-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
make CPEFast to better reproduce Generic (w/o track angle) #521
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
Conversation
|
🚧 Validation running at fu-c2a02-35-02:/data/user/adiflori/patatrack-validation/run_521.Rpf85WLoVJ ... |
| trackQualityCuts.add<double>("chi2Scale", 25.) | ||
| ->setComment( | ||
| "Factor to multiply the pT-dependent chi2 cut (currently: 30 for the broken line fit, 45 for the Riemann " | ||
| "Factor to multiply the pT-dependent chi2 cut (currently: 16 for the broken line fit, ?? for the Riemann " |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
why the comment says 16 while the default is set to 25. ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
- because I forgot to change it.
- after inspection of MTV we may decide that 16 is better than 25.
| float sx[3], sy[3]; // the errors... | ||
| // float apeX, apexY; // ape^2 | ||
| uint8_t sx2, sy1, sy2; | ||
| uint8_t sigmax[16], sigmax1[16], sigmay[16]; // in micron |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
what is 16 here ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
the number of "bins"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is it obvious to people familiar with the CPE why 16 ?
I clearly have no idea :-)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Absolutely not. It is just my decision to use 16 bins. I use GenError as a black box.
Validation summaryReference release CMSSW_11_1_0 at b7ad279 Validation plots/RelValTTbar_14TeV/CMSSW_11_1_0_pre8-PU_111X_mcRun3_2021_realistic_v4-v1/GEN-SIM-DIGI-RAW
/RelValZMM_14/CMSSW_11_1_0_pre8-111X_mcRun3_2021_realistic_v4-v1/GEN-SIM-DIGI-RAW
/RelValZEE_14/CMSSW_11_1_0_pre8-111X_mcRun3_2021_realistic_v4-v1/GEN-SIM-DIGI-RAW
Throughput plots/EphemeralHLTPhysics1/Run2018D-v1/RAW run=323775 lumi=53logs and
|
|
the small increase in the global fake rate is expected due to the simpler chi2 cut.
The chi2 is reduced and the tails of the pulls are better (comparison is orange vs black). statistics is low. The fact that average chi2 is dominated by "tails" does surprise me as well. And those tails seem to be dominated by deltarays (large charge) and "wrong" error for single pixels (the latter not fixed, maybe not even ok in original GenError). |
|
sorry, but all wf are 11634 ? |
|
11634 is used to generate the workflows, but in fact we run only step3 and step4 over different samples |
|
@VinInn could you rebase this PR on top of CMSSW_11_2_X_Patatrack, and change the target branch accordingly ? |
|
will do. still I prefer to keep a working version on 11_1 |
|
try to merge with 11_2 got |
|
Indeed... that's because the history of the two branches has diverged right before Rather than merging into git checkout CMSSW_11_2_X_Patatrack
git cherry-pick 2ac98ff d9c676b 1d574c7 55f87f8or, to work with the nightly: git checkout master
git cherry-pick 2ac98ff d9c676b 1d574c7 55f87f8 |
|
superseded by #528 |




This PR improves the error estimation in CPEFast used on GPU providing a simple and fast parameterization in terms of charge, position in x and size in y.
The result is very close to what CPEGeneric provides w/o track-angle (actually a bit more accurate thanks to the estimation of the y-error using the cluster size in y (itself improved with information from the charge unbalance).
The main effect is a reduction and flattening of the chi2 and a reduction of the tails of the pulls.
Given this improvements I have (for the the being) simplified the cut in chi2 to a single value.
As side effect there is a small improvement in efficiency at least for single muon.
Single muon (2018 ideal): quadruplets-only and quadruplets+triplets
http://innocent.home.cern.ch/innocent/RelVal/SingleMuFlatIdeal_gpuNewErr25/plots_pixel_Pt09_pixel/effandfakePtEtaPhi.pdf
http://innocent.home.cern.ch/innocent/RelVal/SingleMuFlatIdeal_gpuNewErr25/plots_pixel_Pt09_pixel/tuning.pdf
http://innocent.home.cern.ch/innocent/RelVal/SingleMuFlatIdeal_gpuNewErr25/plots_pixel_Pt09_pixel/pulls.pdf
http://innocent.home.cern.ch/innocent/RelVal/SingleMuFlatIdeal_gpuNewErr25/plots_pixel_Pt09_pixel/resolutionsPt.pdf
ttBar PU50 2021 "realistic" (ape=3um!) (here with chi2 cut at 25 and 16)
http://innocent.home.cern.ch/innocent/RelVal/pixOnly2021_gpuNewErr25I/plots_pixel_Pt09_pixel/effandfakePtEtaPhi.pdf
http://innocent.home.cern.ch/innocent/RelVal/pixOnly2021_gpuNewErr25I/plots_pixelFromPVAllTP_pixel/effandfakePtEtaPhi.pdf
http://innocent.home.cern.ch/innocent/RelVal/pixOnly2021_gpuNewErr25I/plots_pixel_Pt09_pixel/tuning.pdf
http://innocent.home.cern.ch/innocent/RelVal/pixOnly2021_gpuNewErr25I/plots_pixel_Pt09_pixel/pulls.pdf
http://innocent.home.cern.ch/innocent/RelVal/pixOnly2021_gpuNewErr25I/plots_pixel_Pt09_pixel/resolutionsPt.pdf
p.s.
I take the opportunity to apologize with the authors and implementors of the fits: clearly the shape of chi2 and pulls seems to depend more on cluster properties and not on the fit itself (as I wrongly assumed for a year or so)