add variable of sigma_ieta_ieta at electron seed level

[doanhien]

No description provided.

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @doanhien for CMSSW_7_6_X.

add variable of sigma_ieta_ieta at electron seed level

It involves the following packages:

RecoEgamma/EgammaElectronProducers

@cmsbuild, @cvuosalo, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@Sam-Harper, @lgray this is something you requested to watch as well.
You can sign-off by replying to this message having '+1' in the first line of your reply.
You can reject by replying to this message having '-1' in the first line of your reply.
If you are a L2 or a release manager you can ask for tests by saying 'please test' in the first line of a comment.
@Degano you are the release manager for this.
You can merge this pull request by typing 'merge' in the first line of your comment.

[lgray]

@doanhien Can you please link here some summary plots and fill a description of the pull request?

Thanks.

[doanhien]

Hi Lindsey,

What summary plots do you mention?

Best,
Hien.

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Lindsey Gray notifications@github.com
wrote:

@doanhien https://github.com/doanhien Can you please link here some
summary plots and fill a description of the pull request?

Thanks.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#10194 (comment).

[lgray]

@doanhien The ones you have shown previously by mail.

[lgray]

This is only meant to be applied for heavy ion data, correct?

[doanhien]

Hi Lindsey,

This is the link of plots applied sigma_ieta_ieta cut.

Best,
Hien.

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Lindsey Gray notifications@github.com
wrote:

@doanhien https://github.com/doanhien The ones you have shown
previously by mail.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#10194 (comment).

[doanhien]

Oops, sorry, I forgot to add link in previous mail.

https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/pub/CMS/PhotonAnalyses2015/20150616.pdf

Best,
Hien.

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Hien Doan hiendoan86@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Lindsey,

This is the link of plots applied sigma_ieta_ieta cut.

Best,
Hien.

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Lindsey Gray notifications@github.com
wrote:

@doanhien https://github.com/doanhien The ones you have shown
previously by mail.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#10194 (comment).

[harmonicoscillator]

@lgray , @doanhien

This PR is meant to allow a new cut at the electron seeding step for use by HI. The boolean "applySigmaIEtaIEtaCut" should default to False (and the cfi file should be updated to reflect this).

For adding this to the HI workflow, I'd like to see this PR merged first and then I will make a separate PR modifying the HI workflow, so that we can test different cut values on a variety of samples.

[doanhien]

@lgray, @richard-cms

Hi,

I already change the boolean "applySigmaIEtaIEtaCut" to False as default value.

[lgray]

OK That's fine for me.

Then no changes expected/observed for this PR.
Can you please mark that in the main conversation?

Thanks,
-L

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 3:52 PM, R. Alex Barbieri notifications@github.com
wrote:

@lgray https://github.com/lgray , @doanhien
https://github.com/doanhien

This PR is meant to allow a new cut at the electron seeding step for use
by HI. The boolean "applySigmaIEtaIEtaCut" should default to False (and the
cfi file should be updated to reflect this).

For adding this to the HI workflow, I'd like to see this PR merged first
and then I will make a separate PR modifying the HI workflow, so that we
can test different cut values on a variety of samples.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#10194 (comment).

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #10194 was updated. @cmsbuild, @cvuosalo, @slava77 can you please check and sign again.

[doanhien]

@cmsbuild
Hi,

I already changed the boolean "applySigmaIEtaIEtaCut" to False as default value.

[cvuosalo]

@cmsbuild please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.

[cvuosalo]

+1

For #10194 d7426ac

Added a sigma_ieta_ieta variable at electron seed level for use with HI workflows. The cut is disabled by default, so this PR should not change monitored quantities. A later PR may enable this cut after testing has established the desired cut value.

The code changes are satisfactory, and Jenkins tests against baseline CMSSW_7_6_X_2015-07-14-1100 show no significant differences, as expected.

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_7_6_X IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @davidlange6, @Degano, @smuzaffar

[davidlange6]

+1

[harmonicoscillator]

@doanhien Please make sure to backport this to 7_5_X as well.