ETL Geometry V8

[24LopezR]

PR description:

This PR implements new version of ETL geometry (v8) that includes modules with several LGAD sensors (2 in this case). This geometry is integrated in MTD I17 and CMS D105.
The details about the motivation and implementation can be found in these presentations:

• MTD DPG (10/11)
• MTD DPG (13/10)
• MTD DPG (09/06)

PR validation:

For validation, a TTbar 14TeV has been run with the nominal code in D98 geometry, and the new code in D98 and D105 geometries. We observe (see attached plot (plot legend says D104 but ultimately D104->D105)):

1. Older geometries remain untouched.
2. The size of the ETL sensor is halved as expected.
3. The number of events recorded is about 10% higher, as the logical area of the pixels has been increased.

Added runTheMatrix test workflow 27634.0 for this scenario 2026D105.

@parbol @fabiocos

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-43407/37910

• This PR adds an extra 7364KB to repository

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

  • File Configuration/Geometry/README.md modified in PR(s): Porting Pixel Tracks to Alpaka [Not to Merge]  #41117, [NanoAOD,BTVNano] Btvnano integration as customized module #43401
  • File Configuration/Geometry/python/dict2026Geometry.py modified in PR(s): revert PR 40443 w/o introducing bricked pixels #42454, [NanoAOD,BTVNano] Btvnano integration as customized module #43401
  • File Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/upgradeWorkflowComponents.py modified in PR(s): Add run3 tracking low pu era #33532, Porting Pixel Tracks to Alpaka [Not to Merge]  #41117, Guard for No Digis for Phase2 and Patatrack NuGun #41255, Add Phase-2 workflow with Phase-2 ECal trigger primitive, also with ECal component #43057, Read VertexSmearing from GT in Run-1/2/3 MC #43242, Pixel Alpaka Migration: Configs and Fixes [VII] #43294, move relval2023 autoHLT key to 2023v12 frozen menu and create relval2024 autoHLT key (currently pointing to GRun) #43357, [NanoAOD,BTVNano] Btvnano integration as customized module #43401
  • File Configuration/StandardSequences/python/GeometryConf.py modified in PR(s): [NanoAOD,BTVNano] Btvnano integration as customized module #43401

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @24LopezR (Ruben Lopez) for master.

It involves the following packages:

• Configuration/Geometry (geometry, upgrade)
• Configuration/PyReleaseValidation (pdmv, upgrade)
• Configuration/StandardSequences (operations)
• DataFormats/ForwardDetId (simulation, upgrade)
• Geometry/CMSCommonData (geometry, upgrade)
• Geometry/MTDCommonData (geometry, upgrade)
• Geometry/MTDGeometryBuilder (geometry, upgrade)
• Geometry/MTDNumberingBuilder (geometry, upgrade)
• Geometry/MTDSimData (geometry, upgrade)
• RecoMTD/DetLayers (upgrade, reconstruction)
• SimFastTiming/FastTimingCommon (simulation, upgrade)

@miquork, @mandrenguyen, @cmsbuild, @AdrianoDee, @srimanob, @Dr15Jones, @fabiocos, @jfernan2, @bsunanda, @davidlange6, @sunilUIET, @antoniovilela, @rappoccio, @mdhildreth, @makortel, @civanch can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@vargasa, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @youyingli, @slomeo, @dgulhan, @rovere, @apsallid, @Martin-Grunewald, @fabiocos, @felicepantaleo, @missirol, @mtosi, @bsunanda, @sameasy, @VourMa, @VinInn, @makortel, @JanFSchulte, @mmusich this is something you requested to watch as well.
@rappoccio, @antoniovilela, @sextonkennedy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[fabiocos]

please test

[fabiocos]

@srimanob @bsunanda this test will not probe the new geometry, just confirm no impact on the older one. In order to explicitly test the new geometry we should add the new (D104) scenario to the short matrix. Do you agree on this addition?

[srimanob]

Hi @fabiocos
It depends on how we will move next. Currently, we are at D98 and moving to D99. If we woudl like to jump to D101 first, or we jump to MTD first. However, both option include C18.

D99 = T32+C18+M10+I16+O9+F8
D100 = T34+C17+M11+I16+O9+F8
D101 = T34+C18+M11+I16+O9+F8
D102 = T35+C17+M11+I16+O9+F8
D103 = T34+C21+M11+I16+O9+F8
D104 = T34+C21+M11+I17+O9+F8

[cmsbuild]

-1

Failed Tests: UnitTests
Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-e10051/36114/summary.html
COMMIT: e82c49d
CMSSW: CMSSW_14_0_X_2023-11-27-2300/el8_amd64_gcc12
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/43407/36114/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Unit Tests

I found 2 errors in the following unit tests:

---> test GeometryMTDNumberingBuilderTestDriver had ERRORS
---> test test2026Geometry had ERRORS

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• You potentially added 382 lines to the logs
• Reco comparison results: 18 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 50
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3367918
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1110
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3366786
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 49 files compared)
• Checked 214 log files, 167 edm output root files, 50 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[fabiocos]

@24LopezR the first failed unit test is a consequence of the change in the top level ETL DetIds I was telling you a few days ago. If we want to keep this we need to update accordingly the reference files.

[fabiocos]

@24LopezR the D104 geometry configuration files need to be ri-generated by rerunning the script

python3 Configuration/Geometry/scripts/generate2026Geometry.py -D104

Changes are unrelated to MTD, I assume updates recently introduced

[fabiocos]

@24LopezR looking at the D104 definition here, I wonder whether this si what we want for tracker and calorimeters. @srimanob @bsunanda probably we should base this on top of D99 that is the new baseline, right? The only important thing is that tracker and calo envelope are compatible with BTL and ETL respectively, and in both T32 and T34 they are, Calo envelope around ETL isn't changed to my knowledge.

[fabiocos]

@24LopezR please update D104 basing it on D99 as starting point, i.e. just D104 = T32+C18+M10+I17+O9+F8

[bsunanda]

+geometry

[srimanob]

@24LopezR could you please fix PR description to D105 to avoid future confusion. Thx.

[24LopezR]

@srimanob Done! :)

[srimanob]

+Upgrade

The new workflow of D105 runs fine.

[civanch]

+1

[bsunanda]

@sunilUIET Please approve this PR

[sunilUIET]

+pdmv

[mandrenguyen]

+reconstruction
Nothing changes to comparisons, but it seems from this comment #43407 (comment)
that the output is sensible

[fabiocos]

@cms-sw/orp-l2 the additions to the operations area are the usual set of workflows for scenario D105, and the availability of one of them in the short matrix. Do you see issues with that? Otherwise can we move forward with the integration of this PR? I have ready its extension to BTL exploiting the same geometry scenario.

[antoniovilela]

+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.