-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.3k
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
RecHit based Ecal/Hcal muon isolation #44797
Conversation
cms-bot internal usage |
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-44797/40034
|
A new Pull Request was created by @24LopezR for master. It involves the following packages:
@vlimant, @jfernan2, @cmsbuild, @hqucms, @mandrenguyen can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
type muon |
please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-bf6090/39001/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
+reconstruction |
+1 |
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. @sextonkennedy, @rappoccio, @antoniovilela (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
+1 |
I was trying the effect of this PR on the Tracker ALCARECO samples by partially reverting my PR cms-sw/cmssw#43892 which was (in the phase-2 case) restricting the isolation cut to the tracker isolation: diff --git a/Alignment/CommonAlignmentProducer/python/TkAlMuonSelectors_cfi.py b/Alignment/CommonAlignmentProducer/python/TkAlMuonSelectors_cfi.py
index 1999a479cb0..ae71b44233c 100644
--- a/Alignment/CommonAlignmentProducer/python/TkAlMuonSelectors_cfi.py
+++ b/Alignment/CommonAlignmentProducer/python/TkAlMuonSelectors_cfi.py
@@ -26,6 +26,6 @@ phase2_common.toModify(TkAlGoodIdMuonSelector,
'(abs(eta) > 2.3 & abs(eta) < 3.0 & numberOfMatches >= 0 & isTrackerMuon)' # to recover GE0 tracks
)
-phase2_common.toModify(TkAlRelCombIsoMuonSelector,
- cut = '(isolationR03().sumPt)/pt < 0.1' # only tracker isolation
- )
+# phase2_common.toModify(TkAlRelCombIsoMuonSelector,
+# cut = '(isolationR03().sumPt)/pt < 0.1' # only tracker isolation
+# ) and then comparing it with what is in release now (by running the command below [1]), but I see a large efficiency loss in the barrel. I am wondering if isolation cut needs to be retuned after the PR. [1]
|
@mmusich Thanks for this! Let me look into it and I will reply back |
Hi @mmusich , The effect is particularly strong for the hcal isolation. Therefore, the inefficiency isn't coming from a bad tuning of the isolation cut, and certainly a retuning of the cut will not solve it. Seeing this, I think it was not enough to change the isolation sequences, and therefore we need also to look at the actual computation of the isolation using rechits, with the consequent deeper study. I will take care of that. Also I missed the failed comparisons in the review of this PR. I could have noticed way before now. Sorry for that.. 😅 |
Hi @24LopezR thanks a lot for the follow-up and looking further into this!
I also somehow missed it (it might be that there's nothing that really probes this change in the existing DQM?). |
hi @24LopezR |
Hi @swagata87 Thanks for your involvement. I'm starting to think it may be related to some tuning of the parameters used to compute the isolation (thresholds for energy, dR, noise...) Could you please point us to the EGamma code for computing this isolation please? So I can compare with what we have now. Thank you so much! |
Hi @24LopezR let me point you to the EGamma PRs by which they made the caloTower->recHit transition for isolation (and H/E etc), so you will see the way they modified the code+config And, both for ECAL recHits and HCAL recHits, the DPG-recommended way to apply noise-threshold is to read the noise thresholds from global-tag. For ECAL, it is a per-crystal threshold. while for HCAL it is per-depth. For details on implementation, you may consult #43535 (ecal) and #43176 (hcal) |
Do I understand correctly that the remaining issue is being investigated? Thx. |
Hi @srimanob |
PR description:
This PR modifies muon isolation sequences to compute muon isolation using RecHits instead of CaloTowers, since CaloTower code is not maintained anymore. It affects prompt muons, displaced muons and cosmics.
The PR was triggered by issue #43858.
PR validation:
Run over dataset:
/RelValZMM_14/CMSSW_14_1_0_pre2-140X_mcRun4_realistic_v3_STD_2026D98_noPU-v6/GEN-SIM-DIGI-RAW
Isolation plots before presented weird structures, now they look more natural and close to expected.
[1] CaloTower based Ecal iso, [2] RecHit based Ecal iso
[3] CaloTower based Hcal iso, [4] RecHit based Hcal iso
[1] [2]
[3] [4]
Apart from this, standard tests with runTheMatrix WFs have been run.
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:
This PR is not a backport, and in principle it is not intended to be backported.