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

Modification to PythiaFilterMotherSister #33806

Merged

Conversation

mgratti
Copy link
Contributor

@mgratti mgratti commented May 21, 2021

This PR modifies the PythiaFilterMotherSister, which is a generator filter introduced in #33308 , designed to
efficiently select events with heavy long-lived neutrinos a B semi-leptonic decay.

The modifications are:

  • 2D displacement of the long-lived particle is used instead of 3D displacement
  • the possibility to cut on the pt of the decay products of the long-lived particle is added.

This PR will be followed by a backport in 10_2_X.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-33806/22795

  • This PR adds an extra 16KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @mgratti (Maria Giulia Ratti) for master.

It involves the following packages:

GeneratorInterface/GenFilters

@SiewYan, @mkirsano, @cmsbuild, @GurpreetSinghChahal, @agrohsje, @alberto-sanchez can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@alberto-sanchez, @mkirsano this is something you requested to watch as well.
@silviodonato, @dpiparo, @qliphy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

Comment on lines 79 to 82
if (nephew_pdgId == 11 or nephew_pdgId == 13 or nephew_pdgId == 15)
passLeptonPt = ((*nephew)->momentum().perp() > minLeptonPt);
if (nephew_pdgId == 211)
passTrackPt = ((*nephew)->momentum().perp() > minTrackPt);

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What happens if you have multiple? With the current logic the last one need to be above. Is this what you had in mind? or do you mean "implicit assumption"?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If the decay products of the sister particle include more than one lepton, only the last one will be checked.
For my use case, this is irrelevant because by construction only one of the decay products will be a lepton.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@mgratti mgratti May 25, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The code can be easily generalised to the case where multiple charged leptons/pions are present and all of them are required to pass the specified pt cuts. @agrohsje, please, let me know your preference.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

i would prefer moving to the generalized setup. @qliphy @silviodonato what do you think?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

A generalized setup is fine to me.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ok, thanks. The update will come tomorrow. We've had downtime at our t3 in the last two days.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks so much Maria!

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-33806/22918

  • This PR adds an extra 16KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Pull request #33806 was updated. @SiewYan, @mkirsano, @cmsbuild, @GurpreetSinghChahal, @agrohsje, @alberto-sanchez can you please check and sign again.

@SiewYan
Copy link
Contributor

SiewYan commented May 28, 2021

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-1fc445/15392/summary.html
COMMIT: 277911e
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_0_X_2021-05-28-1100/slc7_amd64_gcc900
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/33806/15392/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 4 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 37
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2650486
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 6
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 1
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2650457
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: -0.004 KiB( 36 files compared)
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 312.0 ): -0.004 KiB MessageLogger/Warnings
  • Checked 155 log files, 37 edm output root files, 37 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

Comment on lines 78 to 82
if (minLeptonPt > 0. and (nephew_pdgId == 11 or nephew_pdgId == 13 or nephew_pdgId == 15))
failLeptonPt += ((*nephew)->momentum().perp() < minLeptonPt);
if (minTrackPt > 0. and nephew_pdgId == 211)
failTrackPt += ((*nephew)->momentum().perp() < minTrackPt);
}
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hi Maria. Let me understand. Why is 11,13 and 15 generic. I know it is called lepton pT, but does this cover all needs. Even more about the pion. Can you clarify why this can be hard-coded?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@mgratti mgratti Jun 1, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hi, are you asking if the current logic covers all possible decay products of the sister particle? If so, not all possible cases are covered; this is ok for my specific case. In order to make this more general, I could implement the pdgid(s) of the nephew particle(s) as parameters, in addition to the corresponding pts. Please, let me know if this option is ok for you or if you had in mind something different.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Right. That was my proposal: I would add them as steerable parameters. Thanks!

@mgratti
Copy link
Contributor Author

mgratti commented Jun 3, 2021

@agrohsje, perhaps you missed my reply above? Could you please merge or propose changes, so that we can converge on this and the respective backports?

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jun 3, 2021

-code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-33806/23056

  • This PR adds an extra 16KB to repository

Code check has found code style and quality issues which could be resolved by applying following patch(s)

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jun 3, 2021

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-33806/23058

  • This PR adds an extra 20KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jun 3, 2021

Pull request #33806 was updated. @SiewYan, @mkirsano, @cmsbuild, @GurpreetSinghChahal, @agrohsje, @alberto-sanchez can you please check and sign again.

@mgratti
Copy link
Contributor Author

mgratti commented Jun 6, 2021

hi @agrohsje , the proposed changes were implemented. Would it be possible to go ahead with this PR? Thank you!

@SiewYan
Copy link
Contributor

SiewYan commented Jun 7, 2021

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jun 7, 2021

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-1fc445/15716/summary.html
COMMIT: e7adc04
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_0_X_2021-06-06-2300/slc7_amd64_gcc900
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/33806/15716/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 37
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2648335
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2648312
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 36 files compared)
  • Checked 155 log files, 37 edm output root files, 37 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@agrohsje
Copy link

agrohsje commented Jun 8, 2021

+generators

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jun 8, 2021

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. @silviodonato, @dpiparo, @qliphy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

@qliphy
Copy link
Contributor

qliphy commented Jun 8, 2021

+1

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