Added PhysicsTools/PyTorch and new category for ML tools

[valsdav]

Adding category to new package introduced in PR cms-sw/cmssw#43475

(Please let me know if this is the correct procedure)

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @valsdav (Davide Valsecchi) for branch master.

@aandvalenzuela, @iarspider, @smuzaffar, @cmsbuild can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@antoniovilela, @rappoccio, @sextonkennedy you are the release manager for this.
cms-bot commands are listed here

[makortel]

@cms-sw/reconstruction-l2

[makortel]

I've started to wonder if reconstruction continues to be the best place for ML (inference) tools?

Or would it be feasible, or make sense, for ML group to take the maintenance ownership of the ML tools? (I understand this question is bigger than the immediate need, and probably should be discussed elsewhere)

[makortel]

(Please let me know if this is the correct procedure)

It is :)

[smuzaffar]

@cms-sw/reconstruction-l2 what do you think?

[valsdav]

I've started to wonder if reconstruction continues to be the best place for ML (inference) tools?

Or would it be feasible, or make sense, for ML group to take the maintenance ownership of the ML tools? (I understand this question is bigger than the immediate need, and probably should be discussed elsewhere)

Hi @makortel we can discuss it further of course, but from the ML group side we are willing to step in and take the responsibility for the ML tools packages (as from the mandate of the ML production subgroup).

[tvami]

We could also have it under the analysis signature. Not a strong push, just an idea since a few of this stuff is already under that signiture.

[makortel]

I've started to wonder if reconstruction continues to be the best place for ML (inference) tools?
Or would it be feasible, or make sense, for ML group to take the maintenance ownership of the ML tools? (I understand this question is bigger than the immediate need, and probably should be discussed elsewhere)

Hi @makortel we can discuss it further of course, but from the ML group side we are willing to step in and take the responsibility for the ML tools packages (as from the mandate of the ML production subgroup).

Hi @valsdav. I have absolutely no objections if the matter can be settled already within this issue :) And thank you for being willing to step up. How about we'd then add ml signatory category and GitHub team, and move

PhysicsTools/ONNXRuntime
PhysicsTools/TensorFlow
PhysicsTools/PyTorch

from reconstruction to ml? (note that this change would also imply that someone from the ML team would have to attend the ORP meeting on Tuesdays; in case you didn't already)

The PhysicsTools/MXNet is probably simplest to keep in reconstruction, given that the package has been removed (but needs to be kept somewhere)?

I'm not really sure if something should be done with

PhysicsTools/MVAComputer
PhysicsTools/MVATrainer

that sound ML related, and are currently under analysis.

I'd certainly wait for @cms-sw/reconstruction-l2 to comment before doing anything.

[makortel]

We could also have it under the analysis signature. Not a strong push, just an idea since a few of this stuff is already under that signiture.

@tvami While some ML stuff is currently under analysis, that doesn't seem a very good fit to me because of e.g.

• ML is used in many areas beyond analysis
  • Would analysis e.g. debug ML-related problems in reconstruction, simulation, L1T, etc. code?
• analysis was unattended for a long time (I'm glad the situation changed recently! but given the past I see risks)
• We have a specific ML group :)

[tvami]

hi Matti, yes, what say all makes sense, I agree

[jfernan2]

Hi,
I believe It makes totally sense, I Will check with @mandrenguyen tomorrow and come back here.
Thanks!

[mandrenguyen]

ok for me

[valsdav]

I've started to wonder if reconstruction continues to be the best place for ML (inference) tools?
Or would it be feasible, or make sense, for ML group to take the maintenance ownership of the ML tools? (I understand this question is bigger than the immediate need, and probably should be discussed elsewhere)

Hi @makortel we can discuss it further of course, but from the ML group side we are willing to step in and take the responsibility for the ML tools packages (as from the mandate of the ML production subgroup).

Hi @valsdav. I have absolutely no objections if the matter can be settled already within this issue :) And thank you for being willing to step up. How about we'd then add ml signatory category and GitHub team, and move

PhysicsTools/ONNXRuntime
PhysicsTools/TensorFlow
PhysicsTools/PyTorch

from reconstruction to ml? (note that this change would also imply that someone from the ML team would have to attend the ORP meeting on Tuesdays; in case you didn't already)

The PhysicsTools/MXNet is probably simplest to keep in reconstruction, given that the package has been removed (but needs to be kept somewhere)?

I'm not really sure if something should be done with

PhysicsTools/MVAComputer
PhysicsTools/MVATrainer

that sound ML related, and are currently under analysis.

I'd certainly wait for @cms-sw/reconstruction-l2 to comment before doing anything.

Hi @makortel I agree with you about the analysis category. It won't be a problem for us to follow the ORP meeting.
I will check what's inside MVATrainer and MVAComputer

[smuzaffar]

So if I understand it correctly

PhysicsTools/ONNXRuntime
PhysicsTools/TensorFlow
PhysicsTools/PyTorch

should move to ml category. PhysicsTools/MVAComputer and PhysicsTools/MVATrainer can also move under ml.

If no objections from others then @valsdav please update categories_map.py and also update CMSSW_L2 in https://github.com/cms-sw/cms-bot/blob/master/categories.py to responsible for new ml category

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #2121 was updated.

[valsdav]

FYI @wpmccormack

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #2121 was updated.

[smuzaffar]

@valsdav , this block should be added in CMSSW_CATEGORIES instead of CMSSW_LABELS. Please move it to

cms-bot/categories_map.py

Line 1057 in b6e867b

"operations": [

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #2121 was updated.

[makortel]

@smuzaffar Should this PR lead to the creation of the cms-sw/ml-l2 GitHub team? Or does that need some further setup?

[smuzaffar]

@makortel , yes cms-sw/ml-l2 team will be created automatically. The Jenkins job which creates these teams runs once a day . I will force run it now to get this team setup

[smuzaffar]

cms-sw/ml-l2 has been setup and bot have sent the invitations to @valsdav and @wpmccormack to join this team

[makortel]

Ok, thanks (so I was just impatient)

[valsdav]

Done, thanks!!