Add QGL input variables and update jerc variables in JME Custom-NanoAODs

[nurfikri89]

This PR involves the following changes:

1. Add input jet variables needed for the quark vs gluon likelihood (QGL) in the JME Custom-NanoAODs. The variables are useful QGL developers when they need to train the likelihood for future new releases. The input variables are already calculated together with the QGL discriminant in the main NanoAOD production. They are not saved in the main NanoAODs by default. Previous (closed) PR for this is Add QGL input variables in JME Custom-NanoAODs #29239.

2. Remove deprecated "jerc" variables and add new ones in line with the latest jets_cff.py. This fix is for issue PhysicsTools.NanoAOD.custom_jme_cff needs to be updated #29245.

This PR needs to be backported to 10_6_X, once merged, for the ultra legacy campaigns.

[cmsbuild]

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

[nurfikri89]

FYI JMAR convenors @alefisico @camclean

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-29257/14297

• This PR adds an extra 20KB to repository

• There are other open Pull requests which might conflict with changes you have proposed:

  • File PhysicsTools/PatAlgos/python/tools/jetCollectionTools.py modified in PR(s): PUPPI jets in RECO #28936

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @nurfikri89 (Nurfikri Norjoharuddeen) for master.

It involves the following packages:

PhysicsTools/NanoAOD
PhysicsTools/PatAlgos

@perrotta, @cmsbuild, @fgolf, @slava77, @santocch, @peruzzim can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@rappoccio, @gouskos, @hatakeyamak, @emilbols, @peruzzim, @seemasharmafnal, @mmarionncern, @ahinzmann, @smoortga, @jdolen, @ferencek, @jdamgov, @nhanvtran, @gkasieczka, @schoef, @andrzejnovak, @clelange, @riga, @JyothsnaKomaragiri, @mverzett, @gpetruc, @mariadalfonso this is something you requested to watch as well.
@davidlange6, @silviodonato, @fabiocos you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[makortel]

@cmsbuild, please test workflow 25202.01

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
Test Parameters:

• MATRIX_EXTRAS = 25202.01
  https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-run-pr-tests/5296/console Started: 2020/03/20 21:07

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: f0f6646
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-6c7237/5296/summary.html
CMSSW: CMSSW_11_1_X_2020-03-20-1100
SCRAM_ARCH: slc7_amd64_gcc820

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-6c7237/5296/summary.html

@slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:

• /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/data/PR-6c7237/25202.01_TTbar_13+TTbar_13+DIGIUP15_PU25+RECOUP15_PU25+HARVESTUP15_PU25+NANOUP15MC_PU25_JME

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: 2692493
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2692173
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 319
• 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

[perrotta]

+1

• It fixes issue PhysicsTools.NanoAOD.custom_jme_cff needs to be updated #29245 (custom_jme_cff needs to be updated because of the removal of jetTable.variables.jercCHPU)
  • Therefore, from the reco point of view this is welcome and approved
• It adds input jet variables needed for the quark vs gluon likelihood in the JME Custom-NanoAODs
  • For this the evaluation is left to xpog and analysis
• jenkins tests pass and show no differences in the standard workflows

[peruzzim]

+xpog

[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 now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @davidlange6, @silviodonato, @fabiocos (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

[silviodonato]

+1