Skip to content
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

Run iii electron cut based #39839

Closed
wants to merge 9 commits into from

Conversation

rgoldouz
Copy link
Contributor

PR description:

Dear Experts,

Based on the the following request for adding Run3 electron cut based IDs,
#39759

I have added the run3 IDs to the nanoAOD. We would like to keep the Run2 IDs. Therefore, I have added a new branch for Run3 ID that is called "cutBasedRunIIIWinter22". So we have two branches for the electron cut based IDs, "cutBased" branch which is for Run2 IDs and "cutBasedRunIIIWinter22" which for run3 IDs. I have also added the corresponding bitmap branch.

Please let me know your comments.

Thanks,
Reza

@swagata87 @a-kapoor @DebabrataBhowmik

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-39839/32720

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @rgoldouz (Reza Goldouzian) for master.

It involves the following packages:

  • PhysicsTools/NanoAOD (xpog)
  • PhysicsTools/PatAlgos (xpog, reconstruction)
  • RecoEgamma/ElectronIdentification (reconstruction)

@cmsbuild, @mandrenguyen, @clacaputo, @swertz, @vlimant can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@rappoccio, @gouskos, @jainshilpi, @schoef, @emilbols, @mbluj, @demuller, @varuns23, @seemasharmafnal, @mmarionncern, @jdolen, @ahinzmann, @lgray, @missirol, @Prasant1993, @azotz, @Sam-Harper, @jdamgov, @nhanvtran, @gkasieczka, @hatakeyamak, @andrzejnovak, @AlexDeMoor, @AnnikaStein, @valsdav, @JyothsnaKomaragiri, @sobhatta, @afiqaize, @gpetruc, @wrtabb, @mariadalfonso, @sameasy, @ram1123 this is something you requested to watch as well.
@perrotta, @dpiparo, @rappoccio you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

@swagata87
Copy link
Contributor

so this PR already contain #39759, then I guess that one can be closed and this one can be reviewed? is that fine?

@cmsbuild cmsbuild mentioned this pull request Oct 25, 2022
3 tasks
@swertz
Copy link
Contributor

swertz commented Oct 25, 2022

so this PR already contain #39759, then I guess that one can be closed and this one can be reviewed? is that fine?

Yes, please do.

@rgoldouz
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hello Experts,

I just made a new commit where I have modified the address of the effective area file to use the one for Run3.

I think my latest commit
"@rgoldouz
RunIII electron ID is added + new effArea"

Will be merged. Right?

Thanks,
Reza

@swagata87 @a-kapoor @DebabrataBhowmik

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-39839/32722

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Pull request #39839 was updated. @cmsbuild, @mandrenguyen, @clacaputo, @swertz, @vlimant can you please check and sign again.

@@ -132,8 +144,8 @@ def _get_bitmapVIDForEle_docstring(modules,WorkingPoints):
relative = cms.bool(False),
rho_MiniIso = cms.InputTag("fixedGridRhoFastjetAll"),
rho_PFIso = cms.InputTag("fixedGridRhoFastjetAll"),
EAFile_MiniIso = cms.FileInPath("RecoEgamma/ElectronIdentification/data/Fall17/effAreaElectrons_cone03_pfNeuHadronsAndPhotons_94X.txt"),
EAFile_PFIso = cms.FileInPath("RecoEgamma/ElectronIdentification/data/Fall17/effAreaElectrons_cone03_pfNeuHadronsAndPhotons_94X.txt"),
EAFile_MiniIso = cms.FileInPath("RecoEgamma/ElectronIdentification/data/Run3_Winter22/effAreaElectrons_cone03_pfNeuHadronsAndPhotons_122X.txt"),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Don't we want to keep the Fall17 constants for Run2 samples?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes, @rgoldouz can you fix it please? It's better to not delete anything related to Run2 IDs, but just add things related to Run3 IDs.

@swagata87
Copy link
Contributor

type egamma

@rgoldouz
Copy link
Contributor Author

rgoldouz commented Nov 1, 2022

Hello @swertz ,

Keeping fall17 files needs more careful considerations.
These effective area files are used in the recalculation of the isolation variables. In my PR, isolation variables are the same as the one used in the run3 ID. If we want to keep isolation variables connected to run2 ID we need to add the same iso variables for run2 ID. Is it feasible by the XPOG people considering the fact that the iso variables are float?

