Fix for Legacy2016 Smearings

[previsualconsent]

Discussed in #4

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @previsualconsent (Peter Hansen) for branch master.

@cmsbuild, @smuzaffar, @gudrutis, @mrodozov can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
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.

external issue cms-sw/cmsdist#4048

[slava77]

@Sam-Harper
I just wanted to confirm that this is the only change we need to fix the smearing

[slava77]

I see that the file already present in CMSSW from #4 is changed in the same way in this PR.
The changes are in agreement with slide 6 in https://indico.cern.ch/event/697082/contributions/3018397/attachments/1656254/2651425/2018-05-25-EGM-ScalesSmearings.pdf (with more decimal points though).
So, this looks as expected.

The tests from cms-sw/cmsdist#4036 should be applicable to changes from this PR as well.
cms-sw/cmsdist#4036 (comment) shows that the jenkins tests pass with differences in wf 136.7611 (the 2016 re-miniAOD). All changes in this workflow are in slimmedPhotons and slimeedElectrons in userFloats, as expected.
So, I think that we can proceed with merging this PR and also the matching cmsdist PRs (after tests, if necessary to confirm the same changes)

[fabiocos]

+1

[fabiocos]

@smuzaffar we need a cmsdist entry for master corresponding to the PR, and a corresponding one in 9_4_X

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #6 was updated.

external issue cms-sw/cmsdist#4048

[slava77]

@previsualconsent @Sam-Harper
please comment on the apparently continuing updates of these external files.
Is this a work in progress and we should hold off the start of the 94X 2016 re-mini?

The last set of updates seems like a significant bugfix.
Is it certain that this is now the last of it?

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #6 was updated.

external issue cms-sw/cmsdist#4048

[Sam-Harper]

Hi Slava, this was discovered today

This is a significant bug fix which meant that the MC didnt scale the uncertainties propagated to them. It slipped through my validation.

This should be the last of them.

[previsualconsent]

Yes, I was unaware of a specific use case that is now covered by the latest two commits.

[slava77]

is another commit 5 mins ago the last one?

I think it's worth giving you ~8 hours to double/triple-check.

[Sam-Harper]

agreed!

[smuzaffar]

assign reconstruction
please sign it before we merge and update cmsdist

[cmsbuild]

New categories assigned: reconstruction

@slava77,@perrotta you have been requested to review this Pull request/Issue and eventually sign? Thanks

[slava77]

@Sam-Harper @previsualconsent
I just wanted to check with you that the final double/triple-checks are complete and you do not expect to make more changes.
Please confirm.
Thank you.

[Sam-Harper]

We expect no more changes. The MC is correctly getting scale uncertainties with a central scale value of 1. Which means the changes we added worked.

[slava77]

+1

@smuzaffar @mrodozov
please merge this.
We can then run the standard tests after cms-sw/cmsdist#4036 (or an equivalent) is updated