New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
backport tau pog nanoAOD clean up to 10_6_X #33658
backport tau pog nanoAOD clean up to 10_6_X #33658
Conversation
A new Pull Request was created by @swozniewski for CMSSW_10_6_X. It involves the following packages: PhysicsTools/NanoAOD @cmsbuild, @mariadalfonso, @gouskos, @fgolf can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-933c25/14940/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
from Configuration.Eras.Modifier_run2_nanoAOD_92X_cff import run2_nanoAOD_92X | ||
from Configuration.Eras.Modifier_run2_nanoAOD_94XMiniAODv1_cff import run2_nanoAOD_94XMiniAODv1 | ||
from Configuration.Eras.Modifier_run2_nanoAOD_94XMiniAODv2_cff import run2_nanoAOD_94XMiniAODv2 | ||
from Configuration.Eras.Modifier_run2_nanoAOD_94X2016_cff import run2_nanoAOD_94X2016 | ||
from Configuration.Eras.Modifier_run2_nanoAOD_102Xv1_cff import run2_nanoAOD_102Xv1 | ||
from Configuration.Eras.Modifier_run2_nanoAOD_106Xv1_cff import run2_nanoAOD_106Xv1 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
you can profit to replace all these import with
from PhysicsTools.NanoAOD.nano_eras_cff import *
(to add at the beginning of the file)
@@ -139,13 +142,13 @@ def _tauId8WPMask(pattern,doc): | |||
|
|||
_variablesMiniV2 = cms.PSet( | |||
_tauVarsBase, | |||
_mvaAntiEVars, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The _deepTauVars2017v2 is not present in master and is also unused in 10_6, so can be cleaned up
@@ -158,25 +161,29 @@ def _tauId8WPMask(pattern,doc): | |||
|
|||
tauTable.variables = _variablesMiniV2 | |||
|
|||
(run2_nanoAOD_92X | run2_nanoAOD_94XMiniAODv2 | run2_nanoAOD_94X2016 | run2_nanoAOD_102Xv1 | run2_nanoAOD_106Xv1).toModify(tauTable, | |||
variables = cms.PSet(tauTable.variables, _mvaAntiEVars, _mvaIsoVars2015Reduced, _mvaIsoVars2017v1, _mvaIsoVars2017v2) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
we removed the _mvaAntiEVars in the master, why not here as well ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't know why, but the era dependency of _mvaAntiEVars here was arranged the other way round than in master, i.e. the default was what is needed in previous eras and for 106v2 it was changed via modifier. I was conservative with my change and only removed the modifier, but if you prefer, I can arrange it like master.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just for completeness: Concerning the line above in particular, this required to restore mvaAntiEVars since it is not done by a following modifier.
rawAntiEle = Var("tauID('againstElectronMVA6Raw2015')", float, doc= "Anti-electron MVA discriminator V6 raw output discriminator (2015)", precision=10), | ||
rawAntiEleCat = Var("tauID('againstElectronMVA6category2015')", int, doc="Anti-electron MVA discriminator V6 category (2015"), | ||
idAntiEle = _tauId5WPMask("againstElectron%sMVA62015", doc= "Anti-electron MVA discriminator V6 (2015)") | ||
idAntiEleDeadECal = Var("tauID('againstElectronDeadECAL')", bool, doc = "Anti-electron dead-ECal discriminator") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this should be done like in master:
one set the future as default, and then rewire the past.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
alright, to be updated. As I said above, I tried to keep changes wrt. present implementation small. But in fact I was wondering why this was not consistent with the convention you are describing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I will adapt the logic for idAntiEleDeadECal as well (while the quantity itself was not part of the clean up so far)
Pull request #33658 was updated. @cmsbuild, @mariadalfonso, @gouskos, @fgolf can you please check and sign again. |
@mariadalfonso I applied the requested changes. |
please test |
Thanks a lot for this investigation ! Also worth to add a comment in the python so that we remember later.
|
I hope that reverting will also work for run2_nanoAOD_106Xv2 with nanoAODv9 (not sure whether this is included in the tests). But I think latest UL miniAOD contains the quantity due to these lines https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/CMSSW_10_6_X/PhysicsTools/PatAlgos/python/slimming/miniAOD_tools.py#L414-L430 |
Pull request #33658 was updated. @cmsbuild, @mariadalfonso, @gouskos, @fgolf can you please check and sign again. |
please test |
yes, cmsbuild tests the run2_nanoAOD_106Xv2 here, this is the wf 136.8523 |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-933c25/15006/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
please test (want to recheck with a more update IB where similar changes are made on nanoDQM_cff.py) |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-933c25/15058/summary.html Comparison SummaryThe workflows 140.53 have different files in step1_dasquery.log than the ones found in the baseline. You may want to check and retrigger the tests if necessary. You can check it in the "files" directory in the results of the comparisons Summary:
|
+xpog |
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_12_0_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) |
+1 |
PR description:
clean up of tau related nanoAOD content and DQM, i.e. removal of deprecated MVA IDs, update of decayModeID flags and according update of selection.
changes are supposed to leave run2_nanoAOD_106Xv1 and earlier nanoAOD untouched.
PR validation:
passed code checks/format, unit tests, limited matrix tests
if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR:
backport of #33513 to CMSSW 10_6_X for nanoAODv9 producetion.