Comments (16)
I think the way to move forward for the resonant analysis is:
- remove both
topPtReweight
andttSF
and check the data/MC agreement in the inverted resolved2b0j category (including the distribution of the top_pt) - check with Top POG if the recommendations for this reweigthing has changed for UL samples
- only at that point decide if we want to apply the
topPtReweight
or not:- if yes, apply it, check again the distributions and re-compute the
ttSF
s on top of this - if no, the
ttSF
s should be re-computed in any case since the TT normalization is directly affected by this "bug"
- if yes, apply it, check again the distributions and re-compute the
For the EFT results based on the non-resonant analysis I will check with HH conveners to see if we want update this (which would require a significant effort) or if we want to base the EFT results exactly on the same HIG-20-010 analysis.
from klubanalysis.
That is also how we submitted the 2017 Skims for now. Without the -t option, so no top pt reweighting and no tt stitching (which shouldn't be needed anyway since the samples we use have no overlap)
from klubanalysis.
The instructions on the twiki seems to indicate to first check the data/MC in a tt dominated control region and then eventually compute a correction. So I would suggest to do this first.
from klubanalysis.
for (1): I think @dzuolo misquoted the twiki and we are in fact in the second bullet situation: " In case significant discrepancies are observed, a dedicated top pT reweighting function should be derived from this control region and applied across the analysis while monitoring the agreement of other distributions as a result of this reweighting. ". Our 'fault' here would then be that the custom correction that was derived was indeed not pT-dependant, but that does not change the conclusion that the correction provided on the twiki is not to be used.
from klubanalysis.
What we could do is move to a pT-dependent computation of the ttSFs for the resonant analysis (or at least test it and see if that is in any way better than the normalization one we already have).
Agreed, but as @dzuolo said, before anything we should check if such weights are still needed
from klubanalysis.
Thanks for the heads up! I'm not entirely clear on why this weight is needed, and I found out that its value is hardcoded in the skimmer:
KLUBAnalysis/test/skimNtuple2016_HHbtag.cpp
Lines 73 to 74 in a5742e5
KLUBAnalysis/test/skimNtuple2016_HHbtag.cpp
Lines 1139 to 1141 in a5742e5
from klubanalysis.
Hi @portalesHEP! If we understood correctly the twiki https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/viewauth/CMS/TopPtReweighting we are in category "Case 3.1: Analyses with SM tt as background (not in signal)" and, specifically: "In a control region which is signal-depleted and tt-enriched, one should check the data-MC agreement of the main distributions of the analysis, together with the top pT. If the agreement between the data and MC is within the available uncertainties (syst. and stat.) then the effect of top pT mismodeling can be considered covered by the existing uncertainties and no additional correction or uncertainty is needed." So we should remove this weight from the sum of weight and check the data/MC agreement in the inverted resolved2b0j category.
from klubanalysis.
To my knowledge, the reweighting is done according to what is written in this page.
Even if I admit that by looking at it now, the hardcoded numbers coincide but the method itself no...
from klubanalysis.
Ok, thanks for the pointers. Then I'd tend to agree that we should remove the weights before the next skimming round. I suppose that this should not have had any critical impact on the non-resonant result though (?), since there was a dedicated TT correction extracted which should've absorbed any issue introduced by this bug
from klubanalysis.
I am not sure I agree with either of the points.
- I would say that the weights should be correctly re-introduced for the next skimming, after we have confirmed that it was an error on our side not to include it in the numerator (and after testing the difference in a non-resonant TT production).
- Even if the data-MC agreement was indeed good, I am not sure I agree that the effect of this scale factor is actually absorbed by our custom ttSF. The ttSF is a normalization factor computed on the mHH distribution, whereas this is a "shape weight" as a function of pT. Maybe we have been lucky, but this does not appear evident to me at first sight.
from klubanalysis.
Now I read better the TWiki, and I agree with @portalesHEP that the weight should be removed completely according to bullets 2 and 4 of case 3.1
What we could do is move to a pT-dependent computation of the ttSFs for the resonant analysis (or at least test it and see if that is in any way better than the normalization one we already have).
from klubanalysis.
@portalesHEP @bfonta @kramerto @riga We need to decide how to proceed with this issue in the new ntuples: I would propose to remove topPtReweight
from EvtW
in the skimmers and then check the data/MC agreement in the inverted resolved2b0j. What do you think?
from klubanalysis.
Hi, I think we should keep it in the skimmer (but correct it), and just remove the -t
option in the submission script (that would just set the weight to its default value of 1, like for any non-top sample). That way, if we do realise later on that we have some reason to put it back it'll be easier
from klubanalysis.
I am not sure I understand your point Louis. The weight is already stored in the skims with the last value suggested by the POG in the m_TTtopPtreweight_up
branch. What i am saying is that we should remove it from the computation of the EvtW
which is the denominator of the normalization. I believe it should not be there if we do not apply the weight also in the numerator.
from klubanalysis.
I'm saying that instead of removing it from the denominator, we should add it to the numerator, but insure that for now the weight is set to 1 (which should be done by removing the -t
flag in the skim submission iirc)
from klubanalysis.
Ah ok! Now I understand, this seems ok to me!
from klubanalysis.
Related Issues (20)
- Fix jet PU id cuts HOT 1
- Update HHKinFit with non-gaussian b jet resolution
- Updates for 76X skims
- DY stitiching weights HOT 17
- ttH stitching HOT 8
- ggHH NLO samples HOT 1
- Limit computation with HH-model
- Memory managment in CMSSW_11 HOT 1
- bTag SFs for different years HOT 1
- Remove temporary fixes to skim only ETau HOT 1
- UL framework update HOT 8
- Trigger overlap handling with new MET trigger HOT 2
- Merging VBF_UL branch against master HOT 15
- Missing weight in normalization denominator HOT 6
- Adding tkRelIso to the skimmer
- KLUB cleaning HOT 9
- Add b-jet and PNet variables HOT 1
- Histograms for CADI-line opening HOT 7
- 0.5 multiplicative factor: efficiencies
Recommend Projects
-
React
A declarative, efficient, and flexible JavaScript library for building user interfaces.
-
Vue.js
🖖 Vue.js is a progressive, incrementally-adoptable JavaScript framework for building UI on the web.
-
Typescript
TypeScript is a superset of JavaScript that compiles to clean JavaScript output.
-
TensorFlow
An Open Source Machine Learning Framework for Everyone
-
Django
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
-
Laravel
A PHP framework for web artisans
-
D3
Bring data to life with SVG, Canvas and HTML. 📊📈🎉
-
Recommend Topics
-
javascript
JavaScript (JS) is a lightweight interpreted programming language with first-class functions.
-
web
Some thing interesting about web. New door for the world.
-
server
A server is a program made to process requests and deliver data to clients.
-
Machine learning
Machine learning is a way of modeling and interpreting data that allows a piece of software to respond intelligently.
-
Visualization
Some thing interesting about visualization, use data art
-
Game
Some thing interesting about game, make everyone happy.
Recommend Org
-
Facebook
We are working to build community through open source technology. NB: members must have two-factor auth.
-
Microsoft
Open source projects and samples from Microsoft.
-
Google
Google ❤️ Open Source for everyone.
-
Alibaba
Alibaba Open Source for everyone
-
D3
Data-Driven Documents codes.
-
Tencent
China tencent open source team.
from klubanalysis.