Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Phase 2 tracker: realistic description of 3D modules in inner tracker #41880

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 16, 2023

Conversation

adewit
Copy link
Contributor

@adewit adewit commented Jun 6, 2023

PR description:

This adds a new tracker (T33, workflow D100) with a more realistic description of the 3D modules, which consist of two separate sensors with a gap between them. This is now modelled correctly. The new geometry also updates the sizes of the dead areas in other parts of the inner tracker, to match the latest designs. More details e.g. available here: https://indico.cern.ch/event/1242574/contributions/5382602/attachments/2637975/4564459/em20230428.pdf

@emiglior FYI

PR validation:

Code checks+format done; verified that standard workflows still run.

Track validation inspected (http://personalpages.to.infn.it/~migliore/T25std_T25split/FourMu_NoSmear/plots-new/index.html) and looks as expected.

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

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jun 6, 2023

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-41880/35800

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jun 6, 2023

A new Pull Request was created by @adewit for master.

It involves the following packages:

  • Configuration/AlCa (alca)
  • Configuration/Geometry (geometry, upgrade)
  • Configuration/PyReleaseValidation (pdmv, upgrade)
  • Configuration/StandardSequences (operations)
  • DataFormats/TrackerCommon (reconstruction)
  • Geometry/CMSCommonData (geometry, upgrade)
  • Geometry/CommonDetUnit (geometry)
  • Geometry/CommonTopologies (geometry)
  • Geometry/TrackerCommonData (geometry)
  • Geometry/TrackerGeometryBuilder (geometry)
  • Geometry/TrackerNumberingBuilder (geometry)
  • Geometry/TrackerRecoData (geometry)
  • Geometry/TrackerSimData (geometry)
  • RecoTracker/MeasurementDet (reconstruction)
  • RecoTracker/PixelLowPtUtilities (reconstruction)
  • RecoTracker/TkDetLayers (reconstruction)

@perrotta, @rappoccio, @Dr15Jones, @bsunanda, @makortel, @bbilin, @civanch, @mdhildreth, @tvami, @cmsbuild, @AdrianoDee, @srimanob, @saumyaphor4252, @clacaputo, @kskovpen, @sunilUIET, @francescobrivio, @mandrenguyen, @fabiocos, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@VourMa, @felicepantaleo, @kpedro88, @ghugo83, @Martin-Grunewald, @bsunanda, @mmusich, @slomeo, @venturia, @vargasa, @makortel, @JanFSchulte, @dgulhan, @missirol, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @rovere, @VinInn, @tocheng, @ebrondol, @mtosi, @fabiocos, @gpetruc, @sameasy 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

from Geometry.TrackerGeometryBuilder.trackerParameters_cff import *
from Geometry.TrackerNumberingBuilder.trackerTopology_cfi import *
from Geometry.TrackerGeometryBuilder.idealForDigiTrackerGeometry_cff import *
trackerGeometry.applyAlignment = False
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

why? #41075

from Geometry.TrackerGeometryBuilder.trackerParameters_cff import *
from Geometry.TrackerNumberingBuilder.trackerTopology_cfi import *
from Geometry.TrackerGeometryBuilder.idealForDigiTrackerGeometry_cff import *
trackerGeometry.applyAlignment = False
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

why? #41075

'from Geometry.TrackerGeometryBuilder.trackerParameters_cff import *',
'from Geometry.TrackerNumberingBuilder.trackerTopology_cfi import *',
'from Geometry.TrackerGeometryBuilder.idealForDigiTrackerGeometry_cff import *',
'trackerGeometry.applyAlignment = False',
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

why? #41075

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Apologies for the omission and thanks for spotting it - T33 was cloned from T25 before 41075, and I missed the change afterwards. Now corrected.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jun 6, 2023

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-41880/35801

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jun 6, 2023

@srimanob
Copy link
Contributor

srimanob commented Jun 6, 2023

test parameters:

  • workflows = 25634.0
  • relvals_opt = --what cleanedupgrade,standard,highstats,pileup,generator,extendedgen,production,identity,ged,machine,premix,nano,gpu,2017,2026

@srimanob
Copy link
Contributor

srimanob commented Jun 6, 2023

Hi @adewit
Could you please comment on the plan for new geometry? We are about to move the baseline to T98 in CMSSW_13_2_0_pre2. Do you want to start the call for validation after that?

@srimanob
Copy link
Contributor

srimanob commented Jun 6, 2023

@cmsbuild please test

@emiglior
Copy link
Contributor

emiglior commented Jun 6, 2023

Could you please comment on the plan for new geometry? We are about to move the baseline to T98 in CMSSW_13_2_0_pre2. Do you want to start the call for validation after that?

As we do not observe large differences in physics performance between T33/D100 and T32/D98 (and considering that T33 is not yet the final TBPX layout), it is not strictly necessary adopting T33 as new baseline.

