skinnari
commented
2 years ago @tomalin you requested these updates in the first place, please have a look. code changes look good to me!
Closed vegajustin26 closed 2 years ago
skinnari
commented
2 years ago @tomalin you requested these updates in the first place, please have a look. code changes look good to me!
tomalin
commented
2 years ago It's good to see the resolutions for eta > 2.4 and pt < 2 GeV, thanks. Is it possible to extend the efficiency plots, so we see the efficiency in these regions too?
vegajustin26
commented
2 years ago It's good to see the resolutions for eta > 2.4 and pt < 2 GeV, thanks. Is it possible to extend the efficiency plots, so we see the efficiency in these regions too?
@tomalin The problem above will be fixed (25 bins, eta_resmax = 2.5)! However, the efficiency plots are already capped at eta ≤ 2.5 and the low pT have their lower bound at 0. In order to see the pT cuts though in the resolution plots in the slides, the lower bound for pT needs to be adjusted to 1.5 GeV in the Python config file. Should I also make this change?
tomalin
commented
2 years ago It's good to see the resolutions for eta > 2.4 and pt < 2 GeV, thanks. Is it possible to extend the efficiency plots, so we see the efficiency in these regions too?
@tomalin The problem above will be fixed (25 bins, eta_resmax = 2.5)! However, the efficiency plots are already capped at eta ≤ 2.5 and the low pT have their lower bound at 0. In order to see the pT cuts though in the resolution plots in the slides, the lower bound for pT needs to be adjusted to 1.5 GeV in the Python config file. Should I also make this change?
Yes, it's worth trying. Though as sanity check, make sure that none of the results in the region Pt > 2, eta < 2.4 change when you do this.
vegajustin26
commented
2 years ago @tomalin Okay, so the eta efficiency plots with eta ≤ 2.6 do not show anything of interest (see updated slides 9 & 10 below), since there are not very many identified tracks picked up by the algorithm past ~ eta = 2.55. I don't think any change needs to be made to these.
Along with these changes, @skinnari and I think that the default TP_minPt should also be changed in this PR. In my testing, the difference in file sizes for the sample ROOT file are trivial between 1.9 and 2 GeV (only a 5% filesize increase with 100 events). We propose TP_minPt = 1.9; I've updated the resolution slides to reflect this change. There's also no change in pT > 2/eta < 2.4 when we decrease to 1.9.
If all looks good, then I will add the fix to the above problem and the change in TP_minPt to this PR. L1TrackNtuplePlot Updates v2.pdf
tomalin
commented
2 years ago @tomalin Okay, so the eta efficiency plots with eta ≤ 2.6 do not show anything of interest (see updated slides 9 & 10 below), since there are not very many identified tracks picked up by the algorithm past ~ eta = 2.55. I don't think any change needs to be made to these.
Along with these changes, @skinnari and I think that the default TP_minPt should also be changed in this PR. In my testing, the difference in file sizes for the sample ROOT file are trivial between 1.9 and 2 GeV (only a 5% filesize increase with 100 events). We propose TP_minPt = 1.9; I've updated the resolution slides to reflect this change. There's also no change in pT > 2/eta < 2.4 when we decrease to 1.9.
If all looks good, then I will add the fix to the above problem and the change in TP_minPt to this PR. L1TrackNtuplePlot Updates v2.pdf
Please do
Added new printouts and histogram entries for no pT/eta cuts; new trk_eta and trk_pt plots available for viewing; extended lower bound of pT ≥ 1.5 GeV on low pT plots and eta plots now support eta ≤ 2.5.
The changes in this update to L1TrackNtuplePlot.C are sufficiently described in the below presentation:
L1TrackNtuplePlot Updates.pdf