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

review impact parameter b tagging #44

Open
cbernet opened this issue Jul 5, 2017 · 1 comment
Open

review impact parameter b tagging #44

cbernet opened this issue Jul 5, 2017 · 1 comment
Assignees

Comments

@cbernet
Copy link
Owner

cbernet commented Jul 5, 2017

Hi Nicolò (@nfoppiani),

I would like to use your btagging parametrization for the new detector models we're setting up in papas (namely CLIC and IDEA), as the parametrization of the resolution on the impact parameter is commonly given as a target for future detectors.

So I started to review your code and to work on a better integration.

First, I am going to separate the impact parameter smearing and the jet tagging, to put them in different analyzers. This will make it possible to run several jet tagging algorithms on the same tracks after smearing.

Second, there are a few points that are puzzling me, and you can find my questions and comments here: clic...for_nic
They are marked with a COLIN->NIC tag

Could you please have a look? Then we can discuss these questions on skype if you want, or you can provide answers here if you prefer.

Based on my current understanding, the main items are the following:

  • i suspect that your IP calculation might be wrong, as it does not give the right results in simple cases, see https://github.com/cbernet/heppy/blob/master/papas/test_path.py#L61. On the contrary, Lucas' calculation is correct. I could make yours work by changing the arguments of the minimize_scalar method.
  • i'm not sure that the smearing should be done separately on the x and y components of the IP vector. How do you support this choice?
  • i think that smearing should have an effect on the sign of the IP

Cheers & thanks in advance for your help!

Colin

@cbernet cbernet self-assigned this Jul 5, 2017
@nfoppiani
Copy link

Hi Colin,

sorry for my late answer but I missed this mail.

Well, it is probably easier to discuss everything by skype, in particular the comments marked by COLIN->NIC.

For what concerns the three items:

  • I remember that I tested the IP calculation with simple cases with typical numbers of the IP (like particles with high velocity and IP of the roder of tens of microns( and it seemed to be working.
    I also remember that I had troubles with that scipy function and I am not surprised that my tuning of
    the arguments of minimize_scalar was not perfect.
  • This was a non trivial point. Basically the IP resolution reflects (at least in the core) a gaussian resolution of the components of a 2d vector, and you can see it in some plots of the IP resolution. For this reason we decided to smear separately the two x and y components.
  • Yes I agree. I remember I thought about this point but I have not found any easy way to do it.

Anyway I have a few ideas to improve the algorithm, we can also discuss them by Skype!

Cheers
Nick

ggrenier pushed a commit to SDHCAL/heppy that referenced this issue Oct 1, 2018
added jet substructure example
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants