Adds April 18 Presentation

docs/presentations/2018_04_17/beamerthemebjeldbak.sty

@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+% Insipired by Cameron Bracken's theme originally posted
+% here: http://cameron.bracken.bz/beamer-template
+% January 2009
+
+% Modifications done by Martin Bjeldbak Madsen
+% June 2014
+\mode<presentation>
+
+\RequirePackage{tgpagella}
+
+% \DeclareOptionBeamer{titlepage}{\PassOptionsToPackage{titlepage=#1}{beamertheme-Inner}}
+% \ProcessOptionsBeamer
+
+\useoutertheme[subsection=false,shadow]{miniframes}
+\useinnertheme{default}
+\usefonttheme{serif}
+
+\setbeamertemplate{footline} % show slide number on all slides but the first
+{%
+  \ifnum\c@framenumber=1
+  \else
+    \begin{beamercolorbox}[wd=0.95\paperwidth,right,dp=2ex]{page number}
+      \insertframenumber/\inserttotalframenumber%
+    \end{beamercolorbox}
+  \fi%
+  \begin{beamercolorbox}[colsep=1.25pt]{lower separation line foot}
+  \end{beamercolorbox}
+}
+
+% \ifnum\c@framenumber=1
+\usebackgroundtemplate{\includegraphics[width=1.3\paperwidth]{16x9_seal03.jpg}}
+% \else
+% \fi%
+
+% Display a slide before the current section with overview inf
+% \AtBeginSection[]
+% {%
+%    \begin{frame}
+%        \frametitle{Overview}
+%        \tableofcontents[currentsection,hideothersubsections]
+%    \end{frame}
+% }
+
+\setbeamerfont{title like}{shape=\scshape}
+\setbeamerfont{frametitle}{shape=\scshape}
+\setbeamerfont{section in head/foot}{shape=\scshape,size=\tiny}
+
+\setbeamertemplate{navigation symbols}{} % hide bottom nav buttons
+\setbeamercovered{transparent} % don't hide strip-teased bullet points
+
+% \definecolor{barcolor}{HTML}{77C4D3} % teal
+\definecolor{barcolor}{HTML}{DD0000} % teal
+\setbeamercolor{lower separation line head}{bg=barcolor}
+\setbeamercolor{lower separation line foot}{bg=barcolor}
+\setbeamercolor{normal text}{fg=black,bg=white}
+\setbeamercolor{alerted text}{fg=red}
+\setbeamercolor{example text}{fg=black}
+\setbeamercolor{structure}{fg=black}
+
+\setbeamercolor{palette tertiary}{fg=black,bg=black!10}
+\setbeamercolor{palette quaternary}{fg=black,bg=black!10}
+
+\mode<all>

docs/presentations/2018_04_17/live_figures

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+../../../plotting/report/figures

docs/presentations/2018_04_17/main.tex

@@ -0,0 +1,262 @@
+
+% rubber: module pdftex
+
+\documentclass[english,aspectratio=43,8pt]{beamer}
+\usepackage{graphicx}
+\usepackage{amssymb}
+\usepackage{booktabs}
+\usepackage{siunitx}
+\usepackage{subcaption}
+\usepackage{marvosym}
+\usepackage{verbatim}
+\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}  % Needed for /sout
+
+\newcommand{\pb}{\si{\pico\barn}}%
+\newcommand{\fb}{\si{\femto\barn}}%
+\newcommand{\invfb}{\si{\per\femto\barn}}
+\newcommand{\GeV}{\si{\giga\electronvolt}}
+
+\hypersetup{colorlinks=true,urlcolor=blue}
+
+\usetheme[]{bjeldbak}
+
+\newcommand{\backupbegin}{%
+   \newcounter{finalframe}
+   \setcounter{finalframe}{\value{framenumber}}
+}
+\newcommand{\backupend}{%
+   \setcounter{framenumber}{\value{finalframe}}
+}
+
+\begin{document}
+
+\title[$e$ Seeding Validation]{Offline Electron Seeding Validation \-- Update}
+\author[C. Fangmeier]{\textbf{Caleb Fangmeier} \\ Ilya Kravchenko,  Greg Snow}
+\institute[UNL]{University of Nebraska \-- Lincoln}
+\date{EGM general meeting \textbf{CMS week} | April 17, 2018}
+
+\titlegraphic{%
+\begin{figure}
+  \includegraphics[width=1in]{CMSlogo.png}\hspace{0.75in}\includegraphics[width=1in]{nebraska-n.png}
+\end{figure}
+}
+
+\begin{frame}[plain]
+  \titlepage%
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{Introduction}
+  \begin{itemize}
+    \item Our goal is to study \textbf{seeding} for the \textbf{offline} GSF tracking with the \textbf{new pixel detector}.
