RECO --mc --scenario=pp -n 10 --conditions auto:run2_mc_PRef --relval 9000,50 --datatier "RAW-HLT-RECO" --eventcontent FEVTDEBUGHLT --customise=HLTrigger/Configuration/CustomConfigs.L1THLT --era Run2_2018 --processName=HLTRECO --filein file:RelVal_Raw_PRef_MC.root --fileout file:RelVal_Raw_PRef_MC_HLT_RECO.root : FAILED - time: date Sat Dec 8 01:27:31 2018-date Sat Dec 8 01:19:58 2018 s - exit: 21248
cmsDriver.py TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_cfi --conditions auto:run2_mc --fast -n 100 --eventcontent AODSIM,DQM --relval 100000,1000 -s GEN,SIM,RECOBEFMIX,DIGI:pdigi_valid,L1,DIGI2RAW,L1Reco,RECO,EI,VALIDATION --customise=HLTrigger/Configuration/CustomConfigs.L1THLT --datatier GEN-SIM-DIGI-RECO,DQMIO --beamspot NominalCollision2015 --era Run2_2016 : FAILED - time: date Sat Dec 8 01:22:13 2018-date Sat Dec 8 01:20:32 2018 s - exit: 21248
cmsDriver.py RelVal -s HLT:PIon,RAW2DIGI,L1Reco,RECO --data --scenario=pp -n 10 --conditions auto:run2_data_PIon --relval 9000,50 --datatier "RAW-HLT-RECO" --eventcontent FEVTDEBUGHLT --customise=HLTrigger/Configuration/CustomConfigs.L1THLT --era Run2_2018 --processName=HLTRECO --filein file:RelVal_Raw_PIon_DATA.root --fileout file:RelVal_Raw_PIon_DATA_HLT_RECO.root : FAILED - time: date Sat Dec 8 01:24:25 2018-date Sat Dec 8 01:20:35 2018 s - exit: 21248
cmsDriver.py RelVal -s HLT:Fake,RAW2DIGI,L1Reco,RECO --mc --scenario=pp -n 10 --conditions auto:run1_mc_Fake --relval 9000,50 --datatier "RAW-HLT-RECO" --eventcontent FEVTDEBUGHLT --customise=HLTrigger/Configuration/CustomConfigs.L1THLT --processName=HLTRECO --filein file:RelVal_Raw_Fake_MC.root --fileout file:RelVal_Raw_Fake_MC_HLT_RECO.root : FAILED - time: date Sat Dec 8 01:27:29 2018-date Sat Dec 8 01:20:48 2018 s - exit: 21248
cmsDriver.py RelVal -s HLT:HIon,RAW2DIGI,L1Reco,RECO --mc --scenario=pp -n 10 --conditions auto:run2_mc_HIon --relval 9000,50 --datatier "RAW-HLT-RECO" --eventcontent FEVTDEBUGHLT --customise=HLTrigger/Configuration/CustomConfigs.L1THLT --era Run2_2018_pp_on_AA --processName=HLTRECO --filein file:RelVal_Raw_HIon_MC.root --fileout file:RelVal_Raw_HIon_MC_HLT_RECO.root : FAILED - time: date Sat Dec 8 01:30:15 2018-date Sat Dec 8 01:22:13 2018 s - exit: 21248
cmsDriver.py RelVal -s HLT:Fake2,RAW2DIGI,L1Reco,RECO --mc --scenario=pp -n 10 --conditions auto:run2_mc_Fake2 --relval 9000,50 --datatier "RAW-HLT-RECO" --eventcontent FEVTDEBUGHLT --customise=HLTrigger/Configuration/CustomConfigs.L1THLT --era Run2_2016 --processName=HLTRECO --filein file:RelVal_Raw_Fake2_MC.root --fileout file:RelVal_Raw_Fake2_MC_HLT_RECO.root : FAILED - time: date Sat Dec 8 01:28:06 2018-date Sat Dec 8 01:22:17 2018 s - exit: 21248
cmsDriver.py RelVal -s HLT:Fake1,RAW2DIGI,L1Reco,RECO --mc --scenario=pp -n 10 --conditions auto:run2_mc_Fake1 --relval 9000,50 --datatier "RAW-HLT-RECO" --eventcontent FEVTDEBUGHLT --customise=HLTrigger/Configuration/CustomConfigs.L1THLT --era Run2_25ns --processName=HLTRECO --filein file:RelVal_Raw_Fake1_MC.root --fileout file:RelVal_Raw_Fake1_MC_HLT_RECO.root : FAILED - time: date Sat Dec 8 01:28:53 2018-date Sat Dec 8 01:23:38 2018 s - exit: 21248
cmsDriver.py RelVal -s HLT:Fake,RAW2DIGI,L1Reco,RECO --data --scenario=pp -n 10 --conditions auto:run1_data_Fake --relval 9000,50 --datatier "RAW-HLT-RECO" --eventcontent FEVTDEBUGHLT --customise=HLTrigger/Configuration/CustomConfigs.L1THLT --processName=HLTRECO --filein file:RelVal_Raw_Fake_DATA.root --fileout file:RelVal_Raw_Fake_DATA_HLT_RECO.root : FAILED - time: date Sat Dec 8 01:27:32 2018-date Sat Dec 8 01:24:54 2018 s - exit: 21248
cmsDriver.py RelVal -s HLT:GRun,RAW2DIGI,L1Reco,RECO --data --scenario=pp -n 10 --conditions auto:run2_data_GRun --relval 9000,50 --datatier "RAW-HLT-RECO" --eventcontent FEVTDEBUGHLT --customise=HLTrigger/Configuration/CustomConfigs.L1THLT --era Run2_2018 --processName=HLTRECO --filein file:RelVal_Raw_GRun_DATA.root --fileout file:RelVal_Raw_GRun_DATA_HLT_RECO.root : FAILED - time: date Sat Dec 8 01:31:49 2018-date Sat Dec 8 01:25:25 2018 s - exit: 21248
cmsDriver.py RelVal -s HLT:Fake1,RAW2DIGI,L1Reco,RECO --data --scenario=pp -n 10 --conditions auto:run2_data_Fake1 --relval 9000,50 --datatier "RAW-HLT-RECO" --eventcontent FEVTDEBUGHLT --customise=HLTrigger/Configuration/CustomConfigs.L1THLT --era Run2_25ns --processName=HLTRECO --filein file:RelVal_Raw_Fake1_DATA.root --fileout file:RelVal_Raw_Fake1_DATA_HLT_RECO.root : FAILED - time: date Sat Dec 8 01:29:11 2018-date Sat Dec 8 01:27:38 2018 s - exit: 21248
cmsDriver.py RelVal -s HLT:PIon,RAW2DIGI,L1Reco,RECO --mc --scenario=pp -n 10 --conditions auto:run2_mc_PIon --relval 9000,50 --datatier "RAW-HLT-RECO" --eventcontent FEVTDEBUGHLT --customise=HLTrigger/Configuration/CustomConfigs.L1THLT --era Run2_2018 --processName=HLTRECO --filein file:RelVal_Raw_PIon_MC.root --fileout file:RelVal_Raw_PIon_MC_HLT_RECO.root : FAILED - time: date Sat Dec 8 01:31:48 2018-date Sat Dec 8 01:27:42 2018 s - exit: 21248

