Switch parton flavour in MiniAOD from algorithmic to physics definition 75

[ahinzmann]

backport of #10499

Replace in MiniAOD the algorithmic jet flavour by physics jet flavour, that is used for quark/gluon tagging in JetMET.
b-tagging uses the hadron definition which remains untouched in MiniAOD.
Add jetFlavourInfo to ak4 and ak8 jet collections, to be able to identify gluon splitting to bb.
Add lepton matching for identification of hadronic taus.

With this scheme:
b,c can be identified by either j.hadronFlavour() (hadron definition) or j.partonFlavour() (physics definition)
g,u,d,s can be identified by j.partonFlavour() (physics definition)
gluon splitting to bb can be identified roughly by (j.partonFlavour()==21 && len(j.jetFlavourInfo().getbHadrons())==2 )

The size increase (edmEventSize) for MiniAOD (on 1300 ttbar events) when adding JetFlavourInfo and lepton matching is the following:
without JetFlavourInfo:
patJets_slimmedJets__PAT. 32977.1 2663.08
patJets_slimmedJetsAK8__PAT. 1141.85 251.157
with JetFlavourInfo:
patJets_slimmedJets__PAT. 33015.2 2696.82
patJets_slimmedJetsAK8__PAT. 1144.26 252.791
with lepton matching:
patJets_slimmedJets__PAT. 33025.3 2707.15
patJets_slimmedJetsAK8__PAT. 1144.78 253.252

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @ahinzmann for CMSSW_7_5_X.

Switch parton flavour in MiniAOD from algorithmic to physics definition 75

It involves the following packages:

PhysicsTools/JetMCAlgos
PhysicsTools/PatAlgos

@cmsbuild, @vadler, @monttj can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@rappoccio, @imarches, @acaudron, @mmarionncern, @jdolen, @nhanvtran, @schoef, @ferencek, @gpetruc, @mariadalfonso, @pvmulder, @TaiSakuma 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.

[monttj]

please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 0927982
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-10751/7469/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-10751/7469/summary.html

[monttj]

+1

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_7_5_X IBs once checked with relvals in the development release cycle of CMSSW (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @davidlange6, @Degano, @smuzaffar

[davidlange6]

@cmsbuild, please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_7_5_X IBs once checked with relvals in the development release cycle of CMSSW or unless it breaks tests. This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @davidlange6, @Degano, @smuzaffar

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_7_5_X IBs once checked with relvals in the development release cycle of CMSSW or unless it breaks tests. This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @davidlange6, @Degano, @smuzaffar

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 0927982
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-10751/7752/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_7_5_X IBs once checked with relvals in the development release cycle of CMSSW (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @davidlange6, @Degano, @smuzaffar

[davidlange6]

+1