Fix MuEGCleaning input collections #17395
Conversation
|
A new Pull Request was created by @mmarionncern for CMSSW_8_0_X. It involves the following packages: PhysicsTools/PatAlgos @cmsbuild, @cvuosalo, @slava77, @monttj, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here #13028 |
|
Should we make a patch? |
|
@cmsbuild please test
…On Feb 2, 2017 6:56 PM, "Giovanni Petrucciani" ***@***.***> wrote:
Should we make a patch?
It can also be fixed in --customize_commands, though it's not a good
approach.
The other option is to ignore this, and tell people to do it right at
analysis level.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#17395 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEdcbklpxeCnypakZU0D1ksVyT1bB-Uaks5rYhjhgaJpZM4L1Y4a>
.
|
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
How incorrect is it now? 100℅, 10℅?
…On Feb 2, 2017 7:16 PM, "cmsbuild" ***@***.***> wrote:
The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#17395 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEdcblSoxS6RFQ4nCsvKBLSfDGNVDLylks5rYh2EgaJpZM4L1Y4a>
.
|
|
On 2/2/17 6:56 PM, Giovanni Petrucciani wrote:
Should we make a patch?
It can also be fixed in --customize_commands, though it's not a good
approach.
The other option is to ignore this, and tell people to do it right at
analysis level.
I suppose, if we find something bad from the pilot injection and some
fix will be needed anyways, this can go in.
…
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#17395 (comment)>, or
mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEdcbklpxeCnypakZU0D1ksVyT1bB-Uaks5rYhjhgaJpZM4L1Y4a>.
|
|
Comparison job queued. |
|
a new record for the time between a talk announcing all was done and the first bug? |
|
can make a patch tomorrow once @slava77 approves if its useful.. |
|
On 2/2/17 9:23 PM, David Lange wrote:
can make a patch tomorrow once @slava77 <https://github.com/slava77>
approves if its useful..
To elaborate on my earlier message about how wrong this bug makes things,
I'd like to understand the cost to analysts to fix this bug at miniAOD
level.
(I'm just not at all convinced that this will be the last bug fix)
Do we have all the products in place in miniAOD (we stored various
alternatives)
and is there a setup to redo it from miniAOD already?
…
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#17395 (comment)>, or
mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEdcbne4NwkzuoxuGuPWP1i2Vh2N6oSGks5rYjslgaJpZM4L1Y4a>.
|
|
local test with /DoubleEG/sharper-Run2016E-23Sep2016-v1_AOD_DiHEEPWOSS_GainSwitch shows differences only in slimmedMETsMuEGClean (From slides yesterday: slimmedMETsMuEGClean is supposed to be corrected for muons and for the ecal gain switch on e/γobjects [ this is likely to be the recommended one to use ]). ). slimmedMETsMuEGClean.pt is much smaller in some events which is suggestive of an improvement Still, there is something odd: Looking at the changes in more detail: the old version was using identical inputs to corMETElectronMuEGClean and corMETEPhotonsMuEGClean which would mean they were 0; the fix now, apparently, makes these corrections equal to the correction size of the egm objects. |
|
+1
|
|
@slava77 Without that fi the MuEG MET does nto receive the EGamma corrections, and one would have to extract it from the other METs and reapply it on top of the Mu corrected MET. So it is not vital, but preferable |
|
Hi,
Sorry in my tests i had checked the jets and the muon corrections to the
met but not the eg ones.
If making a patch is not that expensive, and the patch can be available by
end of the day, i think it would be beneficial (there may indeed be other
bugs in less used items like met uncertainties or significance, but that
has very often been the case, while having the nominal met value bugged in
some events is more annoying)
Alca is checking that the GT with the JECs is okay so things have not
started yet.
Looking at some events, the correction to the met vector seems to have the
correct sign, which is good.
From the code, sumEt looks indeed computed with the wrong sign but i agree
that we can live with it, it's the px and py that really matter.
Giovanni
Il 03 Feb 2017 7:42 AM, "Slava Krutelyov" <notifications@github.com> ha
scritto:
+1
for #17395 <#17395> 56f062b
<56f062b>
- pick appropriate base egamma collections to compute corrections for
slimmedMETsMuEGClean
- jenkins tests pass and comparisons with baseline show no differences
(none expected given that this change affects only the customized PAT)
- local checks show changes only in slimmedMETsMuEGClean, see
details in #17395
(comment)
<#17395 (comment)> [the
effect of the fix as seen in expanded config appears to be logically
correct]
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#17395 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEbbR9UnKNff8xRtfLrBGNms_E4LFiaiks5rYsxcgaJpZM4L1Y4a>
.
|
|
On 2/3/17 8:35 AM, Giovanni Petrucciani wrote:
@mmarionncern , please submit a fix for ShiftedParticleMETcorrInputProducer.cc to 90X or direct to someone |
|
On 2/3/17 8:35 AM, Giovanni Petrucciani wrote:
If making a patch is not that expensive, and the patch can be available by
end of the day, i think it would be beneficial (there may indeed be other
bugs in less used items like met uncertainties or significance, but that
has very often been the case, while having the nominal met value bugged in
some events is more annoying)
Alca is checking that the GT with the JECs is okay so things have not
started yet.
a light patch should take about 4 hours to show up from build start to
upload end
|
|
I guess its <4 hours - but should we go ahead now and then re-declare that all is done and ready for production with the patch in place? |
|
(or should we wait a while longer?) |
|
On 2/3/17 10:11 AM, David Lange wrote:
I guess its <4 hours - but should we go ahead now and then re-declare
that all is done and ready for production with the patch in place?
maybe ask on HN about the progress of the pilot injection
…
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#17395 (comment)>, or
mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEdcbnffAI7lBZTSp5Tdz7TYuqKZtr19ks5rYu9ZgaJpZM4L1Y4a>.
|
|
the pilot is injected and completely processed
… On Feb 3, 2017, at 10:23 AM, Slava Krutelyov ***@***.***> wrote:
On 2/3/17 10:11 AM, David Lange wrote:
> I guess its <4 hours - but should we go ahead now and then re-declare
> that all is done and ready for production with the patch in place?
maybe ask on HN about the progress of the pilot injection
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#17395 (comment)>, or
> mute the thread
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEdcbnffAI7lBZTSp5Tdz7TYuqKZtr19ks5rYu9ZgaJpZM4L1Y4a>.
>
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
|
Ok so we should go for it.
Giovanni
Il 03 Feb 2017 8:52 AM, "Slava Krutelyov" <notifications@github.com> ha
scritto:
… On 2/3/17 8:35 AM, Giovanni Petrucciani wrote:
>
> If making a patch is not that expensive, and the patch can be available
by
> end of the day, i think it would be beneficial (there may indeed be other
> bugs in less used items like met uncertainties or significance, but that
> has very often been the case, while having the nominal met value bugged
in
> some events is more annoying)
> Alca is checking that the GT with the JECs is okay so things have not
> started yet.
a light patch should take about 4 hours to show up from build start to
upload end
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#17395 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEbbR4JcdCYkNW4baXu-roBzoP6ytM0yks5rYtzIgaJpZM4L1Y4a>
.
|
Fix the input EGamma collections used to compute the EG fix for the re-miniAOD campaign.
One can still derive the fully corrected MET from what is inside the miniAODs, but that would fix the MuEG collection