Add pT Runtime Toggle + pT Toggle for Geometry Inputs

[GNiendorf]

This PR moves the compile-time pT flag to a runtime pT option and adds an option to toggle between the low pT and normal module maps. The most significant change with this PR is that it removes the pT cut from the global variables and instead passes it to each of the relevant kernels.

[GNiendorf]

/run all

[github-actions]

There was a problem while building and running in standalone mode. The logs can be found here.

[github-actions]

There was a problem while building and running with CMSSW. The logs can be found here.

[GNiendorf]

@VourMa Are the errors I get from the standalone check fixed in your PR's? It says something about Event.h not being found.

[GNiendorf]

/run all

[github-actions]

There was a problem while building and running in standalone mode. The logs can be found here.

[github-actions]

There was a problem while building and running with CMSSW. The logs can be found here.

[VourMa]

@VourMa Are the errors I get from the standalone check fixed in your PR's? It says something about Event.h not being found.

CI worked for #37 (which didn't include the "fixes", which apply only on local validation), so it should be something else, I guess.

[GNiendorf]

/run all

[github-actions]

The PR was built and ran successfully in standalone mode. Here are some of the comparison plots.

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     44.1    326.4    122.8     47.8     95.1    506.4    132.8    158.2    100.5      2.6    1536.7     986.2+/- 264.2     417.5   explicit_cache[s=4] (target branch)
   avg     47.3    322.3    147.4     48.3     96.0    506.6    124.3    178.4     98.1      2.0    1570.5    1016.6+/- 278.2     429.3   explicit_cache[s=4] (this PR)

[VourMa]

There was a problem while building and running with CMSSW. The logs can be found here.

It seems like the reason why the CMSSW part failed is because #37 was merged and now there are conflicts that the CI doesn't know how to resolve. @GNiendorf could you resolve them and run the test again?

[GNiendorf]

/run all

[github-actions]

The PR was built and ran successfully in standalone mode. Here are some of the comparison plots.

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     47.7    325.8    123.0     48.5     96.2    498.6    133.7    157.4    103.6      2.2    1536.8     990.4+/- 264.8     416.7   explicit_cache[s=4] (target branch)
   avg     43.2    323.9    150.7     49.3     97.4    545.8    124.6    179.6    109.7      2.4    1626.7    1037.6+/- 281.4     447.5   explicit_cache[s=4] (this PR)

[github-actions]

There was a problem while building and running with CMSSW. The logs can be found here.

[VourMa]

@GNiendorf Could you try compiling locally before running the tests, so that you can debug at your convenience? If you get stuck, please make a comment with the error and I can take a look tomorrow, and provide instructions or fix it.

[GNiendorf]

@GNiendorf Could you try compiling locally before running the tests, so that you can debug at your convenience? If you get stuck, please make a comment with the error and I can take a look tomorrow, and provide instructions or fix it.

Yup of course, you asked me to fix the conflicts and rerun the tests so that's what I did above, but I wanted to spend more time on the CMSSW error myself before posting the error and asking for help. My main concern was getting the standalone tests working for today.

[GNiendorf]

/run all

[github-actions]

The PR was built and ran successfully in standalone mode. Here are some of the comparison plots.

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     48.2    325.5    122.9     49.2     96.9    493.0    131.9    157.8    105.4      2.2    1533.1     991.9+/- 265.1     420.4   explicit_cache[s=4] (target branch)
   avg     43.6    327.1    148.8     49.2     97.3    547.9    125.5    179.2    107.8      2.2    1628.5    1037.1+/- 274.9     440.7   explicit_cache[s=4] (this PR)

[github-actions]

The PR was built and ran successfully with CMSSW. Here are some plots.

OOTB All Tracks

The full set of validation and comparison plots can be found here.

[GNiendorf]

/run all

[github-actions]

The PR was built and ran successfully in standalone mode. Here are some of the comparison plots.

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     44.7    324.6    124.4     51.1     97.8    502.0    119.7    162.6    105.2      3.6    1535.7     989.0+/- 263.2     424.9   explicit_cache[s=4] (target branch)
   avg     47.9    325.2    121.3     50.3     99.0    507.5    121.3    161.4    105.5      3.7    1543.0     987.6+/- 254.6     423.4   explicit_cache[s=4] (this PR)

[GNiendorf]

/run all

[github-actions]

The PR was built and ran successfully in standalone mode. Here are some of the comparison plots.

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     44.5    325.7    124.3     50.4     98.0    505.2    120.5    164.7    106.2      2.9    1542.4     992.7+/- 263.4     423.0   explicit_cache[s=4] (target branch)
   avg     47.7    324.7    123.1     50.2    100.4    517.1    121.2    164.6    107.2      1.8    1558.0     993.2+/- 262.5     425.6   explicit_cache[s=4] (this PR)

[github-actions]

The PR was built and ran successfully with CMSSW. Here are some plots.

OOTB All Tracks

The full set of validation and comparison plots can be found here.

[GNiendorf]

@GNiendorf The changes look good to me. Just writing down the list of things to do to move forward with merging:

• Provide physics performance plots with more stats and follow up depending on the results.
• Deal with double-to-float conversion one way or the other.
• Move the error check for pT < 0.6 GeV to a more appropriate place and throw the error in the appropriate way.

Instead of addressing the first bullet point in this PR I'm adding a flag to switch between the two maps like we discussed a week or so ago. The solution I added in the last few commits works, but I'm talking to Slava if there is a better solution for the changes in the ES producer file.

[GNiendorf]

/run all

[github-actions]

The PR was built and ran successfully in standalone mode. Here are some of the comparison plots.

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     43.6    321.8    122.9     47.2     95.0    500.8    119.2    160.6    104.9      1.7    1517.8     973.4+/- 260.4     415.3   explicit_cache[s=4] (target branch)
   avg     47.9    328.4    117.9     47.4     95.1    506.8    118.0    159.9    103.8      2.2    1527.4     972.7+/- 257.5     418.1   explicit_cache[s=4] (this PR)

[github-actions]

There was a problem while building and running with CMSSW. The logs can be found here.

[GNiendorf]

/run cmssw

[github-actions]

The PR was built and ran successfully with CMSSW. Here are some plots.

OOTB All Tracks

The full set of validation and comparison plots can be found here.

[GNiendorf]

/run all

[github-actions]

The PR was built and ran successfully in standalone mode. Here are some of the comparison plots.

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     44.0    324.9    124.0     49.7     95.8    501.3    119.4    162.0    104.5      2.6    1528.3     983.0+/- 258.9     417.9   explicit_cache[s=4] (target branch)
   avg     47.2    322.4    119.9     49.7     97.6    510.3    121.3    161.9    105.5      1.9    1537.8     980.3+/- 260.2     422.3   explicit_cache[s=4] (this PR)

[github-actions]

The PR was built and ran successfully with CMSSW. Here are some plots.

OOTB All Tracks

The full set of validation and comparison plots can be found here.

[GNiendorf]

@VourMa I think this PR is ready to be merged now.

[VourMa]

Thank you for the updates, @GNiendorf! Approving and merging.