I am also applying another change. We would like to make run3 ID as the default cut based for run3. We also want not to add run3 ID when the code is running on Run2 datasets.
For doing that I am going to use the process modifier. While looking to the code I found many eras that will never be use (I think). Do we have any plan to rerun the nanoAOD code in CMSSW12 on the samples with eras run2_miniAOD_80XLegacy,run2_nanoAOD_94X2016,run2_nanoAOD_94XMiniAODv1,run2_nanoAOD_94XMiniAODv2,run2_nanoAOD_102Xv1 for example.

These era modifications have made the code dirty and difficult to modify/debug. Do you have any plan to clean the code? I can also help if needed.

Please let us know your opinion,
Thanks

@swertz
Copy link
Contributor

swertz commented Nov 2, 2022

enable nano

@clacaputo
Copy link
Contributor

please test

@mandrenguyen
Copy link
Contributor

please abort

@mandrenguyen
Copy link
Contributor

please test
(seems tests got stuck)

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Nov 7, 2022

-1

Failed Tests: RelVals-INPUT RelVals-NANO
Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-8d5d06/28810/summary.html
COMMIT: b6beb5b
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_6_X_2022-11-06-2300/el8_amd64_gcc10
Additional Tests: NANO
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/39839/28810/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

RelVals-INPUT

  • 2500.02500.0_mc80X+TTbarMINIAOD8.0+NANO_mc8.0+HRV_NANO_mc/step2_mc80X+TTbarMINIAOD8.0+NANO_mc8.0+HRV_NANO_mc.log
  • 2500.12500.1_mc94X2016+TTbar2016MINIAOD9.4v2+NANO_2016mc9.4v2+HRV_NANO_mc/step2_mc94X2016+TTbar2016MINIAOD9.4v2+NANO_2016mc9.4v2+HRV_NANO_mc.log
  • 2500.0012500.001_data80X+MuonEG2016HMINIAOD8.0+NANO_data8.0+HRV_NANO_data/step2_data80X+MuonEG2016HMINIAOD8.0+NANO_data8.0+HRV_NANO_data.log
Expand to see more relval errors ...

RelVals-NANO

  • 2500.02500.0_mc80X+TTbarMINIAOD8.0+NANO_mc8.0+HRV_NANO_mc/step2_mc80X+TTbarMINIAOD8.0+NANO_mc8.0+HRV_NANO_mc.log
  • 2500.12500.1_mc94X2016+TTbar2016MINIAOD9.4v2+NANO_2016mc9.4v2+HRV_NANO_mc/step2_mc94X2016+TTbar2016MINIAOD9.4v2+NANO_2016mc9.4v2+HRV_NANO_mc.log
  • 2500.0012500.001_data80X+MuonEG2016HMINIAOD8.0+NANO_data8.0+HRV_NANO_data/step2_data80X+MuonEG2016HMINIAOD8.0+NANO_data8.0+HRV_NANO_data.log
Expand to see more relval errors ...

Comparison Summary

Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 9971 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 48
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3416402
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 23054
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3393326
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 2.326 KiB( 47 files compared)
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 11634.0,... ): 0.240 KiB Physics/NanoAODDQM
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 11834.0 ): 0.415 KiB SiStrip/MechanicalView
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 13234.0,... ): 0.157 KiB Physics/NanoAODDQM
  • Checked 206 log files, 48 edm output root files, 48 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: found differences in 3 / 46 workflows

@swertz
Copy link
Contributor

swertz commented Nov 7, 2022

@rgoldouz tests on 80X and 94X samples fail because the new ID is not added here:

for modifier in run2_miniAOD_80XLegacy,run2_nanoAOD_94X2016:

However, support for these old inputs is being dropped in #39796, so once that is merged you will be able to rebase your PR without having to worry about 80X and 94X.

In the meanwhile you could take care of the pending item about isolation/EA?

EDIT: #39796 has been merged, so you'll need to rebase...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

7 participants