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

Updating the WP of the Muon MVA ID #37250

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Mar 31, 2022
Merged

Conversation

andrea21z
Copy link
Contributor

@andrea21z andrea21z commented Mar 15, 2022

PR description:

We have updated the Muon MVA ID model and we need to change the cut of the WP Tight, Cuts in IP are also added to the Tight working point.

PR validation:

We execute the basic tests suggested in the CMSSW PR instructions

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

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-37250/28852

  • This PR adds an extra 24KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @andrea21z for master.

It involves the following packages:

  • PhysicsTools/PatAlgos (reconstruction)

@jpata, @cmsbuild, @clacaputo, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@AlexDeMoor, @rappoccio, @gouskos, @jdolen, @JyothsnaKomaragiri, @ahinzmann, @schoef, @emilbols, @jdamgov, @mbluj, @nhanvtran, @gkasieczka, @hatakeyamak, @gpetruc, @azotz, @mariadalfonso, @demuller, @andrzejnovak, @seemasharmafnal, @mmarionncern this is something you requested to watch as well.
@perrotta, @dpiparo, @qliphy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

@jpata
Copy link
Contributor

jpata commented Mar 15, 2022

This is a backport of the already merged #36179.

Probably there is some confusion about what a backport means. Please see here: https://cms-sw.github.io/tutorial-resolve-conflicts.html -> "Backporting a PR" for an explanation and clarify in the description if a backport is intended (in any case, a PR against master such as this one is needed).

@jpata
Copy link
Contributor

jpata commented Mar 15, 2022

test parameters:

@jpata
Copy link
Contributor

jpata commented Mar 15, 2022

@cmsbuild please test

@andrea21z
Copy link
Contributor Author

"Backporting a PR" for an explanation and clarify in the description if a backport is intended (in any case, a PR against master such as this one is needed).

Ok, understood.

On the other hand, we just found a possible bug and we want to do a couple more checks to be sure before the PR is merged, so I think it's best to stop the PR checks for the moment. @jpata sorry for this ...

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-33d550/23130/summary.html
COMMIT: 9bc993d
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_4_X_2022-03-15-1100/slc7_amd64_gcc10
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/37250/23130/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

The following merge commits were also included on top of IB + this PR after doing git cms-merge-topic:

You can see more details here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-33d550/23130/git-recent-commits.json
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-33d550/23130/git-merge-result

Comparison Summary

Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 44 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 49
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3695377
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 2
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3695353
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 48 files compared)
  • Checked 204 log files, 45 edm output root files, 49 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@clacaputo
Copy link
Contributor

  • In the output there are 3 changes: a new branch with the output of the MVA (muon.mvaIDValue()), two new Selectors with the definition of the proposed Working Points (reco::Muon::MvaIDwpMedium, reco::Muon::MvaIDwpTight)

Hi @andrea21z , I don't see these changes in this PR, I suppose it is just a copy&paste from the description of #36179. Could you please edit the description, it's misleading. Thank you

@andrea21z
Copy link
Contributor Author

  • In the output there are 3 changes: a new branch with the output of the MVA (muon.mvaIDValue()), two new Selectors with the definition of the proposed Working Points (reco::Muon::MvaIDwpMedium, reco::Muon::MvaIDwpTight)

Hi @andrea21z , I don't see these changes in this PR, I suppose it is just a copy&paste from the description of #36179. Could you please edit the description, it's misleading. Thank you

yes, sorry.

@andrea21z
Copy link
Contributor Author

"Backporting a PR" for an explanation and clarify in the description if a backport is intended (in any case, a PR against master such as this one is needed).

Ok, understood.

On the other hand, we just found a possible bug and we want to do a couple more checks to be sure before the PR is merged, so I think it's best to stop the PR checks for the moment. @jpata sorry for this ...

@jpata @clacaputo you can continue with the review, all changes implemented.

@clacaputo
Copy link
Contributor

Hello @andrea21z , do you have any plots comparing the old model and the new one?

@andrea21z
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hello @andrea21z , do you have any plots comparing the old model and the new one?

Hello @clacaputo, what types of plots would you like to see? The only change with respect to the old model is that we removed a cut in Isolation used to select the muons to train the model.

@clacaputo
Copy link
Contributor

Hello @andrea21z , do you have any plots comparing the old model and the new one?

Hello @clacaputo, what types of plots would you like to see? The only change with respect to the old model is that we removed a cut in Isolation used to select the muons to train the model.

Hi @andrea21z , a comparison of the output distribution mvaIDValue of the two models, so I can crosscheck that what I see in the comparisons are similar to what you have obtained. Thanks

@clacaputo
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @andrea21z also a reference to a more recent presentation with the new model should be enough. Thanks

@andrea21z
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hello @andrea21z , do you have any plots comparing the old model and the new one?

Hello @clacaputo, what types of plots would you like to see? The only change with respect to the old model is that we removed a cut in Isolation used to select the muons to train the model.

Hi @andrea21z , a comparison of the output distribution mvaIDValue of the two models, so I can crosscheck that what I see in the comparisons are similar to what you have obtained. Thanks

New MVA on the right and old MVA on the left.
image

@andrea21z
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @andrea21z also a reference to a more recent presentation with the new model should be enough. Thanks

Here you can find the latest presentation in the Muon POG meeting,

@clacaputo
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @andrea21z , thanks for the link. Could you please confirm me that the new model produces an output more shifted towards 0.9 for prompt muons wrt the old model? I can't get this info from the slides.

Here an examples for wf 1330.0 ZMM_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1 run2 condition

all_mini_OldVSNew_ZMM13TeVwf1330p0c_patMuons_slimmedMuons__RECO_obj_mvaIDValue

@andrea21z
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @andrea21z , thanks for the link. Could you please confirm me that the new model produces an output more shifted towards 0.9 for prompt muons wrt the old model? I can't get this info from the slides.

Here an examples for wf 1330.0 ZMM_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1 run2 condition

all_mini_OldVSNew_ZMM13TeVwf1330p0c_patMuons_slimmedMuons__RECO_obj_mvaIDValue

Yes, I confirm this is expected. The output distribution of the new model (slide 14) has the maximum around 0.9 and prompt muons have values between 0.7 and 0.9.

@clacaputo
Copy link
Contributor

clacaputo commented Mar 30, 2022

+reconstruction

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

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)

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

@cmsbuild please test
(tests have disappeared, and must be refreshed)

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-33d550/23565/summary.html
COMMIT: 8db79f1
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_4_X_2022-03-30-2300/slc7_amd64_gcc10
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/37250/23565/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

The following merge commits were also included on top of IB + this PR after doing git cms-merge-topic:

You can see more details here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-33d550/23565/git-recent-commits.json
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-33d550/23565/git-merge-result

Comparison Summary

Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 45 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 48
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3591311
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 8
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3591281
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 47 files compared)
  • Checked 200 log files, 45 edm output root files, 48 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

+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.

5 participants