Add boosted taus to NanoAOD #150

swozniewski · 2021-04-12T11:32:39Z

No description provided.

…_tauIDtoolsDev Updates to tauID python tool

…eliger/cmssw into BoostedTauNanoAOD_CMSSW_11_3

swozniewski

Hi @aloeliger, thanks again for this development! I don't have further general comments in addition to the previous email. Please have a look at the detailed comments of this review. I think it's fine if you approach XPOG as soon as you feel that the remaining things are under control.

swozniewski · 2021-04-12T13:02:10Z

PhysicsTools/NanoAOD/python/boostedTaus_cff.py

+
+finalBoostedTaus = cms.EDFilter("PATTauRefSelector",
+    src = cms.InputTag("slimmedTausBoostedNewID"),
+    cut = cms.string("pt > 40 && tauID('decayModeFindingNewDMs') && (tauID('byLooseCombinedIsolationDeltaBetaCorr3Hits') || tauID('byVLooseIsolationMVArun2v1DBnewDMwLT') || tauID('byVLooseIsolationMVArun2v1DBdR03oldDMwLT') || tauID('byVVLooseIsolationMVArun2v1DBoldDMwLT') || tauID('byVVLooseIsolationMVArun2017v2DBoldDMwLT2017') || tauID('byVVLooseIsolationMVArun2017v2DBoldDMdR0p3wLT2017') || tauID('byVVLooseIsolationMVArun2017v2DBnewDMwLT2017'))")


Please be aware that BDT based IDs will be dropped for standard taus ( cms-sw/cmssw@master...cms-tau-pog:CMSSW_11_3_X_tau-pog_nanoAODcleanUp ). In case of boosted taus where you don't have deepTauID (at the moment) you may want to keep it for now. However, please rethink which MVA ID versions you really want to keep for boosted taus. E.g. I imagine that 2017v1 could be dropped, maybe also newDM-version. In any case, keep in sync with tau tables below.

I have removed all ID working points except for 2017v2 MVA working points

swozniewski · 2021-04-12T13:04:50Z

PhysicsTools/NanoAOD/python/boostedTaus_cff.py

+       idDecayMode = Var("tauID('decayModeFinding')", bool),
+       idDecayModeNewDMs = Var("tauID('decayModeFindingNewDMs')", bool),


I suggest to stay in sync with clean up linked in previous comment. This, however, is not necessarily settled yet (what concerns the DMs).

New DM finding is required as one of the cuts. for the moment, since it is not taking up too many branches, I think it may be good to keep these.

That it is already in the selection is actually the reason why we removed the quantity in the clean up. It's anyway always true. Therefore, I think you can remove it. (The selection does not depend on this definition here)

Please don't forget this issue here.

These have now been removed.

swozniewski · 2021-04-12T13:47:59Z

PhysicsTools/NanoAOD/python/boostedTaus_cff.py

+       dxy = Var("leadChargedHadrCand().dxy()",float, doc="d_{xy} of lead track with respect to PV, in cm (with sign)",precision=10),
+       dz = Var("leadChargedHadrCand().dz()",float, doc="d_{z} of lead track with respect to PV, in cm (with sign)",precision=14),
+
+       # these are too many, we may have to suppress some


This has been removed

swozniewski · 2021-04-12T13:49:44Z

PhysicsTools/NanoAOD/python/boostedTaus_cff.py

+_mvaIsoVars2015 = cms.PSet(
+    rawMVAnewDM = Var( "tauID('byIsolationMVArun2v1DBnewDMwLTraw')",float, doc="byIsolationMVArun2v1DBoldDMwLT raw output discriminator (2015)",precision=10),
+    rawMVAoldDM = Var( "tauID('byIsolationMVArun2v1DBoldDMwLTraw')",float, doc="byIsolationMVArun2v1DBoldDMwLT raw output discriminator (2015)",precision=10),
+    idMVAnewDM = _tauId6WPMask( "by%sIsolationMVArun2v1DBnewDMwLT", doc="IsolationMVArun2v1DBnewDMwLT ID working point (2015)"),
+    idMVAoldDM = _tauId6WPMask( "by%sIsolationMVArun2v1DBoldDMwLT", doc="IsolationMVArun2v1DBoldDMwLT ID working point (2015)"),
+)
+_mvaIsoVars2017v1 = cms.PSet(
+    rawMVAoldDM2017v1 = Var( "tauID('byIsolationMVArun2v1DBoldDMwLTraw')",float, doc="byIsolationMVArun2v1DBoldDMwLT raw output discriminator (2017v1)",precision=10),
+    idMVAoldDM2017v1 = _tauId7WPMask( "by%sIsolationMVArun2v1DBoldDMwLT", doc="IsolationMVArun2v1DBoldDMwLT ID working point (2017v1)")
+)


I guess, these IDs are not needed. See above comment.

