Skip to content
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

Backport of Cross Section machinery and GenJet config change to 71x #5640

Merged
merged 8 commits into from Oct 12, 2014

Conversation

bendavid
Copy link
Contributor

@bendavid bendavid commented Oct 1, 2014

Backports (from 73x) the GenLumiInfoProduct and associated machinery to produce and analyze it to allow consistent determination of Monte Carlo cross sections from the output sample.

Backports also the change in GenJet configuration such that resonance decay products are no longer excluded from the GenJet clustering.

@bendavid
Copy link
Contributor Author

bendavid commented Oct 1, 2014

+1

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Oct 1, 2014

A new Pull Request was created by @bendavid (Josh Bendavid) for CMSSW_7_1_X.

Backport of Cross Section machinery and GenJet config change to 71x

It involves the following packages:

GeneratorInterface/Configuration
GeneratorInterface/Core
GeneratorInterface/LHEInterface
RecoJets/Configuration
SimDataFormats/GeneratorProducts

@cmsbuild, @nclopezo, @StoyanStoynev, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@TaiSakuma, @nhanvtran, @schoef this is something you requested to watch as well.
You can sign-off by replying to this message having '+1' in the first line of your reply.
You can reject by replying to this message having '-1' in the first line of your reply.
@Degano you are the release manager for this.
You can merge this pull request by typing 'merge' in the first line of your comment.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Oct 2, 2014

@StoyanStoynev
Copy link
Contributor

@bendavid Please fill the description field of the PR.

@bendavid
Copy link
Contributor Author

bendavid commented Oct 4, 2014

@StoyanStoynev the RecoJets change here is the backport of #5616

(the change is bendavid@bdf6a73 such that resonance decay products are no longer excluded from the GenJet clustering)

@StoyanStoynev
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks but would you please fill the description (we need it for documentation purposes).

@bendavid
Copy link
Contributor Author

bendavid commented Oct 4, 2014

Done

@StoyanStoynev
Copy link
Contributor

This PR touches RECO very little - one parameter change in RecoJets/Configuration/python/GenJetParticles_cff.py - and only because these GEN configs are in RECO areas. I see no effect on RECO, I only see changes to wf 5.1 where an actual simulation happens - gen jet multiplicities change and there are differences in various validation plots. No diffs in other short matrix + ttbar + qcd wf tested.
Not a RECO issue but I see 60 different complaints when I run
duplicateReflexLibrarySearch.py --edmFile $CMSSW_BASE/lib/$SCRAM_ARCH/.edmplugincache --edmPD
Complaints of this type:

SimG4Core/Physics/CMSModel
pluginSimG4CorePhysicsListsPlugins.so
pluginSimulation.so

Probably half are from SimG4Core/Physics, nothing RECO related. I am mentioning it just because there are so many duplicates. Let me know what you want to do about these (if anything) and I'll sign off.

@bendavid
Copy link
Contributor Author

bendavid commented Oct 7, 2014

I don't know anything about this plugin issue for my part. But should not hold up this pull request at least.

@StoyanStoynev
Copy link
Contributor

+1
Tested bdf6a73 on top of CMSSW_7_1_X_2014-10-04-1400.
I ran short matrix and also ttbar and QCD wf. There were only numerical fluctuations though they appeared more than usual - see the review above. Overall no real effect on RECO.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Oct 7, 2014

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_7_1_X IBs unless changes (tests are also fine). @Degano can you please take care of it?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

6 participants