loose ITk track selection wp for 21p9
Hello,
this is to define loose ITk selection wp, such that CP groups can easily configure their track selections to avoid picking Run2 cuts, such as |eta|<2.5
Specifically, I am modifying InDetTrackSelectionTool with a wp such that (courtesy of @npetters ):
- flat cuts reflecting what we have in reconstruction. E.g 7 sihit for all eta, 400 MeV,
- make sure the eta interval is change correctly and that no pixel/sct/trt cuts are remaining that would cut out the forward region for ITk.
I have added "ITkLoose" wp accordingly & tested all compiles fine. For physics validation I ran IDPVM with setting InDetTrackSelectorTool.CutLevel = "ITkLoose" and compared this to the default IDPVM track selection (running over identical ESD events)
You can see here that my wp gets collected fine:
/afs/cern.ch/work/l/lmijovic/public/r21p9/ITkLoose/27032019
grep -i ITkloose out.out
ToolSvc.InDetTr... INFO Cut level set to "ITkLoose".
and in the attached plot that the "ITkLoose" is looser wrt to the default InDetTrackSelectionTool cuts r21.9 IDPVM uses. (Which indicates we should likely loosen the default IDPVM cuts, I think I know which one, but that's a IDPVM rather than loose wp issue)
What is on my todo list for this MR is the following:
- think whether I should add or modify cuts of the current ITkLoose wp
- perform more thorough testing, to be sure I am indeed keeping all reco-ed tracks
- update InDetTrackSelectionTool/test for the newly added wp
Merge request reports
Activity
added 21.9 label
Hi @lmijovic - this looks good to me, and so I think we should go ahead with it. The only comment I have is that we should update the copyright statements in these files at the same time.
added 1 commit
- b08fd819 - removing ut-s, as they are AnalysisBase specific
I presented validation of the wp at 3rd Apr upgrade tracking meeting: https://indico.cern.ch/event/784500/ . Subsequently I updated the copyright statements as suggested by @nstyles . As for the unit tests, these are wrapped in XAOD_STANDALONE condition, thus AnalysisBase Non-athena ROOT based analysis specific. This is not useful for this use-case, so I'll keep test/ directory files to upstream/21.9.
As I consider this done and validated, I will remove the WIP accordingly.
added InnerDetector review-pending-level-1 labels
CI Result FAILUREAthena externals cmake make required tests optional tests Full details available at NICOS MR-22176-2019-04-04-01-09
Athena: number of compilation errors 1, warnings 8
For experts only: Jenkins output [CI-MERGE-REQUEST 36481] CI Result SUCCESSAthena externals cmake make required tests optional tests Full details available at NICOS MR-22176-2019-04-04-15-01
Athena: number of compilation errors 0, warnings 172
For experts only: Jenkins output [CI-MERGE-REQUEST 36503]added review-user-action-required label and removed review-pending-level-1 label
added review-pending-level-2 label and removed review-user-action-required label
added review-approved label and removed review-pending-level-2 label
mentioned in commit b8e7d94c