-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.4k
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
Switch resolution from Gaussian sigma to stdev for Phase2 L1T tracks #33073
Conversation
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-33073/21385
|
A new Pull Request was created by @emacdonald16 for master. It involves the following packages: Validation/SiOuterTrackerV @andrius-k, @kmaeshima, @ErnestaP, @ahmad3213, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @rvenditti can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-739065/13294/summary.html Comparison Summary@slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:
Summary:
|
@emacdonald16 apart from changes in the invoved Resolution MEs, I see changes in pTResVsEta MEs |
Yes, @jfernan2, these are expected. They are the pT resolution plots, and will change just from switching the definition of the resolution to be the standard deviation instead of a gaussian fit |
+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. @silviodonato, @dpiparo, @qliphy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
+1 |
PR description:
Switched the track resolution plots to use standard deviation instead of Gaussian fit and sigma. This improves durability, in particular for cases where there are low statistics and poor fitting. This will change the resolution plots slightly, but will make it easier to spot problems or bugs. All other plots remain the same.
In addition, I cleaned up the code a tad, to make it more compact.
This is also a potential fix for Issue #31644
PR validation:
Checked before and after comparisons of the resolution plots to make sure the change was reasonable and as expected, on a ttbar+200PU sample.
Ran runTheMatrix for wf 23234.0
Ran code checks (scram build code-checks; scram build code-format)
if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR:
Not a backport