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

[muon] updated multiIso working points #26459

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Apr 17, 2019

Conversation

drkovalskyi
Copy link
Contributor

An update for supported multiIso working points based on input from SUSY group (@gzevi ). Dropped unsupported working points.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-26459/9277

  • This PR adds an extra 24KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

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

It involves the following packages:

PhysicsTools/PatAlgos

@perrotta, @cmsbuild, @santocch, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@jdamgov, @TaiSakuma, @gouskos, @rappoccio, @jdolen, @ahinzmann, @smoortga, @acaudron, @gpetruc, @mmarionncern, @HeinerTholen, @JyothsnaKomaragiri, @nhanvtran, @gkasieczka, @clelange, @schoef, @ferencek, @mverzett, @mariadalfonso, @pvmulder, @seemasharmafnal 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

@slava77
Copy link
Contributor

slava77 commented Apr 15, 2019

@cmsbuild please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 15, 2019

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/34206/console Started: 2019/04/15 16:11

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Comparison job queued.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-26459/34206/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 18 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 32
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3142783
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3142585
  • 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

@slava77
Copy link
Contributor

slava77 commented Apr 15, 2019

@drkovalskyi please add a link to the supporting documentation of the new working point in the PR description.
Thank you.


muon.setSelector(reco::Muon::MultiIsoLoose, miniIsoValue<0.40 && (muon.jetPtRatio() > 0.80 || muon.jetPtRel() > 7.2) );
muon.setSelector(reco::Muon::MultiIsoMedium, miniIsoValue<0.16 && (muon.jetPtRatio() > 0.76 || muon.jetPtRel() > 7.2) );
muon.setSelector(reco::Muon::MultiIsoMedium, miniIsoValue<0.11 && (muon.jetPtRatio() > 0.74 || muon.jetPtRel() > 6.8) );
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I found these cuts in https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMS/SUSLeptonSF#ID_IP_ISO
these are quoted as Medium2017data_V32JEC.
This looks like WPs change depending on the version of miniAOD processing.
Is this setting approved/OK for (re)miniAOD of 2016 80X RECO/AOD or for 2018 102X RECO/AOD?
What about the 10_6_X itself (legacy rereco)?

@gzevi please advise or tag someone who can clarify.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We won't track JEC changes, i.e. whatever JET pt is used during processing it will be the Pt used in the selector. Muon POG will only provide scale factors for pre-computed selectors. It was discussed with @gzevi and it was concluded that it's still useful for SUSY group. If not, we will drop both working points.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

OK, it sounds like we are not yet in the phase space of a broken clock.

@slava77
Copy link
Contributor

slava77 commented Apr 16, 2019

+1

for #26459 e2640f9

  • code changes are in line with the PR description and the follow up review
  • jenkins tests pass and comparisons with the baseline show differences only in the miniAOD muons selector flags as expected.

@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@santocch please have a look, this code is relevant for miniAOD processing but for analysis use in general

@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor

merge

@cmsbuild cmsbuild merged commit e5aead7 into cms-sw:master Apr 17, 2019
@santocch
Copy link

+1

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

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 be automatically merged.

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

5 participants