fix bug about lambda error + small cleanup #18896
Conversation
|
A new Pull Request was created by @VinInn (Vincenzo Innocente) for master. It involves the following packages: RecoTracker/TkSeedGenerator @perrotta, @cmsbuild, @slava77, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
|
@cmsbuild, please test |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
type bug-fix |
|
Comparison job queued. |
|
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
|
Tiny regression in all tracking related quantities, as expected from the description of this PR: this has been verified in some high pt QCD and PU25 TTbar sample. A few exemple follow:
and so on so forth... |
|
+1 |
cmsbuild
added
fully-signed
reconstruction-approved
and removed
pending-signatures
reconstruction-pending
labels
|
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next master IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @davidlange6, @smuzaffar |
|
On 5/26/17 5:57 AM, perrotta wrote:
with wf 10059 (high pt QCD):
this wf is not practical for tests of high-pt jet behavior for higher eta.
Changes in this PR are apparently relevant in regions where lambda
differs from tanLambda or eta (eta>~2).
3TeV (ptHat) dijet sample has only very central jets as seen from the
posted plots.
|
|
Ok, but there is anyhow some stat in the forward region in that high pt QCD sample as well, and nothing disrupting shows up there, thus confirming what was observed in the specific plot appended to the description of this PR Other plots from the 25PU TTbar sample (200 events) do not show any specific accumulation of the tiny regressions in the forward region, though. For example:
|
|
On 5/26/17 7:06 AM, perrotta wrote:
Ok, but there is anyhow some stat in the forward region in that high pt
QCD sample as well, and nothing disrupting shows up there, thus
confirming what was observed in the specific plot appended to the
description of this PR
forward region has only underlying event-like low-pt tracks/jets in that
region.
If there may be changes in jetCore (jet pt>100 is required to be present
for this iteration), it can be checked only with high-pt jets in that area.
the tests with 10059 do not test it; the pileup ttbar likely doesn't
cover that either.
|
|
There are 74 jets with pt>100 and |eta|>1 in the QCD sample, and 73 jets as such in the TTbar sample. |
|
On 5/26/17 8:24 AM, perrotta wrote:
There are 74 jets with pt>100 and |eta|>1 in the QCD sample, and 73 jets
as such in the TTbar sample.
Not such a big stat, but not even fully negligible,..
what about |eta|>2 ?
eta ~1 is still a region with tan(x)~x~eta
…
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#18896 (comment)>, or
mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEdcbrBhz24nv183TZbj0MUbVFcwpYyZks5r9u7LgaJpZM4Njpd6>.
|
|
+1 |
|
@VinInn |
|
the plot refers to 3TeV jets. I also looked to ttbar and 600GeV jets. |
it may affect JetCore for largish eta
http://innocent.home.cern.ch/innocent/RelVal/qcd35_fixDL/plots_building_jetCoreRegionalStep/effandfake1.pdf