Add Phase2 PbPb reco process modifier

[stahlleiton]

PR description:

This PR adds a new process modifier for Phase2 PbPb reconstruction. For the time being, this modifier adds the centrality producer and changes the iAbsEta threshold in calo towers used to select Phase2 HF towers in the centrality producer.

@mandrenguyen @davidlw

PR validation:

Tested with new relval 29751.85

If this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR. If this PR will be backported please specify to which release cycle the backport is meant for:

[cmsbuild]

cms-bot internal usage

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-45683/41238

• There are other open Pull requests which might conflict with changes you have proposed:
  • File Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/upgradeWorkflowComponents.py modified in PR(s): Add run3 tracking low pu era #33532, CMSSW Integration of LST #45117, TICLv5 : Superclustering DNN #45333, Clean up Phase-2 Geometry D86, D88, D91, D92, D93, D94, D97 #45370, Allowing Jumping BPix2->FPix2 For Pixel Doublets (and Alpaka Pixel Triplets *.406 wf) #45478, Update Pixel GPU DQM online client #45666
  • File RecoHI/HiCentralityAlgos/plugins/CentralityProducer.cc modified in PR(s): [RFC] descriptions.addDefault -> descriptions.addWithDefaultLabel #44372

[cmsbuild]

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

It involves the following packages:

• Configuration/Generator (generators)
• Configuration/ProcessModifiers (operations)
• Configuration/PyReleaseValidation (upgrade, pdmv)
• Configuration/StandardSequences (operations)
• RecoHI/HiCentralityAlgos (reconstruction)
• RecoJets/Configuration (reconstruction)

@AdrianoDee, @antoniovilela, @bbilin, @cmsbuild, @davidlange6, @fabiocos, @jfernan2, @kskovpen, @lviliani, @mandrenguyen, @menglu21, @miquork, @mkirsano, @rappoccio, @srimanob, @subirsarkar, @sunilUIET can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@GiacomoSguazzoni, @JanFSchulte, @Martin-Grunewald, @VinInn, @VourMa, @ahinzmann, @clelange, @dgulhan, @fabiocos, @felicepantaleo, @gkasieczka, @jazzitup, @jdamgov, @jdolen, @kurtejung, @makortel, @mandrenguyen, @mariadalfonso, @missirol, @mmusich, @mtosi, @nhanvtran, @rappoccio, @rovere, @sameasy, @schoef, @seemasharmafnal, @slomeo, @yenjie, @yetkinyilmaz this is something you requested to watch as well.
@antoniovilela, @mandrenguyen, @rappoccio, @sextonkennedy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[srimanob]

Hi @stahlleiton

I am not sure I follow the PR. You add modifier, but which workflow that modifier is used? For exampe, I see new workflow 29750.0 [1] that comes with this PR, but it comes with standard pp config. Do we already have special offsets for this new modifier, i.e. see list of offsets in https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/master/Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/README.md

Thx.

[1] Hydjet_Quenched_MinBias_5362GeV_2026D110_GenSimHLBeamSpot+DigiTrigger_2026D110+RecoGlobal_2026D110+HARVESTGlobal_2026D110+ALCAPhase2_2026D110

[stahlleiton]

It was not clear to me how to add a relval for upgrade workflows, so that was something I wanted to ask during PR review

[srimanob]

By the way @cms-sw/core-l2 @cms-sw/operations-l2
Could you please remind the difference between process modifiers defined in Configuration/ProcessModifiers and in Configuration/Eras? Thx.

[srimanob]

Hi @stahlleiton

Pick the offset which is not used yet (maybe 0.85), and see example of adding workflow in https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/master/Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/upgradeWorkflowComponents.py#L2007-L2031

[fabiocos]

@srimanob Eras vs Modifiers is an old discussion... see #22718

[mandrenguyen]

In the context of this particular PR, I'm not sure whether an era or an proc. mod. is more appropriate.
This will probably end up being like the (unfortunately named) proc. mod. pp_on_AA, which gets loaded by eras for specific years of ion data taking.
IIRC only eras can be loaded by the T0 configurations, but this consideration is not going to be relevant for some time still.
If no one objects, I think we can just go with the proposal in the PR to modify the Phase-2 heavy-ion reco with a proc. mod.