cmsbuild · 2018-12-08T00:37:17Z

Comparison not run due to runTheMatrix errors (RelVals and Igprof tests were also skipped)

bainbrid · 2018-12-10T13:08:19Z

Dear @slava77, I see that some of the "Matrix" and "AddOn" tests failed. By inspecting a few random log files, it seems to be related to the missing external"

Exception Message:
edm::FileInPath unable to find file RecoEgamma/ElectronIdentification/data/LowPtElectrons/2018Nov01_improvedfullseeding_formatted.xml.gz anywhere in the search path.

Persumably I should ignore these for now?

slava77 · 2018-12-10T13:42:22Z

Dear @slava77, I see that some of the "Matrix" and "AddOn" tests failed. By inspecting a few random log files, it seems to be related to the missing external"
Exception Message:
edm::FileInPath unable to find file RecoEgamma/ElectronIdentification/data/LowPtElectrons/2018Nov01_improvedfullseeding_formatted.xml.gz anywhere in the search path.
Persumably I should ignore these for now?

right, the run time failures were expected in this pass.
It's nice to see that the headers checks and the code static analysis returned no issues.

mrodozov · 2018-12-10T15:02:13Z

please test with cms-sw/cmsdist#4569

bainbrid · 2019-01-15T12:34:34Z

Hi @perrotta @slava77 @fabiocos,

First, I'm testing the timing requirements as requested by @perrotta - results to come.

