Performance studies

[plexoos]

No description provided.

outdated suggestion

outdated suggestion

outdated suggestion

outdated suggestion

outdated suggestion

outdated suggestion

outdated suggestion

outdated suggestion

outdated suggestion

[github-actions]

Cpp-linter Review

Used clang-format v18.1.3

Click here for the full clang-format patch

diff --git a/src/g4appmt.h b/src/g4appmt.h
index f0f0020..88258fc 100644
--- a/src/g4appmt.h
+++ b/src/g4appmt.h
@@ -125,2 +125 @@ struct PhotonHit : public G4VHit
-        G4cout << "Detector id: " << fid << " energy: " << fenergy << " nm"
-               << " time: " << ftime << " ns"
+        G4cout << "Detector id: " << fid << " energy: " << fenergy << " nm" << " time: " << ftime << " ns"

Have any feedback or feature suggestions? Share it here.

outdated suggestion

outdated suggestion

[github-actions]

Cpp-linter Review

Used clang-format v18.1.3

Click here for the full clang-format patch

diff --git a/CSG/csg_intersect_leaf_newcone.h b/CSG/csg_intersect_leaf_newcone.h
index 01a9845..fe8068e 100644
--- a/CSG/csg_intersect_leaf_newcone.h
+++ b/CSG/csg_intersect_leaf_newcone.h
@@ -101,2 +101,2 @@ void intersect_leaf_newcone( bool& valid_isect, float4& isect, const quad& q0, c
-    const float t_cand = fminf(roots) ; 
-    
+    const float t_cand = fminf(roots) ;
+
@@ -106,11 +106,3 @@ void intersect_leaf_newcone( bool& valid_isect, float4& isect, const quad& q0, c
-        float3 intersection_point = make_float3(
-            o.x + t_cand * d.x,
-            o.y + t_cand * d.y,
-            o.z + t_cand * d.z
-        );
-        float3 n = normalize(make_float3(
-            intersection_point.x,
-            intersection_point.y,
-            (z0 - intersection_point.z)*tth2
-        ));
-
+        float3 intersection_point = make_float3(o.x + t_cand * d.x, o.y + t_cand * d.y, o.z + t_cand * d.z);
+        float3 n =
+            normalize(make_float3(intersection_point.x, intersection_point.y, (z0 - intersection_point.z) * tth2));

Have any feedback or feature suggestions? Share it here.

outdated suggestion

[ggalgoczi]

I confirm that when moving the particlegun to 0,0,0 mm (I just pushed this change into the branch) and running
optiphy/tools/run_performance.py

I see performance data created in timing_optix.txt and timing_geant.txt files. Namely the simulation times are respecitvely 0.8 s and 11.7 s. Let me know @plexoos if we can close this PR.

[ggalgoczi]

@plexoos could you take a look?

[plexoos]

Here is a basic test I use in CI to compare the G4 and OptiX outputs:
https://github.com/BNLNPPS/eic-opticks/blob/main/tests/compare_ab.py

Can we run it on the output from these performance jobs?

[ggalgoczi]

Since we use the "Minimal" setting there are no such record files in my understanding, are there?

I found a bug in the geometry. The ordering of the surfaces was incorrect, fixed it in 4101e08

Also I added printing out number of Geant4 hits in the executable in 7fd2968

Now when I run 2 events I get matching number of hits from EIC-Opticks and Geant4:

G4WT0 > PhotonSD::EndOfEvent Number of PhotonHits: 14198
G4WT0 > PhotonSD::EndOfEvent Number of PhotonHits: 11896

Opticks: NumHits: 26076

We agreed that this the requirement to merge this PR. If you need any more details please open an other PR.

[plexoos]

Have you verified that the hits have the same or similar coordinates?

[ggalgoczi]

No, this PR should be for performance study, not a full validation.

[ggalgoczi]

If you want feel free to open a "raindrop geometry validation" PR.

[plexoos]

How do we know that these jobs produce reasonable hits?

[ggalgoczi]

Define reasonable

[plexoos]

Sure — here are a couple of metrics we could use, for example: The hit coordinate distributions statistically agree and are constrained by the sensitive detector

[ggalgoczi]

They are, see attached plot.

[plexoos]

Great! At least the circles seem to align. Can you point me to the output files?

[ggalgoczi]

Here are the output files.
o.txt
g4.txt

[plexoos]

After your recent changes I am getting strange results:

before:

after:

[ggalgoczi]

You did not specify which changes.

[plexoos]

1715f2e
7fd2968
4101e08

[ggalgoczi]

You asked to validate the position of hits. I suggested let's do this in an other PR but you insisted.

Therfore I had to print out number of hits that takes time, done in 7fd2968 .

Also you asked me to plot hit positions. Therefore I had to change momentum of electron so that we can validate the hit positions. Done in 1715f2e

[ggalgoczi]

Otherwise the electron would have exited. With this different energy different number of optical photons are created obviously.

[plexoos]

Okay, I’ll revert these changes and merge.

There are many ways to run validations and present results. I didn’t expect to have to specify exactly how to do it. A histogram could work of course much better.