Changing abs(eta) cut for tracks in ALCARECOEcalESAlign_cff.py #40067

rekkhan · 2022-11-15T03:50:11Z

Loosen the abs(eta) cut for the tracks

lower abs(eta) change from 1.7 to 1.65.
remove the higher abs(eta) cut

PR description:

Change the abs(eta) cut of the track.

Lower cut change to 1.65
Remove higher cut

PR validation:

Current abs(eta) cut decrease statistic in high eta region of the Preshower. Loosening the eta cut is proposed to increase the hits statistic. Hits occupancy issue can be seen in the plots in my cernbox[1]

[1]https://cernbox.cern.ch/s/FmTTfZvdBRXxKRW

Loosen the abs(eta) cut for the tracks - lower abs(eta) change from 1.7 to 1.65. - remove the higher abs(eta) cut

cmsbuild · 2022-11-15T03:58:04Z

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-40067/33047

This PR adds an extra 12KB to repository

cmsbuild · 2022-11-15T03:58:42Z

A new Pull Request was created by @rekkhan (Long Hoa) for master.

It involves the following packages:

Calibration/EcalAlCaRecoProducers (alca)

@malbouis, @yuanchao, @cmsbuild, @saumyaphor4252, @francescobrivio, @ChrisMisan, @tvami can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@rchatter, @tocheng, @argiro, @thomreis, @simonepigazzini, @mmusich this is something you requested to watch as well.
@perrotta, @dpiparo, @rappoccio you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

thomreis · 2022-11-15T08:03:57Z

please test

francescobrivio · 2022-11-15T09:06:09Z

Hi @rekkhan, @thomreis,

I have two questions:

Just for my understanding what is the rationale behind removing completely the higher eta cut? Does this mean you will accept also tracks outside the tracker acceptance (i.e. abs(eta)>2.5)?
do you have an estimate of the size increaze of the alcareco with these changes?

cmsbuild · 2022-11-15T20:08:57Z

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-ba8825/29011/summary.html
COMMIT: b3a51c4
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_6_X_2022-11-15-1100/el8_amd64_gcc10
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/40067/29011/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: 48
DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3417074
DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 3
DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3417049
DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 47 files compared)
Checked 206 log files, 48 edm output root files, 48 DQM output files
TriggerResults: found differences in 3 / 46 workflows

mmusich · 2022-11-15T20:13:47Z

Does this mean you will accept also tracks outside the tracker acceptance (i.e. abs(eta)>2.5)?

Not sure what it even means to have tracks outside of the Tracker acceptance, but FYI it is possible with the phase1 pixel detector to have tracks made exclusively out of pixel hits up to |eta|<3.

tvami · 2022-11-15T20:17:34Z

please test

@thomreis I dont think the standard relvals run this ALCARECO. Which relvals run this? Should we just run the one with allForExpress and allForPrompt?

tvami · 2022-11-15T20:18:20Z

@rekkhan please also be more specific in the PR title, thanks!

francescobrivio · 2022-11-15T20:57:26Z

Does this mean you will accept also tracks outside the tracker acceptance (i.e. abs(eta)>2.5)?

Not sure what it even means to have tracks outside of the Tracker acceptance, but FYI it is possible with the phase1 pixel detector to have tracks made exclusively out of pixel hits up to |eta|<3.

yup sorry that didn't mean anything 😅
I meant to ask what was the rationale behind releasing completely the upper bound on eta, or more precisely I wanted to understand why the previous abs(eta)<2.3 selection is no longer needed?

thomreis · 2022-11-15T22:32:01Z

please test

@thomreis I dont think the standard relvals run this ALCARECO. Which relvals run this? Should we just run the one with allForExpress and allForPrompt?

Hi @tvami, runTheMatrix.py --showMatrix --extended -l limited | grep EcalESAlign finds several WFs that contain EcalESAlign so I think the changes should be covered by the tests.

rekkhan · 2022-11-17T04:05:08Z

Does this mean you will accept also tracks outside the tracker acceptance (i.e. abs(eta)>2.5)?

Not sure what it even means to have tracks outside of the Tracker acceptance, but FYI it is possible with the phase1 pixel detector to have tracks made exclusively out of pixel hits up to |eta|<3.

yup sorry that didn't mean anything sweat_smile I meant to ask what was the rationale behind releasing completely the upper bound on eta, or more precisely I wanted to understand why the previous abs(eta)<2.3 selection is no longer needed?

Hi @francescobrivio
We need tracks at higher eta to do the ES MIP calibration as the preshower cover up to 2.65 in abs(eta). The abs(eta) cut at 2.3 reduces the number of tracks required to calibrate the sensors in higher abs(eta) region, so we want to remove that cut.

tvami · 2022-11-17T13:25:43Z

sorry was this question

do you have an estimate of the size increaze of the alcareco with these changes?

answered?

rekkhan · 2022-11-17T15:56:03Z

sorry was this question

do you have an estimate of the size increaze of the alcareco with these changes?

answered?

Sorry, we are still testing the effect of the cut on the file size. I will report as soon as possible.

