News

HQT Software Task Force

Mandate and current activities

• Facilitate communication among analysis regarding analysis software
• Help with basic validation of software frameworks used in HQT
• Perform basic cross-framework validation to ensure reproducibility of physics results from different frameworks

Contacts

• TF Members: YuHengChen TrishaFarooque ElhamEKhoda
• HQT Conveners: ChristophAnders KatharinaBehr

Major analysis frameworks used in HQT

According to the early survey, frameworks used in individual analysis for Rel.20.7 and their corresponding derivations are listed in the following:

Analysis	Framework	Derivation(s)	Processing time
tt resonance (1-lep.)	AT-based	EXOT4	~1 WK
tt resonance (0-lep.)	AT-based	EXOT7+EXOT4+TOPQ1	~1 WK
tb resonance (0-lep.)	AT-based	EXOT7	-
VLQ OS-ML	AT-based	EXOT4	~2-4 WK
VLQ all-had.	AT-based	EXOT7	-
VLQ Zt+X high-MET	ST-based	SUSY5	-
VLQ Ht+X	ST-based	TOPQ1+TOPQ4	-
VLQ B->b/Zb	CxAOD	-	in Development

Cross-Framework Comparison

Setups

Softwares

Validation Tool: https://gitlab.cern.ch/CrossFrameworkValidation/CrossFrameworkValidation

Frameworks

	Validated/Latest Version	Contact	Source Code	Build	Converge
AnalysisTop	21.2.19/21.2.37	hn-atlas-top-reconstruction@cernNOSPAMPLEASE.ch	Link
SUSYTools		atlas-phys-susy-backgroundforum@cernNOSPAMPLEASE.ch	Link

CP Tools
General information about how to configure CP Tools can be found here: https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/AtlasProtected/PhysicsAnalysisWorkBookRel21CPRec

Object Definitions

Jets
Container name: AntiKt4EMTopo
Selection cuts: JetMC15

• pT>25GeV
• abs(η)<2.5
• B-tagging: MV2c10 at 70% WP

Electrons
Container name: Electrons
Selection cuts: ElectronLikelihoodMC15

• pT>25GeV
• abs(η)<2.47
• Veto 1.37<abs(η)<1.52
• Loose (baseline): Identification: MediumLH, Isolation: no isolation
• Tight (signal): Identification: TightLLH, Isolation: FixedCutTightTrackOnly

Muons
Container name: Muons
Selection cuts: MuonMC15

• pT>25GeV
• abs(η)<2.5
• Loose (baseline): Identification: Medium, Isolation: no isolation
• Tight (signal): Identification: Medium, Isolation: FixedCutTightTrackOnly

MET
Selection cuts:

• Track Soft Term (TST), no fJVT
• All Calibrated jets
• electrons and muons passing loose selections
• No photons and taus

Large-R Jets
Container name: AntiKt10LCTopoTrimmedPtFrac5SmallR20Jets
Selection cuts: JetMC15

• pT>25GeV
• abs(η)<2.0

Overlap Removals
Working Point: Standard

1. remove electrons that shares track with muons
2. remove single jet closest to an electron (within ∆R < 0.2)
3. remove electrons/mouns within ∆R < 0.4 of any jet

Input Sample

TOPQ1 Powheg+Pythia8 ttbar MC sample

SCOPE:NAME	GUID	ADLER32	FILESIZE	EVENTS
mc16_13TeV:DAOD_TOPQ1.12453997._001723.pool.root.1	F1CEF10F-5BB8-5045-B4E3-46503FED3B79	ad:8aafca9e	1.007 GB	6176

Results

Common Tools Configurations

Utilizing the asg::ToolStore::dumpToolConfig() function, CP Tool Configurations as dependent variables of Setups are studied.
Full List can be found here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14Lgpz19N_2ilQedNxoZ74kUp63hEJKLZLpqrEvab0-g/edit?usp=sharing
In Summary, most of the Tools Configurations can be easily configured and some hard-to-find discrepancies usually happens when CDI files of certain framework are not up-to-dated.

Cutflows & Yields

Cutflows

e+jets Selection Nevents (AT) Nevents (ST) NevST-NevAT NlargeR-jet ≥ 1 157 157 0 Nbad-jet μ = 0 157 157 0 Nbjet ≥ 1 649 649 0 Njet ≥ 4 760 760 0 Njet ≥ 3 1193 1194 1 Njet ≥ 2 1448 1449 1 Njet ≥ 1 1528 1529 1 ETmiss+mTW >60GeV 1532 1533 1 ETmiss > 20 GeV 1627 1627 0 Nμ(pT > 30 GeV) = 0 1776 1777 1 Pass jet cleaning 1776 1777 1 Ne(pT > 30 GeV) = 1 1903 1904 1 Ne(pT > 30 GeV) ≥ 1 1962 1963 1 Ne(pT > 25 GeV) ≥ 1 2144 2145 1 INITIAL 6176 6176 0		μ+jets Selection Nevents (AT) Nevents (ST) NevST-NevAT INITIAL 6176 6176 0 Nμ(pT > 25 GeV) ≥ 1 2478 2478 0 Nμ(pT > 30 GeV) ≥ 1 2227 2227 0 Nμ(pT > 30 GeV) = 1 2152 2152 0 Ne(pT > 30 GeV) = 0 2025 2025 0 Pass jet cleaning 2025 2025 0 ETmiss > 20 GeV 1842 1842 0 ETmiss+mTW >60GeV 1725 1726 1 Njet ≥ 1 1721 1722 1 Njet ≥ 2 1663 1664 1 Njet ≥ 3 1394 1394 0 Njet ≥ 4 922 922 0 Nbjet ≥ 1 794 794 0 NlargeR-jet ≥ 1 138 138 0 Nbad-jet μ = 0 138 138 0
weights Nevents (AT) Nevents (ST) NevST/NevAT unweighted 157 157 100.0000% weight mc 115589.492188 115589.492188 100.0000% weight lep 153.322937 153.322937 100.0000% weight btag 154.620438 154.620438 100.0000% weight pu 156.81871 156.81897 100.0002% weight jvt 156.280106 152.133163 97.3465% All weights		weights Nevents (AT) Nevents (ST) NevST/NevAT unweighted 138 138 100.0000% weight mc 98668.734375 98668.734375 100.0000% weight lep 136.900772 136.900772 100.0000% weight btag 137.132629 137.132629 100.0000% weight pu 123.823524 123.823769 100.0002% weight jvt 136.602066 133.905701 98.0261% All weights

Event-by-Event Comparison

Discussions

JVT (In)Efficiency Scale Factors

open issue not confirmed
A significant discrepancy in the JVT scale factors obtained from the AnalysisTop and SUSYTools based frameworks is observed here. The JVT weight distributions of both is shown below: It is later understood that this "long tail" above 1.0 from AnalysisTop is featured by the JVT inefficiency SF. The current understanding is that because Efficiency scale factors are to be applied to hard scatter (HS) jets passing JVT, inefficiency scaling factors are to be applied to HS jets failing JVT. However, while OverlapRemoval itself is an input to the JVT inefficiency SF calculation, OverlapRemoval has to be done after the JVT cut. Before, this had caused an process issue in JVT SF calculation until the priority decorator feature was introduced. To conclude, today, instead of being thrown away directly, JVT-faling jets will be ignored by the OR Tool.

Given this historical factor, the survey now goes in the direction of checking if this is also implemented accordingly in SUSYTools. More details can be found in the discussion thread with AnalysisTop developers Link and their presentation of the statement of intent for that time Link.

-- YuHengChen - 2018-07-27