Second, here what I did for a rebase test. (I'm not a git expert but I think the following is sensible):

cmsrel CMSSW_10_5_X_2019-01-14-2300
cd CMSSW_10_5_X_2019-01-14-2300/src
cmsenv
git cms-init
git remote add bainbrid git@github.com:bainbrid/cmssw.git
git cms-merge-topic bainbrid:LowPtElectrons_10X
cd $CMSSW_BASE/src
git checkout CMSSW_10_5_X_2019-01-14-2300 # puts me in detached HEAD state
git checkout -b CMSSW_10_5_X_2019-01-14-2300
git checkout bainbrid/LowPtElectrons_10X
git rebase --onto CMSSW_10_5_X_2019-01-14-2300 d74dd1812ca HEAD 
git checkout -b LowPtElectrons_10X_rebased

The following command yields no differences (i.e. empty output to stdout):

git diff --name-only from-CMSSW_10_5_X_2019-01-14-2300 LowPtElectrons_10X_rebased

And this command:

git diff --name-only CMSSW_10_5_X_2019-01-14-2300 LowPtElectrons_10X_rebased

yields the following (expected) differences:

Configuration/Eras/python/Modifier_bParking_cff.py
Configuration/StandardSequences/python/Eras.py
Configuration/StandardSequences/python/Reconstruction_cff.py
FastSimulation/Tracking/plugins/ElectronSeedTrackRefFix.cc
FastSimulation/Tracking/plugins/ElectronSeedTrackRefFix.h
FastSimulation/Tracking/python/ElectronSeedTrackRefFix_cfi.py
RecoEgamma/Configuration/python/RecoEgamma_EventContent_cff.py
RecoEgamma/EgammaElectronProducers/BuildFile.xml
RecoEgamma/EgammaElectronProducers/interface/LowPtGsfElectronSeedHeavyObjectCache.h
RecoEgamma/EgammaElectronProducers/plugins/BuildFile.xml
RecoEgamma/EgammaElectronProducers/plugins/LowPtGsfElectronSeedProducer.cc
RecoEgamma/EgammaElectronProducers/plugins/LowPtGsfElectronSeedProducer.h
RecoEgamma/EgammaElectronProducers/plugins/SealModule.cc
RecoEgamma/EgammaElectronProducers/python/lowPtGsfElectronSeeds_cfi.py
RecoEgamma/EgammaElectronProducers/python/lowPtGsfElectronSequence_cff.py
RecoEgamma/EgammaElectronProducers/src/LowPtGsfElectronSeedHeavyObjectCache.cc
RecoParticleFlow/PFTracking/python/trackerDrivenElectronSeeds_cfi.py

If you are happy with this, how do I proceed? Do I force push to the bainbrid:cmssw/LowPtElectrons_10X branch?

Also, how will this affect the other PRs (from @gkaratha and @nancymarinelli) that depend on this branch?

Finally, should I also rebase onto CMSSW_10_2_X for the required back port to CMSSW_10_2? If so, then do I open up a new PR with a LowPtElectrons_102X branch?

perrotta · 2019-01-15T13:02:36Z

bainbrid <notifications@github.com> ha scritto:

If you are happy with this, how do I proceed? Do I force push to the ```bainbrid:cmssw/LowPtElectrons_10X``` branch?

As I said, I would avoid the extra complication of rebasing if not needed. But I let @fabiocos answer here

Also, how will this affect the other PRs (from @gkaratha and @nancymarinelli) that depend on this branch?

Those two PRs do not depend on your own, besides the fact that they both need to be run together. Thusm no effect is expected on them

Finally, should I also rebase onto CMSSW_10_2_X for the required back port to CMSSW_10_2? If so, then do I open up a new PR with a ```LowPtElectrons_102X``` branch?

You will open a new PR for 10_2, in a different branch.

