Fix for Puppi MET and MET significance compatibility between AOD and miniAOD (80X), rebased

[mmarionncern]

Previous version was #16174, rebased on top of 80X.
Planned for 80X miniAODv2

Packages touched :

• PhysicsTools/PatAlgos
• PhysicsTools/PatUtils
• RecoMET/METAlgorithms
• RecoMET/METProducers

Changes :

• fix scheduled mode (do not affect unscheduled mode)
• change the constructor of MET in the RecoMET extractor to copy properly the sumET from the slimmedMET collection when updating a miniAOD
• MET significance computation at the AOD level updated to match the miniAOD level
• Update of the test cfg files
• fix the puppi JEC and the use of slimmedJetPuppi when recomputing the puppiMET from miniAOD
• modify the MET signifiance code to match by reference the pfCandidates to the jets/lepton constituents + use of an extra recovery by delta"4Vector" matching when reference matching is failing

Expected changes in data file contents :

• small changes in the mET signifiance when producing miniAOD
• puppi MET values when rerunning on miniAOD
• storage of the sumEt when recomputing MET on top of miniAOD

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #18341 was updated. @perrotta, @cmsbuild, @slava77, @monttj, @davidlange6 can you please check and sign again.

[slava77]

@cmsbuild please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/19755/console Started: 2017/05/11 14:23

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 92f73cd
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-18341/19755/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-18341/19755/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• You potentially added 5 lines to the logs
• Reco comparison results: 23 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 16
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 1164335
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1374
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 1162843
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 118
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• Checked 63 log files, 14 edm output root files, 16 DQM output files

[slava77]

+1

for #18341 92f73cd

• updates to miniAOD MET variables: modified regular MET significance, changed computation of PUPPI MET. All are in the scope of legacy re-miniAOD v2 (in case it happens in 80X). Changes files are consistent with what we have in 9X/master.
• jenkins tests pass and comparisons with baseline show differences in PUPPI MET (all variables) and in slimmedMET significance. All are expected.

I will put this PR on hold to indicate that it is supposed to be merged only when we are ready to build a re-miniAOD v2 release.

[slava77]

hold

to indicate that it is supposed to be merged only when we are ready to build a re-miniAOD v2 release.

[cmsbuild]

Pull request has been put on hold by @slava77
They need to issue an unhold command to remove the hold state or L1 can unhold it for all

[ahinzmann]

@slava77 We'd like to backport also #19587 for 80X. Should we merge it into this PR, or what is the appropriate way to get this into 80X?

[slava77]

On 8/2/17 3:02 AM, ahinzmann wrote: @slava77 <https://github.com/slava77> We'd like to backport also #19587 <#19587> for 80X. Should we merge it into this PR, or what is the appropriate way to get this into 80X?

I think that it is practical to merge so that you have just one PR for recipes. Given that it changes default miniAOD outputs, it is possible that this PR will never get merged in 80X.

…

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#18341 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEdcbqrXya3t4kkYQInqly_aDEGVktGaks5sUEk3gaJpZM4M7u_8>.

[zdemirag]

@slava77 : I am not sure I follow your comment on that it is possible this PR will never be merged in 80X. The statement was "to indicate that it is supposed to be merged only when we are ready to build a re-miniAOD v2 release."

These changes are needed for the legacy re-reco, re-miniaod v2 release.

[slava77]

On 8/3/17 8:52 AM, Zeynep Demiragli wrote: @slava77 <https://github.com/slava77> : I am not sure I follow your comment on that it is possible this PR will never be merged in 80X. The statement was "to indicate that it is supposed to be merged only when we are ready to build a re-miniAOD v2 release." These changes are needed for the legacy re-reco, re-miniaod v2 release.

currently there is no plan to re-miniAOD v2 release in 80X. The plan is to do it in 9X (perhaps 93X or 94X, whichever version is there in time for that).

…

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#18341 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEdcboe_U-vEosQECeyflMCwxxWbRD8Cks5sUezQgaJpZM4M7u_8>.

[slava77]

@mmarionncern @zdemirag
The plan is fairly clear now to not make re-miniAOD of the legacy 80X/2016 with 80X.

Please close this PR or clarify the reasons why it should stay open.

Thank you.

[gouskos]

Hi @slava77, This means that fixes in this are not included in the 9X versions? Thanks.

[mmarionncern]

If 80X is not used, the PR can be closed

[slava77]

On 2/1/18 6:49 AM, gouskos wrote: Hi @slava77 <https://github.com/slava77>, This means that fixes in this are not included in the 9X versions? Thanks.

I think that everything useful is already included in 9X since a while. This PR is/was a backport for 8X.