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

Exo soft displaced vertices skim #43936

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Feb 29, 2024

Conversation

LangFelix1
Copy link
Contributor

PR description:

This PR introduces a new skim called EXOSoftDisplacedVertices, the passing rate has been tested and is around 20%.
The skim works on a selection of MET HLT paths and a requirement on pfMET > 140 GeV

PR validation:

The code has been compiled and tested locally

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:

Not a backport

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Feb 12, 2024

cms-bot internal usage

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-43936/38803

  • This PR adds an extra 20KB to repository

  • There are other open Pull requests which might conflict with changes you have proposed:

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @LangFelix1 for master.

It involves the following packages:

  • Configuration/Skimming (pdmv)

@cmsbuild, @sunilUIET, @AdrianoDee, @miquork can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@youyingli, @fabiocos, @Martin-Grunewald, @missirol 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

@youyingli
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @cms-sw/pdmv-l2 , this is an important skim for EXO PAG that should be added to the full ReReco 2022/2023. Could you please trigger it and its backport #43940 ?

@AdrianoDee
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @cms-sw/pdmv-l2 , this is an important skim for EXO PAG that should be added to the full ReReco 2022/2023. Could you please trigger it and its backport #43940 ?

Hi @youyingli, which wfs can we use to test?

@youyingli
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @cms-sw/pdmv-l2 , this is an important skim for EXO PAG that should be added to the full ReReco 2022/2023. Could you please trigger it and its backport #43940 ?

Hi @youyingli, which wfs can we use to test?

wf = 140.103, 141.103

@AdrianoDee
Copy link
Contributor

test parameters:

  • workflows = 140.103, 141.103

@AdrianoDee
Copy link
Contributor

please test

)

EXOSoftDisplacedVerticesSkimSequence = cms.Sequence(
hltSoftDV * softDVSelection
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

out of curiosity, what's "soft displaced vertices" specific here? It looks more like a skim on the MET values.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The skim is for the Soft Displaced Vertices plus MET analysis. Its purpose is to access tracks below the MiniAOD threshold (~1GeV) in order to reconstruct very soft displaced vertices in addition to MET requirements.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

For my education, is it customary to call the SKIM by the target analysis rather than the actual skimming pattern? I was wondering if this could be useful to other analyses that might get discouraged by the very specific analysis targeted nomenclature.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This was our understanding, given the different existing skims. But we are open to modify the name if there is a good suggestion. We would just like to avoid a confusion with PDWG_EXOHighMET.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

But we are open to modify the name if there is a good suggestion.

I am also genuinely curious about the policy, that's why I asked.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Checking the other SKIMs I can't say we really have a strict policy for SKIM definition (it's either the analysis either the content). In this case maybe it's a bit odd since the "analysis name" could also be referring to a sort of vertex selection that actually is not there. But I can't think of a quick good alternative (at the moment).

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

SKIM is usually for special tasks or analyses in POG/PAG (instead of general purpose) since these datasets (RECO, AOD) could not be on disk. Different SKIMs also focus on different data tiers. Therefore, for my understanding, there is no clear policy or role for the name of SKIM but depending on the SKIM proposers to label the purpose of the SKIM. So, the proposers can quickly recognize which datasets are what they want.

I’m not sure if other analyses aren’t relevant to the SKIM purpose but would like to use the same SKIMs. Of course, in case the new proposed SKIM has highly similar event contents and filers, we can suggest adding additional requirements to the existing SKIM config instead of creating the new one.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-e6a7ec/37373/summary.html
COMMIT: 43990db
CMSSW: CMSSW_14_1_X_2024-02-12-1100/el8_amd64_gcc12
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/43936/37373/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

  • You potentially removed 93 lines from the logs
  • Reco comparison results: 136 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 50
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3388457
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 2
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3388432
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.036000000000000004 KiB( 49 files compared)
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 140.103 ): 0.012 KiB MessageLogger/Warnings
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 140.103,... ): 0.008 KiB MessageLogger/Errors
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 141.103 ): 0.008 KiB MessageLogger/Warnings
  • Checked 208 log files, 169 edm output root files, 50 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@davidlange6
Copy link
Contributor

what is the event rate reduction factor (roughly) due to the pfmet > 140 GeV requirement?

@LangFelix1
Copy link
Contributor Author

what is the event rate reduction factor (roughly) due to the pfmet > 140 GeV requirement?

It's around 0.2

@davidlange6
Copy link
Contributor

At 0.2 is it perhaps cheaper to just split these paths into a separate PD instead of a skim?

@imikulec
Copy link
Contributor

At 0.2 is it perhaps cheaper to just split these paths into a separate PD instead of a skim?

A large part of the reduction is due to MET cut. The reduction resulting from filtering only trigger paths is 0.5.

@youyingli
Copy link
Contributor

At 0.2 is it perhaps cheaper to just split these paths into a separate PD instead of a skim?

The output skim size as 20 % of the original AOD (instead of RECO tier with large data size) is acceptable. And for full ReReco, SKIM could be more straightforward.

@youyingli
Copy link
Contributor

I'm not sure what the status of this PR is. If there is no critical point, it should proceed?

@AdrianoDee
Copy link
Contributor

+pdmv

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

@AdrianoDee
Copy link
Contributor

please test
(relaunching old tests just to be safe)

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-e6a7ec/37808/summary.html
COMMIT: 43990db
CMSSW: CMSSW_14_1_X_2024-02-28-2300/el8_amd64_gcc12
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/43936/37808/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 140 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 51
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3476256
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 10
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 2
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3476222
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.036000000000000004 KiB( 50 files compared)
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 140.103 ): 0.012 KiB MessageLogger/Warnings
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 140.103,... ): 0.008 KiB MessageLogger/Errors
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 141.103 ): 0.008 KiB MessageLogger/Warnings
  • Checked 213 log files, 174 edm output root files, 51 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@antoniovilela
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@cmsbuild cmsbuild merged commit 6ca5d16 into cms-sw:master Feb 29, 2024
12 checks passed
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.

8 participants