Backport of #23120. PUPPI jet ID

[ahinzmann]

Without #23120 in 94X, DQM validation shows large inefficiencies for PUPPI jets in the forward region in JetMET/Jet/CleanedslimmedJetsPuppi/JetIDPassFractionVSeta which have shown up in the 9_4_9_cand1 validation.
Is this right branch for this fix?

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @ahinzmann for CMSSW_9_4_MAOD_X.

It involves the following packages:

CommonTools/PileupAlgos
DQMOffline/JetMET
PhysicsTools/SelectorUtils

@perrotta, @monttj, @vazzolini, @kmaeshima, @dmitrijus, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @slava77, @gpetruc, @vanbesien, @arizzi can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@TaiSakuma, @rappoccio, @mmarionncern, @jdamgov, @jdolen, @nhanvtran, @gkasieczka, @schoef, @mariadalfonso, @seemasharmafnal, @rociovilar this is something you requested to watch as well.
@davidlange6, @slava77, @fabiocos you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[slava77]

@ahinzmann
please elaborate on the impact of this PR/fix.

• all changes to existing objects in 94X are expected to be done in run2_miniAOD_94XFall17 and/or in run2_miniAOD_80XLegacy
  • CommonTools/PileupAlgos/src/PuppiContainer.cc has the changes applied unconditionally and not configurably
• I expect that at this point only fixes to features that are unique to 80XLegacy inputs are allowed

If the updates are still needed for analysis or DQM plots:

• please change so that the default behavior does not change and the new feature is enabled by configuration

If changes in CommonTools/PileupAlgos/src/PuppiContainer.cc are needed in general, I think that they will have to wait for clearance of re-miniAOD v3 for the 94XFall17 inputs.

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #23588 was updated. @perrotta, @monttj, @vazzolini, @kmaeshima, @dmitrijus, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @slava77, @gpetruc, @vanbesien, @arizzi can you please check and sign again.

[ahinzmann]

I have modified it such that only the DQM part is fixed and no changes to the algorithm itself are made. Does it make sense like this?

[slava77]

@cmsbuild please test

@ahinzmann it's more clear now in terms of integration

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/28697/console Started: 2018/06/14 16:44

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: a600f3b
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-23588/28697/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-23588/28697/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 27
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2721493
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 811
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2720520
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 162
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0

[ahinzmann]

Sorry for the noise. 9_4_9_cand1 actually looks good in terms of PUPPI forward jets, which is confirmed by the comparisons in the PR. This change is thus not strictly necessary, since it only makes small differences. Therefore closing this PR.