[Phase2] calibrated GCT calo jets and taus

[pallabidas]

PR description:

• updates to l1tp2::Phase2L1CaloJetCollection
• the endcap and forward region tower energies are calibrated using values used in Phase-2 L1T TDR
• this improves the jet pT resolution (and therefore the rates) significantly in endcap and forward regions when used together with custom_towers_energySplit in HGCal implemented in [HGCAL trigger] Module splitting and updated seeding normalization  cms-sw/cmssw#42246
• the jet and tau energy calibration is derived on top of the above
• not a backport

[triggerDoctor]

Hello, I'm triggerDoctor. @aloeliger is testing this script for L1T offline software validation.

Attempts to compile this PR succeeded!

Info	Value
return code	0
command	eval scramv1 runtime -sh && scram b -j 8

[triggerDoctor]

Hello, I'm triggerDoctor. @aloeliger is testing this script for L1T offline software validation.

I found no issues with the code checks!

Info	Value
return code	0
command	eval scramv1 runtime -sh && scram b -k -j 8 code-checks && scram b -k -j 8 code-checks

I found no issues with the headers!

Info	Value
return code	0
command	eval scramv1 runtime -sh && scram b -k -j 8 check-headers

[triggerDoctor]

Hello, I'm triggerDoctor. @aloeliger is testing this script for L1T offline software validation.

I found 1 files that did not meet formatting requirements:

• L1Trigger/L1TTrackMatch/plugins/L1TrackJetClustering.h

Please run scram b code-format to auto-apply code formatting

Info	Value
return code	0
command	eval scramv1 runtime -sh && scram b -k -j 8 code-format-all

[pallabidas]

@aloeliger this file with format issue is in the package L1TTrackMatch, should I edit it?

[aloeliger]

Don't worry about the formatting if it is not yours

[aloeliger]

@epalencia I think after some further discussion with @pallabidas I'm good with the changes here. Anything from your side? Otherwise @pallabidas Please go ahead and open this PR up to central CMSSW.

[epalencia]

Ok. @pallabidas , yes, please open the corresponding PR in master. Thanks

[artlbv]

the endcap and forward region tower energies are calibrated using values used in Phase-2 L1T TDR

can you clarify what this means? are calibrations constants from the time of the TDR used? or are the new calibrations derived in a way as proposed in the TDR?

[pallabidas]

hi @artlbv for endcap and forward regions no calibrations are presently applied from the side of HGCal or HF. We are applying the tower calibrations ourselves for getting reasonable rates of jets/taus following the same procedure undertaken during TDR. No new calibrations have been derived, all functions are taken from https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/master/L1Trigger/L1CaloTrigger/plugins/L1TowerCalibrator.cc

[artlbv]

No new calibrations have been derived

So this and the creation date in the file (2018/19?) makes me assume that the calibrations are from the L1 TDR era?
The HGCAL geometry has changed quite a lot in the HGCAL-HF transition region.
Has there been any consideration to update them? We were wondering about this with @EmyrClement at some point..

[pallabidas]

@artlbv yes HGCal team is aware. Even with the geometry change, the average PU is same in the eta bins so these old calibrations still work. We will derive new calibrations once HGCal TPs have settled on a stable configuration.

[artlbv]

@artlbv yes HGCal team is aware. Even with the geometry change, the average PU is same in the eta bins so these old calibrations still work. We will derive new calibrations once HGCal TPs have settled on a stable configuration.

I was rather concerned that upstream changes in the TPs might affect the calibrations, especially given the HGCAL geometry extending to the HF coverage. See this https://codimd.web.cern.ch/SpvL53X2SfW6xX4Gq2sRTg
Is the HF team aware?

[aloeliger]

@artlbv yes HGCal team is aware. Even with the geometry change, the average PU is same in the eta bins so these old calibrations still work. We will derive new calibrations once HGCal TPs have settled on a stable configuration.

I was rather concerned that upstream changes in the TPs might affect the calibrations, especially given the HGCAL geometry extending to the HF coverage. See this https://codimd.web.cern.ch/SpvL53X2SfW6xX4Gq2sRTg Is the HF team aware?

@artlbv It might affect the calibrations, but L1 has very little control over the TP's we're provided. There's very little we can do other than just provide calibrations as best we can for the current set of TPs. I don't know about HF team awareness, do you have an HF TP contact?

[artlbv]

There's very little we can do other than just provide calibrations as best we can for the current set of TPs.

that's exactly what I am wondering about: have the HF calibrations on L1 been updated since the TDR?
We can take this discussion to a TJM meeting or mattermost as anyway also @EmyrClement should be aware.

[EmyrClement]

After discussing briefly with @pallabidas to clarify, I understand the tower "calibration" being implemented in this PR is really a pile up subtraction applied to the calibrated towers.

For the upstream calibrations, we should follow up on the HGCal-HF region as @artlbv suggested, where the most significant change has happened since the TDR time. I am also not sure who the contact on the HF side is. In any case, we should follow this up outside of this PR.

[epalencia]

@pallabidas , is this PR completely in sync with the corresponding PR in master (cms-sw#43746) that was just merged?

[pallabidas]

hi @epalencia yes, no further changes were made to these files

[epalencia]

Tagged as phase2-l1t-1330pre3_v13.