CaloTowers: adding separate HES/HED depth1 cut #21810
Conversation
|
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-21810/2800 |
|
A new Pull Request was created by @abdoulline (Salavat Abdullin) for master. It involves the following packages: RecoLocalCalo/CaloTowersCreator @perrotta, @cmsbuild, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
|
please test |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
Comparison job queued. |
|
Comparison is ready @slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:
Comparison Summary:
|
|
From the jenkins tests (wf 10824, TTbar13TeV2018) this plot shows the increase of selected CaloTowers in the HE region wrt current 2018 thresholds:
This can be compared with the same distribution in the 2017 "legacy collapsed" workflow 10024
If I understand it correctly, these (low stat, 10 evts each) figures confirm what was said in the presentation of Maria at today's XPOG mtg |
|
Andrea, 2018 vs 2017 is somewhat affected by different primary DIGIs (number of readouts -> rndm), so not quite apples-to-apples anyway on 10 ev. Actually the question is whether 2017 and 2018 TTbar comes form the same GEN-SIM here? So in general (2) yields less CaloTowers and energy sum (e.g. for cluster) is smaller. (3) 2018 HE CaloTowers in this PR use loose cuts of 0.1(0.2) GeV on depths1(2-7) so there more CaloTowers get produced (and clustered energy sum is higher). But I must admit in my single-pion tests, HE N_towers in (3) is still somewhat less than N_towers in (1), as the latter is probably dominated by high nose of legacy QIE8 electronics. |
|
Since I produced them, here follows a few additional comparison of the same 10824, TTbar13TeV2018 workflow with slightly larger stat. The big summary is that, together with calo towers, the number of jets also increase, while electron and photons get somehow reduced by the larger HAD content in their showers:
|
|
And here is the comparison of the event sizes (no PU...), which mirrors the observations in the previous post here: Overal, 0.5% additional reco content in the step3 output. In the miniAOD output the CaloTowers are not saved, and therefore overall there is a size reduction instead, here by 0.2%: |
|
+1
|
cmsbuild
added
fully-signed
reconstruction-approved
and removed
reconstruction-pending
labels
|
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 will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @davidlange6, @slava77, @smuzaffar, @fabiocos (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
|
On 1/10/18 8:10 AM, perrotta wrote:
while electron and photons get somehow reduced
please check also on ~1K electron gun events, e.g.
10802
just to see that possible noise doesn't kill electrons
in this case the changes in the thresholds could be questionable
|
|
In SingleElectronPt35in2018 wf 10802 the number of additional CaloTowers is less relevant than in TTbar:
The number of reconstructed electrons and photons is apparently unchanged, in spite of some little effect on the energy content:
@slava77 : I think this answers your doubt in #21810 (comment) |
|
Andrea, thank you for clarifying this particular point.
Just for the record - for 50 GeV pions ("cluster"/"Jet") the CaloTowers
energy sum change (increase) is at the level < 1 GeV in HE.
…On Wed, 10 Jan 2018, perrotta wrote:
In SingleElectronPt35in2018 wf 10802 the number of additional CaloTowers is less relevant than in TTbar:
all_testpr21810vsorig_singleelectronpt35in2018wf10802p0c_calotowerssorted_towermaker__reco_obj_obj_eta
The number of reconstructed electrons and photons is apparently unchanged, in spite of some little effect on the energy content:
all_testpr21810vsorig_singleelectronpt35in2018wf10802p0c_recogsfelectrons_gedgsfelectrons__reco_obj_caloenergy
all_testpr21810vsorig_singleelectronpt35in2018wf10802p0c_recophotons_gedphotons__reco_obj_energy
@slava77 : I think this answers your doubt in #21810 (comment)
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.[AEx02kYVhPRO7EhH5eAlO3ch0kpWhhvTks5tJTEIgaJpZM4RWIjm.gif]
|
|
+1 |
No changes expected for eras <= 2017 (cuts kept unchanged).
Some increase of HE N_towers and small addition to energy sums (CaloJets, SumET) expected for >= 2018 due to lowering of HE RecHit cut (both for depth1 and depths2-7) on CaloTowers constituents.
2018 single-pion HE N_towers (vs default reference):
https://cms-cpt-software.web.cern.ch/cms-cpt-software/General/Validation/SVSuite/HCAL/calo_scan_single_pi/100X_2018_CT_HEd1_vs_100X_2018_SinglePi/N_calotowers_HE.gif
HB N_towers is just minimally affected, as there are (more) HE RecHits with |ieta|=16 depth=3
which are included in HB CaloTower |ieta|=16
https://cms-cpt-software.web.cern.ch/cms-cpt-software/General/Validation/SVSuite/HCAL/calo_scan_single_pi/100X_2018_CT_HEd1_vs_100X_2018_SinglePi/N_calotowers_HB.gif
NB:
HES stands for 5-deg phi-segmentation rings (|ieta|<21)
HED - for 10-deg rings (|ieta|>= 21)