…

-- You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #25455 (comment)

fabiocos · 2019-01-15T15:27:50Z

@bainbrid we have a cms-rebase-topic command documented in https://cms-sw.github.io/tutorial-resolve-conflicts.html with some options to make life simpler knowing the old base. But as I said it is not a must, if @perrotta is concerned about possible drawbacks let's move forward as it is

bainbrid · 2019-01-15T16:13:54Z

I'm attempting to rebase onto 10_2_X.
Here are the commands I've used:

cmsrel CMSSW_10_2_X_2019-01-15-1100
cd CMSSW_10_2_X_2019-01-15-1100/src
cmsenv
git cms-init
git remote add bainbrid git@github.com:bainbrid/cmssw.git
git cms-rebase-topic bainbrid:LowPtElectrons_10X

and I see this output:

First, rewinding head to replay your work on top of it...
Generating patches: 100% (2375/2375), done.
Applying: Added new classe HGCalTriggerSums
Applying: Added new classe HGCalTriggerSums
Using index info to reconstruct a base tree...
M	DataFormats/L1THGCal/src/classes.h
M	DataFormats/L1THGCal/src/classes_def.xml
.git/rebase-apply/patch:59: trailing whitespace.

warning: 1 line adds whitespace errors.
Falling back to patching base and 3-way merge...
Auto-merging DataFormats/L1THGCal/src/classes_def.xml
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in DataFormats/L1THGCal/src/classes_def.xml
Auto-merging DataFormats/L1THGCal/src/classes.h
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in DataFormats/L1THGCal/src/classes.h
error: Failed to merge in the changes.
Patch failed at 0002 Added new classe HGCalTriggerSums
Use 'git am --show-current-patch' to see the failed patch

Resolve all conflicts manually, mark them as resolved with
"git add/rm <conflicted_files>", then run "git rebase --continue".
You can instead skip this commit: run "git rebase --skip".
To abort and get back to the state before "git rebase", run "git rebase --abort".

My changes do not touch anything in DataFormats, so why do I see this message and how should I react?

bainbrid · 2019-01-16T09:10:36Z

Hi @perrotta here are the latest timings from me, which appear to be consistent with your values.

Tight WP, pT > 1 GeV:         Bainbridge        Perrotta
lowPtGsfElectronSeeds         (300.86) +3.68%   (266.42) +3.19%
lowPtGsfEleGsfTracks          ( 84.73) +1.04%   ( 77.35) +0.93%
lowPtGsfEleCkfTrackCandidates ( 11.32) +0.14%   ( 10.51) +0.13%
lowPtGsfElePfTracks           (  6.51) +0.08%   (  6.16) +0.07%
TOTAL                                  +4.93%            +4.32%

@slava77 @perrotta @fabiocos I have rebased the LowPtElectrons_10X branch onto 10_5_X here and 10_2_X here. The latter will be the basis of a new PR. Please can you instruct me on how to proceed?

perrotta · 2019-01-16T09:55:11Z

Thank you @bainbrid !

The two rebased branches looks correct: you can submit PRs with them.

About your timing results, could you please tell us what has changed since your previous ones?

Did you use the very same test setup but a different number of events (10 vs 100)?
Did you use a different setup when you run those tests previously? And if so, which setup was used for the validation results (efficiencies, etc.) that you presented last week at the reco meeting?

bainbrid · 2019-01-16T11:10:16Z

@perrotta

Do I make the 102X PR to cms-sw/master or cms-sw/CMSSW_10_2_X?

I've already made the 105X PR to cms-sw/master. I hope this is correct?

perrotta · 2019-01-16T11:15:28Z

bainbrid <notifications@github.com> ha scritto:

@perrotta Do I make the 102X PR to cms-sw/master or cms-sw/CMSSW_10_2_X?

CMSSW_10_2_X

…

I've already made the 105X PR to cms-sw/master. I hope this is correct? -- You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #25455 (comment)

perrotta · 2019-01-17T06:53:38Z

@bainbrid please answer the question in #25455 (comment), i.e.:

"About your timing results, could you please tell us what has changed since your previous ones?

Did you use the very same test setup but a different number of events (10 vs 100)?
Did you use a different setup when you run those tests previously? And if so, which setup was used for the validation results (efficiencies, etc.) that you presented last week at the reco meeting?"

This PR shouldn't be delayed any further if we want it and its descendents in 10_5_0_pre1

bainbrid · 2019-01-17T08:39:32Z

Hi @perrotta,

The efficiency studies presented here in a RECO/AT were performed prior to, and independently of, the timing studies. These studies defined the WPs that have been subsequently used for e.g. the timing studies. The acceptance studies presented here depend solely on the pT threshold.

Concerning my old set of timing studies, they were performed with 100 events, but the _cfg is certainly different from the one I used yesterday to determine the latest set of timings. Perhaps I screwed up something with the old set, but it's not easy for me to say exactly what. What I can say is that the most recent set were based on a fresh working area and our numbers now agree. I have no reason to believe that there is any inconsistency between the efficiencies and timing studies.

