Skip to content
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 --beamspot Nominal2022PbPbCollision for all Run 3 heavy-ion workflows #40653

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Feb 22, 2023

Conversation

mandrenguyen
Copy link
Contributor

PR description:

Back in #39010 I updated the Run 3 heavy ion relval workflows to use their own dedicated vertex smearing, instead of the one inherited from pp. This was only done for the workflow running Hydjet (actual heavy-ion events). I forgot to also update the "noPU" workflows that just run pp collisions, but with the heavy-ion era. Since those wfs use the same beamspot tag, they were running with an inconsistent vertex smearing and reco beamspot. This PR fixes that. I also did a bit of cleanup.

PR validation:

I only tested that runTheMatrix.py -n -e doesn't crash.
We should trigger 159.02, 159.3 and 310

I don't think we need a backport.

@prebello

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-40653/33975

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @mandrenguyen (Matthew Nguyen) for master.

It involves the following packages:

  • Configuration/PyReleaseValidation (pdmv, upgrade)

@bbilin, @cmsbuild, @AdrianoDee, @srimanob, @kskovpen, @sunilUIET can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@makortel, @kpedro88, @Martin-Grunewald, @missirol, @fabiocos, @slomeo 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

@srimanob
Copy link
Contributor

srimanob commented Feb 1, 2023

test parameters:

  • workflows = 159.02,159.3,310

@srimanob
Copy link
Contributor

srimanob commented Feb 1, 2023

@cmsbuild please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Feb 1, 2023

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-08a26e/30323/summary.html
COMMIT: fec1773
CMSSW: CMSSW_13_0_X_2023-01-31-2300/el8_amd64_gcc11
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/40653/30323/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

  • You potentially added 581 lines to the logs
  • ROOTFileChecks: Some differences in event products or their sizes found
  • Reco comparison results: 1168 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 52
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3851131
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 11184
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3839925
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 51 files compared)
  • Checked 225 log files, 175 edm output root files, 52 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@mandrenguyen
Copy link
Contributor Author

Polite ping to review/sign for @cms-sw/upgrade-l2 @cms-sw/pdmv-l2

@kskovpen
Copy link
Contributor

+pdmv

@srimanob
Copy link
Contributor

+Upgrade

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

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)

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

please test
(previous tests have disappeared in the meanwhile)

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-08a26e/30789/summary.html
COMMIT: fec1773
CMSSW: CMSSW_13_1_X_2023-02-21-1100/el8_amd64_gcc11
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/40653/30789/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

  • You potentially added 53 lines to the logs
  • ROOTFileChecks: Some differences in event products or their sizes found
  • Reco comparison results: 1163 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 52
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3824441
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 11181
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3813238
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 51 files compared)
  • Checked 227 log files, 177 edm output root files, 52 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

@mandrenguyen changes in the 159.3 workflow are rather important, with overall a larger number of objects reconstructed of all kinds (calo, tracks, muons...). I imagine they can all be compatible with the updated beam spot, but could you please confirm that they are all expected?

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor

mmusich commented Feb 22, 2023

I imagine they can all be compatible with the updated beam spot, but could you please confirm that they are all expected?

this certainly looks more correct than before
Screenshot from 2023-02-22 09-10-13

@mandrenguyen
Copy link
Contributor Author

@perrotta Marco is probably better positioned than I am to immediately know how to diagnose whether the vertex smearing and beamspot are compatible. To reiterate, when we moved to the new vertex smearing we actually broke these workflows, because they were not using the corresponding GT. This new choice of GT has a beamspot tag that was derived using precisely this vertex smearing. If there's a doubt, I think @cms-sw/alca-l2 can comment or sign.

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@cmsbuild cmsbuild merged commit c56dd8a into cms-sw:master Feb 22, 2023
10 checks passed
@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor

mmusich commented Feb 22, 2023

To reiterate, when we moved to the new vertex smearing we actually broke these workflows, because they were not using the corresponding GT. This new choice of GT has a beamspot tag that was derived using precisely this vertex smearing.

Just for the record,

  • this is a dump the payload used for reconstruction:

image

  • this is the vertex smearing that was used before:

    Realistic25ns13p6TeVEarly2022CollisionVtxSmearingParameters = cms.PSet(
    Phi = cms.double(0.0),
    BetaStar = cms.double(30.0),
    Emittance = cms.double(6.621e-8),
    Alpha = cms.double(0.0),
    SigmaZ = cms.double(3.8),
    TimeOffset = cms.double(0.0),
    X0 = cms.double(0.100629),
    Y0 = cms.double(-0.014995),
    Z0 = cms.double(1.298155)
    )

  • this is the vertex smearing that is used now:

    Nominal2022PbPbCollisionVtxSmearingParameters = cms.PSet(
    Phi = cms.double(0.0),
    BetaStar = cms.double(50),
    Emittance = cms.double(3.36e-08),
    Alpha = cms.double(0.0),
    SigmaZ = cms.double(4.97),
    TimeOffset = cms.double(0.0),
    X0 = cms.double(0.100629),
    Y0 = cms.double(-0.014995),
    Z0 = cms.double(1.298155)
    )

It looks like the centroid is actually in the same position in the two vertex smearings and both are compatible with the beamspot used in global tag. On the other hand the old vertex smearing clearly disagrees with the payload in Global Tag in terms of longitudinal width (and probably also in terms of transverse beam width, but I didn't do the math using the emittance / beta*).
This might explain why in #40653 (comment) we do see more reconstructed tracks, but on the other hand the actual width of the DCA distribution is compatible (the average position of the vertices is the same).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

7 participants