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

PPS: update of association cuts #27440

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jul 11, 2019
Merged

Conversation

jan-kaspar
Copy link
Contributor

@jan-kaspar jan-kaspar commented Jul 4, 2019

This PR adjusts the "association cuts" used in multi-RP proton reconstruction. This update has been presented in RECO/AT meeting:
https://indico.cern.ch/event/830302/contributions/3477928/attachments/1871174/3079130/jan_kaspar_pps.pdf
and PPS POG meeting:
https://indico.cern.ch/event/832270/contributions/3487106/attachments/1872773/3082425/jan_kaspar_pps.pdf

The new association cuts are different for 2016, 2017 and 2018 - which is achieved by introducing new era modifiers. For backward compatibility the meaning of ctpps_2016 is unchanged and this modifier still applies to all 2016, 17 and 18.

The association cuts are modified for all 2016, 2017 and 2018.

This update is backported to the 10_6 cycle for later stages of UL re-reco in #27475.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jul 4, 2019

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jul 4, 2019

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-27440/10747

  • This PR adds an extra 16KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jul 4, 2019

A new Pull Request was created by @jan-kaspar for master.

It involves the following packages:

Configuration/Eras
RecoCTPPS/ProtonReconstruction

@perrotta, @cmsbuild, @franzoni, @slava77, @fabiocos, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@makortel, @Martin-Grunewald, @forthommel 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 Jul 4, 2019

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jul 4, 2019

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-run-pr-tests/1322/console Started: 2019/07/04 13:43

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jul 4, 2019

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jul 4, 2019

Comparison job queued.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jul 4, 2019

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-fdd71d/1322/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 28 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 33
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3160399
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 4
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3160061
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 334
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 32 files compared)
  • Checked 137 log files, 14 edm output root files, 33 DQM output files

@@ -15,7 +15,8 @@
from Configuration.Eras.Modifier_run2_egamma_2018_cff import run2_egamma_2018
from Configuration.Eras.Modifier_run2_egamma_2017_cff import run2_egamma_2017
from Configuration.Eras.Modifier_run2_L1prefiring_cff import run2_L1prefiring
from Configuration.Eras.Modifier_ctpps_2018_cff import ctpps_2018

Run2_2018 = cms.ModifierChain(Run2_2017.copyAndExclude([run2_HEPlan1_2017, run2_muon_2017, run2_L1prefiring, run2_HLTconditions_2017, run2_egamma_2017]),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Shouldn't you exclude ctpps_2017 here? If I understand it correctly, your idea is to have 2017 and 2018 modifiers applying on top of ("default") 2016 modifiers.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Absolutely, thanks for catching this! Fixed in d8eb24c.

ctpps_2016.toModify(ctppsProtons, ApplyDefaultSettings) # applied for all Run2 years (2016, 2017 and 2018)

def Apply2017Settings(ctppsProtons):
ctppsProtons.association_cuts_45.xi_cut_value = 0.010
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Both these settings are identical to the "default" ones, i.e. you are not replacing anything here

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Right, in the POG meeting we converged on identical settings for 2016 and 2017. For symmetry (and possible future updates) I kept the code separated for 2016 and 2017.

from Configuration.Eras.Modifier_ctpps_2017_cff import ctpps_2017
from Configuration.Eras.Modifier_ctpps_2018_cff import ctpps_2018

def ApplyDefaultSettings(ctppsProtons):
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Start with a lowercase letter, as for cms code rules: applyDefaultSettings (and the same for the similar cases below)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Fixed in d8eb24c.

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

perrotta commented Jul 6, 2019

By the way, the only difference visible in the jenkins tests is in the 2016 workflow 136.731, where an additional proton is reconstructed with the new settings.
This demonstrates that you are also modifying the setting for 2016 (where before this PR you were just relying on those set by the fillDescriptions method of CTPPSProtonProducer.cc, which are different from the ones set here with the ctpps_2016 modifier). I think that this is exactly what you want, but let me underline it here because it was not obvious from the PR description.

I imagine that the automated comparisons do not show differences in the 2017 or 2018 workflows just because of the low statistics.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jul 9, 2019

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-run-pr-tests/1377/console Started: 2019/07/09 19:27

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jul 9, 2019

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jul 9, 2019

Comparison job queued.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jul 9, 2019

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-fdd71d/1377/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 28 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 33
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3160399
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 4
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3160061
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 334
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 32 files compared)
  • Checked 137 log files, 14 edm output root files, 33 DQM output files

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

+1

  • Parameters for association cuts are updated separately for the last three years of data taking
  • Small changes with respect to the previous common default are shown in PPS: update of association cuts #27440 (comment) : jenkins tests pass and show no other differences besides the low-stat reflection of these changes.

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

Please @jan-kaspar prepare the backpport to 10_6 that you have planned

@jan-kaspar
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks @perrotta, the backport is here: #27475.

@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor

+operations

the update of Configuration eras is coherent with the purpose of the PR

@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor

+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

4 participants