add mass-decorrelated calculations of ZvsQCD, ZbbvsQCD, HbbvsQCD, H4q…

[clelange]

…vsQCD

These variables will be added to nanoAOD for analysis, and this place seems to be the correct one to perform the calculations. I will also provide ports to other relevant branches.

Discussed with @peruzzim @hqucms @gouskos

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @clelange (Clemens Lange) for CMSSW_10_2_X.

It involves the following packages:

RecoBTag/MXNet

@perrotta, @cmsbuild, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@imarches, @smoortga, @acaudron, @HeinerTholen, @JyothsnaKomaragiri, @mverzett, @hqucms, @ferencek, @pvmulder 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

• Backported from add mass-decorrelated calculations of ZvsQCD, ZbbvsQCD, HbbvsQCD, H4q… #25242

[slava77]

@clelange
please point to the master branch PR for this change.

[slava77]

@cmsbuild please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/31707/console Started: 2018/11/17 01:46

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 49c0da8
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-25233/31707/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-25233/31707/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 31
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2986766
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2986575
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 190
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 30 files compared)
• Checked 129 log files, 14 edm output root files, 31 DQM output files

[slava77]

Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons

this is an indication of the deepAK8 tagger not running in miniAOD in 102X workflows.
Is there a nanoAOD workflow with deepAK8 included?

[slava77]

backport of #25242

[slava77]

+1

for #25233 49c0da8

• the "backport" of the master version is correct. The code changes are in line with the PR description.
  • Note, however that in 10_2_X case the deepAK8 is not in the standard miniAOD and as such this PR is analysis-specific (until the tagger shows up in nanoAOD)
• jenkins tests pass and comparisons with the baseline show no differences (run time performance is effectively checked in the master PR version where the taggers are running in the standard workflows)

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_10_2_X IBs (tests are also fine) and once validation in the development release cycle CMSSW_10_4_X is complete. 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)

[peruzzim]

Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons

this is an indication of the deepAK8 tagger not running in miniAOD in 102X workflows.
Is there a nanoAOD workflow with deepAK8 included?

Yes @slava77, the nanoAOD workflow making use of this feature is coming very soon. Thanks.

[fabiocos]

+1