ChrisMisan · 2022-12-06T10:27:07Z

@rekkhan is there any update regarding this pr?

rekkhan · 2022-12-07T05:58:50Z

@rekkhan is there any update regarding this pr?

Sorry for the delay but I still haven't had the result yet. The colleague in my group who know how to run the test is not available at the moment.
As I'm not sure if he will be able to run the test soon, could you please point me to some tutorial/instruction how to run the test so I can produce the result by myself?

ChrisMisan · 2022-12-07T10:56:17Z

@rekkhan is there any update regarding this pr?

Sorry for the delay but I still haven't had the result yet. The colleague in my group who know how to run the test is not available at the moment. As I'm not sure if he will be able to run the test soon, could you please point me to some tutorial/instruction how to run the test so I can produce the result by myself?

HI @rekkhan, if I understood correctly you'd like to test for the size increase? If so, this wiki page might be useful: https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMSPublic/SWGuidePerformanceSuite

rekkhan · 2022-12-08T05:00:45Z

Hi @ChrisMisan
Thank you, I'm reading the twiki page.

ChrisMisan · 2022-12-13T22:13:37Z

@rekkhan we've found a script to help with size comparison. Can you send a list of wfs that'd like to run to test it?

tvami · 2022-12-13T22:18:20Z

@ChrisMisan you can run runTheMatrix.py --showMatrix --extended -l limited | grep EcalESAlign to help to find the wf-s that create this ALCARECO

rekkhan · 2022-12-14T09:57:51Z

Thank you @tvami , I cannot run the performance suite from the twiki due to the unset HOST variable.
From running your command line, I get:

[3]: cmsDriver.py step3  --conditions auto:run2_data_relval -s RAW2DIGI,L1Reco,RECO,SKIM:SinglePhotonJetPlusHOFilter+EXOMONOPOLE,EI,PAT,ALCA:SiStripCalZeroBias+SiStripCalMinBias+TkAlMinBias+EcalESAlign,DQM:@standardDQM+@ExtraHLT+@miniAODDQM --runUnscheduled  --process reRECO --data  --era Run2_2016_HIPM --eventcontent RECO,MINIAOD,DQM --hltProcess reHLT --scenario pp --datatier RECO,MINIAOD,DQMIO --customise Configuration/DataProcessing/RecoTLR.customisePostEra_Run2_2016 -n 100 
[3]: cmsDriver.py step3  --conditions auto:run2_data -s RAW2DIGI,L1Reco,RECO,SKIM:SinglePhotonJetPlusHOFilter+EXOMONOPOLE,EI,PAT,ALCA:SiStripCalZeroBias+SiStripCalMinBias+TkAlMinBias+EcalESAlign,DQM:@standardDQM+@ExtraHLT+@miniAODDQM --runUnscheduled  --process reRECO --data  --era Run2_2017 --eventcontent RECO,MINIAOD,DQM --hltProcess reHLT --scenario pp --datatier RECO,MINIAOD,DQMIO --customise Configuration/DataProcessing/RecoTLR.customisePostEra_Run2_2017 -n 100 
[3]: cmsDriver.py step3  --conditions auto:run2_data -s RAW2DIGI,L1Reco,RECO,SKIM:ZElectron+SinglePhotonJetPlusHOFilter+EXOMONOPOLE,EI,PAT,ALCA:SiStripCalZeroBias+SiStripCalMinBias+SiStripCalSmallBiasScan+TkAlMinBias+EcalESAlign,DQM:@standardDQM+@ExtraHLT+@miniAODDQM+@L1TEgamma --runUnscheduled  --process reRECO --data  --era Run2_2018 --eventcontent RECO,MINIAOD,DQM --hltProcess reHLT --scenario pp --datatier RECO,MINIAOD,DQMIO --customise Configuration/DataProcessing/RecoTLR.customisePostEra_Run2_2018 -n 100 
[5]: cmsDriver.py step5  --conditions auto:phase1_2017_realistic -n 10 --era Run2_2017 --eventcontent ALCARECO --filein file:step3.root -s ALCA:SiPixelCalSingleMuon+TkAlMuonIsolated+TkAlMinBias+MuAlOverlaps+EcalESAlign+TkAlZMuMu+HcalCalHBHEMuonFilter+TkAlUpsilonMuMu+TkAlJpsiMuMu+SiStripCalMinBias --datatier ALCARECO --geometry DB:Extended
[5]: cmsDriver.py step5  --conditions auto:phase1_2017_realistic -n 10 --era Run2_2017 --eventcontent ALCARECO --filein file:step3.root -s ALCA:SiPixelCalSingleMuon+TkAlMuonIsolated+TkAlMinBias+MuAlOverlaps+EcalESAlign+TkAlZMuMu+HcalCalHBHEMuonFilter+TkAlUpsilonMuMu+TkAlJpsiMuMu+SiStripCalMinBias --datatier ALCARECO --geometry DB:Extended
[5]: cmsDriver.py step5  --conditions auto:phase1_2018_realistic -n 10 --era Run2_2018 --eventcontent ALCARECO --filein file:step3.root -s ALCA:SiPixelCalSingleMuon+TkAlMuonIsolated+TkAlMinBias+MuAlOverlaps+EcalESAlign+TkAlZMuMu+HcalCalHBHEMuonFilter+TkAlUpsilonMuMu+TkAlJpsiMuMu+SiStripCalMinBias --datatier ALCARECO --geometry DB:Extended
[5]: cmsDriver.py step5  --conditions auto:phase1_2021_realistic -n 10 --era Run3 --eventcontent ALCARECO --filein file:step3.root -s ALCA:SiPixelCalSingleMuon+TkAlMuonIsolated+TkAlMinBias+MuAlOverlaps+EcalESAlign+TkAlZMuMu+HcalCalHBHEMuonFilter+TkAlUpsilonMuMu+TkAlJpsiMuMu+SiStripCalMinBias --datatier ALCARECO --geometry DB:Extended

