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
Developments to provide facilitated access to new TauID information (all high level changes) #18244
Developments to provide facilitated access to new TauID information (all high level changes) #18244
Conversation
…o ECAL entrace in case that phiAtEcal is not part of miniAOD
…that could also be made persistent
…au-pog_miniAOD-tauMVAs
A new Pull Request was created by @roger-wolf (Roger Wolf) for master. It involves the following packages: DataFormats/PatCandidates @perrotta, @cmsbuild, @slava77, @monttj, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
@cmsbuild please test |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
Comparison job queued. |
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
…, requires a few knock-on adaptations in several files
@@ -104,7 +112,7 @@ double PATTauDiscriminationAgainstElectronMVA6::discriminate(const TauRef& theTa | |||
double deltaREleTau = deltaR(theElectron.p4(), theTauRef->p4()); | |||
deltaRDummy = deltaREleTau; | |||
if( deltaREleTau < 0.3 ){ | |||
double mva_match = mva_->MVAValue(*theTauRef, theElectron, usePhiAtEcalEntranceExtrapolation_); | |||
double mva_match = mva_->MVAValue(*theTauRef, theElectron, usePhiAtEcalEntranceExtrapolation_, bField_); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
why not set bField in the mva::beginEvent call ?
It seems like a simpler solution with fewer changes in interfaces.
{ | ||
bool result = false; | ||
double bField = 3.8; // hopefully Teslas are proper units (better to take it from event setup) | ||
//double bField = 3.8; // hopefully Teslas are proper units (better to take it from event setup) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
the comment can be now removed
@cmsbuild please test |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
+1 The following merge commits were also included on top of IB + this PR after doing git cms-merge-topic: |
Comparison job queued. |
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
#include "MagneticField/Engine/interface/MagneticField.h" | ||
#include "MagneticField/Records/interface/IdealMagneticFieldRecord.h" | ||
|
||
#include <TMath.h> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
hi @roger-wolf - is this needed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi David,
I'm not sure I understand what you are referring to, therefore I'll answer to both interpretations that I'm having:
(1)
The MagneticFiled headers are needed for the track extrapolation we are doing in case that the variable "phiAtEcalEntrace" has not been pre-calculated to be saved in miniAOD (the Bfield is used in function atECalEntrance).
(2)
TMath actually is not used any more as it seem to me. If you want me to do it I could delete the line and recommit, while I'm a bit hesitant to start the whole signing and testing procedure again on this long thread.
Cheers,
Roger
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
it was about the TMath.h include - please remove in a follow up PR.
reco::Candidate const* signalCand = signalCands[o].get(); | ||
float phi = theTau.phi(); | ||
math::XYZPoint aPos; | ||
if ( atECalEntrance(signalCand, aPos) == true ) phi = aPos.Phi(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi @roger-wolf - just to be sure I follow - this phi variable ends up meaning "phi at ecal" if the particle intersects the ecal, otherwise it is phi at the primary vertex?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi David,
yes this is the way also the training has been done.
Cheers,
Roger
Hi all, I think the last missing signatures are not more than formalities. @davidlange6 : would you like me to remove the header in discussion above and to recommit? Otherwise just let me know if you want/need some action from my side. Could AT also sign off in case of no further issues? Since this is a long pending PR I'd be happy to get it off the table asap. Cheers, |
@monttj : Hi Tae Jeong, can you sign this thing off for us? I think this is the last step for us to get this PR off the table. Thanx a lot! Cheers, |
This is a PR that had been stalled on 90X since cmssw was just in the transition to 91X. Comments from RECO formerly made here (#17624) have now been addressed and the PR migrated to 91X. I'm copying the comments of the former PR here once again to make clear hat this is about. Note that these developments are most relevant for current analyses so upon integration they will require backports down to 81X.
Dear colleagues,
this pull request comprises three developments that have been made to facilitate the access to new TauID information that is now available based on trainings made on the whole 2016 dataset.
All these changes are "high level" with effect only on the analysis level on already existing miniAOD. They are meant for the currently ongoing analyses with the actual target to be backported down to CMSSW_8_0_X.
Neither unit/matrixTests nor DQM plots tracking physics performance should be affected by these changes.
Cheers,
Roger