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
Update XiMinus_14TeV_SoftQCDInel_TuneCP5 config #38466
Conversation
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-38466/30678
|
A new Pull Request was created by @AdrianoDee for master. It involves the following packages:
@SiewYan, @mkirsano, @Saptaparna, @cmsbuild, @GurpreetSinghChahal, @alberto-sanchez can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
please test |
Why this PR has "14TeV" in the name, if the CMS energy is not 14TeV any more? Could you please explain the need of having both this and #38390? For the sake of clarity, could a single PR add coherently all new configs needed, with some explanation for the apparent duplicates? |
About this, I don't know the policy (given this is the only fragment, as far as I see, with this kind of energy) so I was waiting for some feedback. I can easily move to
Please, see #38390 (comment) where I explain exactly this. #38390 could be closed. |
Let me add that the different energy is selected in order to be more adherent to the actual data taking conditions given this sample is mainly intended for checking tracking efficiency for displaced topologies of interest for the BPH (in the short term the pixelLess issue with mkFit). |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-b8dbb1/25696/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
we should keep consistency between the name and energy (14TeV -> 13p6TeV) |
- lowering `pT` thresholds. Enhance gen efficiency (from 1 to 2 %). - moving to `13.6 TeV`. - renaming accordingly
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-38466/30715
|
Pull request #38466 was updated. @SiewYan, @mkirsano, @Saptaparna, @cmsbuild, @GurpreetSinghChahal, @alberto-sanchez can you please check and sign again. |
please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-b8dbb1/25751/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
@cms-sw/generators-l2 Any comment on this and the backported one #38467 ? |
Hi @qliphy no comments as the change is quite minimal. Looks like one only the pT and the c.o.m energy was changed. Fine to merge. Thanks! |
+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. @perrotta, @dpiparo, @qliphy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
+1 |
pT
thresholds. Enhance gen efficiency (from 1 to 2 %).13.6 TeV
.To be used as validation for the rollback of the pixelles tracking to CKF. See add XiMinus gen fragment for BPH validation #38390 and [124X (backport)] Introduce era with CKF pixelLessStep: backport of #38437 #38450.
No validation needed. In a next PR a wf in the matrix will be added to test this for possible RelVal production.