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