Difference between revisions of "Aod ntuple"
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
</ol> | </ol> | ||
+ | '''1.''' | ||
The <code>isEM</code> flag uses both calorimeter and tracking information in addition to TRT | The <code>isEM</code> flag uses both calorimeter and tracking information in addition to TRT | ||
information. The flag is a bit field which marks whether the candidate passed or not some safety checks. | information. The flag is a bit field which marks whether the candidate passed or not some safety checks. | ||
Line 19: | Line 20: | ||
The bit field marks the following checks: | The bit field marks the following checks: | ||
<code> | <code> | ||
− | + | Cluster based egamma | |
ClusterEtaRange = 0, | ClusterEtaRange = 0, | ||
ClusterHadronicLeakage = 1, | ClusterHadronicLeakage = 1, | ||
ClusterMiddleSampling = 2, | ClusterMiddleSampling = 2, | ||
ClusterFirstSampling = 3, | ClusterFirstSampling = 3, | ||
− | + | Track based egamma | |
TrackEtaRange = 8, | TrackEtaRange = 8, | ||
TrackHitsA0 = 9, | TrackHitsA0 = 9, | ||
Line 31: | Line 32: | ||
</code> | </code> | ||
− | + | In 9.0.4 there is a problem with TRT simulation so one has to mask TRT bit to recover the lost efficiency. | |
− | mask TRT bit to recover the lost efficiency. | + | |
− | + | To get the flag in your AOD analysis you should use: | |
<code> | <code> | ||
(*elec)->isEM() | (*elec)->isEM() | ||
</code> | </code> | ||
− | |||
− | + | To mask the TRT bits you should use: <code>(*elec)->isEM()&0x7FF==0</code> | |
− | |||
+ | If you use <code>isEM</code> then you will select electrons with an overall efficiency of about | ||
+ | 80% in the barrel but much lower in the crack and endcap. | ||
− | + | '''2.''' | |
+ | The likelihood ratio is constructed using the following variables: energy in different calorimeter samplings, shower shapes in both eta and phi and E/P ration. No TRT information is used here. | ||
+ | You need to access two variables called <code>emweight</code> and <code>pionweight</code> then you can construct the likelihood ratio, defined by: <code>emweight/(emweight+pionweight)</code>. Emweight is the product of pdf's | ||
− | + | In AOD, you use the following code: | |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | use the following code: | ||
+ | <code> | ||
ElecEMWeight = elec*->parameter(ElectronParameters::emWeight); | ElecEMWeight = elec*->parameter(ElectronParameters::emWeight); | ||
ElecPiWeight = elec*->parameter(ElectronParameters::pionWeight); | ElecPiWeight = elec*->parameter(ElectronParameters::pionWeight); | ||
+ | </code> | ||
Then form the variable: | Then form the variable: | ||
− | X = ElecEMWeight/(ElecEMWeight+ElecPiWeight) | + | <code> |
+ | X = ElecEMWeight/(ElecEMWeight+ElecPiWeight); | ||
+ | </code> | ||
− | Requiring X > 0.6 will give you more than 90% | + | Requiring X > 0.6 will give you more than 90% efficiency for electrons. |
− | + | '''3.''' | |
− | likelihood. To use it in AOD you should proceed as follow: | + | The NeuralNet variable uses as inputs the same variables used for likelihood. To use it in AOD you should proceed as follow: |
+ | <code> | ||
ElecepiNN = elec*->parameter(ElectronParameters::epiNN); | ElecepiNN = elec*->parameter(ElectronParameters::epiNN); | ||
+ | </code> | ||
Requiring ElecepiNN > 0.6 will give you about 90% eff for electrons. | Requiring ElecepiNN > 0.6 will give you about 90% eff for electrons. | ||
− | However, you should be aware that the | + | However, you should be aware that the NN was trained in full eta range while the likelihood was computed in 3 bins in eta: barrel, crack and endcap. So I would suggest to use likelihood for now. |
− | while the likelihood was computed in 3 bins in eta: barrel, crack and | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
== Muon == | == Muon == |
Revision as of 10:00, 19 May 2005
This page contains basic prescriptions to get physics objects from the AOD and the AOD-based Root ntuple.
Some comments on quality selection cuts will be added as work progresses.
Electron
There are 3 types of quality cuts you can perform on the electron candidates:
- Cuts based on the
isEM
flag - Cuts based on likelihood
- Cuts based on NeuralNet output
1.
The isEM
flag uses both calorimeter and tracking information in addition to TRT
information. The flag is a bit field which marks whether the candidate passed or not some safety checks.
The bit field marks the following checks:
Cluster based egamma
ClusterEtaRange = 0,
ClusterHadronicLeakage = 1,
ClusterMiddleSampling = 2,
ClusterFirstSampling = 3,
Track based egamma
TrackEtaRange = 8,
TrackHitsA0 = 9,
TrackMatchAndEoP = 10,
TrackTRT = 11
In 9.0.4 there is a problem with TRT simulation so one has to mask TRT bit to recover the lost efficiency.
To get the flag in your AOD analysis you should use:
(*elec)->isEM()
To mask the TRT bits you should use: (*elec)->isEM()&0x7FF==0
If you use isEM
then you will select electrons with an overall efficiency of about
80% in the barrel but much lower in the crack and endcap.
2.
The likelihood ratio is constructed using the following variables: energy in different calorimeter samplings, shower shapes in both eta and phi and E/P ration. No TRT information is used here.
You need to access two variables called emweight
and pionweight
then you can construct the likelihood ratio, defined by: emweight/(emweight+pionweight)
. Emweight is the product of pdf's
In AOD, you use the following code:
ElecEMWeight = elec*->parameter(ElectronParameters::emWeight);
ElecPiWeight = elec*->parameter(ElectronParameters::pionWeight);
Then form the variable:
X = ElecEMWeight/(ElecEMWeight+ElecPiWeight);
Requiring X > 0.6 will give you more than 90% efficiency for electrons.
3.
The NeuralNet variable uses as inputs the same variables used for likelihood. To use it in AOD you should proceed as follow:
ElecepiNN = elec*->parameter(ElectronParameters::epiNN);
Requiring ElecepiNN > 0.6 will give you about 90% eff for electrons.
However, you should be aware that the NN was trained in full eta range while the likelihood was computed in 3 bins in eta: barrel, crack and endcap. So I would suggest to use likelihood for now.