HCAL: make HBHE zero suppression simulation identical to the data-taking one for Run3

[abdoulline]

PR description:

It's a trivial fix (of long-lasting omission)
to make HBHE ZS simulation identical to what's actually in the HCAL firmware at P5 since early 2022...
The effect on 2022 MC (with yet fairly low DC noise) is small, see default 2022 single-pion (noPU) comparison w/wo this PR
https://cms-docs.web.cern.ch/hcal-sw-validation/calo_scan_single_pi/13_0_X/13_0_0_pre2_run3_ZS_SOI_vs_13_0_0_pre2_run3_SinglePi/

A priori expectations for
(1) regular Run3 wfs: decrease of the number of very low-e hits (<50-100 MeV in RecHits energy equivalent)
naturally PU wfs are somewhat more affected than noPU ones;
(2) Phase2 wfs without aging: similar to (1);
(3) Phase2 wfs with the regular 1000/fb aging: no changes .

PR validation:

runTheMatrix.py -l limited

If this PR is a backport

No. But for any 2023/2024-related MC studies using 12_6_X with (projected) high DC noise conditions, a backport #40447 would be needed.

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-40444/33596

• This PR adds an extra 12KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @abdoulline (Salavat Abdullin) for master.

It involves the following packages:

• SimCalorimetry/HcalZeroSuppressionProducers (simulation)

@cmsbuild, @civanch, @mdhildreth can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@bsunanda, @sameasy, @rovere this is something you requested to watch as well.
@perrotta, @dpiparo, @rappoccio you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[civanch]

please test

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-15b519/29824/summary.html
COMMIT: 4537ef6
CMSSW: CMSSW_13_0_X_2023-01-07-1100/el8_amd64_gcc11
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/40444/29824/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 4573 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 49
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3555748
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 3722
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3552004
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 48 files compared)
• Checked 211 log files, 162 edm output root files, 49 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: found differences in 3 / 47 workflows

[civanch]

+1

@abdoulline , I would expect that regression can be slightly modified

[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. @perrotta, @dpiparo, @rappoccio (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

[abdoulline]

@abdoulline , I would expect that regression can be slightly modified

@civanch I'm not sure I understand your question, could you, please re-formulate it in a more explicit way?

[perrotta]

@abdoulline , perhaps while waiting for @civanch explaining his comment you could clean this config by removing all type specifications for cloned parameters, here and also in the modifications applied above in this file

[abdoulline]

@abdoulline , perhaps while waiting for @civanch explaining his comment you could clean this config by removing all type specifications for cloned parameters, here and also in the modifications applied above in this file

@perrotta good point, done.

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-40444/33599

• This PR adds an extra 12KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #40444 was updated. @cmsbuild, @civanch, @mdhildreth can you please check and sign again.

[perrotta]

please test

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-15b519/29829/summary.html
COMMIT: bcc106c
CMSSW: CMSSW_13_0_X_2023-01-08-0000/el8_amd64_gcc11
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/40444/29829/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 4815 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 49
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3555748
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 3165
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3552561
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 48 files compared)
• Checked 211 log files, 162 edm output root files, 49 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: found differences in 3 / 47 workflows

[abdoulline]

RecHits energy spectra from the most affected wf 11834.0 (Run3 TTbar PU)

HB
https://tinyurl.com/yz6pa7wn

HE
https://tinyurl.com/y9w2k5nu

[civanch]

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

[civanch]

@abdoulline , sorry, I mean that this PR should slightly modify few plots and this is OK.

[perrotta]

+1

[srimanob]

Hi @abdoulline

Looking on PR description, you said
(2) Phase2 wfs without aging: similar to (1);
(3) Phase2 wfs with the regular 1000/fb aging: no changes .

Do I understand correctly that
(2) ==> Seen in PR test
(3) ==> We can't check until we have release
?

[abdoulline]

Hi @srimanob
that's correct, I believe.
For (3) pedestals are so high that actual ZS cuts are ineffective no matter w/wo this fix.
There is and will be 100% HB occupancy in Phase2 wfs with aging1000/fb...

[srimanob]

Hi @abdoulline
OK, thanks. Actually, we have a wf with aging1000/fb which can be tested with PR test? Should I do that for the open one, just to make sure everything is as expected.

[abdoulline]

@srimanob yes, I know, more so -it's easy/straightforward to add aging customization to any Phase2 wf (cmsDriver).
I'd appreciate if you could make this test, as I'm quite busy now with HCAL preparations for TSG studies...