Change of SiStrip cross-talk parameters: improvement of the simulated hits #23621
Conversation
|
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-23621/5249 |
|
A new Pull Request was created by @mjansova for master. It involves the following packages: SimGeneral/MixingModule @cmsbuild, @civanch, @mdhildreth can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
|
please test |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
| @@ -50,6 +55,27 @@ | |||
| CouplingConstantPeakW5 = cms.vdouble(0.968, 0.016), | |||
| CouplingConstantPeakW6 = cms.vdouble(0.972, 0.014), | |||
| CouplingConstantPeakW7 = cms.vdouble(0.964, 0.018), | |||
|
|
|||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this block looks a clone of the addition above, would not be better to have it in one place only and include it in both places? Duplications are in general more problematic to maintain and error prone
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Indeed, there are duplications between the two configuration files, but it was there already before my commit. Then the block you are asking about is for Peak mode, which I did not touch at all and I do not see any duplications there. Could you please clarify your question?
|
Comparison job queued. |
cmsbuild
added
code-checks-pending
tests-pending
and removed
code-checks-approved
tests-approved
labels
|
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-23621/5255 |
|
Pull request #23621 was updated. @cmsbuild, @civanch, @mdhildreth can you please check and sign again. |
|
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
|
please test |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
Comparison job queued. |
|
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
|
This PR introduces changes in the charge sharing of the simulated hits
without changing the total simulated charge.
With the new parameters, the SiStrip clusters are in average smaller.
This can have small impact on the cluster barycenter, the CPE as well as
some threshold effects for low charge cluster (most likely OOT PU).
This explains differences in tracking and other downstream quantitites
like in vertexing, B-tag, ...
* The cluster width is lower as expected (and by construction) (see
e.g. the TOB-L4)
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/baseLineComparisons/CMSSW_10_2_X_2018-06-19-2300+23621/27169/10224.0_TTbar_13+TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2017PU_GenSimFull+DigiFullPU_2017PU+RecoFullPU_2017PU+HARVESTFullPU_2017PU/SiStrip_RecHitsValidation_StiffTrackingRecHits_MechanicalView_TOB_layer_4.html
* Changes are observed in the off-tracks clusters, corresponding to
the threshold effect mentioned above. The differences mainly appear
at low charge/low S/N
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/baseLineComparisons/CMSSW_10_2_X_2018-06-19-2300+23621/27169/10224.0_TTbar_13+TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2017PU_GenSimFull+DigiFullPU_2017PU+RecoFullPU_2017PU+HARVESTFullPU_2017PU/SiStrip_MechanicalView_TOB.html
* Finally the Run-I MC is completely untouched thanks to the era
mechanism used (see e.g. the TTbar run1 wf)
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/baseLineComparisons/CMSSW_10_2_X_2018-06-19-2300+23621/27169/25.0_TTbar+TTbar+DIGI+RECOAlCaCalo+HARVEST+ALCATT/
To conclude, from the tracker point of view, the differences observed
are as expected !
Le 21/06/2018 à 11:58, Fabio Cossutti a écrit :
…
@mjansova <https://github.com/mjansova> @boudoul
<https://github.com/boudoul> are the effects the expected ones? I
browsed a few histograms only, and found them in agreement with the
previous ones, but of course I just randomly picked a few
@perrotta <https://github.com/perrotta> @slava77
<https://github.com/slava77> FYI as this could impact the output of
data/MC agreement
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#23621 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE1tdIeYzHC_eNaoPhdefwLIEoZqIxTfks5t-25AgaJpZM4UtL5z>.
--
Eric CHABERT
/Maître de Conférences
Tél. : +33(0)388 10 66 31
Fax : +33(0)388 10 62 34
/Eric.Chabert@iphc.cnrs.fr <mailto:Eric.Chabert@iphc.cnrs.fr>
<http://www.unistra.fr/>
/IPHC/DRS, 23 rue du Loess -BP 28- F67037 Strasbourg
Bâtiment 21, bureau 109
/http://iphc.in2p3.fr <http://iphc.in2p3.fr/>
|
|
I agree that it is not good having list of run depending parameters duplicated in different python configuration. If not in this PR but this should be indeed improved. |
|
+1 |
cmsbuild
added
fully-signed
simulation-approved
and removed
pending-signatures
simulation-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) |
|
+1 @echabert thanks for the detailed discussion, I understand that this PR is doing what desired, and that this can be tested more extensively in CMSSW_10_2_0_pre6 |
This PR follows a request of the strip local reco conveners (@mmusich, @echabert).
It aims to be integrated in 10_2_0_pre6.
This PR contains mainly changes in the configuration files SimGeneral/MixingModule/python/SiStripSimParameters_cfi.py and SimTracker/SiStripDigitizer/python/SiStripDigiSimLink_cfi.py. It will affect the simulation of SiStrip tracker hits leading to a better description of their properties.
The cross-talk parameters (called here "CouplingConstants") describe the charge sharing between neighbor channels in the SiStrip tracker. Those parameters are used by the file SimTracker/SiStripDigitizer/plugins/SiTrivialInduceChargeOnStrips.cc .
Thus only the shape of the simulated and then reconstructed clusters will be affected: change of the seed charge, change of the cluster width. The total cluster charge will almost be unchanged as the parameters only change the charge sharing but not the normalization.
The previous parameters were determined at run I but with ageing, these parameters had to be re-evaluated.
A measurement have been done (VR run with cosmics data) and the results are propagated into the config files.
Data/MC validation have been made to ensure that the new parameters improve the agreement of the cluster seed charge and the cluster width.
The validation plots can be found here: https://indico.cern.ch/event/688867/contributions/3040427/attachments/1670393/2679458/cross_talk2018_validation.pdf
On top of the configuration file, a modification of SimTracker/SiStripDigitizer/plugins/SiTrivialInduceChargeOnStrips.cc has been done to allow the activation of the new parameters through flags.
They are split into two categories: barrel modules (activated via CouplingConstantsRunIIDecB ) and disk/wheels (via CouplingConstantsRunIIDecW ). If the two booleans are set to False, the default simulation will be executed.
By default the flags are turned to False, thus the simulation will not be modified.
We plan to request special reval with the flag turned to True so that we can validate the changes and turn it to True in the next pre-realease.