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

Add data-vs-emulator plots for L1T shower DQM #36396

Merged

Conversation

zuoxunwu
Copy link
Contributor

@zuoxunwu zuoxunwu commented Dec 7, 2021

PR description:

This PR adds 2D summary plots for data vs emulator comparison on L1T shower objects to the online DQM monitor and monitor client modules. There are 2 summary plots for each of the ALCT showers, CLCT showers, LCT combined showers, and EMTF showers. The plot setting follows the CSC TP plots in PR#36226.

At the moment shower objects are not implemented in CSC or EMTF firmwares. Emulation is used in the place of data in this PR and the setting will be updated to data once showers are available.

PR validation:

This PR is tested with 10k events in a Higgs to LLP to 4b sample, plot examples are available at link

The PR passed local unit tests and matrix tests. The standard code format is applied.

if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR:

N/A.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Dec 7, 2021

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-36396/27199

  • This PR adds an extra 36KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Dec 7, 2021

A new Pull Request was created by @zuoxunwu (Xunwu Zuo) for master.

It involves the following packages:

  • DQM/L1TMonitor (dqm)
  • DQM/L1TMonitorClient (dqm)

@emanueleusai, @ahmad3213, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @pmandrik, @pbo0, @rvenditti can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@perrotta, @dpiparo, @qliphy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

@jfernan2
Copy link
Contributor

jfernan2 commented Dec 7, 2021

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Dec 8, 2021

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-879a18/21074/summary.html
COMMIT: 06d5f02
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_3_X_2021-12-07-1100/slc7_amd64_gcc900
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/36396/21074/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: 6 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 42
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3250608
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 12
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3250574
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 333.126 KiB( 41 files compared)
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 11634.0,... ): 54.428 KiB L1TEMU/L1TdeCSCTPGShower
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 11634.0,... ): 1.094 KiB L1TEMU/L1TdeStage2EMTF
  • Checked 177 log files, 37 edm output root files, 42 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@jfernan2
Copy link
Contributor

jfernan2 commented Dec 8, 2021

@zuoxunwu the added plots apper empty in all tested workflows, is this expected? Specially L1TEMU / L1TdeStage2EMTF / Shower
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/baseLineComparisons/CMSSW_12_3_X_2021-12-07-1100+879a18/47317/dqm-histo-comparison-summary.html

@zuoxunwu
Copy link
Contributor Author

zuoxunwu commented Dec 8, 2021

@jfernan2 Thanks for checking. Yes, it is expected.
It looks the tests with Run 3 setting are all TTbar. The shower trigger asks for a high multiplicity of CSC LCTs in the same chamber, which should not be present in TTbar events.
And luckily we actually have a few entries in L1TEMU/L1TdeCSCTPGShower in test 11634.911. It looks like these entries come from detector noise (not sure how that is simulated in this test sample).
So things are working as expected:)

@jfernan2
Copy link
Contributor

jfernan2 commented Dec 9, 2021

+1

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Dec 9, 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. @perrotta, @dpiparo, @qliphy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

@qliphy
Copy link
Contributor

qliphy commented Dec 9, 2021

+1

@VinInn
Copy link
Contributor

VinInn commented Dec 9, 2021

does not compile with #35627

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