+    \item Specifically, we want to optimize the new pixel-matching scheme from HLT for use in off-line reconstruction.
+    \item This Talk:
+      \begin{itemize}
+        \item Show performance comparison between new and old seeding in fake-rich environment
+        \item Show alternative efficiency/purity measurements using $\Delta R$ matching
+      \end{itemize}
+  \end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+
+\begin{frame}{N-Hit Electron Seeding}
+  \begin{columns}
+  \begin{column}{0.5\textwidth}
+    {\small
+    \begin{enumerate}
+      \item Using the beam spot, the SC position, and SC energy, propagate a path through the pixels.
+      \item Require the first hit to be within a $\delta\phi$ and $\delta z$ window. ($\delta\phi$ and $\delta R$ for FPIX)
+      \item $\delta z$ window for first hit is huge as SC and beam spot positions give very little information about $z$.
+      \item Forget the SC position, and propagate a new track based on the vertex and first hit positions, and the SC energy.
+      \item Progress one-by-one through the remaining hits in the seed and require each one fit within a specified window around the track.
+      \item Quit when all hits are matched, or a hit falls outside the window. No skipping is allowed.
+    \end{enumerate}
+    }
+  \end{column}
+  \begin{column}{0.5\textwidth}
+    \begin{figure}
+      \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{../common/diagrams/seeding_step2.png}
+    \end{figure}
+    \begin{figure}
+      \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{../common/diagrams/seeding_step3.png}
+    \end{figure}
+  \end{column}
+  \end{columns}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{Previous status-quo}
+  \begin{columns}
+    \begin{column}{0.45\textwidth}
+      {\small
+      \begin{itemize}
+        \item In a previous presentation\footnotemark, I showed efficiency vs. purity for
+          \begin{itemize}
+            \item Old pair-match seeding (\texttt{ElectronSeedProducer})
+            \item New triplet seeding (\texttt{ElectronNHitSeedProducer}) for several choices of matching windows.
+          \end{itemize}
+        \item Performance of new seeding at the \texttt{wide} working point was comparable to old seeding in low-fake ($Z\rightarrow e^+e^-$) environment
+        \item Needed to validate performance in a high fake environment.
+      \end{itemize}
+    }
+    \end{column}
+    \begin{column}{0.6\textwidth}
+      \begin{figure}
+        \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{../common/figures/tracking_roc_curves_linear_plus_old_hoe.png}
+      \end{figure}
+    \end{column}
+  \end{columns}
+\footnotetext[1]{\tiny \url{https://indico.cern.ch/event/697077/contributions/2936039/attachments/1618649/2573874/main.pdf}}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{Relative Performance}
+  \begin{columns}
+    \begin{column}{0.5\textwidth}
+      \begin{figure}
+        GSF Tracking Efficiency
+        \includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{live_figures/tracking_eff_all.png}
+      \end{figure}
+    \end{column}
+    \begin{column}{0.5\textwidth}
+      \begin{figure}
+        GSF Tracking Purity
+        \includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{live_figures/tracking_pur_all.png}
+      \end{figure}
+    \end{column}
+  \end{columns}
+
+  \begin{center} {\huge Samples } \end{center}
+  {\tiny /ZToEE\_NNPDF30\_13TeV-powheg\_M\_120\_200/RunIISummer17DRStdmix-NZSFlatPU28to62\_92X\_upgrade2017\_realistic\_v10-v1} \\
+  {\tiny /TT\_TuneCUETP8M2T4\_13TeV-powheg-pythia8/RunIISummer17DRStdmix-NZSFlatPU28to62\_92X\_upgrade2017\_realistic\_v10-v2}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{$\Delta R$ Matching}
+  \begin{columns}
+    \begin{column}{0.5\textwidth}
+      \begin{figure}
+        GSF Tracking Efficiency ($\Delta R$ Matched)
+        \includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{live_figures/tracking_eff_all_dR.png}
+      \end{figure}
+    \end{column}
+    \begin{column}{0.5\textwidth}
+      \begin{figure}
+        GSF Tracking Purity ($\Delta R$ Matched)
+        \includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{live_figures/tracking_pur_all_dR.png}
+      \end{figure}
+    \end{column}
+  \end{columns}
+  \begin{itemize}
+    \item Previous efficiency/purity defintions based on shared tracker hits between \texttt{SimTracks} and \texttt{GSFTracks}.