I have done a complete cleaning of all non 2017MVAv2 ID working points.

swozniewski · 2021-04-12T13:50:18Z

PhysicsTools/NanoAOD/python/boostedTaus_cff.py

+_mvaIsoVars2017v2 = cms.PSet(
+    rawMVAoldDM2017v2=Var("tauID('byIsolationMVArun2017v2DBoldDMwLTraw2017')",float, doc="byIsolationMVArun2017v2DBoldDMwLT raw output discriminator (2017v2)",precision=10),
+    rawMVAnewDM2017v2 = Var("tauID('byIsolationMVArun2017v2DBnewDMwLTraw2017')",float,doc='byIsolationMVArun2017v2DBnewDMwLT raw output discriminator (2017v2)',precision=10),
+    rawMVAoldDMdR032017v2 = Var("tauID('byIsolationMVArun2017v2DBoldDMdR0p3wLTraw2017')",float,doc='byIsolationMVArun2017v2DBoldDMdR0p3wLT raw output discriminator (2017v2)'),    
+    idMVAnewDM2017v2 = _tauId7WPMask("by%sIsolationMVArun2017v2DBnewDMwLT2017", doc="IsolationMVArun2017v2DBnewDMwLT ID working point (2017v2)"),
+    idMVAoldDM2017v2=_tauId7WPMask("by%sIsolationMVArun2017v2DBoldDMwLT2017",doc="IsolationMVArun2017v2DBoldDMwLT ID working point (2017v2)"),
+    idMVAoldDMdR032017v2 = _tauId7WPMask("by%sIsolationMVArun2017v2DBoldDMdR0p3wLT2017",doc="IsolationMVArun2017v2DBoldDMdR0p3wLT ID working point (2017v2)"),
+)


Is the full set needed?

swozniewski · 2021-04-12T14:01:15Z

PhysicsTools/NanoAOD/python/nano_cff.py

        isoTrackSequence + jetLepSequence + # must be after all the leptons
        linkedObjects  +
-        jetTables + muonTables + tauTables + electronTables + photonTables +  globalTables +vertexTables+ metTables+simpleCleanerTable + isoTrackTables
+        jetTables + muonTables + tauTables + boostedTauTables + electronTables + photonTables +  globalTables +vertexTables+ metTables+simpleCleanerTable + isoTrackTables


swozniewski · 2021-04-12T14:03:12Z

PhysicsTools/NanoAOD/python/nano_cff.py

        )
 nanoSequenceOnlyFullSim = cms.Sequence(triggerObjectTables + l1bits)
 nanoSequenceOnlyData = cms.Sequence(protonTables + lhcInfoTable)

 nanoSequence = cms.Sequence(nanoSequenceCommon + nanoSequenceOnlyData + nanoSequenceOnlyFullSim)

-nanoSequenceFS = cms.Sequence(genParticleSequence + genVertexTables + particleLevelSequence + nanoSequenceCommon + jetMC + muonMC + electronMC + photonMC + tauMC + metMC + ttbarCatMCProducers +  globalTablesMC + btagWeightTable + genWeightsTable + genVertexTable + genParticleTables + particleLevelTables + lheInfoTable  + ttbarCategoryTable )
+nanoSequenceFS = cms.Sequence(genParticleSequence + genVertexTables + particleLevelSequence + nanoSequenceCommon + jetMC + muonMC + electronMC + photonMC + tauMC + boostedTauMC + metMC + ttbarCatMCProducers +  globalTablesMC + btagWeightTable + genWeightsTable + genVertexTable + genParticleTables + particleLevelTables + lheInfoTable  + ttbarCategoryTable )


same here. In the lines below, this is done for something else and you can do it the same way.

swozniewski · 2021-04-12T14:03:59Z

PhysicsTools/NanoAOD/python/nano_cff.py

+                                                                # "deepTau2017v1",
+                                                                #"deepTau2017v2p1",
+                                                                # "DPFTau_2016_v0",
+                                                                # "DPFTau_2016_v1",


remove this, even if deepTau will be reintroduced for boosted taus some day.

