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

L1T: Add zPt to L1JetRecoTree in L1Ntuples #42037

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jun 22, 2023
Merged

Conversation

bundocka
Copy link
Contributor

  • Adds a new variable "zPt" to the L1JetRecoTree in the L1Ntuples
  • zPt is calculated from two opposite sign muons with invariant mass closest to Z mass
  • zPt is set to -999. if there are not 2 opposite signed PF muons with dM < 30 GeV

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

-code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-42037/36017

  • This PR adds an extra 20KB to repository

Code check has found code style and quality issues which could be resolved by applying following patch(s)

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-42037/36018

  • This PR adds an extra 24KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @bundocka for master.

It involves the following packages:

  • L1Trigger/L1TNtuples (l1)

@epalencia, @cmsbuild, @aloeliger can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@kreczko, @eyigitba, @Martin-Grunewald, @missirol, @thomreis, @dinyar this is something you requested to watch as well.
@perrotta, @dpiparo, @rappoccio you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

Comment on lines 680 to 683
for (auto it1 = muons->begin(); it1 != muons->end(); ++it1) {
if (!it1->isPFMuon())
continue;
for (auto it2 = muons->begin(); it2 != muons->end(); ++it2) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't know if this is technically wrong (or at least, in any way that matters) but this will end up considering the same muons for pairs (it's also a little inefficient, guaranteeing you have to do n^2 checks). You could try to start second iterator at the muon after it1 with something like

for(auto it2 = std::next(it1); it2 != muons.end(); ++it2)

Which I think should prevent checking duplicates and checking every pair twice? (n^2/2 isn't great, but at least it's halved).

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

thanks for the suggestion, implemented

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-42037/36021

  • This PR adds an extra 24KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Pull request #42037 was updated. @epalencia, @cmsbuild, @aloeliger can you please check and sign again.

@aloeliger
Copy link
Contributor

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-6cdcdc/33330/summary.html
COMMIT: 01dab1d
CMSSW: CMSSW_13_2_X_2023-06-21-2300/el8_amd64_gcc11
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/42037/33330/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

  • You potentially removed 12 lines from the logs
  • Reco comparison results: 6 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 48
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3200270
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 6
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3200242
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 47 files compared)
  • Checked 207 log files, 159 edm output root files, 48 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@aloeliger
Copy link
Contributor

+l1

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

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, @rappoccio (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

@rappoccio
Copy link
Contributor

+1

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.

4 participants