cms-sw
Update HLT MultiTrackValidator
PR description:
As discussed in TSG and Tracking POG meetings, as of today the HLT MTV (multi-track validation) applies different selection wrt. offline. This has historical (?) motivations, not necessarily meaningful. Hence, this PR is:
- using selections in line with offline (min pT is kept at 0.4 GeV);
- introducing the possibility to monitor all HLT track collections before quality selections are applied, by storing the relevant collections in appropriate data tiers. A backport to 150X will follow.
Related to https://its.cern.ch/jira/browse/CMSHLT-3574
PR validation:
E.g., http://uaf-10.t2.ucsd.edu/~mmasciov/TRKPOG/HLT2025/mkFitDoubletRecovery/HLT_2025_TTbarPU_mkFitDR_updatedMTV/plots_hlt.html
Observed differences in the HLT MTV are expected and due to different selections.
FYI @cms-sw/tracking-pog-l2, @mmusich
+code-checks
Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-48361/45245
A new Pull Request was created by @mmasciov for master.
It involves the following packages:
- DQMOffline/Trigger (dqm)
- HLTrigger/Configuration (hlt)
- Validation/RecoTrack (dqm)
@antoniovagnerini, @cmsbuild, @ctarricone, @rseidita can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. @Fedespring, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @HuguesBrun, @Martin-Grunewald, @VinInn, @VourMa, @cericeci, @dgulhan, @felicepantaleo, @jhgoh, @missirol, @mmusich, @mtosi, @rociovilar, @rovere, @trocino, @wmtford this is something you requested to watch as well. @antoniovilela, @mandrenguyen, @rappoccio, @sextonkennedy you are the release manager for this.
cms-bot commands are listed here
the historical reason is simple : validate /monitor/check what is really reconstructed
is it needed ? I think so, but I’m no longer neither the TRK at HLT nor the TRK POG
as TSG I think it is important to show the “real performance” w/o bias on the TP
the historical reason is simple : validate /monitor/check what is really reconstructed
is it needed ? I think so, but I’m no longer neither the TRK at HLT nor the TRK POG
as TSG I think it is important to show the “real performance” w/o bias on the TP
I believe the point is that there are anyways selections on the TPs used as a reference (before this PR), just different wrt. the offline track validation. So, this is an attempt to be consistent across the board. As this came up a few times across the last couple of years, I thought it would be worth ensuring consistency.
About validating/monitoring what's reconstructed, that's exactly why I opened https://its.cern.ch/jira/browse/CMSHLT-3574, to allow the monitoring of all the tracks we reconstruct.
+1
Size: This PR adds an extra 28KB to repository
Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-8e3acd/46836/summary.html
COMMIT: 38372f6c027650c221a25104f48e92a2ff78cc74
CMSSW: CMSSW_15_1_X_2025-06-19-1100/el8_amd64_gcc12
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/48361/46836/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.
Comparison Summary
Summary:
- You potentially added 1 lines to the logs
- Reco comparison results: 4 differences found in the comparisons
- DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 52
- DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 4279628
- DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 4777
- DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
- DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 4274831
- DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 20
- DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
- DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 8031.802 KiB( 51 files compared)
- DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 145.014,... ): 896.790 KiB HLT/Tracking
- DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 16834.0,... ): 877.136 KiB HLT/Tracking
- Checked 223 log files, 194 edm output root files, 52 DQM output files
- TriggerResults: no differences found
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. @sextonkennedy, @antoniovilela, @rappoccio, @mandrenguyen (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)
DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 4777
now, there are a lot of new plots added that are empty because of the missing input collection (see https://its.cern.ch/jira/browse/CMSHLT-3574). Do we want to wait for a resolution for that first ? @antoniovagnerini
hold looking quickly thru the comments, it doesn't seem that everything is resolved. Let me know when it's the case and I'll merge.
Pull request has been put on hold by @mandrenguyen
They need to issue an unhold command to remove the hold state or L1 can unhold it for all
+code-checks
Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-48361/45284
Pull request #48361 was updated. @antoniovagnerini, @cmsbuild, @ctarricone, @rseidita can you please check and sign again.
+1
Size: This PR adds an extra 16KB to repository
Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-8e3acd/46899/summary.html
COMMIT: fc5001fcec53b8b6e9a4aa4607a6c8f6d3cc4c46
CMSSW: CMSSW_15_1_X_2025-06-23-2300/el8_amd64_gcc12
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/48361/46899/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.
Comparison Summary
Summary:
- You potentially added 20 lines to the logs
- Reco comparison results: 206 differences found in the comparisons
- DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 52
- DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 4283781
- DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 3787
- DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 18
- DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 4279956
- DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 20
- DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
- DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 8685.908 KiB( 51 files compared)
- DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 145.014,... ): -4.324 KiB HLT/Tracking
- DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 16834.0,... ): 4358.088 KiB HLT/Tracking
- Checked 223 log files, 194 edm output root files, 52 DQM output files
- TriggerResults: no differences found
@cmsdqm, @antoniovagnerini, could you please check again (same for #48362, which is a backport of this)? The change in the last commit simplifies the scope of this PR, following discussion in the related and linked JIRA ticket. Thanks!
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. @rappoccio, @antoniovilela, @mandrenguyen, @sextonkennedy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)