New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Use correct beamspot for 2016 MC + update MC tracker alignment scenario for 2016 pre-VFP era #28624
Use correct beamspot for 2016 MC + update MC tracker alignment scenario for 2016 pre-VFP era #28624
Conversation
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-28624/13159
|
A new Pull Request was created by @christopheralanwest for master. It involves the following packages: Configuration/AlCa @cmsbuild, @chayanit, @zhenhu, @christopheralanwest, @tocheng, @pgunnell, @franzoni, @kpedro88, @tlampen, @pohsun can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
please test workflow 7.22 |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
|
+1 |
Comparison job queued. |
Comparison is ready @slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:
Comparison Summary:
|
@christopheralanwest thanks for this.
|
Thanks for your comments.
In this case, I think that I should revert the change to the auto:run2_mc_l1stage1 GT but I will wait for a reply from @Martin-Grunewald.
OK. I will make this change, unless there are any objections.
It looks like this is purely a unit test and so could be changed to use the
Using a 2015 beamspot does not seem to be a very sensible default from a physics standpoint but if the beamspot is not specified explicitly (hopefully) that means that the choice of beamspot is not particularly relevant for that workflow and only consistency is needed. I will defer to PdmV experts on whether or not the default beamspot should be changed. |
I think that it is OK. @janekbechtel , could you confirm as embedding expert, please? |
Comparison is ready @slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:
Comparison Summary:
|
+1 |
+1 |
+1 |
+1 |
+upgrade |
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, @slava77, @smuzaffar, @fabiocos, @silviodonato (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
+1 |
PR description:
The MC that has been used to simulate 2016 data so far assumes a beamspot that is appropriate for describing the beamspot of data taken in 2015 with 25 ns bunch spacing. Previously the 2016 beamspot simulation was never changed to avoid inconsistencies between 2016 MC that had already been generated and any newly generated MC. There is no such consistency requirement for the UL as it will involve the regeneration of all GEN-SIM and so we can use the correct beamspot simulation. See the news from the 12 December 2019 PPD meeting for details.
The global tag updates change the
BeamSpotObjectsRcd
tag toBeamSpotObjects_Realistic25ns_13TeV2016Collisions_v1_mc
for 2016 MC scenarios. The vertex smearing used by 2016 workflows has also been updated for consistency.It also updates the MC tracker alignment scenario for the 2016 pre-VFP era.
Global tag diffs
https://cms-conddb.cern.ch/cmsDbBrowser/diff/Prod/gts/110X_mcRun2_design_v3/110X_mcRun2_design_v4
https://cms-conddb.cern.ch/cmsDbBrowser/diff/Prod/gts/110X_mcRun2_asymptotic_preVFP_v1/110X_mcRun2_asymptotic_preVFP_v3
https://cms-conddb.cern.ch/cmsDbBrowser/diff/Prod/gts/110X_mcRun2_asymptotic_v5/110X_mcRun2_asymptotic_v6
https://cms-conddb.cern.ch/cmsDbBrowser/diff/Prod/gts/110X_mcRun2cosmics_startup_deco_v4/110X_mcRun2cosmics_startup_deco_v5
PR validation:
The beamspot parameters are explicitly listed on slide 5 of the news from the 12 December 2019 PPD meeting together with fitted beamspot parameters from data and MC. In addition, a technical test was performed:
runTheMatrix.py -l 7.22,limited --ibeos
. Note that no RelVal workflows use eitherauto:run2_design
orauto:run2_mc_l1stage1
(though the addOn tests useauto:run2_mc_l1stage1
) so a similar technical test cannot be performed for these GTs.if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR:
This PR is not a backport but will be backported to 11_0_X and 10_6_X.