New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Features for low pt electrons in B parking processing #25991
Comments
A new Issue was created by @fabiocos Fabio Cossutti. @davidlange6, @Dr15Jones, @smuzaffar, @fabiocos, @kpedro88 can you please review it and eventually sign/assign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
@perrotta yes, good spot - thanks! Corrected. |
FYI, we are considering to open two new PRs for the 10_2_X cycle:
|
With regards to point 1) above, we now plan to proceed with the existing ID model in Autumn18, as a recent retraining shows little improvement (and we will anyway further develop the ID on a longer timescale). I've just made a new PR just made (#26012) which updates master to use the Autumn18 models, found in cms-data/RecoEgamma-ElectronIdentification#13. I've updated the status. This PR also uses a "Very Loose" working point in the low pT electron seed module for the bParking era. I will propagate the VL WP change back to the 10_2_X cycle, adding numbers for timing/footprint increases. I can either add it to the existing open #25936 or create a new PR. By default I will create a new PR, unless I hear otherwise. |
#26015 master merged |
FYI, we are planning one final PR (to master first, then back port), which will "link" each low pT GsfElectron (via its GsfTrack) to the corresponding "packedCandidate" or "lostTrack" using edm::Association containers. This is needed because the link between each GsfTrack and the corresponding "generalTrack" that seeds the low pT electron reconstruction is lost in the PAT framework. The above PR will provide this link for miniAOD and remove the need for (suboptimal) deltaR matching. |
Exactly that one:
One has to decide about the samples to use. I was thinking about modifying as such e.g. the workflows 136.85 (RunEGamma2018A) and a TTbar PU. @bainbrid suggested one signal sample instead for the MC workflow. |
I think the suggested samples (RunEGamma2018A and TTbar) are also fine.
… On 27 Feb 2019, at 14:31, perrotta ***@***.***> wrote:
Exactly that one:
--era Run2_2018,bParking
One has to decide about the samples to use. I was thinking about modifying as such e.g. the workflows 136.85 (RunEGamma2018A) and a TTbar PU. @bainbrid <https://github.com/bainbrid> suggested one signal sample instead for the MC workflow.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#25991 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABEfklAxGdhl-mlYHN6BZtpdTKkIoc4Nks5vRpbagaJpZM4bHDwJ>.
|
#26013 merged to 10_2_X. |
Here is an update. Master:
10_2_X:
Unless we have to iterate further with management on the skim working point, we believe the above PRs should complete our requirements for processing of the B Parked data set. Please can I query the timeline to form a new 10_2 release? Is it reasonable to hope for early next week? Our aim is to take this release and immediately process a "pilot run" comprising ~500M events. |
#26031 merged to master |
@fabiocos please let us know which 10-2-X release will be prepared for early rereco bparking based in these PRs. |
@fabiocos done |
This is just to remind here that there is still to solve (or at least to understand) the issue of tracks with all zero parameters, which was reported in #26031 (comment) |
All the PRs discussed so far have been merged both in master and in 10_2_X (tonight IB will have them). |
Thanks all!
We’ll get back to you on the warnings mentioned above. We’ve seen this before and believe it poses no problems. More details tomorrow. @perrotta, please can you provide exact details on how to reproduce the warnings?
… On 5 Mar 2019, at 16:02, Fabio Cossutti ***@***.***> wrote:
All the PRs discussed so far have been merged both in master and in 10_2_X (tonight IB will have them).
We still have the issue #25991 (comment) to be clarified
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
It was explained in #26031 (comment) Explicitely:
and the warnings which report about p=0 tracks show up in step3 at events 16, 24, 42, 59 |
#26038 merged into 10_2_X |
All PRs are now merged and the full set are available in these two IBs:
Many thanks to everyone for helping us to get to this point! |
With regards to the warnings mentioned here #26031 (comment), we have seen these errors since early in the low pT electrons development cycle. The warnings arise in the We note that empirical observations indicate that these warnings are more prevalent in the low pT regime in which we are operating, and we are at or near some boundary conditions in terms of acceptance or performance of these PF algorithms. Any detailed investigations or changes to the PF code is outside the scope of this work and would likely incur a significant delay (weeks?). It was - and is - our intention to rely on this PF code "as is", so this is not a route we would like to pursue. (However, we will attempt to recreate the warnings now and - hopefully - isolate the details for these specific warning instances.) We also note the following. 1) The warnings arise from a module that occurs after the production of the low pT GsfTracks, which are unaffected. 2) At worst, each warning simply implies a potentially missing energy deposit from brem in the SuperCluster. While this is arguably not ideal, we note that the ID BDT is trained under these conditions. 3) Further, we rely heavily on the GsfTrack information for a P4 measurement; the SuperCluster is mainly used to strengthen the "ID" the electron, beyond that provided by the BDTs at the seeding step (that are quite discriminating already!). Given this context, we would like to proceed and continue to a new 10_2_X release and the pilot run at the earliest opportunity, if you agree. |
@bainbrid : yes, the warnings themselves are there since longtime, and not only for the low pt electrons. The point that I asked to investigate is that in some of those warnings, the ones in correspondence of the events I listed, all the track parameters are identically 0! And this (apparently) happens only for the low pt electrons.
