Skip to content
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

doPAT flag - CMS jargon? (2012 branch) #26

Open
katilp opened this issue Jun 30, 2021 · 2 comments
Open

doPAT flag - CMS jargon? (2012 branch) #26

katilp opened this issue Jun 30, 2021 · 2 comments
Labels
2012 Branch 2012

Comments

@katilp
Copy link
Member

katilp commented Jun 30, 2021

We could have a more descriptive naming for the flag in the config file. Do I understand correctly that this is only for the jet correction reading and has no other effect?

If so we could call it readCorrFromTxt or readCorrFromDb so that it conveys better what is happening. PAT is CMS jargon and does not tell what is the actual difference.

But correct me if I'm wrong, I did not look in details, maybe it has other effects in resulting jets.

@caredg @jmhogan

@jmhogan
Copy link
Collaborator

jmhogan commented Jun 30, 2021

@katilp No, it's actually doing lots more. It is running the whole PAT sequence, so we could really use pat::muons, pat::electrons, pat::taus, etc. For now we're just using the pat::jet collection it creates, but the code becomes quite different for applying the corrections and also for interacting with b-tagging.

I will go through and make significantly more comments here in the config. Perhaps we could change the flag to "makePATobjects" or "makePATjets" or something.

@caredg caredg changed the title doPAT flag - CMS jargon? doPAT flag - CMS jargon? (2012 branch) May 5, 2022
@caredg
Copy link
Member

caredg commented May 5, 2022

@jmhogan, I suppose we can close tis one?

@caredg caredg added the 2012 Branch 2012 label May 5, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
2012 Branch 2012
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants