Use likelihood fit instead of chi-square fit for PFJetDQMPostProcessor plugin

[smuzaffar]

For ROOT 6.30 IBs , couple of relvals are failing with error [a]. Just like #43106 . this PR proposes to use likelihood fit for PFJetDQMPostProcessor. With this change, the failing relvals run successfully in ROOT630 IB [b]

[a]

An exception of category 'FatalRootError' occurred while
   [0] Processing end ProcessBlock
   [1] Calling method for module PFJetDQMPostProcessor/'pfJetDQMPostProcessor'
   Additional Info:
      [a] Fatal Root Error: @SUB=Minuit2
VariableMetricBuilder Initial matrix not pos.def.

[b]

25234.0_TTbar_14TeV+2026D99 Step0-PASSED Step1-PASSED Step2-PASSED Step3-PASSED Step4-PASSED  - time date Thu Nov  2 12:57:36 2023-date Thu Nov  2 12:43:55 2023; exit: 0 0 0 0 0
26434.0_TTbar_14TeV+2026D102 Step0-PASSED Step1-PASSED Step2-PASSED Step3-PASSED Step4-PASSED  - time date Thu Nov  2 12:57:19 2023-date Thu Nov  2 12:43:56 2023; exit: 0 0 0 0 0
2 2 2 2 2 tests passed, 0 0 0 0 0 failed

[smuzaffar]

please test

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-43170/37494

• This PR adds an extra 20KB to repository

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

  • File Validation/RecoParticleFlow/plugins/PFJetDQMPostProcessor.cc modified in PR(s): Adding jet purity and efficiency plots to PFValidation package #39902

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @smuzaffar (Malik Shahzad Muzaffar) for master.

It involves the following packages:

• Validation/RecoParticleFlow (dqm)

@rvenditti, @tjavaid, @syuvivida, @nothingface0, @antoniovagnerini can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@hatakeyamak, @missirol this is something you requested to watch as well.
@rappoccio, @antoniovilela, @sextonkennedy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[smuzaffar]

test parameters:

• relvals = 25234.0,26434.0

[smuzaffar]

please test for CMSSW_13_3_ROOT630_X

[smuzaffar]

please test

tests extra relvals for production archs too

[mmusich]

@smuzaffar I would suggest to change the title to reflect the name of the changed plugin, right now is pretty cryptic (on a superficial look at the release notes).

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-57718d/35561/summary.html
COMMIT: 3d3a3d2
CMSSW: CMSSW_13_3_X_2023-11-02-1100/el8_amd64_gcc12
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/43170/35561/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• You potentially added 79 lines to the logs
• Reco comparison results: 13 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 52
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3555639
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1314
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3554303
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 51 files compared)
• Checked 224 log files, 175 edm output root files, 52 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-57718d/35562/summary.html
COMMIT: 3d3a3d2
CMSSW: CMSSW_13_3_ROOT630_X_2023-11-01-2300/el8_amd64_gcc12
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/43170/35562/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• You potentially added 214 lines to the logs
• Reco comparison results: 20 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 52
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3555639
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 53445
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3502172
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 51 files compared)
• Checked 224 log files, 175 edm output root files, 52 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[smuzaffar]

@cms-sw/dqm-l2 , can you please review this change? It is identical to #43106 and fixes the ROOT 6.30 IBs relvals failures

[smuzaffar]

@cms-sw/dqm-l2 can you please review this?

[tjavaid]

Hi @smuzaffar , I just wonder why adopting a fit procedure for PFJetDQMPostProcessor, have an impact on e.g. RPC MEs as you see here. Is it expected? For #43106 , the update was made in a generic module, so a large number of differences were understood.

[smuzaffar]

@tjavaid , please check the dqm plots for master/default IB #43170 (comment) ( I guess you were looking at ROOT630 comparison results)

[tjavaid]

hi @smuzaffar , thanks. For the default IB comparisons, checks look fine.

[tjavaid]

+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. @antoniovilela, @rappoccio, @sextonkennedy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

[antoniovilela]

+1

[smuzaffar]

thanks @antoniovilela