Undo JEC for subjets in FatJet #281

nurfikri89 · 2021-06-02T06:57:34Z

This PR is to address issue #280. The subjets' p4 should now have the raw (i.e no JEC applied on them) p4 and the raw softdrop mass can be correctly calculated.

nurfikri89 · 2021-06-02T07:47:13Z

FYI JMAR convenors @camclean @alefisico

mariadalfonso · 2021-06-02T07:52:51Z

@nurfikri89

can you document the change with a plot comparing the SDmass after correction and the raw ?

nurfikri89 · 2021-06-02T07:59:01Z

@mariadalfonso will do

nurfikri89 · 2021-06-02T10:32:51Z

The attached plot compares the fatjet soft-drop mass distribution for the following cases:

Nano: from NanoAODs using FatJet_msoftdrop branch (Black Solid Line)
Raw (Before Fix): raw value as currently calculated (Blue Dashed Line)
Raw (After Fix): raw value with the fix introduced by this PR(Red Dotted Line)

As shown in the plot, the Raw (Before Fix) curve overlaps exactly with Nano because currently we do not undo the jet energy correction on the subjets. With this PR, the raw soft-drop mass will be properly calculated.

FatJets with pT > 200 GeV, |eta| < 2.4 and have 2 subjets are considered. The input file used for this plot is /store/mc/RunIISummer19UL17NanoAODv2/BulkGravToWWToWhadWhad_narrow_M-2000_TuneCP5_PSWeights_13TeV-madgraph-pythia/NANOAODSIM/106X_mc2017_realistic_v8-v1/280000/7C04C439-A221-DB44-BB93-B9426EC957D8.root.
The majority of the fatjets are expected to be fully-contained W->qq jets.

BulkGravToWWToWhadWhad_M2000_mSD.pdf

camclean · 2021-06-02T20:48:37Z

Can you also compare FatJet_msoftdrop_nom before and after the fix? I think it will be effected through the JMR correction factor, which contributes to the corrected softdrop mass here.

camclean · 2021-06-02T22:27:01Z

python/postprocessing/modules/jme/fatJetUncertainties.py

- groomedP4 = subJets[jet.subJetIdx1].p4() + subJets[
- jet.subJetIdx2].p4()  # check subjet jecs
+ groomedP4 = (subJets[jet.subJetIdx1].p4() * (1. - subJets[jet.subJetIdx1].rawFactor)) \
+ + (subJets[jet.subJetIdx2].p4() * (1. - subJets[jet.subJetIdx2].rawFactor))


Can you check that the eta and phi of the jet are not affected? The raw factor should only be applied to the pt and mass.

@camclean Are you referring to eta and phi of the AK8 parent jet or each of the subjets?

The one you get from groomedP4

The attached slide shows pT, eta and phi distributions of subjet 1 (top) and subjet 2 (bottom). Black solid histogram is with JEC applied (by default in NanoAOD) and blue dashed histogram is without the JEC applied (as implemented by the fixed in this PR). The implementation does not affect the subjets' eta and phi variables.

SubJetKinematics_WithAndWithoutJEC.pdf

camclean · 2021-06-03T14:29:41Z

There are also these lines after your fix that affect the "raw"softdrop mass.

nurfikri89 · 2021-06-03T17:17:29Z

Can you also compare FatJet_msoftdrop_nom before and after the fix? I think it will be effected through the JMR correction factor, which contributes to the corrected softdrop mass here.

Attached is a plot comparing the FatJet_msoftdrop_nom variable before the fix (solid black) and after the fix (dashed blue). Also included in the plot is the FatJet_msoftdrop variable (red dotted) as defined in the nanoAODs. From the plot, we can see that currently FatJet_msoftdrop_nom is over-corrected, as the Puppi, JMS and JMR corrections are applied to the soft-drop mass calculated from the JEC corrected subjets. The corrections should actually be applied to the raw soft-drop mass as prescribed by JMAR.

Note: FatJets with pT > 200 GeV, |eta| < 2.4 and have 2 subjets are considered. The input file used for this plot is /store/mc/RunIISummer19UL17NanoAODv2/BulkGravToWWToWhadWhad_narrow_M-2000_TuneCP5_PSWeights_13TeV-madgraph-pythia/NANOAODSIM/106X_mc2017_realistic_v8-v1/280000/7C04C439-A221-DB44-BB93-B9426EC957D8.root.
The majority of the fatjets are expected to be fully-contained W->qq jets.