+    \item An alternative is to use simple $\Delta R$ matching.
+    \item Above figures use $\Delta R < 0.2$ for matching criteria.
+    \item Overall numbers improve and show fewer detector effects.
+  \end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{Overall Performance}
+  \begin{center}
+    Integrating over all tracks with $p_T>20$GeV and $\eta<2.4$ yields the performance numbers below.
+\begin{table}[]
+  \centering
+  \begin{tabular}{@{}llrr} \toprule
+Sample & Algo & Efficiency (Hit Matched) & Purity (Hit Matched) \\ \midrule
+$Z\rightarrow ee$ & \texttt{old-seeding} & $88.05\pm0.28\%$ & $90.30\pm0.29\%$ \\
+                  & \texttt{narrow}      & $86.63\pm0.28\%$ & $90.69\pm0.29\%$ \\
+                  & \texttt{wide}        & $88.01\pm0.28\%$ & $90.43\pm0.29\%$ \\
+$t\bar{t}$        & \texttt{old-seeding} & $88.06\pm0.77\%$ & $52.35\pm0.60\%$ \\
+                  & \texttt{narrow}      & $86.89\pm0.79\%$ & $60.56\pm0.67\%$ \\
+                  & \texttt{wide}        & $88.30\pm0.77\%$ & $54.38\pm0.61\%$ \\
+\toprule
+Sample & Algo & Efficiency ($\Delta R$ Matched) & Purity ($\Delta R$ Matched) \\ \midrule
+$Z\rightarrow ee$ & \texttt{old-seeding} & $96.08\pm0.28\%$ & $99.54\pm0.29\%$ \\
+                  & \texttt{narrow}      & $94.49\pm0.28\%$ & $99.72\pm0.29\%$ \\
+                  & \texttt{wide}        & $96.00\pm0.28\%$ & $99.60\pm0.29\%$ \\
+$t\bar{t}$        & \texttt{old-seeding} & $94.84\pm0.77\%$ & $57.49\pm0.60\%$ \\
+                  & \texttt{narrow}      & $93.54\pm0.79\%$ & $65.84\pm0.67\%$ \\
+                  & \texttt{wide}        & $95.06\pm0.77\%$ & $59.52\pm0.61\%$ \\
+  \end{tabular}
+\end{table}
+Note that the \texttt{wide} working point of the new seeding matches the \texttt{old-seeding} within errors except for purity is $\approx 2$\% better in the $t\bar{t}$ sample.
+  \end{center}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{Conclusions \& Outlook}
+  \begin{itemize}
+    \item The new seeding algorithm at the \texttt{wide} working point has been
+      verified to perform as well as, and in some cases better, than the
+      current pair seeding based on MC studies in both low and high purity
+      environments.
+    \item Relative performance is not an artifact of Hit Matching, but can be reproduced with simple $\Delta R$ matching.
+    \item Unless there are objections, propose to move forward with implementing the new algorithm as the default in the next available SW release.
