Allowing Cluster Splitting with HLT Vertices

[AdrianoDee]

PR description:

This PR proposes the introduction of a new process modifier hltClusterSplitting that:

• enables to write the hltPixelVertices in FEVTDEBUGHLTEventContent;
  • one could test also just the hltTrimmedPixelVertices that are just 1-2 for Run3 HLT;
• uses those vertices for the ak4CaloJetsForTrkPreSplitting and the cluster splitter;
  • these producers actually use only the coordinates so the content to be stored could be actually slimmed down to be just a collection of floats;
• removes the InitialStepPreSplitting iteration from iterative tracking.

Running on 14_2_0_pre2 RelVals with Run3 PU:

• TTbar (400 events);
• QCD_Pt15To7000_Flat (500 events);

the tracking performance seems untouched.

I don't know how much this would be useful for Run3, but it may be interesting to check it for Phase2. For Run3 I've measured (roughly) a speedup of 1.5-2% on a TTbar Run3 PU 2025 conditions sample.

I took the chance also to add a specific wf with offset .19003 (to be aligned to the other cluster splitting related wfs) and a ProdLike version with .1900321.

PR validation:

runTheMatrix.py -w upgrade -l 17434.19003,17434.1900321

[AdrianoDee]

type tracking

[cmsbuild]

cms-bot internal usage

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-46694/42636

• There are other open Pull requests which might conflict with changes you have proposed:
  • File Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/upgradeWorkflowComponents.py modified in PR(s): Add run3 tracking low pu era #33532, CMSSW Integration of LST #45117, ECAL RecHit producer Alpaka migration #46453, Phase2-hgx360F First attempt to make a Phase2 scenario with 0 overlaps with zero tolerance in lieu of #46565 #46610, Rename 2021 Wfs with 2022 #46649

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @AdrianoDee for master.

It involves the following packages:

• Configuration/EventContent (operations)
• Configuration/ProcessModifiers (operations)
• Configuration/PyReleaseValidation (upgrade, pdmv)
• RecoTracker/IterativeTracking (reconstruction)
• Validation/RecoTrack (dqm)

@AdrianoDee, @Moanwar, @antoniovagnerini, @antoniovilela, @cmsbuild, @davidlange6, @DickyChant, @fabiocos, @jfernan2, @mandrenguyen, @miquork, @rappoccio, @rseidita, @srimanob, @subirsarkar can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@GiacomoSguazzoni, @Martin-Grunewald, @VinInn, @VourMa, @dgulhan, @fabiocos, @felicepantaleo, @gpetruc, @makortel, @missirol, @mmusich, @mtosi, @rovere, @slomeo, @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

[AdrianoDee]

test parameters:

• relval_opts = -w upgrade
• workflow = 17434.19003

[AdrianoDee]

please test

[AdrianoDee]

Forgot to remove these comments.

[AdrianoDee]

Also these, will do a cleanup after the tests.

[cmsbuild]

+1

Size: This PR adds an extra 60KB to repository
Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-ae3468/42814/summary.html
COMMIT: 675550f
CMSSW: CMSSW_14_2_X_2024-11-13-1300/el8_amd64_gcc12
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/46694/42814/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 282 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 47
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3450336
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 2307
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3448009
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 20
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 46 files compared)
• Checked 206 log files, 177 edm output root files, 47 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found