Finally, I note that the BDT models in cms-data will be replaced soon with new models trained on 10_2 MC samples. We expect the efficiencies to change, while the timing will remain the ~same. We can repeat these checks if necessary, but we hope this doesn't prevent/delay integration into the release.

perrotta · 2019-01-17T11:25:36Z

Thank you @bainbrid

My concern was, of course, that physics performance studies were performed on a different setup and working point that the one that will be merged in the release.

My suggestion is to merge this PR as it is now, but to eventually redo the physics performance studies with exactly what is in this PR, just to verify that nothing got screwed. The arrival of the new BDT models could be an appropriate time for making those further studies in a rather similar model.

Moreover, it could be interesting to dig for the difference in the configuration that you used for your timing studies: if the timing improvement was due to some optimization not costly for the physics performance it may be worth checking whether it can be implemented. Also this can happen after the integration of this PR in the release.

perrotta · 2019-01-17T11:41:54Z

(removed the "+1" while waiting verification of the usage of reducedEcalRecHits)

New gsf electrons, with higher efficiency expected at low pt, are defined here to be used in the reco-ing of the parked b dataset
The extra product will be just added to the Event, but it will not be used to build any further higher level object (e.g PF) for the moment
The lose working point to be used for the parked dataset implies a rather heavy usage of cpu (it amounts to ~12.4% time of the overall reco + miniAOD time). For the normal workflows a tighter working point was defined, whose cpu usage corresponds to ~4.3% of the total reco + miniAOD processing time: the efficiency for low pt photons get reduced by some 25% with respect to the looser working point, though.
The tests show that only the new objects are added in output, while nothing else show differences in reco or miniAOD: jenkins tests report about 12 differences in the reco comparisons from the Phase2 workflows, and they all correspond to the additional warning messages issued by the PFTrackProducer:lowPtGsfElePfTracks module in step3 on top of the same warnings coming from the already existing PFTrackProducer:pfTrack and PFTrackProducer:uncleanedOnlyPfTrack, already present also in the baseline.

perrotta · 2019-01-19T20:55:16Z

I removed the "+1" while waiting verification of the usage of reducedEcalRecHits instead of full ecalRecHits.
Since there is a rebased version of this PR available, #25679, I suggest to close this one and continue the discussion on the other one: @bainbrid

perrotta · 2019-01-20T13:22:37Z

-1
(replaced by #25679)

fabiocos · 2019-01-21T08:56:54Z

@bainbrid @perrotta @slava77 while this PR will stay as documentation of the review, as it is effectively superseded by #25679 I suggest to close it to avoid useless duplications

fabiocos · 2019-01-24T09:11:42Z

@bainbrid as #25679 has been merged, I would say that this PR may just be closed and kept for reference of the review

bainbrid · 2019-01-24T11:17:47Z

For the record, at the end of this thread:

This PR is superseded by Low pT electrons (up to GsfTracks) for 10_5_X #25679 (now merged)
The backport of this PR to 10_2_X is Low pT electrons (up to GsfTracks) for 10_2_X #25680

cmsbuild added this to the CMSSW_10_4_X milestone Dec 7, 2018

cmsbuild added code-checks-pending comparison-pending operations-pending orp-pending pending-signatures reconstruction-pending tests-pending labels Dec 7, 2018

cmsbuild added code-checks-approved and removed code-checks-pending labels Dec 7, 2018

cmsbuild added tests-started and removed tests-pending labels Dec 7, 2018

makortel reviewed Dec 7, 2018

View reviewed changes

cmsbuild added comparison-notrun tests-rejected and removed comparison-pending tests-started labels Dec 8, 2018

slava77 mentioned this pull request Dec 10, 2018

BDT models for low pT electron seeds cms-data/RecoEgamma-ElectronIdentification#11

