RecHit based Ecal/Hcal muon isolation

[24LopezR]

PR description:

This PR modifies muon isolation sequences to compute muon isolation using RecHits instead of CaloTowers, since CaloTower code is not maintained anymore. It affects prompt muons, displaced muons and cosmics.
The PR was triggered by issue #43858.

PR validation:

Run over dataset: /RelValZMM_14/CMSSW_14_1_0_pre2-140X_mcRun4_realistic_v3_STD_2026D98_noPU-v6/GEN-SIM-DIGI-RAW
Isolation plots before presented weird structures, now they look more natural and close to expected.
[1] CaloTower based Ecal iso, [2] RecHit based Ecal iso
[3] CaloTower based Hcal iso, [4] RecHit based Hcal iso

[1] [2]
[3] [4]

Apart from this, standard tests with runTheMatrix WFs have been run.

If this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR. If this PR will be backported please specify to which release cycle the backport is meant for:

This PR is not a backport, and in principle it is not intended to be backported.

[cmsbuild]

cms-bot internal usage

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-44797/40034

• This PR adds an extra 28KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @24LopezR for master.

It involves the following packages:

• PhysicsTools/PatAlgos (reconstruction, xpog)
• RecoMuon/Configuration (reconstruction)
• RecoMuon/MuonIdentification (reconstruction)
• RecoMuon/MuonIsolationProducers (reconstruction)

@vlimant, @jfernan2, @cmsbuild, @hqucms, @mandrenguyen can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@jdamgov, @azotz, @jhgoh, @schoef, @abbiendi, @seemasharmafnal, @gpetruc, @castaned, @jdolen, @demuller, @nhanvtran, @rappoccio, @andrea21z, @andrzejnovak, @JanFSchulte, @trocino, @gouskos, @AlexDeMoor, @mbluj, @hatakeyamak, @bellan, @gkasieczka, @mmarionncern, @ahinzmann, @HuguesBrun, @CeliaFernandez, @mariadalfonso, @Senphy, @cericeci, @Ming-Yan, @missirol, @rociovilar, @Fedespring this is something you requested to watch as well.
@antoniovilela, @sextonkennedy, @rappoccio you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[mandrenguyen]

type muon

[mandrenguyen]

please test

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-bf6090/39001/summary.html
COMMIT: b6604fd
CMSSW: CMSSW_14_1_X_2024-04-22-1100/el8_amd64_gcc12
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/44797/39001/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• You potentially removed 12 lines from the logs
• ROOTFileChecks: Some differences in event products or their sizes found
• Reco comparison results: 1111 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 48
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3319852
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 8724
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3311108
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 20
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 47 files compared)
• Checked 202 log files, 165 edm output root files, 48 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: found differences in 2 / 46 workflows

[mandrenguyen]

+reconstruction

[hqucms]

+1

[cmsbuild]

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

[antoniovilela]

+1

[mmusich]

@24LopezR @JanFSchulte

I was trying the effect of this PR on the Tracker ALCARECO samples by partially reverting my PR cms-sw/cmssw#43892 which was (in the phase-2 case) restricting the isolation cut to the tracker isolation:

diff --git a/Alignment/CommonAlignmentProducer/python/TkAlMuonSelectors_cfi.py b/Alignment/CommonAlignmentProducer/python/TkAlMuonSelectors_cfi.py
index 1999a479cb0..ae71b44233c 100644
--- a/Alignment/CommonAlignmentProducer/python/TkAlMuonSelectors_cfi.py
+++ b/Alignment/CommonAlignmentProducer/python/TkAlMuonSelectors_cfi.py
@@ -26,6 +26,6 @@ phase2_common.toModify(TkAlGoodIdMuonSelector,
                        '(abs(eta) > 2.3 & abs(eta) < 3.0 & numberOfMatches >= 0 & isTrackerMuon)'   # to recover GE0 tracks
                        )
 
-phase2_common.toModify(TkAlRelCombIsoMuonSelector,
-                       cut = '(isolationR03().sumPt)/pt < 0.1' # only tracker isolation
-                       )
+# phase2_common.toModify(TkAlRelCombIsoMuonSelector,
+#                        cut = '(isolationR03().sumPt)/pt < 0.1' # only tracker isolation
+#                        )

and then comparing it with what is in release now (by running the command below [1]), but I see a large efficiency loss in the barrel. I am wondering if isolation cut needs to be retuned after the PR.

[1]

cmsDriver.py stepALCA -s ALCA:TkAlMuonIsolated --conditions auto:phase2_realistic_T33 --datatier ALCARECO -n -1 --eventcontent ALCARECO --geometry Extended2026D110 --era Phase2C17I13M9 --fileout file:step5.root --nThreads 4 --dasquery='file dataset=/RelValWToMuNu_14TeV/CMSSW_14_1_0_pre3-140X_mcRun4_realistic_v3_STD_2026D110_noPU-v1/GEN-SIM-RECO'

[24LopezR]

@mmusich Thanks for this! Let me look into it and I will reply back

[24LopezR]

Hi @mmusich ,
I checked and I also observe the same inefficiency in the barrel. It comes from the huge increase in the ecal / hcal isolation values observed when changing from calo towers to rechits (see plots: at the left, before this PR; at the right, after this PR)

The effect is particularly strong for the hcal isolation. Therefore, the inefficiency isn't coming from a bad tuning of the isolation cut, and certainly a retuning of the cut will not solve it.

Seeing this, I think it was not enough to change the isolation sequences, and therefore we need also to look at the actual computation of the isolation using rechits, with the consequent deeper study. I will take care of that.

Also I missed the failed comparisons in the review of this PR. I could have noticed way before now. Sorry for that.. 😅

[mmusich]

Seeing this, I think it was not enough to change the isolation sequences, and therefore we need also to look at the actual computation of the isolation using rechits, with the consequent deeper study. I will take care of that.

Hi @24LopezR thanks a lot for the follow-up and looking further into this!

Also I missed the failed comparisons in the review of this PR. I could have noticed way before now. Sorry for that.. 😅

I also somehow missed it (it might be that there's nothing that really probes this change in the existing DQM?).

[swagata87]

hi @24LopezR
did you by any chance use all rechits within isolation cone w/o the noise cuts?

[24LopezR]

Hi @swagata87 Thanks for your involvement.
I believe in L173 of RecoMuon/MuonIsolation/plugins/CaloExtractorByAssociator.cc we apply the noise cut you mention.

I'm starting to think it may be related to some tuning of the parameters used to compute the isolation (thresholds for energy, dR, noise...) Could you please point us to the EGamma code for computing this isolation please? So I can compare with what we have now. Thank you so much!

[swagata87]

Hi @24LopezR let me point you to the EGamma PRs by which they made the caloTower->recHit transition for isolation (and H/E etc), so you will see the way they modified the code+config

#33666
#40525

And, both for ECAL recHits and HCAL recHits, the DPG-recommended way to apply noise-threshold is to read the noise thresholds from global-tag. For ECAL, it is a per-crystal threshold. while for HCAL it is per-depth. For details on implementation, you may consult #43535 (ecal) and #43176 (hcal)