Changes to store Daughters of Kshort and Lambda in the miniAOD prunedGenParticle Collection

[gmelachr]

Modify prunedGenParticles_cfi.py to store daughters of Kshort and Lambda in the prunedGenParticle collection in order to use the daughter's production vertices for Kshort and Lambda lifetime measurements. The changes have been tested locally.

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-42464/36467

• This PR adds an extra 16KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @gmelachr (Georgios Melachroinos) for master.

It involves the following packages:

• PhysicsTools/PatAlgos (xpog, reconstruction)

@cmsbuild, @simonepigazzini, @mandrenguyen, @clacaputo, @vlimant can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@AlexDeMoor, @rappoccio, @gouskos, @jdolen, @JyothsnaKomaragiri, @ahinzmann, @AnnikaStein, @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, @rappoccio you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[simonepigazzini]

enable nano

[simonepigazzini]

please test

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-31e805/34066/summary.html
COMMIT: b032b2a
CMSSW: CMSSW_13_3_X_2023-08-03-1100/el8_amd64_gcc11
Additional Tests: NANO
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/42464/34066/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• You potentially removed 13 lines from the logs
• Reco comparison results: 4 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 48
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3150821
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3150799
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 47 files compared)
• Checked 207 log files, 159 edm output root files, 48 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

NANO Comparison Summary

Summary:

• You potentially added 2 lines to the logs
• Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 15
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 15526
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 15526
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 14 files compared)
• Checked 31 log files, 14 edm output root files, 15 DQM output files

Nano size comparison Summary:

Sample	kb/ev	ref kb/ev	diff kb/ev	ev/s/thd	ref ev/s/thd	diff rate	mem/thd	ref mem/thd
2500.0	2.447	2.447	0.000 ( +0.0% )	5.18	5.11	+1.5%	2.154	2.091
2500.001	2.553	2.553	0.000 ( +0.0% )	4.68	4.61	+1.6%	2.505	2.512
2500.002	2.498	2.498	0.000 ( +0.0% )	4.78	4.79	-0.2%	2.507	2.480
2500.01	1.241	1.241	0.000 ( +0.0% )	9.69	9.67	+0.2%	2.221	2.200
2500.011	1.605	1.605	0.000 ( +0.0% )	5.23	5.18	+1.0%	2.418	2.356
2500.012	1.486	1.486	0.000 ( +0.0% )	7.49	7.47	+0.2%	2.323	2.330
2500.1	2.161	2.161	0.000 ( +0.0% )	5.19	5.18	+0.1%	1.993	1.989
2500.2	2.271	2.271	0.000 ( +0.0% )	6.00	5.97	+0.5%	1.840	1.832
2500.21	1.147	1.147	0.000 ( +0.0% )	4.38	4.29	+2.0%	2.215	2.215
2500.211	1.505	1.505	0.000 ( +0.0% )	3.81	3.77	+1.0%	2.122	2.118
2500.3	2.009	2.009	0.000 ( +0.0% )	12.39	12.27	+0.9%	1.703	1.694
2500.31	1.209	1.209	0.000 ( +0.0% )	19.33	19.21	+0.6%	2.136	2.118
2500.311	1.586	1.586	0.000 ( +0.0% )	14.26	13.97	+2.1%	2.005	2.002
2500.4	2.009	2.009	0.000 ( +0.0% )	12.22	12.31	-0.7%	1.714	1.695

[mandrenguyen]

The nano summary table just above doesn't seem to show any size increase.
Is the change only in mini?
@gmelachr what output size change did you observe in your local tests? With what workflow and how many events?

[gmelachr]

Let me clarify a bit: I only updated the PhysicsTools/PatAlgos/python/slimming/prunedGenParticles_cfi.py to change-correct the available information in the miniAODs. Using the nominal framework, I was seeing the same production vertex for Kshort and for its daughters. The daughters were stored in the packedGenParticles collection with a wrong production vertex and the Kshort in the prunedGenParticle Collection. Now, the daughters are also stored in the prunedGenParticleCollection with the correct production vertex.

Furthermore, I didn't produce nanoAODs, I produced and checked things only for miniAODs locally.
I produced 655 events for B0->J/ψΚshort->μμππ and 422 events for Λb->J/ψΛ0 ->μμpπ. I checked the size of the miniAODs (with ls -lh) and in both cases (the ones produced with the nominal version and the ones produced with the modified one) the miniAODs had the same size.

Let me know if this responds your question,
Giorgos

[simonepigazzini]

I enabled the nano tests more as a cross-check than anything else. I did not expect a change in size at the NANO level, since the gen level is further pruned at the nano step. I think that overall the impact of the changes is negligible also for MINI

[mandrenguyen]

+reconstruction
Thanks for the explanations.
Changes are acceptable for reco, provided they are for XPOG :-)

[gmelachr]

Hi,

according to the last message I understand that the changes have been accepted. So, how are we going to proceed now? Are we waiting for a further approval by someone? Furthermore, what is the procedure to backport these changes to 12_4_X?

[perrotta]

@gmelachr we still miss the review of @cms-sw/xpog-l2 (whch are the main responsible for this code)

[simonepigazzini]

Is it a problem to leave at least the eta restriction at 2.5?

Can you try with this syntax: "keep+ (abs(pdgId) == 310 || abs(pdgId)==3122) && abs(eta)<2.5 && pt>1`

And check that it still works for you. You can also split Kshort and Lambda0 into two statements adding the eta and pt cuts to both

[gmelachr]

Hmm, I want to store all Kshorts and Lambdas for B0->X(μμ)Kshort(ππ), Β+ ->Χ(μμ)Κ*+ -->μμKshortπ-->μμπππ and Λb->Χ(mumu)Λ0(pπ) in order to measure acceptance. So, a possible cut for eta or for pT would affect the acceptance, wouldn't it?

What is the problem with the current syntax?

[simonepigazzini]

ok understood. There is no problem, I was just trying to get to the minimal set of particles to add.

[simonepigazzini]

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

[simonepigazzini]

@cms-sw/pdmv-l2

my understanding is that the change is needed in 12_4_X to patch the ongoing production. If you agree to produce the required samples with a dedicated central production we can proceed with a backport to 12_4_X.

[perrotta]

+1

[gmelachr]

@cms-sw/pdmv-l2

my understanding is that the change is needed in 12_4_X to patch the ongoing production. If you agree to produce the required samples with a dedicated central production we can proceed with a backport to 12_4_X.

The productions for the above-mentioned decays have not been requested yet with central productions. I was waiting for the changed to be integrated in CMSSW in order to avoid double productions and possible problems.

The current MC requests for BPAG are running on CMSSW_12_4_11_path3, so please proceed with the backport in order to proceed with the central production too.

thanks

[sunilUIET]

@simonepigazzini we will produce the samples as requested by pwgs. It is fine to backport it.

[simonepigazzini]

@gmelachr, please proceed with the backport. You just need to apply the same changes starting from CMSSW_12_4_11_path3 instead of a recent IB.

Thank you

[gmelachr]

@gmelachr, please proceed with the backport. You just need to apply the same changes starting from CMSSW_12_4_11_path3 instead of a recent IB.

Thank you

@simonepigazzini And then I will create a pull request to CMSSW_12_4_X, right?

[simonepigazzini]

yep

[perrotta]

@simonepigazzini @gmelachr what about backporting it in the intermediate releases? Is this something that could be potentially useful in the analysis of this year data (i.e. 13_0_X) as well? Then 13_1 is for Phase2, and 13_2 for HI, maybe not needed there but think about.