This should have been removed as of #ddf4e8c as well

Seems like I worked on an outdated session. Sorry for that!

swozniewski · 2021-04-12T14:06:26Z

PhysicsTools/NanoAOD/python/nano_cff.py

@@ -371,6 +397,7 @@ def nanoAOD_customizeCommon(process):
                                     addParticleNet=nanoAOD_addDeepInfoAK8_switch.nanoAOD_addParticleNet_switch,
                                     jecPayload=nanoAOD_addDeepInfoAK8_switch.jecPayload)
    (run2_nanoAOD_94XMiniAODv1 | run2_nanoAOD_94X2016 | run2_nanoAOD_94XMiniAODv2 | run2_nanoAOD_102Xv1 | run2_nanoAOD_106Xv1).toModify(process, lambda p : nanoAOD_addTauIds(p))
+    (run2_nanoAOD_94XMiniAODv1 | run2_nanoAOD_94X2016 | run2_nanoAOD_94XMiniAODv2 | run2_nanoAOD_102Xv1 | run2_nanoAOD_106Xv1 | run2_nanoAOD_106Xv2).toModify(process, lambda p : nanoAOD_addBoostedTauIds(p))


The way era modifiers are used here looks unconventional to me (also in the line above which I guess you copied). To be clarified with XPOG.

See my message in the main thread. In case of standard taus, the reproduction of IDs is not the default, but necessery for several eras, which explains the line above. In your case, producing boosted tau IDs will be the default for now and you need to deactivate it for past eras, i.e. run2_nanoAOD_106Xv1 and earlier.

swozniewski · 2021-04-12T15:09:21Z

PhysicsTools/NanoAOD/python/boostedTaus_cff.py

+
+
+finalBoostedTaus = cms.EDFilter("PATTauRefSelector",
+    src = cms.InputTag("slimmedTausBoostedNewID"),


In my test sequence this crashes because there are only slimmedTausBoosted. Is this maybe a remainder from the miniAOD fix? Please check.

What era are you performing tests under? This sounds like the IDs are not being added and therefore the new slimmedTausBoostedNewID collection does not get made.

My command for reference:

cmsDriver.py step1 --filein "/store/relval/CMSSW_11_3_0_pre1/RelValTTbar_14TeV/MINIAODSIM/PU_113X_mcRun3_2021_realistic_v1-v1/10000/e41c73d6-dc6b-405a-8aa4-2f79d974a1ab.root" --mc --eventcontent NANOAODSIM --datatier NANOAODSIM --conditions auto:run2_mc --step NANO --nThreads 8 --era Run2_2016,run2_nanoAOD_106Xv2 -n 1000 --fileout file:testRelval.root

I ran a 2016 sample but probably missed the run2_nanoAOD_106Xv2 modifier. Will try again. Thanks for the reference!

Ok, with this modifier, it runs successfully. I think what is currently problematic is that the boosted taus are always added but the IDs only rerun with the given modifiers. But after rearranging the modifiers as stated earlier, all cases should be runnable (independently from the question whether boosted taus are produced in the respective cases)

aloeliger · 2021-04-14T15:22:20Z

@swozniewski I have done a complete cleaning of all ID working points except the 2017v2 ones, and some of the commenting. I am still unsure which eras boosted taus should be enabled or disabled for. Which era would be appropriate to ensure that this is integrated successfully into nanoAODv9?

swozniewski · 2021-04-14T15:41:25Z

@aloeliger thanks for the quick follow up! I will go through it and leave further comments if applicable. I just got confirmation from XPOG that we should introduce boosted taus by default (simply add it without using modifiers) and deactivate it for all past modifiers. This way, it works for all future campaigns. I hope that the following list of past modifiers is rather complete. If you are aware of other ones, feel free to add them. Otherwise XPOG can comment during final review.
run2_miniAOD_80XLegacy | run2_nanoAOD_92X | run2_nanoAOD_94XMiniAODv1 | run2_nanoAOD_94X2016 | run2_nanoAOD_94XMiniAODv2 | run2_nanoAOD_102Xv1 | run2_nanoAOD_106Xv1

aloeliger · 2021-04-21T10:11:05Z

@swozniewski I am having some trouble figuring out the correct procedure for excluding boosted taus from previous eras properly, This is what I have for excluding the main sequence/tables

(run2_miniAOD_80XLegacy | run2_nanoAOD_92X | run2_nanoAOD_94XMiniAODv1 | run2_nanoAOD_94X2016 | run2_nanoAOD_94XMiniAODv2 | run2_nanoAOD_102Xv1 | run2_nanoAOD_106Xv1).toReplaceWith(nanoSequenceCommon, nanoSequenceCommon.copyAndExclude([boostedTauSequence, boostedTauTables]))

Is this correct?

