Add era mechanism for a new APV pulse shape for deco mode for Run 2

[bourgatte]

Add a new APV pulse shape for deco mode for Run 2.
From last week, a talk on APV pulse shape and an other on Data/MC comparison:

First talk
Second talk

The conclusion was that with the APV shape using the best simulation for a 320 micron sensor we had a better Data/MC comparison in low cluster charge and high cluster width compared to the default one.

So some changes are expected in the cluster charge, size and shape distributions, and also small
differences in tracking distributions.

A check was made with 2016 data but the comparison is worse in 2016 than in 2018 by default. The disagreement is by far larger than the differences introduced by changing the APV shape. Also 2018 has the largest data set. That's why we can apply the new APV pulse shape for the whole Run 2.

[cmsbuild]

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-25726/8118

• This PR adds an extra 24KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @bourgatte for master.

It involves the following packages:

SimGeneral/MixingModule
SimTracker/SiStripDigitizer

@cmsbuild, @civanch, @mdhildreth can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@echabert, @makortel, @pieterdavid, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @rovere, @VinInn, @prolay, @ebrondol, @mmusich, @threus, @dgulhan 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

[civanch]

please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/32751/console Started: 2019/01/21 19:37

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 21f2d7c
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-25726/32751/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-25726/32751/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• ROOTFileChecks: Some differences in event products or their sizes found
• Reco comparison results: 17525 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 32
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3097440
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 43166
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3054077
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 197
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: -2.536 KiB( 31 files compared)
• DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 25202.0,... ): 0.063 KiB SiStrip/MechanicalView
• DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 250202.181 ): -2.662 KiB SiStrip/MechanicalView
• Checked 133 log files, 14 edm output root files, 32 DQM output files

[pieterdavid]

From a first look, most differences are as expected: only the run2 MC workflows have differences, in the SiStrip digis (see GlobalDigisV), and consequently there are differences in the ADCs and cluster charges, and there are statistical differences in the strip hit resolution plots.
Some of the tracking differences (e.g. the fake rates here) look quite large, however... I do not know how much that should worry us (and whether we can tell from these tests). @mtosi @JanFSchulte could you provide some guidance? Thanks in advance!

[JanFSchulte]

@pieterdavid These changes seem only to affect the fake rate as a function of the dzpvcut, no other comparisons are flagged as failing. I am a bit puzzled as to which might happen, but I also don't think it's that big of an issue as otherwise everything else seems to be fine. Maybe @VinInn or @makortel have a bit more insight here.

[makortel]

The dzpvcut plots are very sensitive to any fluctuations (since they are cumulative). The PR test RelMon has minimum thresholds for changes to limit the size of the RelMon, i.e. in presence of changes a plot (e.g. fake rate vs eta) not being shown does not necessarily mean that that plot would be unchanged.

[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. @davidlange6, @slava77, @smuzaffar, @fabiocos (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

[pieterdavid]

Thanks @JanFSchulte and @makortel !

[fabiocos]

+1