BPHNanoAODs #47603
BPHNanoAODs #47603
Conversation
|
cms-bot internal usage |
|
-code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-47603/44106
Code check has found code style and quality issues which could be resolved by applying following patch(s)
|
BPHNanoAODs: code format and code checks changes
|
-code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-47603/44107
Code check has found code style and quality issues which could be resolved by applying following patch(s)
|
|
hello all, @makortel the bin files were unnecessary so they are not included now in the framework. The remaining comments are work in progress. The changes proposed by scram build code-checks and scram build code-format have been integrated in the last commit. A reminder: the cmsDriver command is: cmsDriver.py --conditions 140X_dataRun3_Prompt_v4 --datatier NANOAOD --era Run3,run3_nanoAOD_pre142X --eventcontent NANOAOD --filein root://cms-xrd-global.cern.ch//store/data/Run2024C/ParkingDoubleMuonLowMass0/MINIAOD/PromptReco-v1/000/379/415/00000/b40397b5-61c6-4887-8f4e-025e8ca925ee.root --fileout file:/tmp/gmelachr/BPH_test_data.root --nThreads 4 -n -1 --no_exec --python_filename BPH_test.py --scenario pp --step NANO:@ BPH |
remove dictionary from /src/class.h
|
While working on the backport to CMSSW_15_0_X (#47911) I realised that one file was placed under the central NanoAOD package but was somehow forgotten to be removed in the github repository from the BPHNano package. Whenever possible please request again the tests |
|
please test |
|
+1 Size: This PR adds an extra 20KB to repository Comparison SummarySummary:
NANO Comparison SummarySummary:
Nano size comparison Summary:
|
|
Hello, since the tests are passed, what is the procedure now? Is there anything else that we need to do? Thanks |
|
One thing is that the new package (the assignment can be done by opening a PR to |
This is the PR: cms-sw/cms-bot#2485 |
|
Sorry, but do we understand why there is such variability in the changes of this NANO wfs? Thanks | 2500.221 | 4.071 | 2.141 | 1.931 ( +90.2% ) | 13.37 | 13.75 | -2.7% | 2.203 | 2.130 | |
|
Can you explain which test this code corresponds to? In general we would expect large increase in the presence of B mesons only |
|
All the info about the nano test comparion is here: and the wf definitions are here: |
|
please test just in case... |
|
+1 Size: This PR adds an extra 16KB to repository Comparison SummarySummary:
NANO Comparison SummarySummary:
Nano size comparison Summary:
|
|
please test with cms-sw/cms-bot#2487 |
|
please abort |
| @@ -359,6 +365,7 @@ def subnext(self): | |||
|
|
|||
| # POG/PAG custom NANOs, MC | |||
| _wfn.subnext() | |||
| workflows[_wfn()] = ['BPHNANOmc140X', ['TTbarMINIAOD14.0', 'BPHNANO_mc14.0']] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like the workflow ids were shift by +1 when the BPHNano workflow was added. This also shift the base x ref comparisons, eg.: EGMNANOmc140X was 2500.222 and now it is 2500.223, so EGMNANOmc140X is being compared with BTVNANOmc140X (the previous 2500.223).
@gmelachr -- can you try to add BPHNANOmc140X at the end of the subnext block?
| @@ -370,6 +377,7 @@ def subnext(self): | |||
|
|
|||
| # POG/PAG custom NANOs, data | |||
| _wfn.subnext() | |||
| workflows[_wfn()] = ['BPHNANOdata140Xrun3', ['MuonEG2024MINIAOD14.0', 'BPHNANO_data14.0']] | |||
The PR is to reopen the PR #47469
Following the presentation in the xPOG meeting (https://indico.cern.ch/event/1509026/#2-bph-custom-nanoaod), this is the PR for the BPH-flavor nanoAODs.
We would like to add this framework as a CMSSW package in order to produce our/BPH NanoAODs centrally by using the Tier0 network.
With the framework we add some tables to the existing NanoAODs tables. In these "BPH" tables we are storing Kshort->ππ, Λ0->pπ candidates and the B->μ+μ-Χ, Χ=Κ+,Κ*0,φ, Κshort, Λ0 candidates and other usefull quantities that are used by many BPH analysis for branching ratio, angular analysis or CPV measurements.
Furthermore, we add tables that can be used for the BPH trigger studies and trigger efficiencies measurement.
FYI: @drkovalskyi @gkaratha @ftorrresd @vlimant @hqucms @makortel