-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.4k
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
[EGM HLT@Phase2] Phase out caloTowers #40525
Conversation
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-40525/33732
|
A new Pull Request was created by @swagata87 (Swagata Mukherjee) for master. It involves the following packages:
@cmsbuild, @missirol, @Martin-Grunewald can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm a bit confused.
Doesn't the change to hltFixedGridRhoFastjetAllCaloForMuons
also affect the muon reconstruction?
If that is intended, and the same module is used by both EGM and MUO, the postfix "ForMuons" could be removed for clarity.
Several EGM modules (e.g. hltDiEG2312IsoHEL1SeededFilter
) still reference hltFixedGridRhoFastjetAllCaloForEGamma
(which doesn't exist); I guess it does not matter because doRhoCorrection = False
, but this should be replaced with an empty InputTag (like in hltDiEG2312IsoClusterShapeL1SeededFilter
), or the name of an appropriate (existing) collection (e.g. hltFixedGridRhoFastjetAllCalo(ForMuons)
).
The files hltTowerMakerForAllForEgamma_cfi
and hltRegionalTowerForEgamma_cfi
should be removed if not used (unless there is a good reason to keep them).
eThresHB = cms.vdouble( 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.3 ), | ||
eThresHE = cms.vdouble( 0.1, 0.2, 0.2, 0.2, 0.2, 0.2, 0.2 ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
These look like the Run-3 thresholds. Are they the same for Phase 2 ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Let's double check this with @cms-sw/hcal-dpg-l2 and @cms-sw/pf-l2
Is the following still valid for phase2? Or do we have new PF recHit threshold for HB for phase2?
_thresholdsHBphase1 = cms.vdouble(0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.3) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I thought this depends on the 'aging' scenario, e.g.
"rec": [0.8, 1.2, 1.2, 1.2], |
, and it would match what is used in the modules below [*], where there are already some differences.
Indeed, it would be good to clarify this.
[*]
cmssw/HLTrigger/Configuration/python/HLT_75e33/modules/particleFlowRecHitHBHE_cfi.py
Line 16 in af4b7ab
threshold = cms.vdouble(0.8, 1.2, 1.2, 1.2) |
cmssw/HLTrigger/Configuration/python/HLT_75e33/modules/particleFlowClusterHBHE_cfi.py
Line 13 in af4b7ab
gatheringThreshold = cms.vdouble(0.8, 1.2, 1.2, 1.2), |
cmssw/HLTrigger/Configuration/python/HLT_75e33/modules/hltParticleFlowRecHitHBHEForEgamma_cfi.py
Line 25 in af4b7ab
threshold = cms.vdouble(0.8, 0.8, 0.8, 0.8) |
cmssw/HLTrigger/Configuration/python/HLT_75e33/modules/hltParticleFlowClusterHBHEForEgamma_cfi.py
Line 13 in af4b7ab
gatheringThreshold = cms.vdouble(0.8, 0.8, 0.8, 0.8), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was about to point to usual Phase2 aging customization
https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/master/SLHCUpgradeSimulations/Configuration/python/aging.py#245
With PFlowClusters thresholds/seeds involved.
But just noticed that Marino has already commented on it just several minutes ago (!)
Typical Phase2 use case is 1000/fb in this list:
https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/master/SLHCUpgradeSimulations/Configuration/python/aging.py#L89-#L127
Indeed it does. But for now RhoCorrection is disabled in muon HLT also, so no difference will show up in tests.
I have now kept
this issue is now solved as I have now introduced a new module named
these 2 files are now removed The latest changes are tested with |
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-40525/33733
|
Pull request #40525 was updated. @cmsbuild, @missirol, @Martin-Grunewald can you please check and sign again. |
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-40525/33736
|
Pull request #40525 was updated. @cmsbuild, @missirol, @Martin-Grunewald can you please check and sign again. |
please test
That'd be okay with me. |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-cdd063/30000/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
+hlt |
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. @perrotta, @dpiparo, @rappoccio (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
+1 |
PR description:
With this PR we propose to discontinue the usage of caloTowers in Phase2 E/gamma HLT.
This is done in a similar way as it was done for Run3 EGM HLT as described in [1], [2], [3], [4].
[1] https://its.cern.ch/jira/browse/CMSHLT-2286
[2] https://indico.cern.ch/event/1116957/contributions/4716661/attachments/2383419/4072743/caloTowerEGMHLT.pdf
[3] #35049
[4] #36157
PR validation:
RecHit-based H/E and CaloTower-based H/E are very close. This plot is made from
CMSSW_12_4_8
, usingZprimeToEE
sample (PhaseIISpring22
,PU200
). The objects entering the plot are all the HLT-level superclusters with pT>10 GeV, in barrel.Tagging HLT upgrade convenors @beaucero and @SohamBhattacharya
Backport of this PR is not necessary.