Skip to content

HGCAL RecHits Calibration for V16 geometry scenario #36728

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
cmsbuild merged 14 commits into from
Jan 31, 2022
Merged

HGCAL RecHits Calibration for V16 geometry scenario #36728

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 4 commits
Commits
Show all changes
14 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
c8fc8bb
rec hit calib for V16
apsallid Oct 10, 2021
424f5dd
reduce precision
apsallid Oct 17, 2021
cb4ac8a
update to latest v16 version
apsallid Jan 6, 2022
1d4a3bb
add regional em factors for V16
apsallid Jan 14, 2022
85870a5
corrections to weights and fCperMIP
apsallid Jan 18, 2022
b1e60ce
no need for manually dealing with last weight
apsallid Jan 18, 2022
a2c4777
use new modifier
apsallid Jan 19, 2022
a75738c
removing not needed modifier
apsallid Jan 20, 2022
b654f38
Revert "removing not needed modifier"
apsallid Jan 20, 2022
eb55bd2
dEdx per era
apsallid Jan 28, 2022
1a7c1c6
setting default as before
apsallid Jan 28, 2022
bb1066b
correcting to default without extra parameter
apsallid Jan 28, 2022
2e499e2
using layerWeights instead of dEdX
apsallid Jan 28, 2022
9c8c05a
avoid usage of dEdX in CLUE
apsallid Jan 28, 2022
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
68 changes: 68 additions & 0 deletions RecoLocalCalo/HGCalRecProducers/python/HGCalRecHit_cfi.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -2,6 +2,60 @@
from SimCalorimetry.HGCalSimProducers.hgcalDigitizer_cfi import *
from RecoLocalCalo.HGCalRecProducers.HGCalUncalibRecHit_cfi import *

from Configuration.Eras.Modifier_phase2_hgcalV12_cff import phase2_hgcalV12

def calcWeights(weightsPerLayer): res = [sum(wei)/2. for wei in zip(weightsPerLayer[:], weightsPerLayer[1:] + [weightsPerLayer[0]])]; res[0] = 0.0; res[-1] = res[-2]; return res;
Copy link
Contributor

@rovere rovere Jan 18, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would it make sense to call the first weight as dummy_weight, to make it clear that it is associated with a non-existing layer?
That would also make the formula a little more explicit by using that value instead of weightsPerLayer[0], to make it clear that you are also adding at the end a dummy value, not the first weight, that would make no sense.
The same would be true for res[0] = dummy_weight as well.
Actually, you could directly add [weightsPerLayer[-1]] as the last element and remove the res[-1] = res[-2], to make it explicit that the last layer has no mean.

Copy link
Contributor

@rovere rovere Jan 18, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm still convinced that extending the second array with the last element, and not with the first, dummy one, would make the code easier and remove the necessity of setting res[-1] manually, no?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@apsallid apsallid Jan 18, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok, I removed it.


weightsPerLayer_V16 = cms.vdouble(0.0, # there is no layer zero
5.55, # MeV
12.86,
9.4,
12.86,
9.4,
12.86,
9.4,
12.86,
9.4,
12.86,
9.4,
12.86,
9.4,
12.86,
9.4,
12.86,
9.4,
12.86,
13.54,
12.86,
13.54,
12.86,
13.54,
12.86,
13.54,
12.86,
58.63,
60.7,
60.7,
60.7,
60.7,
60.7,
60.7,
60.7,
60.7,
60.7,
60.7,
83.08,
83.08,
83.43,
83.61,
83.61,
83.61,
83.61,
83.61,
83.61,
83.61)


dEdX = cms.PSet(
# for v10 geometry
weights = cms.vdouble(0.0, # there is no layer zero
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -67,6 +121,14 @@
92.283895)
)


# for v16 geometry
dEdX_v16 = cms.PSet(
weights = cms.vdouble(calcWeights(weightsPerLayer_V16))
)



# HGCAL rechit producer
HGCalRecHit = cms.EDProducer(
"HGCalRecHitProducer",
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -133,3 +195,9 @@
phase2_hgcalV10.toModify( HGCalRecHit , thicknessCorrection = [0.77, 0.77, 0.77, 0.84, 0.84, 0.84] , sciThicknessCorrection = 0.90 )

phase2_hfnose.toModify( HGCalRecHit , thicknessNoseCorrection = [0.58,0.58,0.58])

phase2_hgcalV12.toModify(HGCalRecHit,
thicknessCorrection = [0.75, 0.76, 0.75, 0.85, 0.85, 0.84] ,
sciThicknessCorrection = 0.69,
layerWeights = dEdX_v16.weights)

6 changes: 6 additions & 0 deletions RecoLocalCalo/HGCalRecProducers/python/HGCalUncalibRecHit_cfi.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -4,6 +4,8 @@

fCPerMIP_v10 = cms.vdouble(2.06,3.43,5.15) #120um, 200um, 300um

fCPerMIP_v16 = fCPerMIP_v10
Copy link
Contributor

@rovere rovere Jan 18, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I do not think there's a need to version the fCPerMIP. Would it make sense to just reuse fCPerMIP_v10?
Or, even better, remove the versioning from the variable's name completely?
I believe that could also imply removing the last four lines you have added, right?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@apsallid apsallid Jan 18, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@rovere The default values are with the MPV, while the ones with the version are with the mean. Isn't it better to remove the versioning and introduce two variables (fCPerMIP_mean, fCPerMIP_mpv) and in each modifier use the appropriate one?

Copy link
Contributor

@rovere rovere Jan 18, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@apsallid absolutely yes, that would be the optimal choice indeed!


# HGCAL producer of rechits starting from digis
HGCalUncalibRecHit = cms.EDProducer(
"HGCalUncalibRecHitProducer",
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -75,6 +77,10 @@
phase2_hgcalV10.toModify( HGCalUncalibRecHit.HGCEEConfig , fCPerMIP = fCPerMIP_v10 )
phase2_hgcalV10.toModify( HGCalUncalibRecHit.HGCHEFConfig , fCPerMIP = fCPerMIP_v10 )

from Configuration.Eras.Modifier_phase2_hgcalV12_cff import phase2_hgcalV12
phase2_hgcalV12.toModify( HGCalUncalibRecHit.HGCEEConfig , fCPerMIP = fCPerMIP_v16 )
phase2_hgcalV12.toModify( HGCalUncalibRecHit.HGCHEFConfig , fCPerMIP = fCPerMIP_v16 )

from Configuration.Eras.Modifier_phase2_hfnose_cff import phase2_hfnose
phase2_hfnose.toModify( HGCalUncalibRecHit.HGCHFNoseConfig ,
isSiFE = True ,
Expand Down