Customization for HLT doublet-recovery tracking iteration with mkFit

[mmasciov]

PR description:

As per title.
Additionally:

• cleanup/renaming of customization functions/file;
• addition of additional customization function to .7 workflows.

PR validation:

Offline is not affected.
HLT validation: https://its.cern.ch/jira/browse/CMSHLT-3566

Backport to 150X will follow

It requires cms-sw/cmsdist#9927

FYI: @mmusich, @missirol, @mtosi, @cms-sw/tracking-pog-l2

[cmsbuild]

cms-bot internal usage

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-48316/45187

• There are other open Pull requests which might conflict with changes you have proposed:
  • File Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/upgradeWorkflowComponents.py modified in PR(s): CA Extension to strips #47090, TICL-barrel: run CLUE in the barrel calorimeters and first workflows #47859, Adapt pixel cpe algo to better handle broken clusters #47966, [NGT] Update default Phase 2 HLT Muon sequence to use new Standalone seeding module and streamlined Tracker Muon reconstruction #48246
  • File RecoTracker/MkFit/python/customizeHLTIter0ToMkFit.py modified in PR(s): Optimizations for the MkFit converters #47926

[cmsbuild]

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

It involves the following packages:

• Configuration/PyReleaseValidation (pdmv, upgrade)
• RecoTracker/MkFit (reconstruction)

@AdrianoDee, @Moanwar, @cmsbuild, @DickyChant, @jfernan2, @mandrenguyen, @miquork, @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 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

[jfernan2]

please test with cms-sw/cmsdist#9927

[cmsbuild]

+1

Size: This PR adds an extra 40KB to repository
Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-ddd834/46713/summary.html
COMMIT: 23185eb
CMSSW: CMSSW_15_1_X_2025-06-13-1100/el8_amd64_gcc12
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/48316/46713/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

The following merge commits were also included on top of IB + this PR after doing git cms-merge-topic:

• @bsunanda Phase2-hgx364P2 Change the default Phase2 scenario to Run4D121 til V19 is fully active #48297

You can see more details here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-ddd834/46713/git-recent-commits.json
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-ddd834/46713/git-merge-result

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• You potentially added 2 lines to the logs
• Reco comparison results: 40 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 52
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 4279658
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 2357
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 4277281
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 20
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 51 files compared)
• Checked 223 log files, 194 edm output root files, 52 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[jfernan2]

+1

[jfernan2]

@mmasciov are these differences expected/related? https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/baseLineComparisons/CMSSW_15_1_X_2025-06-13-1100+ddd834/68952/validateJR//12434.7_TTbar_14TeV+2023_trackingMkFit/all_RECO_step3

[mmasciov]

Hi @jfernan2,

@mmasciov are these differences expected/related? https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/baseLineComparisons/CMSSW_15_1_X_2025-06-13-1100+ddd834/68952/validateJR//12434.7_TTbar_14TeV+2023_trackingMkFit/all_RECO_step3

We may expect slight changes in the .7 workflows for trigger results.
Other changes are unrelated to this PR and to the mkFit-related update from cms-sw/cmsdist#9927. In fact, these changes are almost at the level of "noise" (IIUC, there's a difference of 1 track, which doesn't seem to be directly related to this PR).

[Moanwar]

Did you change this maxChi2 on purpose?

[mmasciov]

Yes, because of the oddity in the previous configuration:
namely this module is defining three working points, (loose, tight, high-purity (HP)); at HLT, only HP is really used, so the first two values are not actually used. However, I found that for future reference it would be best to avoid quoting tighter cuts for looser WPs (even if unused).

[Moanwar]

Just for my knowledge, is there a reference for these hardcoded numbers?

[mmasciov]

A search on GitHub will return multiple variants/combinations of cuts, following different optimizations (at multiple points in time).
For reference, these parameters are used (some in a convoluted way) in: https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/master/RecoTracker/FinalTrackSelectors/plugins/TrackCutClassifier.cc#L162

[Moanwar]

+Upgrade

[AdrianoDee]

+pdmv

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next master IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @rappoccio, @mandrenguyen, @sextonkennedy, @antoniovilela (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

[mandrenguyen]

+1