Should we remove EventInterpretation step out from relval?

[srimanob]

Since 10_6 (Legacy), we stop using EI step in the production. Do we still need it in Run-2/Run-3 relvals workflows? I've checked with

• runTheMatrix.py -i all --ibeos -l 10801.0
• runTheMatrix.py -i all --ibeos -l 11650.0
  and EI step is still there, e.g. in
  https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/master/Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/relval_steps.py#L3339

This is to reflect the "close-to-"real sequence using in production.

Any concerns from RECO @slava77 @jpata

[cmsbuild]

A new Issue was created by @srimanob Phat Srimanobhas.

@Dr15Jones, @dpiparo, @silviodonato, @smuzaffar, @makortel, @qliphy can you please review it and eventually sign/assign? Thanks.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[makortel]

assign reconstruction, pdmv, upgrade

[cmsbuild]

New categories assigned: pdmv,upgrade,reconstruction

@slava77,@chayanit,@wajidalikhan,@perrotta,@jpata,@jordan-martins,@kpedro88,@srimanob you have been requested to review this Pull request/Issue and eventually sign? Thanks

[davidlange6]

At least some of the dqm sequences still require it.. (eg, @standardDQM)

…

On Jan 12, 2021, at 3:07 PM, Phat Srimanobhas ***@***.***> wrote: Since 10_6 (Legacy), we stop using EI step in the production. Do we still need it in Run-2/Run-3 relvals workflows? I've checked with • runTheMatrix.py -i all --ibeos -l 10801.0 • runTheMatrix.py -i all --ibeos -l 11650.0 and EI step is still there. This is to reflect the "close-to-"real sequence using in production. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.

[makortel]

assign dqm

[cmsbuild]

New categories assigned: dqm

@jfernan2,@andrius-k,@fioriNTU,@kmaeshima,@ErnestaP you have been requested to review this Pull request/Issue and eventually sign? Thanks

[jfernan2]

For dqm sequences it seems only the Physics DQM require EI:
https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/caa48369fc0e28abc8536b955ddb93348b660cd0/DQM/Physics/python/DQMPhysics_cff.py

[srimanob]

Thanks, @jfernan2

If my memory is correct, the EI was introduced since long before PAT was still known as the analysis tool, not part of the central sequence. And there was an objection to validate PAT objects (as no central/agree obj). Cleaning objects were still analysis dependent job using the tool. I think if people want to validate the object nowadays, MiniAOD object is a good candidate as it is used for analysis, not EI object.

Maybe @rappoccio can comment as he implemented path in that time (base on TOP object, I think).

[rappoccio]

There's still an argument for using some kind of lepton cleaning. MiniAOD doesn't do lepton cleaning by default either, so perhaps we could migrate the DQM modules that use it (like TOP) to do lepton cleaning on MiniAOD instead?

[rappoccio]

To be clear, I agree that removing EI from the sequence is appropriate.

[jfernan2]

Adding TOP DQM contact: @kuyoun

[slava77]

Any concerns from RECO @slava77 @jpata

we removed it from the outputs AOD a while ago and the step is kept for DQM purposes.

[srimanob]

Thanks @slava77

I think this answers to @chayanit @wajidalikhan @jordan-martins that we don't need EI step for MC production. Then up to Top DQM for considering on migration.

[jfernan2]

ping @kuyoun

[jfernan2]

Hi, since there is no response from TOP developers I am removing EI in: #36465

[srimanob]

Thanks @jfernan2
I think when PR is merged and IB runs fine, we can close this opened issue.

[jfernan2]

+1

[perrotta]

Thanks @jfernan2 I think when PR is merged and IB runs fine, we can close this opened issue.

@srimanob #36465 is now merged (sice a while): I think we can close this issue, isn't it? Please re-open if I misunderstood your previous comment.