Later on in the configuration where the Tau ID functions are called I have:

    (run2_nanoAOD_94XMiniAODv1 | run2_nanoAOD_94X2016 | run2_nanoAOD_94XMiniAODv2 | run2_nanoAOD_102Xv1 | run2_nanoAOD_106Xv1).toModify(process, lambda p : nanoAOD_addTauIds(p))                               
    nanoAOD_addBoostedTauIds(process) #adds boosted tau ID sequence by default

which adds in the ID sequences by default for everything, but I am unsure of how to safely exclude previous eras. My first thought was some sort of if era != previous_eras: addBoostedTauIDs() statement, but I am unsure if that is possible in this kind of CMSSW configuration. Would the solution just be do similar to above? Add it by default, but then remove the boosted tau IDs copying and excluding in the sequence?

swozniewski · 2021-04-21T11:50:21Z

Hi @aloeliger I see your point. The first part looks fine to me. Don't forget to treat the nanoSequenceFS similarly.
Concerning the second part: I think that reverting the nanoAOD_addBoostedTauIds in case of the modifiers is too complicated. Therefore your first idea is already the right step, I think. I had a look at the modifier implementations and there is not only an 'or' operator implemented (like used in the present line to connect all previous eras but also an inversion ( https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/master/FWCore/ParameterSet/python/Config.py#L1665-L1666 ). I think it's worth to try sth like this: (not (<or_of_previous_eras>)).toModify(...)

aloeliger · 2021-04-21T14:25:06Z

Thanks @swozniewski, I think I have something that works now to remove the sequences properly. Are there further changes that need to be made?

swozniewski · 2021-04-21T15:22:56Z

PhysicsTools/NanoAOD/python/nano_cff.py

+    process.boostedTauSequence.insert(process.boostedTauSequence.index(getattr(process, "finalBoostedTaus")),
+                                      process.rerunMvaIsolationSequenceBoosted)
+
+    process.boostedTauSequence.insert(process.boostedTauSequence.index(getattr(process, "finalBoostedTaus")),
+                                      getattr(process, updatedBoostedTauName))


Couldn't this be done as for standard taus above? Btw. in the current case you don't need the getattr

You mean with only inserting the rerunMvaIsolationSequenceBoosted? I tried that originally, but I believe this set-up is required. The above uses the tool to add to an already existing Tau ID task/sequence, but for boosted taus this does not exist, so it has to be added explicitly by the second. Or at least, that is my recollection of how this works.

Ok I see. Thanks for clarification. Indeed there is an existing ID sequence for std taus.

swozniewski · 2021-04-21T15:29:14Z

I added another small comment/question already. I will have a closer look ~tomorrow and also run some checks. @mbluj in case you'd like to have a look as well and are not aware of this PR location.
@aloeliger Did you try with the inversion of modifiers? I'm not super happy about the current solution since it is not decoupled from what is happening inside the TauIDEmbedder. With the inversion one could leave out the whole nanoAOD_addBoostedTauIds function for previous eras. If this does not work, we can maybe live with the current solution. Please let me know.

aloeliger · 2021-04-22T15:53:00Z

I added another small comment/question already. I will have a closer look ~tomorrow and also run some checks. @mbluj in case you'd like to have a look as well and are not aware of this PR location.
@aloeliger Did you try with the inversion of modifiers? I'm not super happy about the current solution since it is not decoupled from what is happening inside the TauIDEmbedder. With the inversion one could leave out the whole nanoAOD_addBoostedTauIds function for previous eras. If this does not work, we can maybe live with the current solution. Please let me know.

