Trigger lines for calibration of neutrals.

Includes a 0.1-prescaled JpsiK+ line, a line with pi0s JpsiK*+ and a line with single photons Chi_c1K+.

added 1 commit

• c32a11e8 - Fixed formatting

Compare with previous version

added RTA label

added 1 commit

• 68053fa4 - remove un-necessary imports and fix dira name

Compare with previous version

assigned to @oozcelik and @peilian

Almost done. Rates attached.

hlt2log_full.txt

hlt2log_short.txt

These lines are supposed to go to sprucing but corresponding testing guidelines do not work. For now, lines are declared as hlt2 lines.

Remaning problem with python-formatting. Tried the recommended patch:

curl https://gitlab.cern.ch/lhcb/Moore/-/jobs/19988822/artifacts/raw/apply-formatting.patch | git am

but doesn't work. What is this supposed to fix actually? Maybe I can do it myself.

Hi @chefdevi - I don't know the solution by heart but seem like my lines have the same issue. maybe Peilian would already know the reason. I am trying to ask around in the meantime

added 1 commit

• 06a1dd73 - Fixed formatting

Compare with previous version

Thanks @oozcelik, @peilian . Deleting the directory worked. Pipeline fixed and has passed. I still have a warning on the "docs" test. Can this be merged?

We have this line defined already here, can it be shared for your use cases?

I think the line you are refering to is not using the same J/psi. I'm using the ones from bandq.

The line I referred uses its own selection but that is also used for most of the B2CC lines. One could compare the selection a bit to see if any big difference. Otherwise, it would be great to merge to one line.

In addition, have you checked if the JpsiK line can be merged with the one we already have?

@chefdevi Since these lines will go to spruce, have you checked if the spruce runs successfully following the two-steps instruction here?

Hello @peilian, thanks a lot for the detailed look. I'll go through your comments in this afternoon. As for the sprucing, the instructions/exemple do not work (I posted about that above). I decided to go to Hlt2 for the sake of having something working for the coming run3 starter-kit.

The previous error you posted seems to me that you only tried to run spruce_b2cc.py directly. However, One should firstly run ./Moore/run gaudirun.py ./Moore/Hlt/Hlt2Conf/options/examples/Hlt2DiMuonLines_test.py after modify Hlt2DiMuonLines_test.py with your signal MC. Then take the output dst file as input for your spruce_b2cc.py.

Hello @peilian. Thanks for the instructions, I could not find them on the B2CC twiki. I indeed tried running spruce_b2cc.py directly. I'm not sure I will have time to test this today + the Moore tests you recommend below. My question: how much time do I still have left? My goal was to tuple some MC signal during the starterkit next week. Do I need my lines merged to master to be able to do so?

Hi @chefdevi sorry that I only added the instruction at the beginning of sprucing_b2cc.py which might be ignored. @oozcelik could you please help to update the twiki for the test of spruce accordingly?

I think at least this month we can still merge lines so it is fine if you want to test it next week. You can test with your branch, which should also work.

Hi, @chefdevi here is the instructions for testing your sprucing line, the link is also in the twiki under "Sprucing Lines" part. You can also find an example how to run the sprucing line .

I naively guess your line is not necessarily to be merged for the starter kit exercises, you can always checkout your own branch and run locally or run in the corresponding nightly build.

added 1 commit

• 57dada41 - Remove unused vtx-fit cut variables from neutral builders

Compare with previous version

Although not used, removing the vertex cuts changed the rate of the neutral lines a little:

rates_after.txt

rates_before.txt

Hi @chefdevi could you please explain a bit why one would expect a change of the rate if the vertex cuts were not used and just removed?

Could you please please run the MooreAnalysis following the Moore introduction to get the common estimation of the event rate and selection efficiency?

Dear @peilian, do you have further comments?

added B2CC label

Dear @oozcelik @peilian, I ran the hlt_eff_check.py script on the B2CC lines for 10000 events. This is what I get for my three lines:

Line: Hlt2B2CC_B2Chic2JpsiGK_LineDecision Incl: 1.5 +/- 0.38 kHz, Excl: 0.2 +/- 0.14 kHz
Line: Hlt2B2CC_B2JpsiK_LineDecision Incl: 0.5 +/- 0.22 kHz, Excl: 0.0 +/- 0.0 kHz
Line: Hlt2B2CC_B2JpsiKst2KPi0R_LineDecision Incl: 1.4 +/- 0.37 kHz, Excl: 0.4 +/- 0.19 kHz

Are the rates fine?

Full log is attached effcheck.txt.

As for signal efficiencies, I'm wondering if it is yet worth running over MC. I learnt yesterday during the starterkit lecture that photons (as opposed to charged tracks) are not match when calculating the numerator of the efficiency. See slide 25:

https://indico.cern.ch/event/1124730/contributions/4744321/attachments/2409381/4123180/StarterkitRun3_HltEfficiencyChecker_Light.pdf

(similar comments for the denominator which only involved tracks, see slide 13)

This means the efficiency out of JpsiKst[KPi0] or Chic1[JpsiGamma]K MC will ignore the photon reconstruction and theerefore be too good. I expect to find something similar to JpsiK.

If rates and coding are good to you, I would propose to merge this.

Hi @chefdevi , thanks for the updates. Although the efficiency with truth match can not work, I would say it is still worth to run on some signal MC to look at the some distributions, e.g. mass peaks to make sure the selections reasonable.

marked this merge request as ready