Expand L1T Shower data vs emulator comparison DQM

[zuoxunwu]

PR description:

This PR expands the data vs emulator comparison DQM plots for L1T shower objects, after the initial PR#36396.
Changes are:

• Add conditions to compare in-time nominal showers only.
• Make separate comparisons for nominal-only showers and tight showers.
• A small bugfix of shower processor assignment in EMTF shower emulator

PR validation:

Tests with a Higgs to LLP to 4b sample, all plots look good (available at link).

Cannot run unit test, error message
ERROR, invalid URL /dbs/prod/global/DBSReader/blocks?dataset=/ExpressCosmics/Commissioning2021-Express-v1/FEVT
Looks like an dasgoclient issue reported in issue#36527 and solved in PR#7522.

Passed matrix tests.

if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR:

N/A

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-36553/27490

• This PR adds an extra 36KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @zuoxunwu (Xunwu Zuo) for master.

It involves the following packages:

• DQM/L1TMonitor (dqm)
• DQM/L1TMonitorClient (dqm)
• L1Trigger/L1TMuonEndCap (l1)

@epalencia, @emanueleusai, @ahmad3213, @cmsbuild, @rekovic, @jfernan2, @pmandrik, @cecilecaillol, @pbo0, @rvenditti can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@dinyar, @missirol, @thomreis, @Martin-Grunewald 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

[zuoxunwu]

please test

[cecilecaillol]

please test

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-6a6351/21404/summary.html
COMMIT: ef1db3d
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_3_X_2021-12-20-1100/slc7_amd64_gcc10
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/36553/21404/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: 2 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 43
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3461562
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 6
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3461534
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 384.853 KiB( 42 files compared)
• DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 11634.0,... ): 54.604 KiB L1TEMU/L1TdeCSCTPGShower
• DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 11634.0,... ): 0.375 KiB L1TEMU/L1TdeStage2EMTF
• Checked 181 log files, 42 edm output root files, 43 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[jfernan2]

@zuoxunwu as you mentioned in #36396 (comment)
the plots remain empty, not even the small stats we had back then in test 11634.911

https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/baseLineComparisons/CMSSW_12_3_X_2021-12-20-1100+6a6351/47597/dqm-histo-comparison-summary.html

I guess again this is expected, but I wonder why wf 312.0 now gets this set of plots intended for Run3. Thanks

[zuoxunwu]

Hi, @jfernan2 sorry for the late reply.
Yeah, the small stats should be removed as now only showers passing tighter requirements are compared.

I think 312.0 is a Run 3 wf. If I understand correctly, wf 312.0 runs with config Run3_pp_on_PbPb, which contains generic Run 3 settings. Let me know if it makes sense to you.

[jfernan2]

Hi @zuoxunwu
Yes, it makes sense to me. Thanks

[jfernan2]

+1

[dinyar]

Hi @zuoxunwu,

This comment comes a bit late, apologies for that.

I'm curious: Is this module supposed to work only on the RegionalMuonShowers or also on the MuonShowers? The reason I ask is that so far the modules working on regional objects had the word included (e.g. L1TStage2RegionalMuonCandComp). If the modules are supposed to only do the regional showers would it be possible to rename them to be clearer?

Cheers,
Dinyar

[zuoxunwu]

Hi @dinyar,

Thanks for checking it during the winter break! No need for apologies.
The module is for RegionalMuonShower. I thought there was no need to make a module for MuonShower as the selection is finished at the EMTF step.

If I understand correctly the appearance of L1TStage2RegionalMuonCandComp you refer to is in L1TMonitor/python/L1TdeStage2EMTF_cff.py. That one is for comparison of muon track candidates and not showers. (I am adding shower comparisons there to the existing config.) The RegionalMuonShower comparison module is named L1TdeStage2Shower.
I hope this clears the situation. Let me know if you want the modules to be renamed or reorganized.

Best,
Xunwu

[dinyar]

Hi @zuoxunwu,

Right, so while it's true that the main logic is done in the EMTF (and before), the uGMT does merge the shower candidates received from EMTF and then forwards a single shower object to uGT. I'm not sure if we'll need a new module for the uGMT logic, I might just add it to the existing uGMT module if it's possible. Still, my feeling is that medium term it's more consistent to have "regional" in the name of the module just so newcomers easily understand where to find certain functionality.

All that said: I think this shouldn't stop this particular PR, but it's probably worth discussing in the new year in a DQM meeting amongst ourselves.

Cheers,
Dinyar

[zuoxunwu]

Naming has been updated after a discussion with @dinyar and @vukasinmilosevic.
Passed local tests.

@dinyar Could you confirm that the names are now good and no further change is needed?
@jfernan2 and @perrotta Could you unhold this PR and resume the approval procedure?

Thanks a lot,
Xunwu

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-36553/27812

• This PR adds an extra 48KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #36553 was updated. @epalencia, @emanueleusai, @ahmad3213, @cmsbuild, @rekovic, @jfernan2, @pmandrik, @cecilecaillol, @pbo0, @rvenditti can you please check and sign again.

[cecilecaillol]

please test

[perrotta]

unhold

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-6a6351/21750/summary.html
COMMIT: 1536d00
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_3_X_2022-01-16-2300/slc7_amd64_gcc10
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/36553/21750/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: 2 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 43
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3464608
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 5
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 1
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3464580
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 384.856 KiB( 42 files compared)
• DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 11634.0,... ): 54.604 KiB L1TEMU/L1TdeCSCTPGShower
• DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 11634.0,... ): 0.375 KiB L1TEMU/L1TdeStage2EMTF
• DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 312.0 ): 0.004 KiB MessageLogger/Warnings
• Checked 181 log files, 42 edm output root files, 43 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[cecilecaillol]

+l1

[jfernan2]

+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, @qliphy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

[perrotta]

+1