Add variables for PileUp Jet ID BDT in JME Custom-NanoAODs.

[nurfikri89]

PR description:

This PR adds jet variables needed to train the BDT for PileUp jet ID in the JME Custom-NanoAODs which are not included in the main NanoAODs. The variables are not stored in MiniAODs so they need to be re-calculated again by scheduling pileupJetIdCalculator. Then, the variables need to be stored in ValueMaps and this is done by scheduling PileupJetIDVarProducer plugin which will be added also. The rest is just normal procedure to save variables in NanoAODs. At the moment, these variables are set to be calculated and stored only for AK4PFCHS jets.

This PR needs to be backported to 10_6_X, once merged, for the ultra legacy campaigns.

[cmsbuild]

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

-code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-28430/12827

• This PR adds an extra 24KB to repository

Code check has found code style and quality issues which could be resolved by applying following patch(s)

• code-format:
  https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-28430/12827/code-format.patch
  e.g. curl https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-28430/12827/code-format.patch | patch -p1
  You can also run scram build code-format to apply code format directly

[cmsbuild]

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-28430/12828

• This PR adds an extra 24KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @nurfikri89 (Nurfikri Norjoharuddeen) for master.

It involves the following packages:

PhysicsTools/NanoAOD

@cmsbuild, @santocch, @fgolf, @peruzzim can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@gpetruc this is something you requested to watch as well.
@davidlange6, @slava77, @fabiocos you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[fabiocos]

@peruzzim @fgolf could you please scrutinize this PR? It is fully in your domain

[fabiocos]

please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-run-pr-tests/3750/console Started: 2019/12/03 14:57

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: ccd09f6
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-501d96/3750/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-501d96/3750/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 4 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 34
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2793840
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 2
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2793497
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 341
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 33 files compared)
• Checked 147 log files, 16 edm output root files, 34 DQM output files

[peruzzim]

+xpog

The code looks ok to me, from a technical point of view. Modifications are confined to the PrepJMECustomNanoAOD(process) customise function, and will not affect standard NANOAOD production.
On the other hand, I think that no relval workflow is currently implemented to test the JME-custom NANOAOD production. I assume it was thoroughly tested by JME to ensure it satisfy their needs.
In any case, I would encourage JME to add this check, to be sure we don't inadvertently break this workflow in the future.

[fabiocos]

@nurfikri89 could you please comment about the performed validation?

[santocch]

+1

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next master IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @davidlange6, @slava77, @smuzaffar, @fabiocos (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

[fabiocos]

@nurfikri89 could you please comment about the performed validation?

[nurfikri89]

Hi @fabiocos, the only validation for this PR that we had done is to check that the variables we are adding are the same as the ntuples produced by PileUp Jet ID analyzers (like this) and that the values are not different between the CustomNanoAOD and the ntuples. Maybe the JMAR convenors can comment more on this. @camclean @alefisico

Apologies. I have not setup any validation workflow as suggested by @peruzzim. Is there an example which I can based on?

[fabiocos]

@nurfikri89 for the PR itself I believe that your reference can be ok, but I agree with @peruzzim that adding a dedicated workflow to produce this non-standard NANOAOD (in the spirit of one of the existing 132X workflows) would be useful.

[peruzzim]

If this workflow will be run centrally by PdmV, as I understand will be the case, they will need to define a pilot in the relval system to check it before injection. I think would be the right occasion to have them add the configuration to the relval matrix tests.

[fabiocos]

+1