Backport of #27826 (Add customized NanoAOD content for JetMET JERC studies)

[nurfikri89]

Backport of additions from #27826

For customized NanoAOD production for JetMET jet energy calibration. The script adds a few additional variables for AK4PFCHS and AK8PFPUPPI jets which are not available in the latest nanoAOD production (v5). It saves additional (reco & gen) jet collections that are available in MiniAODs and also jet collections that are not available in MiniAODs by building the jet collections first. These collections are the required input for jet energy calibration and the customized NanoAOD production is first step in the workflow to automate the jet energy calibration. This script needs to be backported to 10_6_X, once merged, for the ultra legacy campaigns.

if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR:

Original PR is #27826

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @nurfikri89 (Nurfikri Norjoharuddeen) for CMSSW_10_6_X.

It involves the following packages:

PhysicsTools/NanoAOD
PhysicsTools/PatAlgos

@perrotta, @cmsbuild, @fgolf, @slava77, @santocch, @peruzzim can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@rappoccio, @gouskos, @emilbols, @HeinerTholen, @peruzzim, @seemasharmafnal, @mmarionncern, @ahinzmann, @smoortga, @acaudron, @jdolen, @ferencek, @jdamgov, @nhanvtran, @gkasieczka, @schoef, @andrzejnovak, @clelange, @riga, @JyothsnaKomaragiri, @mverzett, @gpetruc, @mariadalfonso, @pvmulder 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

• Backported from Add customized NanoAOD content for JetMET JERC studies #27826

[ahinzmann]

We would like to use this config to request special RelVals to derive JECs for UL2017, so having it on a time scale of 1-3 weeks in a release would be appreciated.

[slava77]

@cmsbuild please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-run-pr-tests/2689/console Started: 2019/09/26 16:35

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 1e3ebc7
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-d30b65/2689/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-d30b65/2689/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 33
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3212305
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3211970
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 334
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 32 files compared)
• Checked 137 log files, 14 edm output root files, 33 DQM output files

[slava77]

backport of #27826

[slava77]

+1

for #28052 1e3ebc7

• code changes are in line with the PR description. The backport is correct (the same new configuration level methods are added).
• jenkins tests pass and comparisons with the baseline show no differences (the new methods are not in the standard workflows)

[peruzzim]

+xpog

[santocch]

+1

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_10_6_X IBs (tests are also fine) and once validation in the development release cycle CMSSW_11_0_X is complete. This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @davidlange6, @slava77, @smuzaffar, @fabiocos (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

[ahinzmann]

@davidlange6, @slava77, @smuzaffar, @fabiocos: We would like to request special relvals with PdmV for UL2017 with this. When is the next 10_6 release foreseen? Can a 10_6 release with this be made?
Our preferred timescale is <2 weeks.

[peruzzim]

I would propose to have this together with the new release for NanoAODv6 - let's discuss on the ORP mailing list

[ahinzmann]

What was the conclusion. Which 10_6 release will this enter?

[fabiocos]

to be discussed in next ORP meeting

[slava77]

to be discussed in next ORP meeting

I'm trying to recall if this was actually discussed last Tuesday (but I have no memory of that).
@fabiocos what is the current conclusion for this PR ?
Please clarify.
Thank you.

[fabiocos]

@peruzzim @slava77 @ahinzmann in view of having a full set of developments for nanoAOD v6 ready I integrate also this one, even if not explicitly mentioned in #28119 . Anyway the timescale for a build should be clarified based on test/production plans with PPD @srimanob

[fabiocos]

+1