Add MultiCluster derived electrons and photons #20045
Conversation
For ecalDrivenGsfElectronCoresFromMC we need to use the gsfTracks track collection in order to make Ref for electrons in the final electrons collection, since this is the only collection that has been directly produced consuming the HGCal Multi Clusters. Failing to do so, we would end up using the PFTrack collection that, instead, is using the (realistic) simCluster information.
Define PhotonProducerHGCal as a Framework module and instruct the underlying python configuration to use it. This last point has been achieved in a rather hacking fashion that, indeed, proved to work and saved quite a few configuration duplication.
HGCal photons do not have regular isolation variables defined. A simpler selection is made using only Et and eta and pretend those photons are "isolated". This simplified selection is only activated in the HGCal phaseII scenario. Also, the invariant mass plot has bin properly partitioned in barrel-barrel, endcap-endcap and endcap-barrel. This is true for all cases, not only for the HGCal Phase era.
|
-code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pr-code-checks/PR-20045/90 Code check has found code style and quality issues which could be resolved by applying a patch in https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pr-code-checks/PR-20045/90/git-diff.patch In future, you can run |
|
changes since my last review and tests are in one line this looks fine |
|
@cmsbuild please test |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
+1 The following merge commits were also included on top of IB + this PR after doing git cms-merge-topic: |
|
Comparison job queued. |
|
Likewise I have no real comments, the changes to the E/gamma general code look good. Thanks for all this! If I was being picky, I would have liked a comment here to make it easier to understand what was going on here (it has terms like "ecal" when its not ecal, etc so while understandable, it would be made faster to understand with a comment) But I'm okay with this not happening, given we want this in and done :) |
|
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
|
+1 |
|
the last update introduced changes in ootPhotons in HI reco: the number of passing photons reduced. The ootPhotonCore in HI has 8 GeV threshold while the ootPhotons have 10 GeV. Due to the effectively missing cut before the last change we had more ootPhotons. Now the cut is applied as expected from the configuration. |
|
Since HI is not around the corner and HI people expressed clear interest in
restructuring EGamma and GED business in the last reviewed meeting, can we
go on with this PR as it is?
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017, 18:15 Slava Krutelyov ***@***.***> wrote:
the last update introduced changes in ootPhotons in HI reco: the number of
passing photons reduced. The ootPhotonCore in HI has 8 GeV threshold while
the ootPhotons have 10 GeV. Due to the effectively missing cut before the
last change we had more ootPhotons. Now the cut is applied.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#20045 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABHaR4Guf-lows_itfP_tySjiuA1s27Bks5sYHJZgaJpZM4OsiCc>
.
--
Ciao,
--Marco.
…___________
Marco Rovere
Marco.Rovere@cern.ch
CERN EP-CMG-CO | room 40 3-A28 | tel +41227671209 (71209)
|
|
In the last reconstruction meeting.... I'm on my phone.
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017, 18:21 Marco Rovere ***@***.***> wrote:
Since HI is not around the corner and HI people expressed clear interest
in restructuring EGamma and GED business in the last reviewed meeting, can
we go on with this PR as it is?
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017, 18:15 Slava Krutelyov ***@***.***>
wrote:
> the last update introduced changes in ootPhotons in HI reco: the number
> of passing photons reduced. The ootPhotonCore in HI has 8 GeV threshold
> while the ootPhotons have 10 GeV. Due to the effectively missing cut before
> the last change we had more ootPhotons. Now the cut is applied.
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#20045 (comment)>, or mute
> the thread
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABHaR4Guf-lows_itfP_tySjiuA1s27Bks5sYHJZgaJpZM4OsiCc>
> .
>
--
Ciao,
--Marco.
___________
Marco Rovere
***@***.***
CERN EP-CMG-CO | room 40 3-A28 | tel +41227671209 (71209)
--
Ciao,
--Marco.
…___________
Marco Rovere
Marco.Rovere@cern.ch
CERN EP-CMG-CO | room 40 3-A28 | tel +41227671209 (71209)
|
|
On technical performance based on tests in 930pre3 (signal and PU re-generated) with PU settings
|
|
@rovere |
|
+1 for #20045 e7def2c
|
|
merge |
|
@slava77 for future reference, |
This PR will introduce new collections for electrons and photons derived from HGCal multiclusters.
More details could be fetched from here: link
I expect no regression at all. The affected workflows are the ones using HGCal-PhaseII era.
I also profited from the existing EGamma-POG DQM to monitor the newly created collections. Yet, minimal changes had to be introduced also there, but the final output for regular (i.e. non-upgrade) workflows should be identical.
@felicepantaleo @malgeri @cseez @kpedro88