Third release analyses examples #7
Conversation
…or third release are added to the repo
…is is included in this file
…HWW, to see how was running the framework in the previous released. It has nothing to do with the current implementation for TTBarDilep Analysis
…s to create the distribution plots
…ifferent cuts in the leptons and jets to get the signal we want to see
…lysis and plotting parts for the TTbarDilep analysis
…he name of samples to be used on these plots are included into these two files for TTbarDilep Analysis
… luminosity is set to be 36fb^-1. If you would like to use the previous analyses, you will need to modify this value to 10fb^-1
…ons for TTBarDilep, since it will be set to use the recent release of data. A noticeable change in this file is that now the xsec, sumw, filter eff and k-fac are retrieved from the output files coming from the analysis part (in the hist_scale_factors histograms of those root files) instead of the txt input file
…e Analysis part are included here, these contain the histograms for the distributions plots, so you could use them to directly run the plotting part
…ysis is added in the Plotting part
…s were done for the good leptons
…are done to select bjets
…e central ntuples
…sets. At the moment, it is not using the central ntuples produced by Eirik
…for the new release
…s already given in the tightID and tightISO branches. It is applied the jet_jvt cut
…rt for TTbarDilep
…e requirements for leptons were removed since this cuts can be found in the lep_TightID requirements, etc
…ples for february 2025
…s some types in some variables
… TTbarDilep Analysis
… ZTauTau Analysis
…es are not longer equal to 1 or -1
Soap2G
added
enhancement
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @Miagarciaru ! This is clearly a ton of work, and it's great to have these analyses in a working state. I have a few comments. There are two things that I think would be great future work if you don't have the energy for them now (which I would understand): 1) trying to clean up the commented out code, and just removing the stuff that we don't think will be useful to shorten things up and keep them tidier; 2) adding a whole lot of comments to the code to better explain to readers what it's doing or trying to do, and what the logic behind the various pieces are. I don't think we should wait with this PR until those are done, as they could take a lot of time and work, and we should make sure that things are working ASAP.
Thanks again!
Zach
|
|
||
| # creating the output directory for the Analyses codes | ||
| if (( $choice == 1 )) ; then | ||
| for i in {0..11} ; do | ||
| for i in {0..12} ; do |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we make this directly a loop over the analysis collections instead of a loop over a count of analysis collections? for example:
analysisCollection="WBosonAnalysis ZBosonAnalysis TTbarAnalysis SingleTopAnalysis WZDiBosonAnalysis ZZDiBosonAnalysis HWWAnalysis HZZAnalysis ZTauTauAnalysis HyyAnalysis SUSYAnalysis ZPrimeBoostedAnalysis TTbarDilepAnalysis"
for anAnalysis in $analysisCollection
do
echo $anAnalysis
done
| @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ if (( $choice == 1 )) ; then | |||
|
|
|||
| # removing everything within directories | |||
| elif (( $choice == 0 )) ; then | |||
| for i in {0..11} ; do | |||
| for i in {0..12} ; do | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As above, I'd favor looping over analyses instead of numbers
|
|
||
| read choice | ||
|
|
||
| # check choices | ||
| if (( ($choice == 0) || ($choice == 1) || ($choice == 2) || ($choice == 3) ||($choice == 4) ||($choice == 5) ||($choice == 6) || ($choice == 7) || ($choice == 8) || ($choice == 9) ||($choice == 10) ||($choice == 11) )) ; then | ||
| if (( ($choice == 0) || ($choice == 1) || ($choice == 2) || ($choice == 3) ||($choice == 4) ||($choice == 5) ||($choice == 6) || ($choice == 7) || ($choice == 8) || ($choice == 9) ||($choice == 10) || ($choice == 11) || ($choice == 12) )) ; then |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe we can simplify this?
if [ $choice -ge 0 -a $choice -le 12 ]; then
| @@ -1,27 +1,47 @@ | |||
| ### name | cross-section | sum of weights | efficiency | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since these are now just names, probably the header should change as well?
| @@ -51,10 +51,10 @@ | |||
| //######################### F L A G S ###############################// | |||
|
|
|||
| // debugging flag, set to 1 for checks | |||
| #define DEBUG 0 | |||
| #define DEBUG 1 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this be turned back off for the check in?
| echo 'WARNING! After running, you need to add the samples using: hadd data.root dataA.root dataB.root dataC.root dataD.root' | ||
| fi | ||
|
|
||
| echo Should I use PROOF? \(will make things faster\) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It looks like ~all the PROOF stuff has been removed, so should this part of the run script also go away?
| /* Local path example */ | ||
| //TString path = "/eos/user/g/garciarm/ntuple-production-samples/ntuples-open-data/"; | ||
| //TString path = "/eos/user/e/egramsta/OpenData/2J2LMET30/"; | ||
| TString path = "/eos/user/e/egramsta/OpenData/FEB2025/1LMET30/"; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this should be /eos/opendata/atlas/rucio/user/egramsta, and I would favor removing all the old paths rather than leaving them there commented out.
| TString path = "http://opendata.cern.ch/eos/opendata/atlas/OutreachDatasets/2020-01-22/1lep/"; | ||
|
|
||
| //TString path = "http://opendata.cern.ch/eos/opendata/atlas/OutreachDatasets/2020-01-22/1lep/"; | ||
| TString path = "/eos/user/e/egramsta/OpenData/FEB2025/1LMET30/"; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As elsewhere, I think this should be /eos/opendata/atlas/rucio/user/egramsta
| //TString path = "http://opendata.cern.ch/eos/opendata/atlas/OutreachDatasets/2020-01-22/2lep/"; | ||
| //TString path = "/eos/user/g/garciarm/ntuple-production-samples/ntuples-open-data/"; | ||
| //TString path = "/eos/user/e/egramsta/OpenData/2J2LMET30/"; | ||
| TString path = "/eos/user/e/egramsta/OpenData/FEB2025/1LMET30/"; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As elsewhere, I think this should be /eos/opendata/atlas/rucio/user/egramsta, and we can tidy up the other paths instead of commenting them out
|
|
||
| int goodbjet1_index = goodbjet_index[0]; // leading b-jet | ||
|
|
||
| // MTW > 30 GeV |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It looks like this systematics block is all commented out. Is that right?
If so, maybe we should just remove it? We could also document how to use it and provide a switch to turn it on and off? I'm not sure what's best, but just having it in there and commented out isn't my favorite option.
The HWW, TTbar (semilep channel), TTbarDilep (dilep channel) and ZTauTau analyses are modified in order to use the third release samples. As the migration process to third release gets done, the others analyses will be included in future commits. Thus, only HWW, TTbar (semilep), TTbarDilep and ZTauTau analyses will be working properly after the MR, but if someone wants to run the other analyses with the second release, they could use the 10fb-legacy-tag which is the back-up.