73x validation, feb. 23 rd, 2015 robert schöfbeck, mariarosaria d’alfonso, matthias weber report...

73X Validation, Feb. 23rd, 2015 Robert Schöfbeck, Mariarosaria D’Alfonso, Matthias Weber

report on 73X rereco Feb. 23th, 2015

Robert Schoefbeck, Mariarosaria D’Alfonso, Matthias Weber

2

73X Validation, Feb. 23rd, 2015 Robert Schöfbeck, Mariarosaria D’Alfonso, Matthias Weber

8 TeV samples

o 1M JetHT, 1.6M zMu skim of DoubleMu Run2012D• rerecoed with HCAL method 2 in 7_3_2_patch1

o DAS linkhttps://cmsweb.cern.ch/das/request?view=plain&limit=10&instance=prod%2Fglobal&input=dataset%3D%2F*%2F*HcalExtValid*%2F*

3

73X Validation, Feb. 23rd, 2015 Robert Schöfbeck, Mariarosaria D’Alfonso, Matthias Weber

o study MET resolution in Z to μμo more plots:https://dalfonso.web.cern.ch/dalfonso/MET_73X_validation/

o resolution (RMS/scale) comparable between 53X and 73X

o ~6-10% lower scale attributed to calorimetry changeso not the final PF calibration, small trend in tkMET under study

o more plots: https://dalfonso.web.cern.ch/dalfonso/MET_73X_validation/

DoubleMu zSkim rereco’d

53X

73X

4

73X Validation, Feb. 23rd, 2015 Robert Schöfbeck, Mariarosaria D’Alfonso, Matthias Weber

MET tail: JetHT 53X vs. 73X

o picked run 203835o comparing 73X JetHT HcalExtValid v2 RECO against

53X Jan22 rereco in AODo MET filters applied in both 53X and 73Xo JSON applied: gives ~6k eventso these data are available on EOS in 53X and 73Xo aim of the study: identify sumET and MET outliers

• also for sub-sums according to pfCand species

5

MET and sum(ET) scatter plots

immediate observations:1. seemingly smallish correlation in bulk MET region (blue arrow)2. different events in the MET tails (red arrows)3. sum(ET) relatively well under control (right plot)

6

o look at φ(MET) in order to understand theseemingly small correlation in bulk MET

o Conclusion: correlation is OK, looks as expected

MET phi

MET(53X)>50all events

7

o What is the energy composition of events in the tails?o First, disentangle pfCandidate species and look at sum(Pt)

and sub-MET scatter plots

o While there are sum(ET) outliers from h0, the MET looks under control. Suggest DPGs investigatea few off-diagonal events.

MET outliers from neutrals

neutrals‘h0’

8

o What is the energy composition of events in the tails?o charged sumPt much higher (as usual)

o sum(Pt) relatively well under control, few outliers in MET, suggest DPGs investigate a few off-diagonal events.

MET outliers from charged

charged‘h’

9

o What is the energy composition of events in the tails?o HF (here showing charged component) seems fine

o No issues observed in HF whatsoever

MET outliers from HF

‘h_HF’

10

MET outliers from gammas/e

‘gamma’

‘e’

same eventsas on p3

Energy is going back and forth between e and gamma. Correlated with MET outliers.

11

event lists

o created lists of outliers in MET and sumPt for all species: http://www.hephy.at/schoefbeck/etc/eventlist.txt

(open file w/o line wrap)o example: outliers in total MET

(c/p the event numbers from the text file)

12

debugging MET tails

Quoting always “53X→73X”1. pfMET 28.1→421.7: sumPt(h0) 142.0→46.0 (MET(h0) small), sumPt(gamma)

250→570, MET(gamma): 25.6 →424.42. pfMET 11.7→308.1 (similar characteristics), MET(gamma): 12.8→309.93. pfMET 42.0→211.6; MET(h) 131.5→208.6, MET(h0) 125.2→37.7,MET(gamma)

241.0→50.9sumPt(h)1063.3→1353.4

4. pfMET 4.7→174.3 (h ~ unchanged, MET(h0) unchanged, small) , MET(gamma) 12.3→154.7

5. pfMET 84.4→219.8 MET(h) 117.1→201.0, MET(mu) 140→06. pfMET 66.8→191.6 (?) 200 GeV change in sumPt(h),

several smaller changes7. pfMET 104.2→216.0

MET(gamma) 20.1→142.58. pfMET 12.9→121.5

MET(gamma) 21.8→139.49. pfMET 34.8→136.1 small changes

in h0, h, gamma are adding up10.pfMET 137.9→33.2, MET(h) 240.0→90.311.pfMET 197.1→43.8, MET(h) 262.8→73.112.pfMET 167.1→12.6, MET(h) 24.6→223.413.pfMET 178.3→8.7, MET(gamma) 145.9→43.7, MET(mu) 47.2→0

1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.

