VID fix & core unit tests + Regression ValueMap Producer code cleanup. (74X)

[lgray]

Backport of #11229.

@ikrav please base your user recipes off of this PR.

@gpetruc @arizzi @davidlange6 Since this now contains a bugfix for the regression it is necessary.

[lgray]

@cmsbuild please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @lgray (Lindsey Gray) for CMSSW_7_4_X.

VID fix & core unit tests + Regression ValueMap Producer code cleanup. (74X)

It involves the following packages:

RecoEgamma/ElectronIdentification
RecoEgamma/PhotonIdentification

@cmsbuild, @cvuosalo, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@Sam-Harper 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.

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 4bb24f7
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-11232/8027/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-11232/8027/summary.html

[lgray]

@cmsbuild please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: baef928
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-11232/8070/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-11232/8070/summary.html

[slava77]

How essential is this one in 74X perspective?
We will start taking data at 3.8 T imminently and making substantive changes mid-way may make things more complicated for analyzers.

From what I noticed already, this PR modifies the miniAOD egamma object momenta.
What else is here that changes the miniAOD content?

@davidlange6 @gpetruc

[lgray]

The only super essential change is baef928. The rest of the changes are code clean up and analysis level issues.

There is one additional necessary variable calculation bugfix from @ikrav that could be integrated easily.

[lgray]

There are no other modifications to the MiniAOD content in this PR (as it is at present).

[slava77]

so, I will try to sign off this one today.
@davidlange6 if we can put this in 74X, some prompt delay would be needed, otherwise it goes to some later "natural" time.

[slava77]

+1

for #11232 baef928

• same code changes as in the 76X PR VID fix & core unit tests + Regression ValueMap Producer code cleanup. (76X) #11229 (except for the change in the input files used in the /test configurations)
  • mostly refactoring and addition of unit tests. there is also a bugfix in the regresion input variable computations
• plot from wflow 4.53 in jenkins shows the expected small change in the miniAOD electron kinematics
  

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_7_4_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

[lgray]

@davidlange6 @gpetruc Just to make sure, this PR, #11282, and #11262 will make it in for the MiniAOD reprocessing?

[gpetruc]

Hi,
I hope they can go in a patch release as soon as possible, for prompt reco
too.

Giovanni

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Lindsey Gray [email protected]
wrote:

@davidlange6 https://github.com/davidlange6 @gpetruc
https://github.com/gpetruc Just to make sure, this PR, #11282
#11282, and #11262
#11262 will make it in for the
MiniAOD reprocessing?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#11232 (comment).

[davidlange6]

how confident are we that there are not other small fixes needed?

On Sep 18, 2015, at 10:33 AM, Giovanni Petrucciani [email protected] wrote:

Hi,
I hope they can go in a patch release as soon as possible, for prompt reco
too.

Giovanni

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Lindsey Gray [email protected]
wrote:

@davidlange6 https://github.com/davidlange6 @gpetruc
https://github.com/gpetruc Just to make sure, this PR, #11282
#11282, and #11262
#11262 will make it in for the
MiniAOD reprocessing?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#11232 (comment).

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[lgray]

At this point I am pretty confident. The evaluation code now matches what
was used in the training.

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 10:35 AM, David Lange [email protected]
wrote:

how confident are we that there are not other small fixes needed?

On Sep 18, 2015, at 10:33 AM, Giovanni Petrucciani <
[email protected]> wrote:

Hi,
I hope they can go in a patch release as soon as possible, for prompt
reco
too.

Giovanni

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Lindsey Gray [email protected]

wrote:

@davidlange6 https://github.com/davidlange6 @gpetruc
https://github.com/gpetruc Just to make sure, this PR, #11282
#11282, and #11262
#11262 will make it in for the
MiniAOD reprocessing?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#11232 (comment).

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#11232 (comment).

[davidlange6]

I mean in the miniAOD - we don’t want too many breakpoints.

On Sep 18, 2015, at 10:56 AM, Lindsey Gray [email protected] wrote:

At this point I am pretty confident. The evaluation code now matches what
was used in the training.

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 10:35 AM, David Lange [email protected]
wrote:

how confident are we that there are not other small fixes needed?

On Sep 18, 2015, at 10:33 AM, Giovanni Petrucciani <
[email protected]> wrote:

Hi,
I hope they can go in a patch release as soon as possible, for prompt
reco
too.

Giovanni

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Lindsey Gray [email protected]

wrote:

@davidlange6 https://github.com/davidlange6 @gpetruc
https://github.com/gpetruc Just to make sure, this PR, #11282
#11282, and #11262
#11262 will make it in for the
MiniAOD reprocessing?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#11232 (comment).

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#11232 (comment).

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[lgray]

Translation: the miniaod regressions and mva IDs are now fixed, considering
all three relevant PRs.

(Sent from my Nexus 6)
On Sep 18, 2015 11:42 AM, "David Lange" [email protected] wrote:

I mean in the miniAOD - we don’t want too many breakpoints.

On Sep 18, 2015, at 10:56 AM, Lindsey Gray [email protected]
wrote:

At this point I am pretty confident. The evaluation code now matches
what
was used in the training.

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 10:35 AM, David Lange [email protected]

wrote:

how confident are we that there are not other small fixes needed?

On Sep 18, 2015, at 10:33 AM, Giovanni Petrucciani <
[email protected]> wrote:

Hi,
I hope they can go in a patch release as soon as possible, for
prompt
reco
too.

Giovanni

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Lindsey Gray <
[email protected]>

wrote:

@davidlange6 https://github.com/davidlange6 @gpetruc
https://github.com/gpetruc Just to make sure, this PR, #11282
#11282, and #11262
#11262 will make it in for
the
MiniAOD reprocessing?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#11232 (comment).

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#11232 (comment).

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#11232 (comment).

[gpetruc]

If we put this in before the prompt of the first collision run of 2015D we
have no breakpoints (beyond the already existing one between 2015C and
2015D), and no need of reprocessing the beginning of 2015D unless other
bugs are found.

There's a possible change in the type1 MET definition (a change in the jet
pt threshold), but that's useful only on MC or re-reco/re-miniaod of old
data, since for prompt reco data the type1 correction will have to be
recomputed anyway when new JEC residuals for 2015D will become available.

Ciao,

Giovanni

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 11:42 AM, David Lange [email protected]
wrote:

I mean in the miniAOD - we don’t want too many breakpoints.

On Sep 18, 2015, at 10:56 AM, Lindsey Gray [email protected]
wrote:

At this point I am pretty confident. The evaluation code now matches
what
was used in the training.

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 10:35 AM, David Lange [email protected]

wrote:

how confident are we that there are not other small fixes needed?

On Sep 18, 2015, at 10:33 AM, Giovanni Petrucciani <
[email protected]> wrote:

Hi,
I hope they can go in a patch release as soon as possible, for
prompt
reco
too.

Giovanni

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Lindsey Gray <
[email protected]>

wrote:

@davidlange6 https://github.com/davidlange6 @gpetruc
https://github.com/gpetruc Just to make sure, this PR, #11282
#11282, and #11262
#11262 will make it in for
the
MiniAOD reprocessing?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#11232 (comment).

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#11232 (comment).

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#11232 (comment).

[davidlange6]

+1