Use central phi functions instead LST ones

[VourMa]

This is the follow up for #142. I have created it as a draft PR, as, to be submitted to cms-sw, we would need to first merge #145 (for proper naming of the reducePhiRange functions) and #141 (so that we can have meaningful tests). Having said that, I think we can start discussing and testing this internally.

[VourMa]

/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]

@ariostas Sorry, I forgot, did we move to 15_0? Could you tell me the exact version, so that I can write it on our repo, and then update this PR appropriately?

[ariostas]

@VourMa I set it up so that now it always uses the latest release, so it's using 15_0_0_pre2. For some reason AlpakaMath didn't make it into that release, so I'll just make the CI check out that package so that this PR works

[VourMa]

@VourMa I set it up so that now it always uses the latest release, so it's using 15_0_0_pre2. For some reason AlpakaMath didn't make it into that release, so I'll just make the CI check out that package so that this PR works

Oops, I didn't think of that. Feel free to just run the tests when you sort it out. Thank you for taking care of it!

[ariostas]

It should work now.

/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     45.9    399.0    187.8    151.7    146.5    548.9    122.8    233.5    153.8      3.1    1992.9    1398.2+/- 387.5     529.6   explicit[s=4] (target branch)
   avg     48.5    377.1    188.7    151.7    166.9    702.5    122.4    226.7    177.8      3.5    2166.0    1414.9+/- 395.6     574.0   explicit[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]

cmssw/RecoTracker/LSTCore/src/alpaka/NeuralNetwork.h

Lines 41 to 48 in eec20cb

	ALPAKA_FN_ACC ALPAKA_FN_INLINE float delta_phi(const float phi1, const float phi2) {
	float delta = phi1 - phi2;
	// Adjust delta to be within the range [-M_PI, M_PI]
	if (delta > kPi) {
	delta -= 2 * kPi;
	} else if (delta < -kPi) {
	delta += 2 * kPi;
	}

Can you remove this one in the inference code I added as well? Should probably check that it doesn't affect the performance plots. I tried using another implementation of the delta phi function and it gave some weird results, not sure if it was just a bug in my old code.

[VourMa]

cmssw/RecoTracker/LSTCore/src/alpaka/NeuralNetwork.h

Lines 41 to 48 in eec20cb

	ALPAKA_FN_ACC ALPAKA_FN_INLINE float delta_phi(const float phi1, const float phi2) {
	float delta = phi1 - phi2;
	// Adjust delta to be within the range [-M_PI, M_PI]
	if (delta > kPi) {
	delta -= 2 * kPi;
	} else if (delta < -kPi) {
	delta += 2 * kPi;
	}

Can you remove this one in the inference code I added as well? Should probably check that it doesn't affect the performance plots. I tried using another implementation of the delta phi function and it gave some weird results, not sure if it was just a bug in my old code.

Sure, I replaced it in the new version I pushed. Let's see if it works out.

[VourMa]

/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     46.3    396.2    189.6    153.9    149.5    551.2    124.8    235.2    151.9      3.5    2001.9    1404.4+/- 387.5     529.4   explicit[s=4] (target branch)
   avg     46.8    379.0    190.3    153.3    160.4    708.8    124.4    226.5    180.3      3.1    2173.1    1417.5+/- 394.8     573.2   explicit[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]

Looks good, thanks.