search

cms-sw / cmssw

CMS Offline Software
http://cms-sw.github.io/
Apache License 2.0
1.07k stars 4.28k forks source link

PackedCandidate DQM may need to detect expected differences in nLayers/nHits for loopers #19604

Open slava77 opened 7 years ago

slava77 commented 7 years ago

this is related to #19509: after the introduction of the "firstHit" pattern in the packed candidates, there is now a rare inconsistency between the number of hits or layers, which is apparently seen for loopers

this will show up in the DQM plots and could be mitigated if needed.

@dmitrijus @makortel @arizzi

cmsbuild commented 7 years ago

A new Issue was created by @slava77 Slava Krutelyov.

@davidlange6, @Dr15Jones, @smuzaffar can you please review it and eventually sign/assign? Thanks.

cms-bot commands are listed here

slava77 commented 7 years ago

assign dqm

cmsbuild commented 7 years ago

New categories assigned: dqm

@kmaeshima,@vanbesien,@vazzolini,@dmitrijus you have been requested to review this Pull request/Issue and eventually sign? Thanks

makortel commented 7 years ago

@slava77 The DQM should certainly be improved, but not only because of #19509, but also due to earlier PRs #17909 and #18092. Likely I won't have time to take a look before August.

But let me ask out loud if the current level of details is actually needed? I mean, while it was an interesting exercise to create the DQM module, and I think the information (including the packing under/overflows) is in interesting, they do add some maintenance burden. Said that, I don't mind updating the plots, but if something would turn out to be "not interesting", it would reduce the amount of work.

slava77 commented 7 years ago

On 7/10/17 10:42 AM, Matti Kortelainen wrote:

@slava77 https://github.com/slava77 The DQM should certainly be improved, but not only because of #19509 https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/19509, but also due to earlier PRs #17909 https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/17909 and #18092 https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/18092. Likely I won't have time to take a look before August.

But let me ask out loud if the current level of details is actually needed? I mean, while it was an interesting exercise to create the DQM module, and I think the information (including the packing under/overflows) is in interesting, they do add some maintenance burden. Said that, I don't mind updating the plots, but if something would turn out to be "not interesting", it would reduce the amount of work.

I think that this packed-vs-generalTrack DQM is very important to capture correctness of values in the packed candidate.

In most cases, they are probably good enough if they can just show that there are changes rather than characterizing if the difference is expected or not. Still, it would be nice if it's possible to keep track of unexpected differences.

This issue is not urgent, IMO.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/issues/19604#issuecomment-314127157, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEdcbhM5V0mG1kpzPrETp4J_yNbXBcKAks5sMjhQgaJpZM4OQW_Y.

makortel commented 6 years ago

Adding @hajohajo

fioriNTU commented 5 years ago

@slava77 @makortel has this issue been fixed in the meantime?

slava77 commented 5 years ago

@mtosi @JanFSchulte tagging more people

makortel commented 5 years ago

@slava77 @makortel has this issue been fixed in the meantime?

Almost certainly not.

fioriNTU commented 5 years ago

@slava77 @makortel @arizzi @mtosi @JanFSchulte any progress about this issue?

smuzaffar commented 10 months ago

@cms-sw/dqm-l2 any update?