Jet ID update to the Run2017 prescription #22323
Conversation
|
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-22323/3533 |
|
A new Pull Request was created by @knash for master. It involves the following packages: PhysicsTools/SelectorUtils @perrotta, @cmsbuild, @monttj, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
|
please test |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
Comparison job queued. |
|
Comparison is ready @slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:
Comparison Summary:
|
|
This code looks like being pure analysis code It does not affect reco production, and therefore I refrain from proposing code optimization, even though the two almost fully identically copy/pasted constructor could be better factorized, for the sake of avoiding possible future mistakes. Was the change agreed with or notified to the analyses affected, or at least endorsed by JetMET POG? |
|
Hi! I would suggest to split into TIGHT and TIGHT_LEP_VETO as for the recommendation, including and excluding and including the electron/muon fraction cuts. It his way analyzers have the same options as we recommend on the TWiki. |
|
Hey Andreas, right this was what I was planning on implementing originally but the previous iteration had not included the lepveto operating point so I was not sure if there was any demand. However I see no reason not to include it as a new feature -- let me add the option and test . |
|
This PR now has conflicts with PhysicsTools/SelectorUtils/interface/PFJetIDSelectionFunctor.h |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
+1 The following merge commits were also included on top of IB + this PR after doing git cms-merge-topic: |
|
Comparison job queued. |
|
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
|
+1
|
|
@knash : do you plan a 94X backport for it? |
|
@knash I assume this is first of all needed for the 2017 analysis, so I consider natural a backport to 94X, where such a work is supposed to happen. |
|
+1 |
|
merge |
|
Hello, yes a 94X backport would make sense here |
|
@knash are you going to provide it? |
|
sure, so this would just be merging with the 9_4_X branch instead of master? |
|
@knash, please make and submit an identical PR for 9_4_X
knash <notifications@github.com> ha scritto:
… sure, so this would just be merging with the 9_4_X branch instead of master?
--
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#22323 (comment)
|
|
it seems the backport to 94X wasn't made yet. Can you create it and link it here ? |
|
Hello, I have created the backport here: #22671 Thanks, |
Jet ID update to the Run2017 prescription
Update of the jetID criterion to the Run2017 prescription (TIGHT operating point).
https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMS/JetID13TeVRun2017
The LOOSE operating point is no longer supported, so this PR would give a warning and switch to TIGHT.
THIS PR only updates the PFJetIDSelectionFunctor.h and pfJetIDSelector_cfi.py defaults to define and select the "WINTER17" version. In theory there are other files that reference these operating points
(https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=WINTER16&type=) that this PR could also update, but I am not sure if this is appropriate.
The new prescription does not require the definition of a Charged EM Fraction (CEF) cut for the operating point here, so this has been taken out of the jetid definition. The other options would be to keep it and set the CEF cut to at >=1 or set ignoreCut(indexCEF_).