Add DeepMET into NanoAOD for UltraLegacy in 10_6_X (backport of 30291 and 30926)

[yongbinfeng]

PR description:

Backport DeepMET NanoAOD integration into CMSSW_10_6_X, such that it could be included in UL Nano. More description of DeepMET can be found in the orignal PR. (#30291). Most of the changes in PhysicsTools/PatAlgos/plugins/RecoMETExtractor.cc come from the code-format checks. Also backport #30926 to fix the break condition.

For the ultra legacy (run2_miniAOD_devel) DeepMETs will not be computed on the fly, but to be extracted from MiniAOD. For other eras DeepMETs will be computed on the fly and saved to Nano.

PR validation:

Check with different eras and work as expected. Also passed the runTheMatrix.py without errors.

if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR:

Backport of #30291 and #30926

@steggema @intrepid42

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @yongbinfeng (Yongbin Feng) for CMSSW_10_6_X.

It involves the following packages:

PhysicsTools/NanoAOD
PhysicsTools/PatAlgos
PhysicsTools/PatUtils
RecoMET/METPUSubtraction

@perrotta, @gouskos, @cmsbuild, @fgolf, @slava77, @jpata, @mariadalfonso, @santocch, @peruzzim 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, @qliphy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

• Backported from Add DeepMET into NanoAOD #30291

[slava77]

@cmsbuild please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.

• CMSSW_10_6_X_2020-08-11-1100/slc7_amd64_gcc700: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-run-pr-tests/8708/console Started: 2020/08/11 18:56

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 78461c1
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-0e5a5a/8708/summary.html
CMSSW: CMSSW_10_6_X_2020-08-11-1100
SCRAM_ARCH: slc7_amd64_gcc700

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-0e5a5a/8708/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• ROOTFileChecks: Some differences in event products or their sizes found
• Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 34
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3214618
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3214283
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 334
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.758 KiB( 33 files compared)
• DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 1325.7 ): 0.758 KiB Physics/NanoAODDQM
• Checked 140 log files, 14 edm output root files, 34 DQM output files

[perrotta]

backport of #30291
backport of #30926

[yongbinfeng]

@yongbinfeng
there is a merge conflict in PhysicsTools/NanoAOD/python/met_cff.py now.
Please update this PR.

@slava77 I used the 'resolve conflicts' from this webpage and it seems to have synchronized with all the other updates and made the commit very heavy. (The diff is still clean though.) Is it fine doing this? Or should I do a rebase (or something else) instead? Thanks!

[slava77]

@yongbinfeng
there is a merge conflict in PhysicsTools/NanoAOD/python/met_cff.py now.
Please update this PR.

@slava77 I used the 'resolve conflicts' from this webpage and it seems to have synchronized with all the other updates and made the commit very heavy. (The diff is still clean though.) Is it fine doing this? Or should I do a rebase (or something else) instead? Thanks!

which web page?
Did you follow the rebase-topic from http://cms-sw.github.io/tutorial-resolve-conflicts.html#the-above-is-all-great-stuff-but-i-need-a-quick-recipe ?

In the context of the PR the commit diff is rather simple 2703a46
So, this is an acceptable way.

[yongbinfeng]

@yongbinfeng
there is a merge conflict in PhysicsTools/NanoAOD/python/met_cff.py now.
Please update this PR.

@slava77 I used the 'resolve conflicts' from this webpage and it seems to have synchronized with all the other updates and made the commit very heavy. (The diff is still clean though.) Is it fine doing this? Or should I do a rebase (or something else) instead? Thanks!

which web page?
Did you follow the rebase-topic from http://cms-sw.github.io/tutorial-resolve-conflicts.html#the-above-is-all-great-stuff-but-i-need-a-quick-recipe ?

Sorry I meant: if there are conflicts, at the bottom of this page there is an option 'resolve conflicts', offered by github to resolve the conflicts interactively. I should have checked the CMSSW resolve-conflicts instructions more carefully.

In the context of the PR the commit diff is rather simple 2703a46
So, this is an acceptable way.

Thanks for confirming this!

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 2703a46
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-0e5a5a/8884/summary.html
CMSSW: CMSSW_10_6_X_2020-08-24-1100
SCRAM_ARCH: slc7_amd64_gcc700

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-0e5a5a/8884/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• ROOTFileChecks: Some differences in event products or their sizes found
• Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 34
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3214614
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3214279
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 334
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.758 KiB( 33 files compared)
• DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 1325.7 ): 0.758 KiB Physics/NanoAODDQM
• Checked 140 log files, 14 edm output root files, 34 DQM output files

[mariadalfonso]

+xpog
the deepMET is added for previous eras or recomputed when the run2_miniAOD_devel is active.

[ahinzmann]

Doesn't run2_miniAOD_devel need to be renamed to run2_miniAOD_UL? See #31072.

[mariadalfonso]

We decided to use uniformly the run2_miniAOD_devel and we will change later
#31065 (comment)

Decoupling the new mini and new nano give us some flexibility.

[slava77]

+1

for #31120 2703a46

• since the last reco signoff, this was updated in PhysicsTools/NanoAOD/python/met_cff.py to resolve a conflict in a context line (a somewhat trivial change, which is also not in the reco category)

[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_2_X is complete. This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @silviodonato, @dpiparo, @qliphy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

[qliphy]

+1