Restructured code of againstElectronDeadECAL tauID

[mbluj]

PR description:

Restructured code of againstElectronDeadECAL discriminator to run on either AOD or miniAOD inputs:

• add a version of the discriminant to run on top of pat::Taus to be used with miniAOD data samples;
• use eta and phi of impact position of the leading PFChargedHadron on ECal surface instead of eta and phi of tau at the vertex (taking bending of track in the magnetic field and the zVertex into account); it can be disabled for backwards compatibility;
• restructure the code in the way that both AOD and miniAOD version of the discriminant call the same algorithm to avoid code duplication;
• move code preforming extrapolation to the ECal surface from the againstElectronMVA algorithm to an auxiliary helper class which avoids code duplication;
• add output of the againstElectronDeadECAL discriminant produced at AOD (already present in RECO/AOD workflow) to slimmedTaus in MiniAOD

Expected some differences:

• small difference in output of PFRecoTauDiscriminationAgainstElectronDeadECAL (AOD) discriminant because of enabled extrapolation to the ECAL (version with the extrapolation disabled gives identical results as one before the changes in this PR);
• new tauID embedded into slimmedTaus in miniAOD.

In addition it is indented to backport the development to releases used currently to analyze data (102X, 106X).
It is also intended to add the discriminant to nanoAOD, but it will go via nanoAOD repository (with link to foreseen backports).

PR validation:

runTheMatrix.py -l limited -i all passed successfully except a few failed due to problem with inputs (DAS_ERROR).

[cmsbuild]

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

-code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-29627/14999

• This PR adds an extra 48KB to repository

Code check has found code style and quality issues which could be resolved by applying following patch(s)

• code-checks:
  https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-29627/14999/code-checks.patch
  e.g. curl https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-29627/14999/code-checks.patch | patch -p1
  You can also run scram build code-checks to apply code checks directly
• code-format:
  https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-29627/14999/code-format.patch
  e.g. curl https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-29627/14999/code-format.patch | patch -p1
  You can also run scram build code-format to apply code format directly

[cmsbuild]

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-29627/15000

• This PR adds an extra 52KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @mbluj for master.

It involves the following packages:

PhysicsTools/PatAlgos
RecoTauTag/RecoTau

@perrotta, @cmsbuild, @santocch, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@rappoccio, @gouskos, @hatakeyamak, @emilbols, @peruzzim, @seemasharmafnal, @mmarionncern, @ahinzmann, @smoortga, @jdolen, @ferencek, @jdamgov, @nhanvtran, @gkasieczka, @schoef, @andrzejnovak, @clelange, @riga, @JyothsnaKomaragiri, @mverzett, @gpetruc, @mariadalfonso this is something you requested to watch as well.
@silviodonato, @dpiparo you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[perrotta]

please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-run-pr-tests/5975/console Started: 2020/05/04 17:26

[slava77]

In addition it is indented to backport the development to releases used currently to analyze data (102X, 106X).

will this backport allow for the default tau ID/reco to stay unchanged using appropriate configuration?

[mbluj]

In addition it is indented to backport the development to releases used currently to analyze data (102X, 106X).

will this backport allow for the default tau ID/reco to stay unchanged using appropriate configuration?

Yes of course, it is the plan.
The aim is to allow users/nanoAOD to rerun the discriminant on top of miniAOD and, in case it is still in time for UL reMiniAOD, store it within miniAOD

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: c923494
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-f85fc7/5975/summary.html
CMSSW: CMSSW_11_1_X_2020-05-04-1100
SCRAM_ARCH: slc7_amd64_gcc820

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-f85fc7/5975/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 2364 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 34
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2696239
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 2
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2695918
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 319
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 33 files compared)
• Checked 147 log files, 16 edm output root files, 34 DQM output files

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 84762b7
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-f85fc7/6459/summary.html
CMSSW: CMSSW_11_1_X_2020-05-19-2300
SCRAM_ARCH: slc7_amd64_gcc820

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-f85fc7/6459/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 2460 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 35
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2694466
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 3
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2694414
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 49
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 34 files compared)
• Checked 150 log files, 16 edm output root files, 35 DQM output files

[slava77]

+1

for #29627 84762b7

• syntax improvements since the last reco signoff
  • @mbluj thank you for the update

[santocch]

+1

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next master IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @silviodonato, @dpiparo (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

[silviodonato]

+1

[mbluj]

Just to be sure: this PR is merged to master, but in time of its review main development series have been switched from 11_1_X to 11_2_X, so the question is if it will appear in both release series or a "backport" to 11_1_X is needed? I am asking as at least now comparison on my development branch with CMSSW_11_1_X shows differences.

[perrotta]

Just to be sure: this PR is merged to master, but in time of its review main development series have been switched from 11_1_X to 11_2_X, so the question is if it will appear in both release series or a "backport" to 11_1_X is needed? I am asking as at least now comparison on my development branch with CMSSW_11_1_X shows differences.

Master is now 11_2_X, and pull requests are (only) merged in it.
If you think this PR is eligible for entering the bug_fix 11_1_0_pre9 pre-release, please prepare a backport pull request. The same git branch should still be mergeable also in 11_1_X.

[mbluj]

Just to be sure: this PR is merged to master, but in time of its review main development series have been switched from 11_1_X to 11_2_X, so the question is if it will appear in both release series or a "backport" to 11_1_X is needed? I am asking as at least now comparison on my development branch with CMSSW_11_1_X shows differences.

Master is now 11_2_X, and pull requests are (only) merged in it.
If you think this PR is eligible for entering the bug_fix 11_1_0_pre9 pre-release, please prepare a backport pull request. The same git branch should still be mergeable also in 11_1_X.

Thanks Andrea! I'm going to prepare the PR to 11_1_X