tracking ntuple to bin file with seed based on curvilinear covariance

[slava77]

• updated WriteMemoryFile.cc to read from tracking ntuple using curvilinear covariance
• added 112X_10mu_MULTI for inputBin sample in val_scripts/validation-cmssw-benchmarks-multiiter.sh

I'm puzzled, however:

• multiiter iter4 SIMVAL based on memoryFile.fv5.default.210607-00e28c8.bin, which is made using the Cartesian covariance http://uaf-10.t2.ucsd.edu/~slava77/figs/mic/val/phi3/devel-pr324-covNt/benchmarks-10mu-ecddfe8_cart/SIMVAL_MTV_iter4/SKL-SP_10mu_eff_pt_build_pt0p0_SIMVAL_iter4.png
  • the track parameters do not agree here so well http://uaf-10.t2.ucsd.edu/~slava77/figs/mic/val/phi3/devel-pr324-covNt/benchmarks-10mu-ecddfe8_cart/SIMVAL_MTV_iter4/diffs/SKL-SP_10mu_allmatch_deta_build_pt2p0_SIMVAL_iter4.png
• the same based on a new file http://uaf-10.t2.ucsd.edu/~slava77/figs/mic/val/phi3/devel-pr324-covNt/benchmarks-10mu-ecddfe8/SIMVAL_MTV_iter4/SKL-SP_10mu_eff_pt_build_pt0p0_SIMVAL_iter4.png
  • the track parameters are more consistent now http://uaf-10.t2.ucsd.edu/~slava77/figs/mic/val/phi3/devel-pr324-covNt/benchmarks-10mu-ecddfe8/SIMVAL_MTV_iter4/diffs/SKL-SP_10mu_allmatch_deta_build_pt2p0_SIMVAL_iter4.png

the puzzling part is that the efficiency does not agree with plots in #324 (comment)
Is the standalone validation fixing up the tracks in some way (and should we have enabled that way in CMSSW) ?

[slava77]

@osschar
as mentioned during the meeting, the file on phi3 is memoryFile.fv5.default.210623-b62fc88.bin as in val_scripts/validation-cmssw-benchmarks-multiiter.sh

From the comments during the meeting it sounds like the physics performance observed by me (in the PR description) is expected. So, this validates the .bin file conversion step (the main part of this PR).

please also check this PR and perhaps merge.

[osschar]

thanks, will run the FPE catcher later today and see what comes up :)