GEN-only NanoAOD configs (NanoGEN) and cmsDriver support

[kdlong]

PR description:

Configuration files to produce only the GEN branches of NanoAOD for a convenient and standardized ntuple format for gen analysis. cmsDriver support to produce directly from a gridpack, or from a MiniAOD file, or anything in between.

PR validation:

Has been tested by generating quite a few samples privately. Some configs and cmsDriver commands tested here: https://github.com/kdlong/WMassNanoGen

Additionally configurability is still a work in progress. Small amount of restructuring of configs should be approved by NanoAOD experts

[cmsbuild]

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

[kdlong]

@agrohsje @peruzzim @menglu21

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-30306/16272

• This PR adds an extra 48KB to repository

• There are other open Pull requests which might conflict with changes you have proposed:

  • File Configuration/Applications/python/ConfigBuilder.py modified in PR(s): HYDJET, PYQUEN and the new embedding #30185
  • File PhysicsTools/NanoAOD/python/nano_cff.py modified in PR(s): Add DeepMET into NanoAOD #30291

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @kdlong (Kenneth Long) for master.

It involves the following packages:

Configuration/Applications
PhysicsTools/NanoAOD

@silviodonato, @peruzzim, @cmsbuild, @franzoni, @fgolf, @santocch, @fabiocos, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@makortel, @gpetruc, @fabiocos, @Martin-Grunewald this is something you requested to watch as well.
@silviodonato, @dpiparo you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[kdlong]

If the ultra legacy GEN is going to run in CMSSW 10_6, then we could have a consistent setup to do central production of NanoGEN through a similar campaign. How hard would this be to support in McM and DAS?

[silviodonato]

please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.

• CMSSW_11_2_X_2020-06-22-1100/slc7_amd64_gcc820: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-run-pr-tests/7253/console Started: 2020/06/22 18:23

[silviodonato]

@kdlong let me forward your question to @chayanit @pgunnell @wajidalikhan

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 8192918
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-a6b6fe/7253/summary.html
CMSSW: CMSSW_11_2_X_2020-06-22-1100
SCRAM_ARCH: slc7_amd64_gcc820

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-a6b6fe/7253/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 36
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2778811
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2778760
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 50
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 35 files compared)
• Checked 152 log files, 16 edm output root files, 36 DQM output files

[cmsbuild]

New categories assigned: generators

@alberto-sanchez,@SiewYan,@qliphy,@GurpreetSinghChahal,@mkirsano,@agrohsje you have been requested to review this Pull request/Issue and eventually sign? Thanks

[silviodonato]

@cms-sw/generators-l2 could you tell us what is the status of this PR? Is it ready to go?

[agrohsje]

i tested this pr a while ago and it looks quite good to me. i have one question about the preferred pdfs. for ul the last list is this one for 5 FS:
https://github.com/cms-sw/genproductions/blob/master/MetaData/pdflist_5f_2017.dat
but 325300 doesn't appear in the preferred list. @kdlong should we extend it/adjust?

[mariadalfonso]

@agrohsje
let's keep this long standing PR limited to the first set of changes for the GENnano.

Based on the discussion on the xPOG 25aug, we indeed need to update the PDF also for central nano UL.
Among other things I would like to understand which precision we need for these weights and understand the size change, update the nanoDQM for pdf ...

and If you agree, you can sign this PR with the caveat to do the PDF update separately

[agrohsje]

Thanks @mariadalfonso. Doing this in another PR is also fine with me. I just spotted and wanted to make sure we don't forget.
+1

[agrohsje]

+1

[santocch]

+1

[silviodonato]

+operations

[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. @silviodonato, @dpiparo, @qliphy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

[silviodonato]

+1