@swozniewski I looked at doing this, but the problem is that the not operator outputs a logical boolean.

the python registered type of

(run2_miniAOD_80XLegacy | run2_nanoAOD_92X | run2_nanoAOD_94XMiniAODv1 | run2_nanoAOD_94X2016 | run2_nanoAOD_94XMiniAODv2 | run2_nanoAOD_102Xv1 | run2_nanoAOD_106Xv1)

is

<class 'FWCore.ParameterSet.Config._OrModifier'>

but the type of

not((run2_miniAOD_80XLegacy | run2_nanoAOD_92X | run2_nanoAOD_94XMiniAODv1 | run2_nanoAOD_94X2016 | run2_nanoAOD_94XMiniAODv2 | run2_nanoAOD_102Xv1 | run2_nanoAOD_106Xv1))

is

<type 'bool'>

So I would guess someone somewhere explicitly overwrote/defined the or operator explicitly for this, but the not operator was not defined.

swozniewski · 2021-04-23T09:58:05Z

@aloeliger I checked again and noticed that the __invert__ function (which I linked previously) defines the binary inversion operator ~ and not the not. I tried with this operator and it seems to work. I created a PR with it to your repo. Could you please double check whether this works fine for you and accept? I also removed the unnecessary getattr calls.

some polishing

aloeliger · 2021-04-23T10:31:05Z

@swozniewski I have looked at, tested and added your modifications.

swozniewski · 2021-04-23T10:35:45Z

Ok, thanks! I've launched the standard integration test and if successful, will continue with integration to central cmssw.

mbluj · 2021-04-23T11:25:54Z

PhysicsTools/NanoAOD/python/boostedTaus_cff.py

+
+boostedTauTable.variables = _boostedTauVarsBase
+
+tauGenJets.GenParticles = cms.InputTag("prunedGenParticles")


This redefines tauGenJets producer which is also used in configuration for standard taus. This cannot be done like this even if in both cases configurations of tauGenJets are identical. So this should be removed from here or if necessary (i.e. collection from tau_cff cannot be used) a clone should be created.
Then, is new, boosted specific, table of genVisTaus needed or one created for standard taus can be reused (see further comments)?
Finally: I think prunedGenParticles should be replaced by finalGenParticles here for correct mother indexing (it will happen also for standard taus)

mbluj · 2021-04-23T11:27:23Z

PhysicsTools/NanoAOD/python/boostedTaus_cff.py

+
+genVisBoostedTaus = cms.EDProducer("GenVisTauProducer",
+    src = cms.InputTag("tauGenJetsSelectorAllHadrons"),         
+    srcGenParticles = cms.InputTag("prunedGenParticles")


Probably not needed as one can use similar guys for standard taus (genVisTaus).
If kept, I think prunedGenParticles should be replaced by finalGenParticles here for correct mother indexing (it will happen also for standard taus), consistently with L76.

mbluj · 2021-04-23T11:28:58Z

PhysicsTools/NanoAOD/python/boostedTaus_cff.py

+    srcGenParticles = cms.InputTag("prunedGenParticles")
+)
+
+genVisBoostedTauTable = cms.EDProducer("SimpleCandidateFlatTableProducer",


Is this table needed? It basically does not differ from such table for standard taus called genVisTauTable

mbluj · 2021-04-23T11:32:04Z

PhysicsTools/NanoAOD/python/boostedTaus_cff.py

+
+boostedTausMCMatchHadTauForTable = cms.EDProducer("MCMatcher",  # cut on deltaR, deltaPt/Pt; pick best by deltaR
+    src         = boostedTauTable.src,                 # final reco collection
+    matched     = cms.InputTag("genVisBoostedTaus"),   # generator level hadronic tau decays


See comment above - probably genVisTaus for standard taus can be used instead.

mbluj · 2021-04-23T11:33:56Z

PhysicsTools/NanoAOD/python/boostedTaus_cff.py

+
+boostedTauSequence = cms.Sequence(finalBoostedTaus)
+boostedTauTables = cms.Sequence(boostedTauTable)
+boostedTauMC = cms.Sequence(tauGenJets + tauGenJetsSelectorAllHadrons + genVisBoostedTaus + genVisBoostedTauTable + boostedTausMCMatchLepTauForTable + boostedTausMCMatchHadTauForTable + boostedTauMCTable)


Adjust MC sequence to removals proposed in earlier comments.

mbluj · 2021-04-23T11:46:09Z

Hello,
sorry for late comments, but I have just realised that gen information for boosted taus duplicates the one for standard taus which is not needed. In addition the producer of genTauJets is modified here in parallel to what is done in cff for standard taus which is error prone.