73X>

53X73X<

53X

event numbers of prominent outliers

13

o Energy going back and forth between e and gamma.This feature is related to the most prominent outliersin the total MET.

o one event (208352:15:20368765) with a 140 GeV muon apparently lost in 73X (seems to create MET)

o several events have significantly less MET in 73X (seems related to charged hadrons ‘h’)

o retrieved 73X outliers on next slide for further study in cmsShow etc./eos/cms/store/group/phys_jetmet/schoef/pickEvents/73X-RECO-pickEvents

more on MET tails

14

list of events with large MET(gamma)

o top half: more MET(gamma) in 73X. Up to 400 GeV difference.

• picture is similar for sumPt and for electrons

o bottom half: less MET(gamma) in 73X. Up to 230 GeV diff.

o go here to c/p list: http://www.hephy.at/schoefbeck/etc/eventlist.txt

15

Summary

o Spotted several differences in the 53X and 73XMET tails related to e/gamma, mu, ho apparently less issues with h0, no problems with

HF

o event lists are ready for DPGs to study

o MET scale and resolution seem under control

16

Backup

17

73X Validation, Feb. 23rd, 2015 Robert Schöfbeck, Mariarosaria D’Alfonso, Matthias Weber

sanity check: DQM

o compare with 71X relvals and compare broad characteristics of reconstruction methods.

o reference sample: /JetHT/CMSSW_7_1_0-GR_R_71_V6_RelVal_jet2012D-v1/DQMExpect to see changes related to:o timing HCAL and ECAL o PFcalibration (hadrons and egamma)

o link to central DQM GUI (thanks to Matthias!!)https://cmsweb.cern.ch/dqm/relval/start?runnr=208307;dataset=/JetHT/CMSSW_7_3_2_patch1-GR_R_73_V0_HcalExtValid_RelVal_jet2012D-v1/DQMIO;sampletype=offline_data;filter=all;referencepos=overlay;referenceshow=all;referenceobj1=other::/JetHT/CMSSW_7_1_0-GR_R_71_V6_RelVal_jet2012D-v1/DQM:;referenceobj2=none;referenceobj3=none;referenceobj4=none;search=;striptype=object;stripruns=;stripaxis=run;stripomit=none;workspace=Everything;size=M;root=JetMET/MET/pfMet/Cleaned;focus=JetMET/MET/pfMet/Cleaned/PfNeutralHadronEt;zoom=no;

18

sanity check vs. 71XDQM/MET

JetHT run 208307HcalExtValid

JetHT run 208307CMSSW_7_1_0-GR_R_71_V6_RelVal

19

73X Validation, Feb. 23rd, 2015 Robert Schöfbeck, Mariarosaria D’Alfonso, Matthias Weber

o MET agrees within stat. MET tail not worrisome o plot on previous slide is for

a dijet selectiono lower photon ET (as expected)o lower neutral ET (as expected)o higher HF hadron ET

o was this expected?o sumET reduced by ~1.5%o other fractions vary consistently

sanity check vs. 71XDQM/MET

20

73X Validation, Feb. 23rd, 2015 Robert Schöfbeck, Mariarosaria D’Alfonso, Matthias Weber

JetHT run 208307HcalExtValid

JetHT run 208307CMSSW_7_1_0-GR_R_71_V6_RelVal

sanity check vs. 71XDQM/Jets (AK4PF)

o lower neutral hadron energyo higher HF energyo improvement of eta ‘horns’

21

jetHT rereco’d

o looking for spectacular mis-recoo comparing: 1. HLT_HT750 triggered data

2. applying recommended MET filters

3. applying offline HT + dijet requirement

filters removehigh MET noise

noiseremoved

22

jetHT rereco’d

o left: pT of leading jeto middle: neutral had. e.f. (nhef) of leading jeto right: max (nhef) per event for all jets > 100 GeV

o Summary: HCAL noise effectively removed, no signof residual noise. No hints of unforseen effects found. Note: This study is not sensitive to % level effects in calo reco

o more plots: http://www.hephy.at/schoefbeck/pngHCAL/

23

73X Validation, Feb. 23rd, 2015 Robert Schöfbeck, Mariarosaria D’Alfonso, Matthias Weber

Conclusion

o Checked JetHT and DoubleMu zSkim rereco’d data

o JetHTo Nothing worrying found, observed changes in line

with reconstruction

o Double Mu zSkim Run2012Do MET resolution comparableo MET scale 6-10% lower in 73X