+  \end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\appendix
+\backupbegin
+
+\begin{frame}
+  \begin{center}
+    {\Huge BACKUP}
+  \end{center}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{Definitions}
+  \begin{itemize}
+    \item \textbf{Sim-Track \--} A track from a simulated electron originating from the luminous region of CMS (beam-spot +- 5$\sigma$)
+    \item \textbf{ECAL-Driven Seed \--} A seed created via a matching procedure between Super-Clusters and General Tracking Seeds (Either from \texttt{ElectronSeedProducer} or \texttt{ElectronNHitSeedProducer})
+    \item \textbf{GSF Track \--} A track from GSF-Tracking resulting from an \textbf{ECAL-Driven Seed}
+    \item \textbf{Seeding Efficiency \--} The fraction of \textbf{Sim-Tracks} that have a matching \textbf{ECAL-Driven Seed} (based on simhit-rechit linkage)
+    \item \textbf{GSF Tracking Efficiency \--} The fraction of \textbf{Sim-Tracks} that have a matching \textbf{GSF Track} (again, based on simhit-rechit linkage)
+    \item \textbf{ECAL-Driven Seed Purity \--} The fraction of \textbf{ECAL-Driven Seeds} that have a matching \textbf{Sim-Track}
+    \item \textbf{GSF Tracking Purity \--} The fraction of \textbf{GSF Tracks} that have a matching \textbf{Sim-Track}
+  \end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{Overall Performance}
+  \begin{columns}
+    \begin{column}{0.5\textwidth}
+      \begin{figure}
+        GSF Tracking Performance (Hit Matched)
+        \includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{live_figures/tracking_roc_curve.png}
+      \end{figure}
+    \end{column}
+    \begin{column}{0.5\textwidth}
+      \begin{figure}
+        GSF Tracking Performance ($\Delta R$ Matched)
+        \includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{live_figures/tracking_roc_curve_dR.png}
+      \end{figure}
+    \end{column}
+  \end{columns}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{Matching Window Parameters}
+\begin{table}[]
+\centering
+\begin{tabular}{@{}llrrrr@{}}
+\toprule
+&  & \textbf{extra-narrow} & \textbf{narrow(HLT)} & \textbf{wide} & \textbf{extra-wide} \\ \midrule
+Hit 1 & dPhiMaxHighEt & \textbf{0.025} & \textbf{0.05} & \textbf{0.1} & \textbf{0.15} \\
+ & dPhiMaxHighEtThres & 20.0 & 20.0 & 20.0 & 20.0 \\
+ & dPhiMaxLowEtGrad & -0.002 & -0.002 & -0.002 & -0.002 \\
+ & dRzMaxHighEt & 9999.0 & 9999.0 & 9999.0 & 9999.0 \\
+ & dRzMaxHighEtThres & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 \\
+ & dRzMaxLowEtGrad & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 \\ \midrule
+Hit 2 & dPhiMaxHighEt & \textbf{0.0015} & \textbf{0.003} & \textbf{0.006} & \textbf{0.009} \\
+ & dPhiMaxHighEtThres & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 \\
+ & dPhiMaxLowEtGrad & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 \\
+ & dRzMaxHighEt & \textbf{0.025} & \textbf{0.05} & \textbf{0.1} & \textbf{0.15} \\
+ & dRzMaxHighEtThres & 30.0 & 30.0 & 30.0 & 30.0 \\
+ & dRzMaxLowEtGrad & -0.002 & -0.002 & -0.002 & -0.002 \\ \midrule
+Hit 3+ & dPhiMaxHighEt & \textbf{0.0015} & \textbf{0.003} & \textbf{0.006} & \textbf{0.009} \\
+ & dPhiMaxHighEtThres & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 \\
+ & dPhiMaxLowEtGrad & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 \\
+ & dRzMaxHighEt & \textbf{0.025} & \textbf{0.05} & \textbf{0.1} & \textbf{0.15} \\
+ & dRzMaxHighEtThres & 30.0 & 30.0 & 30.0 & 30.0 \\
+ & dRzMaxLowEtGrad & -0.002 & -0.002 & -0.002 & -0.002 \\ \bottomrule
+\end{tabular}
+\end{table}
+\centering
+\texttt{NHit} Seeding window parameters. Bold designates modified values.
+\end{frame}
+
+\backupend
+
+\end{document}