Open AdrianoDee opened 2 years ago
A new Issue was created by @AdrianoDee .
@Dr15Jones, @perrotta, @dpiparo, @rappoccio, @makortel, @smuzaffar can you please review it and eventually sign/assign? Thanks.
cms-bot commands are listed here
assign upgrade
assign hlt
New categories assigned: upgrade,hlt
@AdrianoDee,@missirol,@srimanob,@Martin-Grunewald you have been requested to review this Pull request/Issue and eventually sign? Thanks
I think the way is to run HLT at the ususal step (DIGI+L1+HLT). Then the validation will run as usual. No need to push for extra development.
I make this https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/39450 for the first attempt to converge on running HLT together with DIGI step.
What is the current status? is this topic being tracked in another issue or outside of github?
@beaucero @SohamBhattacharya
Hi @slava77 I have not finished it yet, sorry. I can make it after May 22.
Hi @slava77 I have not finished it yet, sorry. I can make it after May 22.
I wanted to check if there was some progress Thanks.
Hi @slava77 I've made a new PR to enable one-by-one HLT validation module in https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/41898
I think this PR can be closed as we have Phase-2 DQM in the release.
+Upgrade
https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/42783 introduces some modification to run the Tracking DQM monitoring in Phase-2
Hi, I have naive question about this. I see two different approaches to adding HLT validation and DQM.
If they're both trying to do the same (?) thing (i.e. validate HLT paths), is there a way to consolidate the two approaches to make it simpler?
If they're both trying to do the same (?) thing (i.e. validate HLT paths), is there a way to consolidate the two approaches to make it simpler?
as far as I can tell , that's not the same thing. The issue here is more targeted to the offline validation of the objects used by the HLT (electrons, muons, tracks, jets, etc. etc.). Basically everything in DQMOffline/Trigger
that is currently available for Run 3 (but not for phase-2).
If they're both trying to do the same (?) thing (i.e. validate HLT paths), is there a way to consolidate the two approaches to make it simpler?
as far as I can tell , that's not the same thing. The issue here is more targeted to the offline validation of the objects used by the HLT (electrons, muons, tracks, jets, etc. etc.). Basically everything in
DQMOffline/Trigger
that is currently available for Run 3 (but not for phase-2).
It seems to me that the updates to HLTriggerOffline
in https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/41898 are to do with validating the TriggerResults (validation for HLT_AK4PFPuppiJet520
), which is similar to what's being done in 2 above.
(please correct me if I'm wrong)
While we absolutely need the validation of Phase-2 HLT objects in DQMOffline/Trigger
, imo (from the pov of HLT-upgrade) we should first have the Phase-2 HLT path and filter validation. That would show us changes in not only the HLT objects (thus also effectively doing the job of DQMOffline/Trigger
as far as the impact on the Phase-2 menu is considered), but also in the upstream quantities that the HLT filters depend on, like the L1 objects.
For example, the egamma issue (fixed in https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/42791) was missed because the filters were not monitored and changes at L1 were not propagated down to the filters used by the Phase-2 menu.
Hence I was wondering if there's a way to have a validation like this as part of the Phase-2 HLT WF.
[tagging @rovere as I'm not sure if he's in the thread]
we should first have the Phase-2 HLT path and filter validation.
@SohamBhattacharya I guess you are free to twist the initial aim of this ticket, but in the initial message I read:
is not running any validation or DQM for hlt objects.
I think your proposal should go into a different issue!
we should first have the Phase-2 HLT path and filter validation.
@SohamBhattacharya I guess you are free to twist the initial aim of this ticket, but in the initial message I read:
is not running any validation or DQM for hlt objects.
I think your proposal should go into a different issue!
No problem at all with having this in a different issue. Only initiating the discussion here as the question of validation was rightfully raised in https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/42791 -- so wanted to make it clear what kind of validation hlt-upgrade would like to focus on first. :)
Hi @SohamBhattacharya
My PR (https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/41898) is for Validation step (i.e. compare with MC) while @mmusich PR (https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/42783) takes care for DQM (i.e. no need of GEN, MC. Something that you run on Tier-0 during data taking, and also regular relvals, both Data and MC).
The way that both PR work is the same, we create a sequence based on Run-3 and enable only modules which work for Phase-2. See:
Validation: https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/master/HLTriggerOffline/Common/python/HLTValidation_cff.py#L30-L91 (I chose to not create new sequence, but use the original one and exclude what do not work.)
DQM: https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/d9adfeaf74d34ee3c350e42f343f74d98d766d9e/DQMOffline/Trigger/python/DQMOffline_Trigger_cff.py#L193-L215 (Marco creates the specific Phase-2 sequence, and include only working module. Then use replace
to replace the sequence.
If I understand @mmusich correctly, the suggestion is to try to enable this full sequence [1]. While on my part, POG, PAG should try to enable their trigger paths and re-enable [2]
[1]
offlineHLTSource4HLTMonitorPD = cms.Sequence(
dqmInfoHLTMon *
lumiMonitorHLTsequence * # lumi
sistripMonitorHLTsequence * # strip
sipixelMonitorHLTsequence * # pixel
BTVHLTOfflineSource * # BTV
bTagHLTTrackMonitoringSequence * # BTV relative track efficiencies
trackingMonitorHLT * # tracking
BTagAndProbeHLT * # BTag and Probe
trackingMonitorHLTDisplacedJet* # EXO : DisplacedJet Tracking
egmTrackingMonitorHLT * # EGM tracking
hltToOfflineTrackValidatorSequence * # Relative Online to Offline performace
vertexingMonitorHLT * # vertexing
particleNetMonitoringHLT # HIG: monitoring of HLT PNET taggers (incl. comparisons to Offline PNET)
)
[2]
hltassociation = cms.Sequence(
hltMultiTrackValidation
+hltMultiPVValidation
+egammaSelectors
+ExoticaValidationProdSeq
+hltMultiTrackValidationGsfTracks
+hltMultiTrackValidationMuonTracks
)
hltvalidationWithMC = cms.Sequence(
HLTMuonVal
+HLTTauVal
+egammaValidationSequence
+heavyFlavorValidationSequence
+HLTJetMETValSeq
+HLTSusyExoValSeq
+HiggsValidationSequence
+ExoticaValidationSequence
+b2gHLTriggerValidation
+SMPValidationSequence
+hltbtagValidationSequence #too noisy for now
+hltHCALdigisAnalyzer+hltHCALRecoAnalyzer+hltHCALNoiseRates # HCAL
)
for the record https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/43094 introduced tracking and vertexing HLT validation (w.r.t tracking particles) for the phase 2 setup.
@mmusich is it possible that some harvesting step/sequence is missing from #43094? I was not able to find the usual eff/fake/dup plots.
I was not able to find the usual eff/fake/dup plots.
which workflow are you running?
is it possible that some harvesting step/sequence is missing from https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/43094?
yah, seems I forgot these:
let me fix.
let me fix.
For HGCal (DQM):
cms-bot internal usage
This is to remind us that the wf running the Phase2 HLT (
39434.75
) is not running any validation or DQM for hlt objects.This will be necessary in the mid-long term and would be useful in the short term for developments to spot eventual changes in the menu behavior (see e.g. https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/39323).