Merged

cmsbuild removed comparison-notrun tests-rejected labels Dec 10, 2018

bainbrid mentioned this pull request Jan 16, 2019

Low pT electrons (up to GsfTracks) for 10_5_X #25679

Merged

bainbrid mentioned this pull request Jan 16, 2019

Low pT electrons (up to GsfTracks) for 10_2_X #25680

Merged

cmsbuild added reconstruction-approved and removed reconstruction-pending labels Jan 17, 2019

bainbrid mentioned this pull request Jan 17, 2019

Complete low pT electron chain #25696

Closed

cmsbuild added reconstruction-pending and removed reconstruction-approved labels Jan 19, 2019

cmsbuild added reconstruction-rejected and removed reconstruction-pending labels Jan 20, 2019

bainbrid mentioned this pull request Jan 24, 2019

Complete low pT electron chain (2) #25753

Merged

bainbrid closed this Jan 24, 2019

fabiocos mentioned this pull request Feb 21, 2019

Features for low pt electrons in B parking processing #25991

Closed

6 tasks

bainbrid deleted the LowPtElectrons_10X branch August 6, 2019 12:20

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Low pT electrons (up to GsfTracks) #25455

Low pT electrons (up to GsfTracks) #25455

bainbrid commented Dec 7, 2018

cmsbuild commented Dec 7, 2018

cmsbuild commented Dec 7, 2018

cmsbuild commented Dec 7, 2018

slava77 commented Dec 7, 2018

cmsbuild commented Dec 7, 2018 •

edited

Loading

makortel Dec 7, 2018

bainbrid Dec 10, 2018 •

edited

Loading

makortel Dec 7, 2018

bainbrid Dec 10, 2018 •

edited

Loading

makortel Dec 7, 2018

bainbrid Dec 10, 2018

cmsbuild commented Dec 8, 2018

cmsbuild commented Dec 8, 2018

bainbrid commented Dec 10, 2018

slava77 commented Dec 10, 2018

mrodozov commented Dec 10, 2018

bainbrid commented Jan 15, 2019

perrotta commented Jan 15, 2019 via email

fabiocos commented Jan 15, 2019

bainbrid commented Jan 15, 2019

bainbrid commented Jan 16, 2019

perrotta commented Jan 16, 2019

bainbrid commented Jan 16, 2019

perrotta commented Jan 16, 2019 via email

perrotta commented Jan 17, 2019

bainbrid commented Jan 17, 2019

perrotta commented Jan 17, 2019

perrotta commented Jan 17, 2019 •

edited

Loading

perrotta commented Jan 19, 2019

perrotta commented Jan 20, 2019

fabiocos commented Jan 21, 2019

fabiocos commented Jan 24, 2019

bainbrid commented Jan 24, 2019


		void produce( edm::Event&, const edm::EventSetup& ) override;

		static void fillDescription( edm::ParameterSetDescription& );

	static void fillDescription( edm::ParameterSetDescription& );
	static void fillDescriptions( edm::ConfigurationDescriptions& );

Low pT electrons (up to GsfTracks) #25455

Low pT electrons (up to GsfTracks) #25455

Conversation

bainbrid commented Dec 7, 2018

cmsbuild commented Dec 7, 2018

cmsbuild commented Dec 7, 2018

cmsbuild commented Dec 7, 2018

slava77 commented Dec 7, 2018

cmsbuild commented Dec 7, 2018 • edited Loading

makortel Dec 7, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bainbrid Dec 10, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

makortel Dec 7, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bainbrid Dec 10, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

makortel Dec 7, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bainbrid Dec 10, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

cmsbuild commented Dec 8, 2018

cmsbuild commented Dec 8, 2018

bainbrid commented Dec 10, 2018

slava77 commented Dec 10, 2018

mrodozov commented Dec 10, 2018

bainbrid commented Jan 15, 2019

perrotta commented Jan 15, 2019 via email

fabiocos commented Jan 15, 2019

bainbrid commented Jan 15, 2019

bainbrid commented Jan 16, 2019

perrotta commented Jan 16, 2019

bainbrid commented Jan 16, 2019

perrotta commented Jan 16, 2019 via email

perrotta commented Jan 17, 2019

bainbrid commented Jan 17, 2019

perrotta commented Jan 17, 2019

perrotta commented Jan 17, 2019 • edited Loading

perrotta commented Jan 19, 2019

perrotta commented Jan 20, 2019

fabiocos commented Jan 21, 2019

fabiocos commented Jan 24, 2019

bainbrid commented Jan 24, 2019

cmsbuild commented Dec 7, 2018 •

edited

Loading

bainbrid Dec 10, 2018 •

edited

Loading

bainbrid Dec 10, 2018 •

edited

Loading

perrotta commented Jan 17, 2019 •

edited

Loading