Finally, I think that nanoAOD DQM configuration (PhysicsTools/NanoAOD/python/nanoDQM_cfi.py) should be also updated such that a set of new histgrams is added corresponding with new braches for boosted taus. I think that there is a tool to add them automatically (basing on a nanoAOD root file), but as histogram axis ranges should be anyway adjusted by hand it could be simpler just to copy counterpart entries of standard taus and then modify their names.

aloeliger · 2021-04-23T13:54:28Z

@mbluj, I think if I understand correctly, this removes all MC based boosted tau sequences, because the gen-information is handled in the standard tau configuration? This also removes the need for the boostedTauMC sequence in the main nano configuration too, and it should be removed, correct?

Also, I am not familiar with nanoAOD DQM. What is the best way to test my changes and additions for boosted tau code?

mbluj · 2021-04-23T14:39:35Z

I think you should do the following:

Remove tauGenJets and genVisBoostedTaus and corresponding includes:
from PhysicsTools.JetMCAlgos.TauGenJets_cfi import tauGenJets
from PhysicsTools.JetMCAlgos.TauGenJetsDecayModeSelectorAllHadrons_cfi import tauGenJetsSelectorAllHadrons
Remove genVisBoostedTauTable (it is a duplicate of genVisTauTable defined in taus_cff.py with the only difference I see being the pT cut which is tighter for boosted)
Keep boostedTausMCMatchLepTauForTable
Keep boostedTausMCMatchHadTauForTable with matched changed to genVisTaus (you can comment that it is dependency on taus_cff.py)
Keep boostedTauMCTable
Change boostedTauMC sequence to boostedTauMC = cms.Sequence(boostedTausMCMatchLepTauForTable + boostedTausMCMatchHadTauForTable + boostedTauMCTable)

What concerns DQM: I have never tested it myself - there was a central test in nanoAOD gitlab testing suite. But adding histograms to the DQM is quite strightforward. If you want to check an automated way, please produce a nanoAOD root file with boosted taus and then run PhysicsTools/NanoAOD/test/prepareDQM.py tool on top of it (check with --help for options). The only issue with the automated way is that ranges of histograms should be updated by hand (you can check ranges used for standard taus).

aloeliger · 2021-04-26T11:50:17Z

@swozniewski, @mbluj, I have made the requested changes and added boosted taus into the nanoAOD DQM _cfi.py, but I haven't performed any real tests of the DQM (Other than the prepareDQM.py tool, which provided the histograms for the list. The bounds were taken from Tau equivalents).

mbluj · 2021-04-26T13:43:11Z

@swozniewski, @mbluj, I have made the requested changes and added boosted taus into the nanoAOD DQM _cfi.py, but I haven't performed any real tests of the DQM (Other than the prepareDQM.py tool, which provided the histograms for the list. The bounds were taken from Tau equivalents).

The changes are fine with me - thanks! I assume that you tested that gen-info behave as expected, i.e. genVisTau jets are as in the previous version (modulo pT threshold).

+1

aloeliger · 2021-04-26T13:48:52Z

I still need to check this, but it shouldn't take too long.

swozniewski · 2021-04-26T14:30:15Z

Looks fine to me, too! I'm running the integration tests in parallel...

aloeliger · 2021-04-26T14:32:07Z

@mbluj The GenVisTau stuff seems to behave the same way as before, and I removed any changes I made to any pt thresholds, I think it is fine? But I can check out a version without my changes and do individual comparisons if necessary.

mbluj · 2021-04-26T15:12:43Z

@mbluj The GenVisTau stuff seems to behave the same way as before, and I removed any changes I made to any pt thresholds, I think it is fine? But I can check out a version without my changes and do individual comparisons if necessary.

I believe it is fine, thank you.

swozniewski · 2021-04-26T16:26:45Z

Tests are ok. Will proceed with PR to master.

