Add EP combination variables to electron Table in NANOAOD #43028
Conversation
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-43028/37201
|
|
A new Pull Request was created by @Prasant1993 (Prasant Kumar Rout) for master. It involves the following packages:
@cmsbuild, @simonepigazzini, @vlimant can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
|
enable nano |
| gsfTrketaMode = Var("gsfTrack().etaMode()",float,doc="GSF track etaMode",precision=10), | ||
| gsfTrkphiMode = Var("gsfTrack().phiMode()",float,doc="GSF track phiMode",precision=10), | ||
| isEcalDriven = Var("ecalDrivenSeed",bool,doc="is ECAL driven if true"), | ||
| isEB = Var("isEB",bool,doc="object in barrel if true"), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
please remove isEB, this can be infered from the eta.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi @simonepigazzini the decision of "isEB" is from the seed crystal and detID information. It is being used while deriving energy regression of electron by combing ecal and tracker information. We are trying to see if we can use this barrel/endcap definition from the supercluster eta of electron.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah, I think the difference should be negligible. It would be actually very interesting to know how many times using supercluster.eta gives a different result that the seed rec hit position (I think this question has popped up few times in the past, maybe we already know the answer ....)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've processed 50k electrons (slimmedElectrons in Mini, no ID, no cutoffs of sort applied) and checked how many times isEB was giving different results wrt etaSC with a barrel cutoff at |eta| = 1.479. I found that only one electron had |eta| > 1.479 (slightly) when isEB == true. That makes it a 0.002% difference. My opinion is that we could go with etaSC and accept that there will be a difference of this order of magnitude wrt the correction done on the same events in MiniAOD.
Note that, if the barrel eta cutoff changes slightly (e.g., 1.4442, which is the number we typically use as the start of the calorimeter transition region), these numbers become dramatically different and the discrepancy is rather a 2.5% one.
|
type egamma |
|
please test |
|
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-35e494/35207/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
NANO Comparison SummarySummary:
Nano size comparison Summary:
|
|
please add the relevant plots in the nano dqm |
Okay. I will add them in the nano DQM. |
cmsbuild
added
tests-pending
code-checks-pending
and removed
tests-approved
code-checks-approved
labels
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-43028/37365
|
|
Pull request #43028 was updated. @cmsbuild, @vlimant, @simonepigazzini can you please check and sign again. |
|
please test |
|
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-35e494/35415/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
NANO Comparison SummarySummary:
Nano size comparison Summary:
|
|
Hi @simonepigazzini and @vlimant , should we go ahead with this PR or any further changes are needed ? |
|
+1 |
cmsbuild
added
fully-signed
xpog-approved
and removed
pending-signatures
xpog-pending
labels
|
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. @antoniovilela, @sextonkennedy, @rappoccio (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
|
+1 |
PR description:
This PR is to add the EP combination variables to electron table in NanoAOD. The EP combination is needed for the scales + smearing corrections for electrons below 50 GeV.
An offline code implementation to do the EP combination from NanoAOD is under progress to provide it to the analyzers.
We might need few more variables or may not in this process. This will be clear in a few days time.
PR validation:
runTheMatrix tests have been successfully run for the following workflow :
The size of these variables in the event in NanoAOD is calculated according to a check with the command
python3 PhysicsTools/NanoAOD/test/inspectNanoFile.py <my_file.root> -j test.json -s test_size_report.html -d tes_doc.html
MiniAOD file used to check these additions of floats/bools in NanoAOD: /eos/cms/store/relval/CMSSW_13_3_0_pre3/RelValZEE_14/MINIAODSIM/PU_132X_mcRun3_2023_realistic_v4-v1/2580000/acbf78c0-7c57-47e9-9d72-527b46b8fc91.root
The event size before adding the variables is given here: https://prrout.web.cern.ch/prrout/Add_EP_combination_var_NanoAoD_26092023/Before_adding_variable/test_size_report.html
The event size after adding the variables is given here : https://prrout.web.cern.ch/prrout/Add_EP_combination_var_NanoAoD_26092023/After_adding_variable/test_size_report.html
Backport:
We target this to go in Nano V13 for now. Not sure yet whether backport is required to earlier CMSSW release.
Tagging EGM L2 convenors @a-kapoor and @RSalvatico