update PFCluster calibration for HGCal v9 geometry #25435
Conversation
|
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-25435/7498 |
|
A new Pull Request was created by @clelange (Clemens Lange) for master. It involves the following packages: RecoParticleFlow/PFClusterProducer @perrotta, @cmsbuild, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
|
please test |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
assign upgrade |
|
New categories assigned: upgrade @kpedro88 you have been requested to review this Pull request/Issue and eventually sign? Thanks |
|
@fabiocos @smuzaffar @cvuosalo why does this PR have a "Codacy/PR Quality Review" check listed? |
|
@davidlange6 was looking in to codacy that might have enabled these checks |
|
Comparison job queued. |
| @@ -2,5 +2,5 @@ | |||
|
|
|||
| minEtaCorrection = cms.double(1.4) | |||
| maxEtaCorrection = cms.double(3.0) | |||
| hadronCorrections = cms.vdouble(1.24, 1.24, 1.24, 1.23, 1.24, 1.25, 1.29, 1.29) | |||
| egammaCorrections = cms.vdouble(1.00, 1.00, 1.01, 1.01, 1.02, 1.03, 1.04, 1.04) | |||
| hadronCorrections = cms.vdouble(1.28, 1.28, 1.24, 1.19, 1.17, 1.17, 1.17, 1.17) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if these calibrations are only appropriate for the V9 geometry, the values should be modified using the phase2_hgcalV9 modifier, so the old versions of HGCal will not get incorrect calibrations
|
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
|
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:
|
|
it seems I did without realizing.. They should be back off again (presumably for future PRs) until we get some more experience with this thing being useful or not
… On Dec 6, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Malik Shahzad Muzaffar ***@***.***> wrote:
@davidlange6 was looking in to codacy that might have enabled these checks
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
|
@davidlange6 it looks useful at a glance, but I think we should define which kind of problems we want to track or enforce to be fixed |
|
+1
|
|
+upgrade |
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, @fabiocos (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
|
+1 |
Details of the calibration procedure can be taken from the followings sets of slides presented at the HGCAL DPG simulation and performance meeting on 28th November:
The methodology is the same for both and has not changed w.r.t. the previous iteration (but with the old geometry). The final results tables (using particles with pT = 50 GeV) can be found on page 8 of the respective presentations.