A possible exception is if 13_2_X will be used for the production of large MC samples of interest for the Tracker alignment. The reason is that T33 is introducing a new level in the hierarchy and a new detid scheme for TBPX layer1, and perhaps there is in some interest in the TkAl group to start to play with this geometry.
But @sroychow @consuegs @henriettepetersen are in a better position to comment on this.

@sunilUIET
Copy link
Contributor

+pdmv

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

@sunilUIET Can you please sign this urgently?

@bsunanda @adewit please notice that it is now too late for entering a 17k line code into pre2, which we plan to build within minutes. This PR will be taken into account for the next pre-release

@bsunanda
Copy link
Contributor

That is fine. I want an IB with this PR included. I need to modify the dictionary for both Run3 and Phase2 scenarios for some corrections. One of them is rather urgent (RPC geometry)

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

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.

@cmsbuild cmsbuild merged commit a85e8b9 into cms-sw:master Jun 16, 2023
unsigned int layerMask_;
unsigned int ladderMask_;
unsigned int moduleMask_;
unsigned int doubleMask_;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@adewit , we have couple of warning in IBs due to this change. Can you please provide a fix with correct default values for these newly added member here https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/master/DataFormats/TrackReco/test/testHitPattern.cpp#L16

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi @smuzaffar - since this member is not used for phase 0 or 1 I will just 0-initialize it in testHitPattern.cpp. Given the unit tests apparently didn't reveal this problem, what test(s) should I run locally to make sure everything is now OK?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I guess, just recompiling DataFormats/TrackReco will tell.

mmusich added a commit to mmusich/cmssw that referenced this pull request Oct 18, 2023
- In the case of the phase-2 IT there is an additional layer of hierarcy, due ot split sensors in Layer 1. First introduced in PR cms-sw#41880
mmusich added a commit to mmusich/cmssw that referenced this pull request Oct 18, 2023
- In the case of the phase-2 IT there is an additional layer of hierarcy, due ot split sensors in Layer 1. First introduced in PR cms-sw#41880
mmusich added a commit to mmusich/cmssw that referenced this pull request Oct 19, 2023
- In the case of the phase-2 IT there is an additional layer of hierarcy, due ot split sensors in Layer 1. First introduced in PR cms-sw#41880
@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor

mmusich commented Oct 19, 2023

For the record this commit 5af9d66 should have been propagated to StandaloneTrackerTopology as well [*] (to keep in mind if there are further changes foreseen in the hierarchy).

@emiglior @sroychow FYI

[*] fixed now at #43059

mmusich added a commit to mmusich/cmssw that referenced this pull request Oct 19, 2023
- In the case of the phase-2 IT there is an additional layer of hierarcy, due ot split sensors in Layer 1. First introduced in PR cms-sw#41880
mmusich added a commit to mmusich/cmssw that referenced this pull request Oct 23, 2023
- In the case of the phase-2 IT there is an additional layer of hierarcy, due ot split sensors in Layer 1. First introduced in PR cms-sw#41880
RSalvatico pushed a commit to RSalvatico/cmssw that referenced this pull request Nov 24, 2023
- In the case of the phase-2 IT there is an additional layer of hierarcy, due ot split sensors in Layer 1. First introduced in PR cms-sw#41880
@@ -27,6 +28,7 @@
'T21' : ( ','.join( [ 'SiPixelLorentzAngle_phase2_T15_v5_mc' ,SiPixelLARecord,connectionString, "", "2020-05-05 20:00:00.000"] ), ), #uH = 0.053/T (TBPX), uH=0.0/T (TEPX+TFPX)
'T25' : ( ','.join( [ 'SiPixelLorentzAngle_phase2_T25_v0_mc' ,SiPixelLARecord,connectionString, "", "2021-03-16 20:00:00.000"] ), ), #uH = 0.053/T (TBPX L2,L3,L4), uH=0.0/T (TBPX L1 TEPX+TFPX)
'T30' : ( ','.join( [ 'SiPixelLorentzAngle_phase2_IT_v6.4.0_25x100_v1_mc' ,SiPixelLARecord,connectionString, "", "2021-11-22 21:00:00.000"] ), ), #uH = 0.053/T (TBPX), uH=0.0/T (TEPX+TFPX)
'T33' : ( ','.join( [ 'SiPixelLorentzAngle_phase2_IT_v7.1.1_25x100_v1_mc' ,SiPixelLARecord,connectionString, "", "2023-05-16 20:00:00.000"] ), ), #uH = 0.053/T (TBPX L2,L3,L4), uH=0.0/T (TBPX L1 TEPX+TFPX)
}

allTags["LAWidth"] = {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

for the record, this section of the map should have been updated as well, see #43466 (comment) and following.

zhenbinwu pushed a commit to zhenbinwu/cmssw that referenced this pull request Feb 14, 2024
- In the case of the phase-2 IT there is an additional layer of hierarcy, due ot split sensors in Layer 1. First introduced in PR cms-sw#41880
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.