* Merge pull request cms-sw#33150 from cms-tau-pog/CMSSW_11_3_X_tau-pog_tauIDtoolsDev Updates to tauID python tool * Initial working commit of boosted taus in CMSSW_11_3 NanoAOD * Remove 2015 anti-E for 10_6v2 era compatibility in boosted taus * Initial working commit of boosted taus in CMSSW_11_3 NanoAOD * Remove 2015 anti-E for 10_6v2 era compatibility in boosted taus * Remove commented boosted tau nanoAOD code * Remove main nanoAOD config comments * Remove leading charged hadronic candidate dxy and dz * Update boosted tau configuration to remove excess ID variables * Fix removal of boosted tau vars base * Remove boosted tau sequences from previous eras * Remove redundant decay mode information * some polishing * change Gen information for boosted taus * Update nanoDQM for boosted taus Co-authored-by: cmsbuild <cmsbuild@cern.ch> Co-authored-by: Andrew Loeliger <aloelige@cern.ch> Co-authored-by: Andrew David Loeliger <andrew.loeliger@cern.ch>

cmsbuild and others added 8 commits March 26, 2021 09:34

Merge pull request cms-sw#33150 from cms-tau-pog/CMSSW_11_3_X_tau-pog…

8dc3150

…_tauIDtoolsDev Updates to tauID python tool

Initial working commit of boosted taus in CMSSW_11_3 NanoAOD

a4e6cff

Remove 2015 anti-E for 10_6v2 era compatibility in boosted taus

759fea1

Initial working commit of boosted taus in CMSSW_11_3 NanoAOD

f1c402f

Remove 2015 anti-E for 10_6v2 era compatibility in boosted taus

92df524

Remove commented boosted tau nanoAOD code

0c74108

Merge branch 'BoostedTauNanoAOD_CMSSW_11_3' of https://github.com/alo…

66d37a2

…eliger/cmssw into BoostedTauNanoAOD_CMSSW_11_3

Remove main nanoAOD config comments

ddf4e8c

swozniewski commented Apr 12, 2021

View reviewed changes

aloeliger added 3 commits April 13, 2021 05:01

Remove leading charged hadronic candidate dxy and dz

5eeaecb

Update boosted tau configuration to remove excess ID variables

d1eaaff

Fix removal of boosted tau vars base

6957f8b

Remove boosted tau sequences from previous eras

0c1d3d3

swozniewski commented Apr 21, 2021

View reviewed changes

Remove redundant decay mode information

ca0b745

some polishing

1037f47

Merge pull request #1 from swozniewski/BoostedTauNanoAOD_CMSSW_11_3

4319a0f

some polishing

mbluj requested changes Apr 23, 2021

View reviewed changes

aloeliger added 2 commits April 26, 2021 07:29

change Gen information for boosted taus

30764fa

Update nanoDQM for boosted taus

f84c2e7

swozniewski merged commit 96962a9 into cms-tau-pog:CMSSW_11_3_X_tau-pog_boostedTaus Apr 26, 2021

		idDecayMode = Var("tauID('decayModeFinding')", bool),
		idDecayModeNewDMs = Var("tauID('decayModeFindingNewDMs')", bool),



		finalBoostedTaus = cms.EDFilter("PATTauRefSelector",
		src = cms.InputTag("slimmedTausBoostedNewID"),


		boostedTauTable.variables = _boostedTauVarsBase

		tauGenJets.GenParticles = cms.InputTag("prunedGenParticles")

Add boosted taus to NanoAOD #150

Add boosted taus to NanoAOD #150

Conversation

swozniewski commented Apr 12, 2021

swozniewski left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

aloeliger commented Apr 14, 2021

swozniewski commented Apr 14, 2021

aloeliger commented Apr 21, 2021

swozniewski commented Apr 21, 2021 • edited Loading

aloeliger commented Apr 21, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

swozniewski commented Apr 21, 2021 • edited Loading

aloeliger commented Apr 22, 2021 • edited Loading

swozniewski commented Apr 23, 2021 • edited Loading

aloeliger commented Apr 23, 2021

swozniewski commented Apr 23, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mbluj commented Apr 23, 2021

aloeliger commented Apr 23, 2021 • edited Loading

mbluj commented Apr 23, 2021

aloeliger commented Apr 26, 2021

mbluj commented Apr 26, 2021

aloeliger commented Apr 26, 2021

swozniewski commented Apr 26, 2021

aloeliger commented Apr 26, 2021

mbluj commented Apr 26, 2021

swozniewski commented Apr 26, 2021

swozniewski commented Apr 21, 2021 •

edited

Loading

swozniewski commented Apr 21, 2021 •

edited

Loading

aloeliger commented Apr 22, 2021 •

edited

Loading

swozniewski commented Apr 23, 2021 •

edited

Loading

aloeliger commented Apr 23, 2021 •

edited

Loading