DQM JetMET from cmssw 5_3_12_patch2

[BetterWang]

DQM JetMET for HeavyIon physics from cmssw 5_3_12_patch2
Contact person:
Quan Wang, quan.wang@cern.ch,
Pelin Kurt, pelin.kurt@cern.ch,
Matthew Nguyen, Matthew.Nguyen@cern.ch,
Yetkin Yilmaz, yetkin.yilmaz@cern.ch

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @BetterWang for CMSSW_5_3_X.

DQM JetMET from cmssw 5_3_12_patch2

It involves the following packages:

Validation/RecoHI
Validation/RecoJets

@nclopezo, @danduggan, @rovere, @cmsbuild, @anton-a, @thspeer, @deguio, @slava77, @eliasron can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@kkrajczar, @TaiSakuma, @RylanC24, @richard-cms 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.
@smuzaffar you are the release manager for this.

[deguio]

@BetterWang
it looks like the producer ak3HiCleanedGenJets is called two times here. could you please fix it?

[deguio]

ciao @BetterWang
the analysers CaloJetTesterUnCorr and CaloJetTesterUnCorr_HeavyIons are very similar. Isn't there a way to use the same code instead of duplicating it? this is in general a good criterion to avoid to maintain copies of the same code.

could you also fix the double call to the ak3HiCleanedGenJets module?
thanks,
F.

[BetterWang]

Hi @deguio ,
I can fix the double call, and work with the developer.
Do you want me the send another pull request, or just modify this one (don't know if it is possible)?

[pkurt]

Hi deguio,

It is true that the our analyzer name "CaloJetTesterUnCorr_HeavyIons" is very similar to the other one "CaloJetTesterUnCorr". But they are not identical.
We wanted to have our own analyzer in order to include some performance checks for the bkg subtraction and some other interested observables in our reco. We have included one new plot so far for this purpose but we will add more soon. Hope it is OK for you as well. I have informed JetMETDQM contacts (Robert, Matthias and Viola) about this change already.
Pelin

[deguio]

@pkurt @BetterWang
if it is needed and if you think that the code will diverge even more in the future then it is ok.
I will wait for the double call fix. just commit in the same branch.

I will ask you to report during one of the next DQM meetings to show the recent developments and the plans for the future. I will contact you by email.

thanks,
F.

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #1929 was updated. @thspeer, @danduggan, @rovere, @cmsbuild, @anton-a, @nclopezo, @deguio, @slava77, @Degano, @ojeda can you please check and sign again.

[pkurt]

Sure, thank you!

Pelin

[deguio]

@BetterWang @pkurt
the collection produced by JetAnalyzerICPU5Calo (the one you have just added) is not used anywhere apparently. all the analysers which take it in input are commented in the sequence. Am I wrong? if this is the case I would comment it out so that we don't produce useless collections.

thanks,
F.

[pkurt]

You are right, we will fix it shortly.
Pelin

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #1929 was updated. @thspeer, @danduggan, @rovere, @cmsbuild, @anton-a, @nclopezo, @deguio, @slava77, @Degano, @ojeda can you please check and sign again.

[deguio]

+1

[BetterWang]

Can we have this pull request checked and signed?

Thanks,
Quan

[davidlange6]

@ktf - why does this need a reco signature?

[ktf]

Historically Validation/Reco* did. Shall we drop it?

[davidlange6]

I'll let the experts comment… I'm surprised though.

On Feb 3, 2014, at 12:35 PM, Giulio Eulisse notifications@github.com
wrote:

Historically Validation/Reco* did. Shall we drop it?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[ktf]

I'll let the experts comment… I'm surprised though.

I think this dates back to when you were the expert… ;-) Anyways…
@slava77, @anton-a do you still want to have sign off rights to
Validation/Reco*?

[slava77]

I don't have strong feelings about this one.
This is downstream from what we do
I'd rather have more (or some) sign off rights for other things that affect RECO physics performance (like geometry or calibrations)

[BetterWang]

Then, who should sign this one off, if there is no obvious reason to keep it pending?

[davidlange6]

+1

[smuzaffar]

+tested