Implementation of DQM plot: tracking efficiency VS dR(track, jet) #25514
Conversation
|
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-25514/7694
|
|
A new Pull Request was created by @vberta for master. It involves the following packages: Validation/RecoTrack @kmaeshima, @cmsbuild, @andrius-k, @jfernan2, @schneiml can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
|
thanks ! then, I see there are spurious extra spaces, etc |
|
@cmsbuild, please test |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
-1 Tested at: e699027 You can see the results of the tests here: I found follow errors while testing this PR Failed tests: Build ClangBuild
I found compilation warning when building: See details on the summary page.
I found compilation warning while trying to compile with clang. Command used: See details on the summary page. |
|
Comparison not run due to Build errors (RelVals and Igprof tests were also skipped) |
cmsbuild
added
comparison-notrun
tests-rejected
and removed
comparison-pending
tests-started
labels
| @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ | |||
|
|
|||
| #include "DQMServices/Core/interface/ConcurrentMonitorElement.h" | |||
| #include "DQMServices/Core/interface/DQMStore.h" | |||
| #include "DataFormats/Candidate/interface/Candidate.h" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No need for this include here.
| @@ -159,6 +160,7 @@ class MTVHistoProducerAlgoForTracker { | |||
| const reco::Track* track, | |||
| int numVertices, | |||
| double dR, | |||
| double dR_jet, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please keep indentation consistent.
| @@ -776,6 +823,7 @@ void MultiTrackValidator::dqmAnalyze(const edm::Event& event, const edm::EventSe | |||
| double dxyPVSim = 0; | |||
| double dzPVSim = 0; | |||
| double dR=dR_tPCeff[iTP]; | |||
| double dR_jet=dR_tPCeff_jet[iTP]; | |||
| @@ -882,6 +890,7 @@ void MTVHistoProducerAlgoForTracker::fill_recoAssociated_simTrack_histos(const H | |||
| const reco::Track* track, | |||
| int numVertices, | |||
| double dR, | |||
| double dRJet, | |||
| @@ -98,6 +98,9 @@ | |||
|
|
|||
| ### do resolution plots only for these labels (or all if empty) | |||
| doResolutionPlotsForLabels = cms.VInputTag(), | |||
|
|
|||
| cores = cms.InputTag("ak4CaloJets"), | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why not ak4CaloJetsForTrk?
| float eta = etaL[iTP1]; | ||
| float phi = phiL[iTP1]; | ||
| for (unsigned int ji = 0; ji < cores->size(); ji++) {//jet loop | ||
| if((*cores)[ji].pt() > ptMinJet_){ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd prefer that this cut would be made with a (generic ref) selector outside MTV.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@makortel I guess in the log term we could also think of binning rather than cutting on Jet pT, so I'd rather keep the cut inside. What would be the advantage of an additional external selection?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@arizzi I was mainly thinking to avoid extending the MTV complexity when something could be done outside of it. Also currently all other cuts than the "standard" TrackingParticle efficiency denominator cuts are done outside MTV. A generic jet selector outside MTV would also provide an easy placeholder for any other cuts on jets (eta, phi, who knows). Binning cuts are certainly necessary to do here, I agree.
At minimum the minimal cuts on jets (now minimum pT) should be done only once, i.e. moved outside of the loop over selected_tPCeff.
|
I was a bit too fast. Some of my comments on the code conflict with
because then the |
|
Comparison is ready @slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:
Comparison Summary:
|
|
Comparison is ready The workflows 1001.0, 1000.0, 1325.7, 140.56, 140.53, 136.85, 136.8311, 136.788, 136.7611, 136.731, 4.53, 4.22 have different files in step1_dasquery.log than the ones found in the baseline. You may want to check and retrigger the tests if necessary. You can check it in the "files" directory in the results of the comparisons @slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:
Comparison Summary:
|
|
+1 |
|
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) |
cmsbuild
added
dqm-approved
fully-signed
and removed
dqm-pending
pending-signatures
labels
|
please test workflow 10824.1,10824.5 to get a clean final output |
cmsbuild
added
comparison-pending
tests-pending
and removed
comparison-available
tests-approved
labels
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
+1 The following merge commits were also included on top of IB + this PR after doing git cms-merge-topic: |
|
Comparison job queued. |
|
Comparison is ready @slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:
Comparison Summary:
|
|
+1 @makortel I understand you are satisfied by the current status of this PR |
Implemented in tracking DQM the plot of the tracking efficiency VS dR, where dR is the distance between a track and the caloJets axis. This is a relevant parameter in the core of the jets, where the efficiency drops. Only tracks with dR lower than 0.1 in jets of Pt above 1 TeV are included in the calculation of the efficiency by default.
@arizzi