ChrisMisan · 2022-12-16T11:32:11Z

@tvami running 1001.3 didn't show any significant changes to the event sizes.

tvami · 2022-12-16T20:32:34Z

+alca

see comment from Chris

cmsbuild · 2022-12-16T20:32:57Z

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, @rappoccio (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

perrotta · 2022-12-17T08:17:25Z

+1

rekkhan · 2022-12-19T07:08:37Z

Thank you very much for helping me

Update ALCARECOEcalESAlign_cff.py

b3a51c4

Loosen the abs(eta) cut for the tracks - lower abs(eta) change from 1.7 to 1.65. - remove the higher abs(eta) cut

cmsbuild added this to the CMSSW_12_6_X milestone Nov 15, 2022

cmsbuild added alca-pending code-checks-pending orp-pending pending-signatures tests-pending labels Nov 15, 2022

cmsbuild added code-checks-approved and removed code-checks-pending labels Nov 15, 2022

cmsbuild added tests-started and removed tests-pending labels Nov 15, 2022

cmsbuild added tests-approved and removed tests-started labels Nov 15, 2022

rekkhan changed the title ~~Update ALCARECOEcalESAlign_cff.py~~ Changing abs(eta) cut for tracks in ALCARECOEcalESAlign_cff.py Nov 17, 2022

cmsbuild modified the milestones: CMSSW_12_6_X, CMSSW_13_0_X Nov 24, 2022

cmsbuild added alca-approved fully-signed and removed alca-pending pending-signatures labels Dec 16, 2022

cmsbuild added orp-approved and removed orp-pending labels Dec 17, 2022

cmsbuild merged commit 774e317 into cms-sw:master Dec 17, 2022

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Changing abs(eta) cut for tracks in ALCARECOEcalESAlign_cff.py #40067

Changing abs(eta) cut for tracks in ALCARECOEcalESAlign_cff.py #40067

rekkhan commented Nov 15, 2022

cmsbuild commented Nov 15, 2022

cmsbuild commented Nov 15, 2022

thomreis commented Nov 15, 2022

francescobrivio commented Nov 15, 2022

cmsbuild commented Nov 15, 2022

mmusich commented Nov 15, 2022

tvami commented Nov 15, 2022

tvami commented Nov 15, 2022

francescobrivio commented Nov 15, 2022

thomreis commented Nov 15, 2022

rekkhan commented Nov 17, 2022

tvami commented Nov 17, 2022

rekkhan commented Nov 17, 2022

ChrisMisan commented Dec 6, 2022

rekkhan commented Dec 7, 2022

ChrisMisan commented Dec 7, 2022

rekkhan commented Dec 8, 2022

ChrisMisan commented Dec 13, 2022

tvami commented Dec 13, 2022

rekkhan commented Dec 14, 2022

ChrisMisan commented Dec 16, 2022

tvami commented Dec 16, 2022

cmsbuild commented Dec 16, 2022

perrotta commented Dec 17, 2022

rekkhan commented Dec 19, 2022

Changing abs(eta) cut for tracks in ALCARECOEcalESAlign_cff.py #40067

Changing abs(eta) cut for tracks in ALCARECOEcalESAlign_cff.py #40067

Conversation

rekkhan commented Nov 15, 2022

PR description:

PR validation:

cmsbuild commented Nov 15, 2022

cmsbuild commented Nov 15, 2022

thomreis commented Nov 15, 2022

francescobrivio commented Nov 15, 2022

cmsbuild commented Nov 15, 2022

Comparison Summary

mmusich commented Nov 15, 2022

tvami commented Nov 15, 2022

tvami commented Nov 15, 2022

francescobrivio commented Nov 15, 2022

thomreis commented Nov 15, 2022

rekkhan commented Nov 17, 2022

tvami commented Nov 17, 2022

rekkhan commented Nov 17, 2022

ChrisMisan commented Dec 6, 2022

rekkhan commented Dec 7, 2022

ChrisMisan commented Dec 7, 2022

rekkhan commented Dec 8, 2022

ChrisMisan commented Dec 13, 2022

tvami commented Dec 13, 2022

rekkhan commented Dec 14, 2022

ChrisMisan commented Dec 16, 2022

tvami commented Dec 16, 2022

cmsbuild commented Dec 16, 2022

perrotta commented Dec 17, 2022

rekkhan commented Dec 19, 2022