Store PS weights in 94X

[EmyrClement]

This is a similar PR to #25860, which was the backport to 93X, this is a combined backport #21477, #24209, #24305, and (partial) #21073.

The changes are needed to store PS weights in the RunIIpp5Spring18wmLHEGS campaign.

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @EmyrClement for CMSSW_9_4_X.

It involves the following packages:

Configuration/Generator
GeneratorInterface/Pythia8Interface

@alberto-sanchez, @cmsbuild, @efeyazgan, @perrozzi, @qliphy can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@Martin-Grunewald, @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

[efeyazgan]

please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/33407/console Started: 2019/03/05 11:50

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 21a4ed5
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-26067/33407/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-26067/33407/summary.html

The workflows 1001.0, 1000.0, 140.53, 136.8311, 136.7611, 136.731, 4.22 have different files in step1_dasquery.log than the ones found in the baseline. You may want to check and retrigger the tests if necessary. You can check it in the "files" directory in the results of the comparisons

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 27
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2721493
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 108
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2721223
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 162
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0

[efeyazgan]

+1

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_9_4_X IBs (tests are also fine) and once validation in the development release cycle CMSSW_10_6_X is complete. This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @davidlange6, @slava77, @smuzaffar, @fabiocos (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

[fabiocos]

@efeyazgan @qliphy @alberto-sanchez @franzoni @srimanob this PR is technically ok, but effectively will modify the GEN event weight content of samples in the middle of an existing campaign. Are we sure we want it?

[efeyazgan]

I think it should be fine if we inform MC contacts and analyzers. I think apart from heavy ions, 5 TeV run, and fastsim no one is using 94X for gen production.
@gkrintir anything to add?

[gkrintir]

Hello,

right. MC contacts and analyzers will be informed for this extra feauture.

This modification is needed to add the PS weights for samples (ttbar,tW) that we initially thought they had already included them. :[

To avoid any confusions we can discuss with Pdmv, e.g., to add a proper extension in the PDs name maybe?
-Edit: Like done in RunIIFall17 campaign for some TOP samples by adding "PSweights".

[fabiocos]

Adding PdmV experts @pgunnell @prebello @zhenhu for info

[efeyazgan]

"To avoid any confusions we can discuss with Pdmv, e.g., to add a proper extension in the PDs name maybe?" --> is a good idea.

[fabiocos]

Ok, the PR as it is does not change anything, it requires that the PSet is activated in some configuration fragment. So strictly speaking as far as I am concerned it can go. But of course PPD/PdmV should be aware of the possible consequences of its activation. The event format as such is untouched, but the GenEvent weights stored might differ from one sample to another depending on the use of these settings.

[fabiocos]

+1