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
Add APV simulation in PreMixingSiStripWorker #28028
Add APV simulation in PreMixingSiStripWorker #28028
Conversation
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-28028/11952
|
A new Pull Request was created by @pieterdavid (Pieter David) for master. It involves the following packages: SimTracker/SiStripDigitizer @cmsbuild, @civanch, @mdhildreth can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-28028/11956
|
Pull request #28028 was updated. @cmsbuild, @civanch, @mdhildreth can you please check and sign again. |
const auto it = std::find_if( | ||
std::begin(ps), std::end(ps), [](const PileupSummaryInfo& bxps) { return bxps.getBunchCrossing() == 0; }); | ||
if (it != std::begin(ps)) { | ||
nTruePU = it->getTrueNumInteractions(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since this is the main difference with the SiStripDigitizer implementation: is this the correct way to get the average number of interactions (Poisson parameter) for the in-time bunch-crossing? The original code is here: https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/master/SimTracker/SiStripDigitizer/plugins/SiStripDigitizerAlgorithm.cc#L249-L281 but the same object is not available here (or I did not immediately find a way to get it)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@pieterdavid In short: yes, it is.
(the ps
is the vector<PileupSummaryInfo>
from the premixed pileup event)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@makortel thanks for confirming!
For the record, I attach here couple of plots obtained running 200 events using the wfs introduced in #28024 using the release and the changes proposed here: (black is 25202.1, red is 250202.2 in the two cases). |
please test |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
Comparison job queued. |
Comparison not run due to runTheMatrix errors (RelVals and Igprof tests were also skipped) |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
Comparison job queued. |
Comparison is ready @slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:
Comparison Summary:
|
+1 |
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 ready to enter together #28024 |
PR description:
This adds the new APV simulation from #27823 also to the PreMixingSiStripWorker, which is used instead of the SiStripDigitizer when premixing is used.
It goes together with the configuration changes in #28024 .
PR validation:
by @mmusich, see #28024 : when enabling the APV simulation at the data mixing step (and not when making the premixing pileup library) the cluster charge distribution matches with the non-premixing scenario.
CC: @EmyrClement