MET bugfix for miniAOD + addition of caloMET in slimmedMET

[mmarionncern]

This PR fixes the most important bugs observed in miniAODs during the Phys14 exercise.
(NB. the full fix is only complete with #8027 integrated)

Following changes are implemented :

• pat::MET cor and uncorrected functions are deprecated and now retrieve -1, shift function have to be used instead
• MET smearing is disabled per default from the miniAOD production config file.
• protections in the PATMETSlimmer producer have been added to not crash if jet resolution uncertainties are missing (because they are computed and are relevant only when smearing is applied in the current implementation)
• fix of the jet energy scale uncertainty Up/Down variations which were identical
• fix of the unclustered energy scale variation not properly computed due to skimmed jet collection used to compute the type1 and 2 MET correction (unclustered energy scale variation is linked to the type2 MET correction)
• fix a bug during the type1 computation in PAT, due to muon cleaning not properly taken into account
• add basic caloMET information int he slimmedMET class, can be then accessible in one round for experts who wants to have a look at the caloMET

Changes expected during the validation :

• smearing has been removed from the MET, MET pt resolution will improve compared to the old code implementation
• fix of the muon cleaning for the type1 MET brings back a perfect agreement between the RECO and PAT level. small variations expected in events containing muons.

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @mmarionncern for CMSSW_7_4_X.

MET bugfix for miniAOD

It involves the following packages:

DataFormats/PatCandidates
PhysicsTools/PatAlgos
PhysicsTools/PatUtils

@cmsbuild, @vadler, @nclopezo, @monttj can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@rappoccio, @imarches, @ahinzmann, @acaudron, @TaiSakuma, @jdolen, @nhanvtran, @schoef, @ferencek, @mariadalfonso, @pvmulder this is something you requested to watch as well.
You can sign-off by replying to this message having '+1' in the first line of your reply.
You can reject by replying to this message having '-1' in the first line of your reply.
If you are a L2 or a release manager you can ask for tests by saying 'please test' in the first line of a comment.
@Degano you are the release manager for this.
You can merge this pull request by typing 'merge' in the first line of your comment.

[mmarionncern]

@cmsbuild , please test

[gpetruc]

I think it would be better if the methods uncorrectedPt and such were defined so that they call shiftedPt with the appropriate argument (i.e. so that the people doing met.uncorrectedPt() gets the raw MET as they're expecting), and other methods be completely removed rather than having them return -1.

[mmarionncern]

@gpetruc , uncorrected function now returns the output of shiftedX methods
Removal of other deprecated functions and contents
Now contains the #8027 fix

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #8159 was updated. @cmsbuild, @vadler, @nclopezo, @monttj can you please check and sign again.

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 6f4d982
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-8159/3247/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-8159/3247/summary.html

[arizzi]

frankly I do not get it... why are you filling that vector at all then? There is little to change in the format, it is a vector it can have any size... given that you have to explicitelly fill it for 13 different values I do not understand why you cannot in that place fill it only once.

[mmarionncern]

Remember that I am not the one that designed that format at the beginning, not checking what was used as input.
This PR has been done in emergency this week to fix bugs, and not the format. Even more because we prefer to put the main effort into the new format which unfortunately will not be ready for 740.

[gpetruc]

Hi,

@monttj is there anything holding this PR to be integrated in 7_4_X? (and similarly #8219 in 7_5_X)

Giovanni

[monttj]

+1
no, I don't have an issue with this PR.

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_7_4_X IBs unless changes (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @davidlange6, @Degano, @ktf, @smuzaffar

[davidlange6]

+1