Skip to content
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

Use modifier phase2_etlv4 for any scenario using MTD I12 or I13 #33130

Closed
fabiocos opened this issue Mar 10, 2021 · 7 comments
Closed

Use modifier phase2_etlv4 for any scenario using MTD I12 or I13 #33130

fabiocos opened this issue Mar 10, 2021 · 7 comments

Comments

@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor

The validation of scenario D76 by @gsorrentino18 shows a dramatic drop in efficiency of ETL, incompatible with the previous validation of D73. I independently noticed that only a very small number of tracks has ETL hits associated in D76.

One possible source of the problem is the lack of https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/master/Configuration/Eras/python/Modifier_phase2_etlV4_cff.py in the definition of the Eras used for newest scenarios, based on MTD I13, as it was done in https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/master/Configuration/Eras/python/Era_Phase2C11_etlV4_cff.py . This should be fixed asap, @gsorrentino18 is verifying whether such a fix is enough to recover the previously observed situation.

Ideally it would be simpler to embed this in the Phase2C11 era, but this is still used also for some scenarios using MTD I11 (D64 till D71). These scenarios should not be taken seriously as far as ETL is concerned, but still if they are required to be functional an "_etlv4" version of the Eras should be provided and used.

@parbol FYI

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Issue was created by @fabiocos Fabio Cossutti.

@Dr15Jones, @dpiparo, @silviodonato, @smuzaffar, @makortel, @qliphy can you please review it and eventually sign/assign? Thanks.

cms-bot commands are listed here

@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor Author

@srimanob @bsunanda FYI

@makortel
Copy link
Contributor

assign upgrade

(not sure who else)

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

New categories assigned: upgrade

@kpedro88,@srimanob you have been requested to review this Pull request/Issue and eventually sign? Thanks

@srimanob
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for the report @fabiocos @gsorrentino18
Could you please fill the ValDB, so that PdmV keeps the record of what fails, https://cms-pdmv.cern.ch/valdb/?srch=11_3_0_pre3&selected=11_3_0_pre3_phase2_D76&Reconstruction=true&RFull=true

@gsorrentino18
Copy link
Contributor

The following plots (Track efficiency as a function of pT for ETL negative side) have been obtained with 150 TTbar events in the D73 (blue) and D76 (red) scenarios.
On the left, the discrepancy observed while validating the new D76 scenario.
On the right, the proper threshold, calibration constant and MeVtoMIP conversion values are used (those implemented in the missing modifier pointed by Fabio).
The lack of such modifier in the new Era appears to be the main issue.
Schermata 2021-03-10 alle 19 11 36

@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor Author

Issue solved by #33139

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants