Fix unit conversion in PPS Reco LUT shift

[ChrisMisan]

PR description:

Fix units for LUT shift in PPS Reco - LUT shift is currently 0 for run3 data but the new payload will be uploaded in the future.

PR validation:

standard validation

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

[ChrisMisan]

type ctpps, bugfix

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-40697/34062

• This PR adds an extra 12KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @ChrisMisan (Christopher) for master.

It involves the following packages:

• RecoPPS/Local (reconstruction)

@cmsbuild, @mandrenguyen, @clacaputo can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@missirol, @forthommel, @grzanka 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

[ChrisMisan]

please test

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-d06770/30411/summary.html
COMMIT: 725a9d7
CMSSW: CMSSW_13_0_X_2023-02-05-0000/el8_amd64_gcc11
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/40697/30411/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• You potentially added 3 lines to the logs
• Reco comparison results: 8 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 49
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3555495
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3555473
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 48 files compared)
• Checked 213 log files, 164 edm output root files, 49 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[perrotta]

@cms-sw/reconstruction-l2 this PR is a bug fix, and at a first sight rather uncontroversial: could you please have a look and either sign or comment on it so that it can be included in pre4?

[perrotta]

Fix units for LUT shift in PPS Reco - LUT shift is currently 0 but the new payload will be uploaded in the future.

That shift was evidently not 0 in the 2017 and 2018 data, looking at the differences observed in wfs 136.793 and 136.874
@ChrisMisan could you please explain and or comment?

[ChrisMisan]

Fix units for LUT shift in PPS Reco - LUT shift is currently 0 but the new payload will be uploaded in the future.

That shift was evidently not 0 in the 2017 and 2018 data, looking at the differences observed in wfs 136.793 and 136.874 @ChrisMisan could you please explain and or comment?

@perrotta shift was calculated in the lab but we found out later that it was incorrect and changed it to 0. It may not have been included in the GT yet. At this point it is not necesserily important what are the payload numbers as we plan to update it in the recent future.

[perrotta]

@ChrisMisan thank you for your answer.
Still I don't understand whether you expected having that shift different from 0 (i.e. this PR does affect the reco outputs) for 2017C and 2018C...

[perrotta]

urgent

• marking as "urgent" what was requested for 13_0_0_pre4 during the ORP meeting of Feb 7

[ChrisMisan]

@ChrisMisan thank you for your answer. Still I don't understand whether you expected having that shift different from 0 (i.e. this PR does affect the reco outputs) for 2017C and 2018C...

I believe this is in line with: #36713 (comment)

[perrotta]

@ChrisMisan so you are cleaming that this PR recovers for those plots the situation pre #36713, and that this is deemed correct by you. I am not sure I understand the point, but at least plots look nicer now ;-) see for example for wf 136.874

In any case, if so the statment "LUT shift is currently 0 but the new payload will be uploaded in the future" is probably wrong, and should be fixed in the PR description: would it be really "0" it wouldn't have generated any difference in output once multiplied by ts_to_ns_

[ChrisMisan]

@perrotta I believe we're using different payload for run2 and run3 data and this is causing the difference, we can investigate this further but I don't see how it affects this PR. This is a matter of which payload and which gt we're using. We will change the payload numbers in the future and aim of this PR is to fix unit conversion.

[clacaputo]

+reconstruction

• bugfix
• change in reco affect only CTPPS timing variables, as expected from the changes introduced by the PR

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

[perrotta]

+1

[vavati]

Just for the record: both WFs are using the same GT=123X_dataRun2_HLT_relval_v3
where by mistake there is a non null payload for LUT calibration. Hence what you see is the real effect of this bug-fix, despite the calibration is not correct for Run2 data (but it is not huge so it could be valid!)

[perrotta]

Just for the record: both WFs are using the same GT=123X_dataRun2_HLT_relval_v3 where by mistake there is a non null payload for LUT calibration. Hence what you see is the real effect of this bug-fix, despite the calibration is not correct for Run2 data (but it is not huge so it could be valid!)

Grazie Valentina! This is the answer that I was looking for.