[srimanob]

Hi @fabiocos @mandrenguyen
Thanks for comment. To be clear, I am not talking about era, I just wondering what is different between 2 directories of modifier, e.g.
Configuration/Eras/python/Modifier_run2_muon_2018_cff.py
and
Configuration/ProcessModifiers/python/vectorHits_cff.py

Both have the same structure,

import FWCore.ParameterSet.Config as cms
something =  cms.Modifier()

[makortel]

I just wondering what is different between 2 directories of modifier

The intended difference was something around

• Configuration/Eras for modifiers related to data taking periods
• Configuration/ProcessModifiers for modifiers that are more or less independent of data taking periods

(I think I only rephrased what @fabiocos had written in #22718 (comment))

My feeling is there is some gray area between the two, and I'd bet we have some modifiers that could be argued to be misplaced.

[srimanob]

Thanks @makortel

I think for this case, it may fit well under Configuration/Eras as this will be called for Phase-2 reco. However, no objection to go as proposed. It seems grey to me.

I think if we have the new workflow offset, we should be ready to go.

[mandrenguyen]

Thanks @makortel

I think for this case, it may fit well under Configuration/Eras as this will be called for Phase-2 reco. However, no objection to go as proposed. It seems grey to me.

I think if we have the new workflow offset, we should be ready to go.

I'm not sure that a modifier that pertains to the Phase-2 detector qualifies as being appropriate for a specific run period.
The current pp_on_AA proc. mod. is implicitly only appropriate for the Phase-1 detector. It is called by specific eras for each running period. I would propose to continue with this model.

Probably a cleaner approach would be to have an overall heavy-ion modifier for stuff that's common to both the Phase-1 and Phase-2 detectors (e.g., storing the centrality object). Then we could have additional heavy-ion modifiers for Phase-1 and Phase-2, probably still as proc. mods.
Then the individual eras for specific heavy-ion data taking periods will simply load these modifier chains.
This could be done in a future PR.

[stahlleiton]

Added a new Phase-2 PbPb workflow. The relval number is: 29751.85

[mandrenguyen]

please test workflow 29751.85

[srimanob]

+Upgrade

Re-sign.

[cmsbuild]

+1

Size: This PR adds an extra 32KB to repository
Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-45bdef/40997/summary.html
COMMIT: d4adc0b
CMSSW: CMSSW_14_1_X_2024-08-17-1100/el8_amd64_gcc12
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/45683/40997/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

The following merge commits were also included on top of IB + this PR after doing git cms-merge-topic:

• @AdrianoDee Use BS from GT for 2022, 2023 and 2024 HI wfs #45695
• @bsunanda Run3-gem70X Update the new geometry file for 2024 GE21 #45716
• @Dr15Jones Avoid copying array in TracksterLinkingbySkeletons #45717
• @AdrianoDee Having Upgrade Matrix Failing for Duplicate Suffixes #45715
• @lecriste Parametrized magnetic field in alpaka #44360
• @bsunanda Run3-gex180X Modify the 2024 scenarios for the corrected positions of the GE21 detectors #45725
• @bsunanda Phase2-hgx359N Correct the conversion code for fine scintillator tiles of HGCal V19 geometry in the assignment of cassette number #45724

You can see more details here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-45bdef/40997/git-recent-commits.json
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-45bdef/40997/git-merge-result

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• You potentially removed 3 lines from the logs
• Reco comparison results: 104 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 45
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3422510
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 2849
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3419641
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 20
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 44 files compared)
• Checked 196 log files, 165 edm output root files, 45 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[mandrenguyen]

+reconstruction

[AdrianoDee]

+pdmv

[menglu21]

+1

[mandrenguyen]

+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 be automatically merged.