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

Run3 era for 2023 PbPb UPC re-reco #43378

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 12, 2023

Conversation

stahlleiton
Copy link
Contributor

@stahlleiton stahlleiton commented Nov 23, 2023

PR description:

This PR creates a new era "Run3_2023_UPC" meant for the 2023 PbPb UPC re-reco. It includes the following changes on top of "Run3_2023":

  • High Beta Star (highBetaStar_2018) modifier: reduces min pt of tracks down to 0.05 GeV.
  • Light by light (egamma_lowPt_exclusive) modifier: reduces min et of electrons and photons down to 1 GeV
  • run3_upc modifier:
    • Change pixelPairStepTrackingRegions.originRadius from 0.2 to 0.015 (see issue)
    • Reduce min pt of lowPtGsfElectrons and hiPixelTracks down to 0.05 GeV.
    • Filter on clusters as: # pixel clusters < 10000 and # strip clusters < 30000.
    • Adds: hiPixelTracks, hiCentrality, hiClusterCompatibility, ZDC digis and miniAOD chi2 maps.
    • Remove miniAOD selections for electrons, muons, dEdx, lost tracks and pf candidates.
    • Set miniAOD min pt for slimmed calo jets to 5 GeV.

More details on the validations done are documented in the slide

@mandrenguyen

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-43378/37860

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Nov 23, 2023

A new Pull Request was created by @stahlleiton (Andre Stahl) for master.

It involves the following packages:

  • Configuration/Eras (operations)
  • Configuration/StandardSequences (operations)
  • PhysicsTools/PatAlgos (reconstruction, xpog)
  • RecoEgamma/EgammaElectronProducers (reconstruction)
  • RecoHI/HiCentralityAlgos (reconstruction)
  • RecoHI/HiTracking (reconstruction)
  • RecoJets/Configuration (reconstruction)
  • RecoTracker/Configuration (reconstruction)
  • RecoTracker/IterativeTracking (reconstruction)
  • RecoTracker/TkSeedGenerator (reconstruction)

@mandrenguyen, @rappoccio, @antoniovilela, @fabiocos, @jfernan2, @simonepigazzini, @vlimant, @davidlange6, @cmsbuild can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@demuller, @kurtejung, @gkasieczka, @VinInn, @mtosi, @fabiocos, @Prasant1993, @mmusich, @ahinzmann, @missirol, @yenjie, @sobhatta, @andrzejnovak, @JanFSchulte, @sameasy, @schoef, @nhanvtran, @gpetruc, @AlexDeMoor, @makortel, @rovere, @mandrenguyen, @valsdav, @JyothsnaKomaragiri, @jdamgov, @seemasharmafnal, @mariadalfonso, @a-kapoor, @gouskos, @Sam-Harper, @jazzitup, @mbluj, @AnnikaStein, @azotz, @yetkinyilmaz, @VourMa, @rappoccio, @jainshilpi, @mmarionncern, @Ming-Yan, @emilbols, @ebrondol, @jdolen, @Martin-Grunewald, @varuns23, @lgray, @felicepantaleo, @clelange, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @dgulhan, @afiqaize, @ram1123, @hatakeyamak, @Senphy, @slomeo 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

from Configuration.Eras.Era_Run3_UPC_cff import Run3_UPC
from Configuration.Eras.Modifier_run3_egamma_2023_cff import run3_egamma_2023

Run3_UPC_2023 = cms.ModifierChain(Run3_UPC, run3_egamma_2023)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

A large fraction of Eras are named RunX_YYYY_mod is it practical to create a bubble in the implementation of the pp era (here you re-implement the Run3 -> Run3_2023 detail). ... why do we need Run3_UPC?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not needed at the moment, so I will remove Run3_UPC

@@ -52,3 +52,6 @@ def thresholds( wp ) :

from Configuration.ProcessModifiers.pp_on_AA_cff import pp_on_AA
pp_on_AA.toModify(lowPtGsfElectronSeeds,MinPtThreshold = 5.0)

from Configuration.Eras.Modifier_run3_upc_cff import run3_upc
run3_upc.toModify(lowPtGsfElectronSeeds, ModelThresholds = thresholds("VL"), MinPtThreshold = 0.05)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

shouldn't everything egamma just follow egamma_lowPt_exclusive modifier ?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Moved all the egamma related changes to egamma_lowPt_exclusive

@@ -92,6 +92,8 @@
originRadius = 0.2,
fixedError = 4.
))
from Configuration.Eras.Modifier_highBetaStar_2023_cff import highBetaStar_2023
highBetaStar_2023.toModify(pixelPairStepTrackingRegions,RegionPSet = dict(originRadius = 0.015))
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'd add a comment about the issue in the efficiency recovery; once that problem is addressed I expect that highBetaStar_2018 and highBetaStar_2023 will be identical.
It may even be more practical to use (highBetaStar_2018 & run3_upc) here.

