Use isolated particle level photons

[AndrewLevin]

PR description:

In order to measure isolated photon cross sections, we need to have isolated particle level photons.

PR validation:

I have run over some recent relval samples and checked that the number of isolated particles level photon is reasonable.

[cmsbuild]

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

-code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-28371/12684

• This PR adds an extra 12KB 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-28371/12684/code-format.patch
  e.g. curl https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-28371/12684/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-28371/12685

• This PR adds an extra 12KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @AndrewLevin for master.

It involves the following packages:

GeneratorInterface/RivetInterface

@SiewYan, @efeyazgan, @mkirsano, @cmsbuild, @agrohsje, @alberto-sanchez, @qliphy can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@alberto-sanchez, @agrohsje, @mkirsano 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

[qliphy]

adding @intrepid42 @xjanssen

[qliphy]

please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-run-pr-tests/3410/console Started: 2019/11/10 12:36

[cmsbuild]

-1

Tested at: 5546d11

You can see the results of the tests here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-4f43e0/3410/summary.html

I found follow errors while testing this PR

Failed tests: RelVals

• RelVals:

When I ran the RelVals I found an error in the following workflows:
1325.7 step2

runTheMatrix-results/1325.7_TTbar_13_94Xv2NanoAODINPUT+TTbar_13_94Xv2NanoAODINPUT+NANOEDMMC2017_94XMiniAODv2+HARVESTNANOAODMC2017_94XMiniAODv2/step2_TTbar_13_94Xv2NanoAODINPUT+TTbar_13_94Xv2NanoAODINPUT+NANOEDMMC2017_94XMiniAODv2+HARVESTNANOAODMC2017_94XMiniAODv2.log

1330.0 step5

runTheMatrix-results/1330.0_ZMM_13+ZMM_13+DIGIUP15+RECOUP15_L1TMuDQM+HARVESTUP15_L1TMuDQM+NANOUP15/step5_ZMM_13+ZMM_13+DIGIUP15+RECOUP15_L1TMuDQM+HARVESTUP15_L1TMuDQM+NANOUP15.log

10042.0 step6

runTheMatrix-results/10042.0_ZMM_13+ZMM_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2017_GenSimFull+DigiFull_2017+RecoFull_2017+HARVESTFull_2017+ALCAFull_2017+NanoFull_2017/step6_ZMM_13+ZMM_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2017_GenSimFull+DigiFull_2017+RecoFull_2017+HARVESTFull_2017+ALCAFull_2017+NanoFull_2017.log

10024.0 step6

runTheMatrix-results/10024.0_TTbar_13+TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2017_GenSimFull+DigiFull_2017+RecoFull_2017+HARVESTFull_2017+ALCAFull_2017+NanoFull_2017/step6_TTbar_13+TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2017_GenSimFull+DigiFull_2017+RecoFull_2017+HARVESTFull_2017+ALCAFull_2017+NanoFull_2017.log

10824.0 step6

runTheMatrix-results/10824.0_TTbar_13+TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2018_GenSimFull+DigiFull_2018+RecoFull_2018+HARVESTFull_2018+ALCAFull_2018+NanoFull_2018/step6_TTbar_13+TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2018_GenSimFull+DigiFull_2018+RecoFull_2018+HARVESTFull_2018+ALCAFull_2018+NanoFull_2018.log

25202.0 step5

runTheMatrix-results/25202.0_TTbar_13+TTbar_13+DIGIUP15_PU25+RECOUP15_PU25+HARVESTUP15_PU25+NANOUP15_PU25/step5_TTbar_13+TTbar_13+DIGIUP15_PU25+RECOUP15_PU25+HARVESTUP15_PU25+NANOUP15_PU25.log

10224.0 step5

runTheMatrix-results/10224.0_TTbar_13+TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2017PU_GenSimFull+DigiFullPU_2017PU+RecoFullPU_2017PU+HARVESTFullPU_2017PU+NanoFull_2017PU/step5_TTbar_13+TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2017PU_GenSimFull+DigiFullPU_2017PU+RecoFullPU_2017PU+HARVESTFullPU_2017PU+NanoFull_2017PU.log

[cmsbuild]

Comparison not run due to runTheMatrix errors (RelVals and Igprof tests were also skipped)

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: d32385a
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-4f43e0/3411/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-4f43e0/3411/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 34
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2936360
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 20
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2935999
• 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

[mseidel42]

Hi, looks fine to me, thank you for implementing! I verified that all the prompt photons are still stored in the nanoAod "GenPart" collection if some analysis needs them.

My only worry would be that some analysis might be using the current particleLevel:photons and unknowingly switches from prompt to isolated photons.
But we could send a mail to the Rivet HN to announce this change.

[qliphy]

+1

[peruzzim]

+xpog

I think at the moment we're not saving particleLevel:photons in NanoAOD, so it will not affect anything in the NanoAOD content. In this sense, the configuration change is purely technical.
Can you confirm this is totally unrelated to HTXSRivetProducer, and will not affect its results?

For the more general item of changing the default configuration of the producer, it's up to GEN to follow up - but I agree it should be clearly announced to physics groups.

[fabiocos]

+1

@AndrewLevin please consider the question #28371 (comment)

[fabiocos]

merge

[AndrewLevin]

+1

@AndrewLevin please consider the question #28371 (comment)

I am pretty sure this is totally independent of the HTXSRivetProducer.

[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 be automatically merged.