BulkGravToWWToWhadWhad_M2000_mSD_Nom.pdf

camclean · 2021-06-03T18:18:59Z

Can you also compare FatJet_msoftdrop_nom before and after the fix? I think it will be effected through the JMR correction factor, which contributes to the corrected softdrop mass here.

Attached is a plot comparing the FatJet_msoftdrop_nom variable before the fix (solid black) and after the fix (dashed blue). Also included in the plot is the FatJet_msoftdrop variable (red dotted) as defined in the nanoAODs. From the plot, we can see that currently FatJet_msoftdrop_nom is over-corrected, as the Puppi, JMS and JMR corrections are applied to the soft-drop mass calculated from the JEC corrected subjets. The corrections should actually be applied to the raw soft-drop mass as prescribed by JMAR.

BulkGravToWWToWhadWhad_M2000_mSD_Nom.pdf

So now we have:

msoftdrop_nom (Before fix): JES, JER, JMR, JMS, and PUPPI softdrop mass correction applied
msoftdrop_nom (After fix): JER, JMR, JMS, and PUPPI softdrop mass correction applied; no JES applied
msoftdrop (SubJets with JEC): Only JES applied

The question is whether or not we want to keep msoftdrop_nom with JES applied for consistency. We've had analyses in the past have issues with changes because there is no version control for nanoAOD-Tools. What do you think @mariadalfonso @alefisico?

alefisico · 2021-06-04T08:02:29Z

Can you also compare FatJet_msoftdrop_nom before and after the fix? I think it will be effected through the JMR correction factor, which contributes to the corrected softdrop mass here.

Attached is a plot comparing the FatJet_msoftdrop_nom variable before the fix (solid black) and after the fix (dashed blue). Also included in the plot is the FatJet_msoftdrop variable (red dotted) as defined in the nanoAODs. From the plot, we can see that currently FatJet_msoftdrop_nom is over-corrected, as the Puppi, JMS and JMR corrections are applied to the soft-drop mass calculated from the JEC corrected subjets. The corrections should actually be applied to the raw soft-drop mass as prescribed by JMAR.
BulkGravToWWToWhadWhad_M2000_mSD_Nom.pdf

So now we have:
* msoftdrop_nom (Before fix): **JES**, JER, JMR, JMS, and PUPPI softdrop mass correction applied

* msoftdrop_nom (After fix): JER, JMR, JMS, and PUPPI softdrop mass correction applied; **no JES applied**

* msoftdrop (SubJets with JEC): Only JES applied
The question is whether or not we want to keep msoftdrop_nom with JES applied for consistency. We've had analyses in the past have issues with changes because there is no version control for nanoAOD-Tools. What do you think @mariadalfonso @alefisico?

From the plots that @nurfikri89 showed, I think we should only keep the msoftdrop_nom without JES. But maybe we can check the hash of this PR and announce it in HN and in the twiki that this definition changed.

camclean · 2021-06-04T16:10:11Z

Can you also compare FatJet_msoftdrop_nom before and after the fix? I think it will be effected through the JMR correction factor, which contributes to the corrected softdrop mass here.

Attached is a plot comparing the FatJet_msoftdrop_nom variable before the fix (solid black) and after the fix (dashed blue). Also included in the plot is the FatJet_msoftdrop variable (red dotted) as defined in the nanoAODs. From the plot, we can see that currently FatJet_msoftdrop_nom is over-corrected, as the Puppi, JMS and JMR corrections are applied to the soft-drop mass calculated from the JEC corrected subjets. The corrections should actually be applied to the raw soft-drop mass as prescribed by JMAR.
BulkGravToWWToWhadWhad_M2000_mSD_Nom.pdf

So now we have:
* msoftdrop_nom (Before fix): **JES**, JER, JMR, JMS, and PUPPI softdrop mass correction applied

* msoftdrop_nom (After fix): JER, JMR, JMS, and PUPPI softdrop mass correction applied; **no JES applied**

* msoftdrop (SubJets with JEC): Only JES applied
The question is whether or not we want to keep msoftdrop_nom with JES applied for consistency. We've had analyses in the past have issues with changes because there is no version control for nanoAOD-Tools. What do you think @mariadalfonso @alefisico?
From the plots that @nurfikri89 showed, I think we should only keep the msoftdrop_nom without JES. But maybe we can check the hash of this PR and announce it in HN and in the twiki that this definition changed.