IIRC, the only highBeta run in 2023 was after the BPIX problem appeared, but as I recall those fills had no pixel tracker readout. @sroychow @mmusich please check and correct me if I'm wrong

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Changed to the approach suggested using "(highBetaStar_2018 & run3_upc)"

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

IIRC, the only highBeta run in 2023 was after the BPIX problem appeared, but as I recall those fills had no pixel tracker readout. @sroychow @mmusich please check and correct me if I'm wrong

based on OMS this year we had the fills in the interval 9095-9168 with non-nominal beta* (120cm). All of them happened in era >= Run2023E (which is after the pixel readout incident).
As far as I can tell in none of these fills either Pixel or Strip tracker was in global DAQ excepted fills 9095 and 9128.
But in any case I don't recall the Tier-0 being moved to the highBetaStar scenario.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

once that problem is addressed I expect that highBetaStar_2018 and highBetaStar_2023 will be identical.

Incidentally (and certainly for outside of this particular PR), what's so intrinsically about 2018 of the highBetaStar_2018 modifier? Can't it just be highBetaStar (or highBetaStar_Phase1 to signal it applies to phase-1 tracking)?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

highBetaStar_Phase1 makes sense

2018 is likely the first time it made it to the configs

@slava77
Copy link
Contributor

slava77 commented Nov 23, 2023

it would be nice to have a test workflow

@stahlleiton
Copy link
Contributor Author

stahlleiton commented Nov 23, 2023

it would be nice to have a test workflow

Are there instructions on how to set up a test workflow? (never done it before)

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-43378/37864

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Pull request #43378 was updated. @cmsbuild, @vlimant, @fabiocos, @davidlange6, @mandrenguyen, @simonepigazzini, @rappoccio, @jfernan2, @antoniovilela can you please check and sign again.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-43378/37865

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Pull request #43378 was updated. @vlimant, @fabiocos, @antoniovilela, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @rappoccio, @davidlange6, @simonepigazzini, @mandrenguyen can you please check and sign again.

@makortel
Copy link
Contributor

makortel commented Dec 4, 2023

Note that, there is a warning of L1 seed in the trigger menu. Is this expected, correct menu? It is just a warning. If this is confirmed, I will sign the PR. Thx.

that's unfortunately expected because the L1T people chose to hardcode the list of algorithms to monitor by L1TStage2uGTTiming here:

"L1_SingleMu22_BMTF",
"L1_SingleMu22_OMTF",
"L1_SingleMu22_EMTF",
"L1_SingleIsoEG28er1p5",
"L1_SingleIsoEG32er2p5",
"L1_SingleEG40er2p5",
"L1_SingleEG60",
"L1_SingleTau120er2p1",
"L1_SingleJet180",
"L1_ETMHF130",
"L1_HTT360er",
"L1_ETT2000"

this - of course - becomes frequently bogus (whenever the list of algos in the L1T menu changes). We already complained (and gave suggestions here ).

Would it be worth of opening an issue about these?

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor

mmusich commented Dec 4, 2023

Would it be worth of opening an issue about these?

here it is: #43488

@stahlleiton
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks for the feedback.
@cms-sw/pdmv-l2 and @cms-sw/xpog-l2: Is the PR fine to be approved?

@stahlleiton
Copy link
Contributor Author

@sunilUIET , @AdrianoDee , @simonepigazzini , @vlimant : Can you please sign this PR?

@mandrenguyen
Copy link
Contributor

@cms-sw/xpog-l2 @cms-sw/pdmv-l2 would you kindly review/sign ?

@AdrianoDee
Copy link
Contributor

+pdmv

@stahlleiton
Copy link
Contributor Author

@cms-sw/xpog-l2 please review/sign this PR

@vlimant
Copy link
Contributor

vlimant commented Dec 11, 2023

+1

@antoniovilela
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@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 be automatically merged.

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.

10 participants