update V0 selection for 2017

[fojensen]

1. change selection to improve efficiency for reconstruction for V0s from displaced vertices
2. change selection to improve signal / noise performance
3. two minor changes to remove unnecessary calculations when using default configuration

see attached slides for performance plots
prV0_v2.pdf

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @fojensen (Frank Jensen) for master.

It involves the following packages:

RecoVertex/V0Producer

@perrotta, @cmsbuild, @slava77, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@makortel, @felicepantaleo, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @rovere, @VinInn, @ebrondol, @dgulhan this is something you requested to watch as well.
@davidlange6 you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[slava77]

@cmsbuild please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/21542/console Started: 2017/07/17 22:59

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: de5507c
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-19784/21542/summary.html

The following merge commits were also included on top of IB + this PR after doing git cms-merge-topic:
7b1c63d
You can see more details here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-19784/21542/git-log-recent-commits
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-19784/21542/git-merge-result

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-19784/21542/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 340 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 23
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2026759
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 15560
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2011033
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 166
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• Checked 93 log files, 14 edm output root files, 23 DQM output files

[VinInn]

Hi Frank, did you test it on MC?
are this changes specific to Phase1 or more general?
btw dit you present your slides anywhere?

[fojensen]

Hello Vincenzo, 1) did you test it on MC? I used truth information from: /RelValTTbar_13/CMSSW_9_1_0_pre1-PU25ns_90X_upgrade2017_realistic_v20_HSresub-v1/GEN-SIM-RECODEBUG to make plots of S / sqrt(S+B) to optimize the new values for the cuts 2) are this changes specific to Phase1 or more general? The changes are supposed to be more general, mainly to improve reco efficiency of Lambdas from Cascade decays. But I was running on MC and data which was as new as possible while moving forwards. 3) did you present your slides anywhere? I did not present the slides. While deciding on the cuts the communication was between Kevin Stenson and I. ~Frank

…

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 5:52 AM, Vincenzo Innocente < ***@***.***> wrote: Hi Frank, did you test it on MC? are this changes specific to Phase1 or more general? btw dit you present your slides anywhere? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#19784 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGGL6aI5Fz8x_Z_YL0hFjkKWNhCcePOoks5sPCvqgaJpZM4OafL8> .

[VinInn]

ok, I will give you a slot in TRK-POG on 31th (two weeks from now)

[fojensen]

I am giving a talk at DPF at FNAL that day - is it possible we choose a different day?

…

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Vincenzo Innocente < ***@***.***> wrote: ok, I will give you a slot in TRK-POG on 31th (two weeks from now) — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#19784 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGGL6T8Clb8u-QrgEUnL7ym_76iJ5PvPks5sPHbdgaJpZM4OafL8> .

[VinInn]

Not impossible... let's see later on

[slava77]

On 7/18/17 4:11 AM, Vincenzo Innocente wrote: Not impossible... let's see later on

Hi Vincenzo, may I ask you to inspect the slides attached to the PR description and comment on the material if it looks OK or if it needs further checks. Thank you.

…

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#19784 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEdcbsLBrpSzYXFc-v7GHn77XT0sGQdkks5sPJL7gaJpZM4OafL8>.

[VinInn]

It looks Ok to me as presented.
The justification is reasonable, and the plots make sense.
so for TRK-POG is ok.

[slava77]

+1

for #19784 de5507c

• implementation is in line with the description and slides provided
• jenkins tests pass and comparisons with baseline look roughly as expected

Looking at comparisons in jenkins, the changes appear to be in the right places

e.g. wf 136.731 in data

• RECO/AOD
  • generalV0Candidates collection size for KShort has increased by a factor of 1.7, mostly in the signal region (in line with the slides provided in the PR description)

- the number of Lambda candidates is up by more than a factor of 2 from 21 to 46 in this test; the count is too small to make stat significant claims of changes in signal vs background. Still, it looks roughly in line with the slides provided.

• miniAOD
  • there is a small increase in the fraction of packedCandidates with track details filled (matches the increment from V0 tracks)
  • lostTracks [filled for V0 tracks that didn't make it to PFCands] collection size increased by about 10%, most significantly for shorter tracks
    

On a somewhat related note:
the DQM plot for deltaM/Mpdg is rather meaningless considering the reconstructed mass range

perhaps in another PR this could be improved

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next master IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @davidlange6, @smuzaffar

[davidlange6]

+1