Skip to content
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

Remove SDL_INF and switch to T33 maps #69

Conversation

ariostas
Copy link
Member

I removed SDL_INF (which is now called lst_INF) and I updated the paths so that it uses the modules maps generated with the T33 (OT800_IT711) geometry.

@ariostas
Copy link
Member Author

/run all

Copy link

The PR was built and ran successfully in standalone mode. 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
   avg     45.1    323.2    123.2     52.7    101.0    496.7    129.0    152.9    101.3      3.1    1528.3     986.5+/- 261.2     424.1   explicit_cache[s=4] (target branch)
   avg     45.9    318.7    120.2     51.5     94.7    500.4    123.7    150.5    100.9      3.1    1509.6     963.3+/- 253.9     415.8   explicit_cache[s=4] (this PR)

@ariostas
Copy link
Member Author

The loss of efficiency at around $|\eta|=1$ is coming from pT5s. Maybe it's just that the DNN needs to be retrained. We'll have to look more into it before this can be merged.

@VourMa
Copy link
Collaborator

VourMa commented Jul 23, 2024

The loss of efficiency at around is coming from pT5s. Maybe it's just that the DNN needs to be retrained. We'll have to look more into it before this can be merged.

Maybe run with the cut based approach and compare the magnitude of the changes (the absolute performance won't matter)?

Copy link

The PR was built and ran successfully with CMSSW. 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.

@ariostas
Copy link
Member Author

The cut based approach is a lot closer.

TC_base_0_0_eff_etacoarsezoom

Also, I'm confused why the CMSSW plots match exactly.

@ariostas
Copy link
Member Author

Since there's already conflicts and we decided to postpone this for later I'll just close this PR.

@ariostas ariostas closed this Aug 12, 2024
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.

2 participants