1. 73X Validation, Feb. 23 rd, 2015 Robert Schöfbeck, Mariarosaria D’Alfonso, Matthias Weber report on 73X rereco Feb. 23 th, 2015 Robert Schoefbeck, Mariarosaria D’Alfonso, Matthias Weber

2. 2 73X Validation, Feb. 23 rd, 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 link https://cmsweb.cern.ch/das/request?view=plain&limit=10&instance=prod%2Fglobal&input=dataset%3D%2F*%2F*HcalExtValid*%2F* https://cmsweb.cern.ch/das/request?view=plain&limit=10&instance=prod%2Fglobal&input=dataset%3D%2F*%2F*HcalExtValid*%2F*

3. 3 73X Validation, Feb. 23 rd, 2015 Robert Schöfbeck, Mariarosaria D’Alfonso, Matthias Weber o study MET resolution in Z to μμ o 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 changes o not the final PF calibration, small trend in tkMET under study o more plots: https://dalfonso.web.cern.ch/dalfonso/MET_73X_validation/ https://dalfonso.web.cern.ch/dalfonso/MET_73X_validation/ DoubleMu zSkim rereco’d 53X 73X

4. 4 73X Validation, Feb. 23 rd, 2015 Robert Schöfbeck, Mariarosaria D’Alfonso, Matthias Weber MET tail: JetHT 53X vs. 73X o picked run 203835 o comparing 73X JetHT HcalExtValid v2 RECO against 53X Jan22 rereco in AOD o MET filters applied in both 53X and 73X o JSON applied: gives ~6k events o these data are available on EOS in 53X and 73X o aim of the study: identify sumET and MET outliers also for sub-sums according to pfCand species

5. 5 MET and sum(E T ) 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(E T ) relatively well under control (right plot)

6. 6 o look at φ (MET) in order to understand the seemingly small correlation in bulk MET o Conclusion: correlation is OK, looks as expected MET phi MET(53X)>50 all events

7. 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(E T ) outliers from h0, the MET looks under control. Suggest DPGs investigate a few off-diagonal events. MET outliers from neutrals neutrals ‘h0’

8. 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. 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. 10 MET outliers from gammas/e ‘gamma’ ‘e’ same events as on p3 Energy is going back and forth between e and gamma. Correlated with MET outliers.

11. 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) http://www.hephy.at/schoefbeck/etc/eventlist.txt o example: outliers in total MET (c/p the event numbers from the text file)

12. 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 → 424.4 2.pfMET 11.7 → 308.1 (similar characteristics), MET(gamma): 12.8 → 309.9 3.pfMET 42.0 → 211.6; MET(h) 131.5 → 208.6, MET(h0) 125.2 → 37.7,MET(gamma) 241.0 → 50.9 sumPt(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 → 0 6.pfMET 66.8 → 191.6 (?) 200 GeV change in sumPt(h), several smaller changes 7.pfMET 104.2 → 216.0 MET(gamma) 20.1 → 142.5 8.pfMET 12.9 → 121.5 MET(gamma) 21.8 → 139.4 9.pfMET 34.8 → 136.1 small changes in h0, h, gamma are adding up 10.pfMET 137.9 → 33.2, MET(h) 240.0 → 90.3 11.pfMET 197.1 → 43.8, MET(h) 262.8 → 73.1 12.pfMET 167.1 → 12.6, MET(h) 24.6 → 223.4 13.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 > 53X 73X < 53X event numbers of prominent outliers

13. 13 o Energy going back and forth between e and gamma. This feature is related to the most prominent outliers in 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. 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 http://www.hephy.at/schoefbeck/etc/eventlist.txt

15. 15 Summary o Spotted several differences in the 53X and 73X MET tails related to e/gamma, mu, h o 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. 16 Backup

17. 17 73X Validation, Feb. 23 rd, 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/DQM Expect 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=non e;workspace=Everything;size=M;root=JetMET/MET/pfMet/Cleaned;focus=JetMET/MET/pfMet/Cleaned/PfNeutralHadronEt;zoom=no;

18. 18 sanity check vs. 71X DQM/MET JetHT run 208307 HcalExtValid JetHT run 208307 CMSSW_7_1_0-GR_R_71_V6_RelVal

19. 19 73X Validation, Feb. 23 rd, 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 selection o 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. 71X DQM/MET

20. 20 73X Validation, Feb. 23 rd, 2015 Robert Schöfbeck, Mariarosaria D’Alfonso, Matthias Weber JetHT run 208307 HcalExtValid JetHT run 208307 CMSSW_7_1_0-GR_R_71_V6_RelVal sanity check vs. 71X DQM/Jets (AK4PF) o lower neutral hadron energy o higher HF energy o improvement of eta ‘horns’

21. 21 jetHT rereco’d o looking for spectacular mis-reco o comparing: 1. HLT_HT750 triggered data 2. applying recommended MET filters 3. applying offline HT + dijet requirement filters remove high MET noise noise removed

22. 22 jetHT rereco’d o left: p T of leading jet o middle: neutral had. e.f. (nhef) of leading jet o right: max (nhef) per event for all jets > 100 GeV o Summary: HCAL noise effectively removed, no sign of 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/http://www.hephy.at/schoefbeck/pngHCAL/

23. 23 73X Validation, Feb. 23 rd, 2015 Robert Schöfbeck, Mariarosaria D’Alfonso, Matthias Weber Conclusion o Checked JetHT and DoubleMu zSkim rereco’d data o JetHT o Nothing worrying found, observed changes in line with reconstruction o Double Mu zSkim Run2012D o MET resolution comparable o MET scale 6-10% lower in 73X