Agreed

mariadalfonso · 2021-06-18T10:18:53Z

@alefisico @camclean @nurfikri89

msoftdrop_nom (After fix): JER, JMR, JMS, and PUPPI softdrop mass correction applied; no JES applied
in #281 (comment)

can you document

the value of the JMR, JMS used: we have a lot of placeholders values 1.
if this corresponds to the UL samples ?

lcorcodilos · 2021-07-15T13:36:24Z

Just linking that this issue was raised a year and a half ago by #234

bartokm · 2021-08-27T09:43:17Z

Shouldn't this PR to be merged to master?

nurfikri89 · 2021-10-11T03:58:04Z

msoftdrop_nom (After fix): JER, JMR, JMS, and PUPPI softdrop mass correction applied; no JES applied in #281 (comment)

can you document

the value of the JMR, JMS used: we have a lot of placeholders values 1.

if this corresponds to the UL samples ?

@mariadalfonso My apologies for dropping this PR. Picking this back up again so it can be merged.

The JMR and JMS values used for the plot in #281 (comment) are 1.0 which are the default values for UL2017 as defined here for JMR and here for JMS.

mariadalfonso · 2021-10-22T12:23:45Z

msoftdrop_nom (After fix): JER, JMR, JMS, and PUPPI softdrop mass correction applied; no JES applied in #281 (comment)
can you document

the value of the JMR, JMS used: we have a lot of placeholders values 1.

if this corresponds to the UL samples ?

@mariadalfonso My apologies for dropping this PR. Picking this back up again so it can be merged.

The JMR and JMS values used for the plot in #281 (comment) are 1.0 which are the default values for UL2017 as defined here for JMR and here for JMS.

for the SF, it's safest to take the value from the json files from JMAR-EOY.

Undo JEC for each subjet and get p4 of groomed subjets

584e651

Minor fix

7b2c41d

camclean suggested changes Jun 2, 2021

View reviewed changes

camclean approved these changes Jun 3, 2021

View reviewed changes

nurfikri89 closed this Oct 9, 2021

nurfikri89 deleted the fix_subjetJEC branch October 9, 2021 19:16

nurfikri89 restored the fix_subjetJEC branch October 9, 2021 19:19

nurfikri89 reopened this Oct 11, 2021

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Undo JEC for subjets in FatJet #281

Undo JEC for subjets in FatJet #281

nurfikri89 commented Jun 2, 2021

nurfikri89 commented Jun 2, 2021

mariadalfonso commented Jun 2, 2021

nurfikri89 commented Jun 2, 2021

nurfikri89 commented Jun 2, 2021 •

edited

Loading

camclean commented Jun 2, 2021 •

edited

Loading

camclean Jun 2, 2021

nurfikri89 Jun 3, 2021

camclean Jun 3, 2021

nurfikri89 Jun 3, 2021

camclean commented Jun 3, 2021

nurfikri89 commented Jun 3, 2021 •

edited

Loading

camclean commented Jun 3, 2021

alefisico commented Jun 4, 2021

camclean commented Jun 4, 2021

mariadalfonso commented Jun 18, 2021

lcorcodilos commented Jul 15, 2021

bartokm commented Aug 27, 2021

nurfikri89 commented Oct 11, 2021

mariadalfonso commented Oct 22, 2021

Undo JEC for subjets in FatJet #281

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Undo JEC for subjets in FatJet #281

Conversation

nurfikri89 commented Jun 2, 2021

nurfikri89 commented Jun 2, 2021

mariadalfonso commented Jun 2, 2021

nurfikri89 commented Jun 2, 2021

nurfikri89 commented Jun 2, 2021 • edited Loading

camclean commented Jun 2, 2021 • edited Loading

camclean Jun 2, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

nurfikri89 Jun 3, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

camclean Jun 3, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

nurfikri89 Jun 3, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

camclean commented Jun 3, 2021

nurfikri89 commented Jun 3, 2021 • edited Loading

camclean commented Jun 3, 2021

alefisico commented Jun 4, 2021

camclean commented Jun 4, 2021

mariadalfonso commented Jun 18, 2021

lcorcodilos commented Jul 15, 2021

bartokm commented Aug 27, 2021

nurfikri89 commented Oct 11, 2021

mariadalfonso commented Oct 22, 2021

nurfikri89 commented Jun 2, 2021 •

edited

Loading

camclean commented Jun 2, 2021 •

edited

Loading

nurfikri89 commented Jun 3, 2021 •

edited

Loading