Scale down Castor photoelectron gain at digi step to avoid saturation in simulation of PbPb

[iik1997]

Castor calorimeter pmt gain, photoelectronsToAnalog, set to 4.24 divided by 20 to work around saturation of digital signals in PbPb simulation; this assumes also a corresponding check of conditions (previous setup was 4.24 / 5 and was valid for pPb)

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @iik1997 for CMSSW_5_3_X.

Scale down Castor photoelectron gain at digi step to avoid saturation in simulation of PbPb

It involves the following packages:

SimCalorimetry/CastorSim

@cmsbuild, @civanch, @Degano, @mdhildreth, @nclopezo can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
You can sign-off by replying to this message having '+1' in the first line of your reply.
You can reject by replying to this message having '-1' in the first line of your reply.
@smuzaffar you are the release manager for this.

[civanch]

+1

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next IBs unless changes or unless it breaks tests. @smuzaffar can you please take care of it?

[civanch]

@iik1997, I have signed this pull request but the question is left: you changed default parameter which was working for pPb to the value needed for PbPb but there is no mechanism to select one or another depending of type of run.
Do you mean, that PbPb case to be the main? This pull request will be merged to 5_3_X if more explanations will follow. Note, that this release is legacy, so may be used for a long time for re-processing.

[iik1997]

@civanch, let me please point out the following
--- in 6XY/7YZ, but not in 53X, the code is organized "gracefully", so that changes likes one requested are not needed (please have a look at slide 3 in https://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=7&sessionId=1&resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=288871)
--- back-porting may be possible but takes time, PbPb re-reco is, as far as I know, urgent (major conference in May)
--- working on more updates (geometry in MC), which may be appropriate for 53X, but those updates are not ready yet
So in the end I am not sure if back porting is an option. But otherwise we should consider asking every time for a special release...

[civanch]

@iik1997, in other places we use following approach: keep list of parameters 5_3_X unchanged, for specific runs use custom fragments allowing to have different parameters value for GEN-SIM production. In this case fragments may have names "castor_PbPb_cfi.py", "castor_pPb_cfi.py"...

[iik1997]

@civanch, according to Castor software coordinator, Hans Van Haevermaet, such a customization already exists to extend the eta range in the simulation to include Castor (SimWithCastor). We will then need to include multiple ones at the same time. Would you advise to prepare additional customization fragments?

[davidlange6]

Yes

On Jan 28, 2014, at 1:46 PM, iik1997 notifications@github.com
wrote:

@civanch, according to Castor software coordinator, Hans Van Haevermaet, such a customization already exists to extend the eta range in the simulation to include Castor (SimWithCastor). We will then need to include multiple ones at the same time. Would you advise to prepare additional customization fragments?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[iik1997]

@civanch, @davidlange6

Using inputs to cmsDriver similar to:

Hydjet_Quenched_MinBias_2760GeV_cfi --conditions auto:starthi_HIon --scenario HeavyIons -n 1 --customise Configuration/StandardSequences/SimWithCastorPbPb_cff.customise --eventcontent RAWSIM --relval 500,5 -s GEN,SIM --datatier GEN-SIM (step1)

and

step2 --inputCommands keep ,drop *simEcalPreshowerDigis_* --conditions auto:starthi_HIon -s DIGI,L1,DIGI2RAW,HLT:HIon,RAW2DIGI,L1Reco --scenario HeavyIons --datatier GEN-SIM-DIGI-RAW-HLTDEBUG -n 1 --customise Configuration/StandardSequences/SimWithCastorPbPb_cff.customise --eventcontent FEVTDEBUGHLT (step2)

I got 3 custom fragments, SimWithCastorPbPb_cff.py, SimWithCastorPPb_cff.py and SimWithCastorPP_cff.py, running (all 3 are modifications of standardConfiguration/StandardSequences/python/SimWithCastor_cff.py). I checked also that the parameter of interest, photoelectronsToAnalog, was properly set in all 3 cases. Please note that I used (the same) customization fragment both at step 1 and step 2 (once to set the eta-range and another time to set the parameter in question).

How would you recommend to proceed? Should I somehow abandon this pull request and initiate another one for the 3 fragments?

Thanks

[civanch]

May be easier is to close this pull request and open a new one. In comment to the new PR make a reference this PR. Alternatively it is possible to update this one if you keep your branch.

[iik1997]

@civanch, @davidlange6
I have just updated the branch, the name of the branch may be a bit misleading yet I tried to explain commits

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #2035 was updated. @civanch, @nclopezo, @vlimant, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @franzoni, @Degano, @davidlange6 can you please check and sign again.

[civanch]

+1

[davidlange6]

+1
(for operations and orp)

[smuzaffar]

+tested