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

New slopes for S9S1filter #26382

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Apr 9, 2019
Merged

Conversation

toropin
Copy link
Contributor

@toropin toropin commented Apr 8, 2019

PR description:

This PR is devoted to the definition of new slopes for the limit lines in the planes 'S9S1 vs log(ELong)' for HF S9S1 filter. The slopes are different for the different HF Ieta values.
All parameters of S9S1(S8S1) filter were defined in ~2010 with lower energy of colliding beams and lower luminosity. It is the isolation filter and with much higher luminosity we have now the isolation
parameters could be different. See report in ref. 1 from slide 29.
On slide 30 presented distributions S9S1 vs log(ELong) for different Ieta. There are 2 inclined lines in each plot for Ieta 30 - 34. The lower lines correspond to the current slope parameters, the upper
lines correspond to the proposed new parameters.
The goal of this work is to reduce populations of hits above the old slope lines. These hits could be responsible for fake jets originated in HF.
On slides 34 and 35 presented the examples of HF hits which could be marked by S9S1 filter if slopes would be increased. In the lower lines in the captions to the pictures you can see S9S1 as the value calculated by filter, S9S1cut is the limit defined with old slopes, S9S1max is the new limit defined with changed slopes.

References:

  1. https://indico.cern.ch/event/807827/contributions/3362430/attachments/1816769/2969579/HFStripFilter_22Mar2019.pdf

PR validation:

In this PR only python file HFPhase1Reconstructor_cfi.py was modified. S9S1 slopes were multiplied by vector of constants to increase their values. These modifications are for Run 2 data. This file is for Run 2 reconstruction and this PR cannot affect data of Run 1.

The performance of reconstruction with the new slopes was tested. On the Screenshot of EventDisplay (FireWorks) below presented HF hit (signal in Long fiber) which was not marked by S9S1 filter. For these pictures threshold = 40 GeV was applied.

image

On the picture below presented the same hit marked by S9S1 filter after slopes were increased. In the column 'flags' uppermost hit has flag value 1048577. It means it has bit0 = 1 which corresponds to the S9S1 filter decision.

image

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 8, 2019

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 8, 2019

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-26382/9131

  • This PR adds an extra 12KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 8, 2019

A new Pull Request was created by @toropin for master.

It involves the following packages:

RecoLocalCalo/HcalRecProducers

@cmsbuild, @perrotta, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@mariadalfonso this is something you requested to watch as well.
@davidlange6, @slava77, @fabiocos you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

perrotta commented Apr 8, 2019

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 8, 2019

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/34046/console Started: 2019/04/08 10:41

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 8, 2019

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 8, 2019

Comparison job queued.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 8, 2019

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-26382/34046/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 7 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 32
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3140495
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3140297
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 197
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 31 files compared)
  • Checked 133 log files, 14 edm output root files, 32 DQM output files

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

perrotta commented Apr 9, 2019

@toropin : jenkins tests show no differences at all in Run2 outputs.
Is this due to the low statistics of those tests?
Do you have any higher stat validation of the update proposed, and can you put a link for it?

@toropin
Copy link
Contributor Author

toropin commented Apr 9, 2019

Yes, we are looking for a level of ~10-4.
For the last tests I used events of MET trigger with special selection for S9S1 filter. To select these events the list of events with possible fake jets presented by JetMET group were used.
The picked events of MET trigger from runs 320757 - 321006 are in file
/afs/cern.ch/work/t/toropin/public/testS9S1/pickevents_S9S1.root (59 events).
In the same directory file myfile-S9S1-old.root contains 20 reconstructed events with the "old" slopes for S9S1 filter. In file myfile-S9S1-modified.root the same 20 events were reconstructed with "new" slopes for S9S1 filter.
Actually I compared these two reconstructions with EventDisplay.
For another triggers it will be quite difficult to indicate any difference. For SingleMuon trigger it is badly possible to find any difference at all.

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

perrotta commented Apr 9, 2019

+1

  • New slopes for the filter defined according to the PR description and the linked presentations
  • Physics validation was provided by the authors
  • Jenkins tests pass and show no differences: differences may be expected for Run2 data, but at a much smaller rate than what can be addressed by the tests statistics

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 9, 2019

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)

@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor

fabiocos commented Apr 9, 2019

+1

@cmsbuild cmsbuild merged commit 8447308 into cms-sw:master Apr 9, 2019
@toropin toropin deleted the new-slopes-for-S9S1filter branch April 10, 2019 07:07
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants