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
Herwig7 jet partonFlavour (10_6_X) #39403
Herwig7 jet partonFlavour (10_6_X) #39403
Conversation
A new Pull Request was created by @mseidel42 (Markus Seidel) for CMSSW_10_6_X. It involves the following packages:
@cmsbuild can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here
|
backport of #26885 |
please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-ce5675/27733/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:
|
assign generators |
New categories assigned: generators @mkirsano,@menglu21,@alberto-sanchez,@SiewYan,@GurpreetSinghChahal,@Saptaparna you have been requested to review this Pull request/Issue and eventually sign? Thanks |
+1 |
please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-ce5675/27977/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
Let me add our HERWIG experts @Dominic-Stafford and @theofil to this thread. |
@mseidel42 this is what is expected right (reference to Andrea's message)? I am fine with merging, but let's double check just in case. |
@perrotta do you have a link to the ORP meeting, please? |
But in general I agree with Sapta, I don't see an issue with changing the parton content here since it's just adding information that wasn't there before |
here it is: https://indico.cern.ch/event/1208161/ |
Hi all, I need to have a closer look at the HydJet event record. If blue=old and red=new then things would make sense: previously missed gluons are now taken into account for the jet flavor. |
As discussed at the ORP meeting right now, the issue is not whether the change makes sense or not, but rather whether we can modify GenJets in some frozen produced release. It was agreed with @Dominic-Stafford that the update will be ruled by a modifyer, so that only the dedicately produced MC samples will have it included |
Hi, that's an overengineered and error-prone (because it requires manual intervention) solution to a non-problem. We are just fixing partonFlavour for samples where it was broken and completely unusable before. If anybody was actually using those 0 values they need to repeat their study with a fixed sample. If you prefer I can revert e16c421 and just leave the minimally invasive bbfc5d1, fixing the issue for Herwig7 samples (that we are interested in for jet flavor studies that can just not be done with the buggy samples) but leaving other "exotic" samples with the bug. |
For a non-code solution we could just close this PR and run the specific requests with |
removed "+1" , see below Per discussion at ORP, PDMV agrees to document future workflows appropriately with the bug fix, agreed at the meeting to merge. |
Should this get closed in favor of #39971? Once fixed that PR would be the cleaner solution. Still I don't know whether any different decisione was decided at the ORP on nov 15 , at which I was unable to participate. @rappoccio @cms-sw/pdmv-l2 could you please summarize it here, so that we can close the unneeded PR? |
Hi Andrea, On 15 Nov we agreed that this PR would be merged and new samples with the bugfix marked by PdmV. This would have the advantage that all new samples with Herwig7 (which was missed) and non-standard generators will finally have a meaningful partonFlavour for the jets. We would also have agreement again with the default behavior in both Run 1 and Run 3 production. As long as 10_6 is relevant for Run 2 analysis I really don't see any value in producing new samples without the proper flavor information. The information is also usually not used in analysis, so it should not break anyone's workflow, while enabling us to do precision studies on jet flavor response. Best, |
Dear Markus, thank you for your message. However; I think this is a wrong decision, and I would like to ask explicitely the confirmation by @cms-sw/pdmv-l2 . In any case, I don't want to revert any decision taken. Therefore, if @cms-sw/pdmv-l2 confirms that this is really what they plan for the 10_6 cycle, I'll merge this PR and make a new release with it. (Otherwise, we will merge #39971 and make a release with it: therefore, the release with the fix will become available anyhow in the next few days). |
Dear Andrea, Given that we need a new chained campaign for Herwig samples anyways to be able to do JMENano, and provided these will affect only few samples and not affecting anything else, we can handle it internally in PdmV management to add a bugfix tag to the new Herwig samples. Best, B. |
please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-ce5675/29246/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
+1
|
merge |
PR description:
Backport of #26885
Needed for jet flavor correction / uncertainty studies to distinguish light quark and gluon jets. Will ask for new 10_6 release and reprocessing of Herwig7 JMENanos afterwards.
Note that will also fix the issue for any newly produced MiniAods.
PR validation:
Jet_partonFlavour
becomes available inTT_TuneCH3_13TeV-powheg-herwig7
JMENano after applying patches:@cms-sw/jetmet-pog-l2 FYI