|
All the code backported so far in 10_2_X will be included in the next release build, see #26098 |
@mverzett @bainbrid @nancymarinelli apart for possible fixes, is there anything else to be expected? Or we may finally consider this issue as finalized? |
If @nancymarinelli is happy from the conversions side, then we are finished and can close. (The issue #26154 may potentially lead to some bug fixes ...) |
In principle that's it. But I would not be ready to bet that some fix
might be needed.
I am just looking into the vertex finding and might come up with
something (not sure)
…On 12/03/19 16:08, bainbrid wrote:
If @nancymarinelli is happy from the conversions side, then we are finished and can close.
(The issue #26154 may potentially lead to some bug fixes ...)
--
________________________________________
Nancy Marinelli
Research Associate Professor
University of Notre Dame, IN, US
CERN, Bdg 40/3-A01, 1211 Geneva
SWITZERLAND
Phone +41-22-76-70809
fax +41-22-76-78940
|
I consider this plan of work as finalized. |
For the record: @prebello reports warnings/errors when running on data with EarlyReReco2018 conditions, found in this log
The warnings/errors that appear to relate to the low pT electron code are listed below. Comments welcome. @mverzett @fabiocos @perrotta @Sam-Harper
This error is produced here. The message appears to be a little misleading, as the full reconstruction chain is performed in full in the same process and so the transient TrackExtra objects should be in memory. So the error is presumably related to the fact that the number of tangents is zero. In the context of brem, this is presumably an issue as a brem should lead to a tangent. So perhaps this means that the electron did not brem?
This warning originates from the pixel RecHit code here. I think this call on the cloneSH on the SiPixcelRecHit class triggers the warning.
This warning is "understood" and has been discussed here and later in the same thread. (Also discussed here.) |
Couldn't issue nr (2) be just due to some rounding effect? if(prob<0 || prob>1) { and the log reports that prob is equal to "1" (as a float), therefore it shouldn't have triggered the warning. |
This issue is meant to keep track of the features needed to finalzie the low pt electron reconstruction at the heart of the B parking data reprocessing. As of now the list is (2019/03/05 17:00):
Basic low pt electrons up to GsfTracks: Low pT electrons (up to GsfTracks) #25455 (master) -> Low pT electrons (up to GsfTracks) for 10_2_X #25680 (10_2_X)
Conversion from low pt GsfTracks: Conversions from low pt ele tracks released in PR 25455 #25595 (master) -> Conversion from lowPtGsfTracks backported to 10_2_x #25761 (10_2_X)
Complete low pt electrons chain: Complete low pT electron chain (2) #25753 (master) -> Complete low pT electron chain (back port) #25887 (10_2_X)
Link for LowPtGsf electrons: Added links from LowPtGsf to PackedCandidates and LostTracks in MiniAOD #26031 (master merged) -> 10.2.X Added links from LowPtGsf to PackedCandidates and LostTracks in MiniAOD #26036 (10_2_X)
Modify ValueMaps storing BDT output: Low pT electrons: modify value maps storing Seed BDT outputs #25915 (master merged) ;
Fixes for low pt electrons: Several fixes/improvements to LowPtGsfElectronSCProducer #25960 (master merged) ;
Fix in SuperClusters: Low pT electrons: bug fix for SuperCluster class #25974 (master merged) ;
Very loose working point: LowPtElectrons: switch to Autumn18 models #26012 (master merged) } -> LowPtElectrons: bug fixes + minor updates + Autumn18 models + new VL WP #26013 (10_2_X)
BPHSkim and relval: Add BPHParking skim module and the relval steps #25892 (master merged); B parking Skimming code update #25984 (master merged);
BPHSkim new working point: New working point for B parking skim #26015 (master merged);
bParking era test workflows: Add B parking test workflows #26035 (master merged) } -> Add relval for b parking skim 102x #26038 (10_2_X)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: