New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
HGCal 2D Layer Clusters #16840
HGCal 2D Layer Clusters #16840
Conversation
- do not use halo hits in computation of energy and position - do not skip hit 0 when forming clusters
A new Pull Request was created by @lgray (Lindsey Gray) for CMSSW_9_0_X. It involves the following packages: RecoLocalCalo/Configuration @cmsbuild, @cvuosalo, @slava77, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here #13028 |
@cvuosalo I will deal with the code comments soon. Starting this PR so you may continue. |
@cmsbuild please test |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
Comparison job queued. |
Comparison is ready The workflows 1003.0, 1001.0, 1000.0, 140.53, 136.731, 4.22 have different files in step1_dasquery.log than the ones found in the baseline. You may want to check and retrigger the tests if necessary. You can check it in the "files" directory in the results of the comparisons |
Pull request #16840 was updated. @cmsbuild, @cvuosalo, @slava77, @davidlange6 can you please check and sign again. |
@cmsbuild please test |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
Comparison job queued. |
Comparison is ready The workflows 1003.0, 1001.0, 1000.0, 140.53, 136.731, 4.22 have different files in step1_dasquery.log than the ones found in the baseline. You may want to check and retrigger the tests if necessary. You can check it in the "files" directory in the results of the comparisons |
+1 Adds a Phase 2 HGCal clustering algorithm, which does not run by default in standard workflows. There should be no change in monitored quantities. #16813 is the 81X version of this PR, and it has already been approved, though it may never be merged since 90X is now the target for Phase 2 development. The code changes are satisfactory, and Jenkins tests against baseline CMSSW_9_0_X_2016-12-06-1100 show no significant differences, as expected, except for a glitch for workflow 136.731 that is unrelated to this PR. Tests of the new clustering are described in #16813 and show no problems. |
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_9_0_X IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @slava77, @davidlange6, @smuzaffar |
+1 |
Forward port of #16813.