Skip to content

Conversation

@slava77
Copy link

@slava77 slava77 commented Dec 17, 2025

it looks like the window used in zPointed cut should not be scaled by dr/length(pLS)

it looks like the window used in zPointed cut should not be scaled by dr/length(pLS)
@slava77
Copy link
Author

slava77 commented Dec 17, 2025

/run gpu-all

@slava77
Copy link
Author

slava77 commented Dec 17, 2025

the history of the cut goes back to
slava77/cms-tkph2-ntuple@18a66fa
and that in part on the distance term in the multiple scattering added in slava77/cms-tkph2-ntuple@24891bd which should not be coupled with scaling of dzErr by drOutIn/dSDIn .
Things kind of work when the ratio is close to 1, but definitely fails when pLS ends in the OT on the same layer as the pointed to LS.

@github-actions
Copy link

The PR was built and ran successfully with CMSSW on GPU. Here are some plots.

OOTB All Tracks
Efficiency and fake rate vs pT, eta, and phi

The full set of validation and comparison plots can be found here.

@github-actions
Copy link

The PR was built and ran successfully in standalone mode on GPU. Here are some of the comparison plots.

Efficiency vs pT comparison Efficiency vs eta comparison
Fake rate vs pT comparison Fake rate vs eta comparison
Duplicate rate vs pT comparison Duplicate rate vs eta comparison

The full set of validation and comparison plots can be found here.

Here is a timing comparison:

   Evt    Hits       MD       LS      T3       T5       pLS       pT5      pT3      TC       Reset    Event     Short             Rate
[target branch]
   avg     35.2      0.4      0.4      0.5      0.9      0.3      0.6      0.7      0.4      1.4      0.0      40.9       5.4+/-  2.6      40.9   explicit[s=1]
   avg      1.7      0.7      0.6      0.7      1.1      0.3      0.9      0.9      0.5      1.9      0.0       9.4       7.4+/-  3.9       4.8   explicit[s=2]
   avg      2.2      1.0      1.2      1.6      2.0      0.6      1.7      1.9      0.8      3.6      0.0      16.7      13.9+/-  4.3       4.3   explicit[s=4]
   avg      2.8      1.3      1.4      1.7      2.2      0.6      1.9      1.9      0.9      3.8      0.0      18.7      15.2+/-  4.6       3.3   explicit[s=6]
   avg      3.9      1.8      2.0      2.6      2.8      0.7      2.5      2.6      1.1      4.8      0.0      25.0      20.3+/-  5.2       3.2   explicit[s=8]
[this PR]
   avg     34.8      0.4      0.4      0.5      0.8      0.3      0.6      0.6      0.3      1.4      0.0      40.3       5.2+/-  2.5      40.3   explicit[s=1]
   avg      1.2      0.6      0.6      0.7      1.1      0.3      0.9      0.9      0.4      1.9      0.0       8.5       7.0+/-  2.9       4.4   explicit[s=2]
   avg      1.9      0.8      0.9      1.2      1.6      0.4      1.4      1.5      0.6      2.8      0.0      13.3      10.9+/-  3.6       3.4   explicit[s=4]
   avg      3.2      1.3      1.5      1.7      2.1      0.5      1.9      1.9      0.8      3.8      0.0      18.8      15.1+/-  4.4       3.3   explicit[s=6]
   avg      4.0      1.8      2.0      2.5      2.9      0.7      2.6      2.6      1.3      4.9      0.0      25.3      20.5+/-  5.5       3.2   explicit[s=8]

@slava77
Copy link
Author

slava77 commented Dec 17, 2025

the change looks safe enough: there are almost no differences in the eff category plots
image
vs this PR:
image

and dup+fr
image
vs this PR:
image

So, I will include this in #213

@slava77
Copy link
Author

slava77 commented Dec 17, 2025

@ariostas
the linter job had this in the status:
image

is it some accidental job scheduling issue the CI side and it just needs a restart or is there some issue with the CI setup?

@ariostas
Copy link
Member

is it some accidental job scheduling issue the CI side and it just needs a restart or is there some issue with the CI setup?

Hmm I'll take a look

@ariostas
Copy link
Member

Oh yeah, there was a missing piece in the concurrency group. It's fixed now.
/run checks

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants