Add VtxSmearing scenario for Run 3 early data at 13.6 TeV

[francescobrivio]

PR description:

This PR adds the realistic vertex smearing scenario for 2022 early data at 13.6 TeV: Realistic25ns13p6TeVEarly2022Collision.
Parameters used:

• The BeamSpot is extracted from run 355100 (fill 7920)
• The BPIX barycenter comes from this twiki

PR validation:

Code compiles

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:

Not a backport but a backport to 12_4_X is provided in #38617

FYI @dzuolo @gennai @mmusich @rappoccio @cms-sw/pdmv-l2

[francescobrivio]

urgent

• the backport should go in 12_4_X as soon as possible

[francescobrivio]

@cmsbuild please test

[rappoccio]

@perrotta @qliphy should we make a release with ONLY this PR on top of 12.4.1_patch1?

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-38616/30900

• This PR adds an extra 20KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

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

It involves the following packages:

• Configuration/StandardSequences (operations)
• IOMC/EventVertexGenerators (simulation)

@perrotta, @civanch, @mdhildreth, @qliphy, @fabiocos, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@fabiocos, @grzanka, @makortel, @felicepantaleo, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @JanFSchulte, @rovere, @VinInn, @Martin-Grunewald, @missirol, @lecriste, @mtosi, @ebrondol, @mmusich, @dgulhan, @slomeo this is something you requested to watch as well.
@perrotta, @dpiparo, @qliphy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[perrotta]

@perrotta @qliphy should we make a release with ONLY this PR on top of 12.4.1?

No! Unless there are very stringent reasons for it, I would rather avoid having to revert already merged PRs, or branching off from the main release cycle.

You can see the currently merged PRs on top of 12_4_1_patch1 in CMSSW_12_4_1_patch1...CMSSW_12_4_X : is there any of those PRs that disturbs you for any reason?

[davidlange6]

On Jul 6, 2022, at 4:20 PM, Andrea Perrotta ***@***.***> wrote: @perrotta @qliphy should we make a release with ONLY this PR on top of 12.4.1? No! Unless there are very stringent reasons for it, I would rather avoid having to revert already merged PRs, or branching off from the main release cycle.

You can also just make a CMSSW_12_4_1_patchX branch forking off from CMSSW_12_4_1. This was used routinely during run 2 for small fixes (not suggesting this fix or is not a good use case - perhaps not as its for MC and everything being accepted into 12_4_X should be appropriate for that) David

…

You can see the currently merged PRs on top of 12_4_1_patch1 in CMSSW_12_4_1_patch1...CMSSW_12_4_X : is there any of those PRs that disturbs you for any reason? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.

[civanch]

+1

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-0c5610/26013/summary.html
COMMIT: 699c098
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_5_X_2022-07-06-1100/el8_amd64_gcc10
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/38616/26013/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: 4 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 50
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3654771
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 13
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 1
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3654735
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.004 KiB( 49 files compared)
• DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 312.0 ): 0.004 KiB MessageLogger/Warnings
• Checked 208 log files, 45 edm output root files, 50 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[tvami]

@cms-sw/orp-l2 we should have this in for the 2300 IB, right?

[perrotta]

+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.

[perrotta]

On Jul 6, 2022, at 4:20 PM, Andrea Perrotta @.***> wrote: @perrotta @qliphy should we make a release with ONLY this PR on top of 12.4.1? No! Unless there are very stringent reasons for it, I would rather avoid having to revert already merged PRs, or branching off from the main release cycle.
You can also just make a CMSSW_12_4_1_patchX branch forking off from CMSSW_12_4_1. This was used routinely during run 2 for small fixes (not suggesting this fix or is not a good use case - perhaps not as its for MC and everything being accepted into 12_4_X should be appropriate for that) David

@davidlange6 this is exactly what I meant with "branching off from the main release cycle"
Simply I personally do not believe this is a good use case: let follow the usual path for it.

[mmusich]

shall we consider updating the vertex smearing in the run-3 relval scenarios too (once the GT has the right reco-level beamspot)?

cmssw/Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/upgradeWorkflowComponents.py

Line 2058 in 44487ef

'BeamSpot': 'Run3RoundOptics25ns13TeVLowSigmaZ',

@srimanob raised the point here

[rappoccio]

Hi, @mmusich yes, sorry, I meant to reply. We should do that for relvals in 12.5 I think.