Add electrons from HGCAL in the pfCandidate collection #20614
Conversation
|
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
+code-checks |
|
A new Pull Request was created by @rovere (Marco Rovere) for master. It involves the following packages: RecoParticleFlow/Configuration @perrotta, @cmsbuild, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
|
assign upgrade |
|
please test |
|
New categories assigned: upgrade @kpedro88 you have been requested to review this Pull request/Issue and eventually sign? Thanks |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
| @@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ def _modifyPFEventContentForHGCalFEVT( obj ): | |||
| 'keep recoPFClusters_particleFlowClusterHGCalFromMultiCl__*', | |||
| 'keep *_particleFlowSuperClusterHGCalFromMultiCl_*_*', | |||
| 'keep *_simPFProducer_*_*', | |||
| 'keep *_particleFlowTmpBarrel_*_*', | |||
| 'keep *_particleFlowTmp_*_*' | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
process.particleFlowTmp = cms.EDProducer("PFCandidateListMerger",
src = cms.VInputTag("particleFlowTmpBarrel", "simPFProducer")
)Is the content of _particleFlow_ inappropriate (it is in the standard event content already)?
It's made out of particleFlowTmp. So, this would just add a copy of the particleFlow collection with pre-linking step information about objects and links.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@rovere
please clarify on this.
It appears to me that saving the Tmp for the merged pf collection is not needed because the relinked collection contains all of its information
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@rovere
I'm waiting for feedback on this. (what's missing in particleFlow to require also saving particleFlowTmp?)
Please comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@slava77 most likely, after the 2 additional commits that store the electrons directly into pfCandidates, the particleFlorTmp could be dropped completely.
|
+1 The following merge commits were also included on top of IB + this PR after doing git cms-merge-topic: |
|
Comparison job queued. |
|
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
|
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
+code-checks |
|
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. |
|
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
|
PU200:
essentially all are with pt below about 3 GeV and are in the endcap
in DQM, jet, met, and btags look about unchanged apart for the electron fraction or similar plots. |
|
+1
|
|
+1 |
cmsbuild
added
fully-signed
upgrade-approved
and removed
pending-signatures
upgrade-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 will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @davidlange6, @slava77, @smuzaffar (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
|
+1 |
The previously saved collection is created before merging the Barrel and HGCAL-related, sim-driven, components together. The newly saved collection will contain all pfcandidates that should be used to perform physics studies.
This will only affect PhaseII workflows. I expect no regression and very tiny effect on the event size of the final ROOT file.
Also, electrons built within the HGCAL volume were not saved into the particleFlow pfCandidate collection, causing strange effects (artificial MET, missing JETs etc...). Now they are forced into the final collection.
@malgeri, @cseez, @felicepantaleo @kpedro88
A backport to 93X branch is imminent.