Replace buggy UL2016 EGM energy correction files #46046
Conversation
|
cms-bot internal usage |
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-46046/41839 |
|
A new Pull Request was created by @SanghyunKo for master. It involves the following packages:
@cmsbuild, @ftorrresd, @hqucms, @jfernan2, @mandrenguyen can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
|
@cmsbuild please test with cms-data/EgammaAnalysis-ElectronTools#12 |
|
+1 |
|
enable nano |
|
please test with cms-data/EgammaAnalysis-ElectronTools#12 |
|
type egamma |
|
@hqucms After interacting with a previous convener and some studies, the issue was understood and presented in the PPD general [link]. In short, the difference in 2017/2018 is also expected from the change in the recommended prescription on how to apply energy scale correction systematics (not a bug in this case, though). Hence, I think we can unhold this PR and cms-data/EgammaAnalysis-ElectronTools#12 and proceed. |
@SanghyunKo Regarding the changes on 2017 and 2018, I do see large diffs for the following files in cms-data/EgammaAnalysis-ElectronTools#12:
Do you confirm the changes are as expected? If so maybe you can update the title/description of cms-data/EgammaAnalysis-ElectronTools#12 to reflect that. |
Yes, that's what we observed from the comparison plots in the presentation. I updated the title/description in the data repository (left this one untouched as this is solely responsible for 2016). |
|
unhold |
|
+1 |
cmsbuild
added
fully-signed
xpog-approved
and removed
pending-signatures
xpog-pending
labels
|
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. @antoniovilela, @rappoccio, @sextonkennedy, @mandrenguyen (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
|
@SanghyunKo Should this be backported to 10_6_X? |
We are collecting surveys to know whether there are some analyzers who need to re-nano their data with 10_6_X urgently. If we have such a request, then we need a backport. Otherwise, it's not necessary if everybody agrees to wait for nano v15. But regardless of that, I think that doing backport is no harm and I see no reason to keep this bug persistent. So personally, I'd prefer to fix this issue once and for all unless there is a good reason not to do the backport. |
Sounds good. Please make a backport. |
|
Backport PR opened #46138 |
|
cms-data/EgammaAnalysis-ElectronTools#12 is merged |
|
+1 |
Replace buggy UL2016 EGM energy correction files (backport of #46046 to 10_6_X)
PR description:
Replacing buggy UL2016 electron & photon energy correction data files, following the CMS talk thread and in preparation for the potential Run2 ReMiniAOD-ReNanoAOD campaign future (previously, the latest correction files only existed in the private repo - there was an official prescription to this for UL MiniAODv2, but it sneaked into the NanoAOD and became persistent since the newest data files were never merged to the official repo).
This PR is supposed to be work together with the data file update in cms-data/EgammaAnalysis-ElectronTools#12 (please see the discussion in this PR for more details).