-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.3k
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
Conversation
bundocka
commented
Jun 21, 2023
- 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
-code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-42037/36017
Code check has found code style and quality issues which could be resolved by applying following patch(s)
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-42037/36018
|
A new Pull Request was created by @bundocka for master. It involves the following packages:
@epalencia, @cmsbuild, @aloeliger can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
for (auto it1 = muons->begin(); it1 != muons->end(); ++it1) { | ||
if (!it1->isPFMuon()) | ||
continue; | ||
for (auto it2 = muons->begin(); it2 != muons->end(); ++it2) { |
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.
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).
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.
thanks for the suggestion, implemented
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-42037/36021
|
Pull request #42037 was updated. @epalencia, @cmsbuild, @aloeliger can you please check and sign again. |
please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-6cdcdc/33330/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
+l1 |
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) |
+1 |