Phase2-hgx265 Attempt to make CMSSW geometry compatible with flat geometry

[bsunanda]

PR description:

Attempt to make CMSSW geometry compatible with flat geometry

PR validation:

Tested using runTheMatrix test workflows

if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR:

Nothing special

[cmsbuild]

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

-code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-31867/19229

• This PR adds an extra 40KB to repository

Code check has found code style and quality issues which could be resolved by applying following patch(s)

• code-format:
  https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-31867/19229/code-format.patch
  e.g. curl https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-31867/19229/code-format.patch | patch -p1
  You can also run scram build code-format to apply code format directly

[cmsbuild]

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

[bsunanda]

@cmsbuild Please test

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-31867/19230

• This PR adds an extra 40KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.

• CMSSW_11_2_X_2020-10-19-1100/slc7_amd64_gcc820: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-run-pr-tests/10108/console Started: 2020/10/20 00:36

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @bsunanda (Sunanda Banerjee) for master.

It involves the following packages:

Geometry/HGCalCommonData

@civanch, @Dr15Jones, @makortel, @cvuosalo, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @kpedro88 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@fabiocos this is something you requested to watch as well.
@silviodonato, @dpiparo, @qliphy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 2ad6285
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-e749d1/10108/summary.html
CMSSW: CMSSW_11_2_X_2020-10-19-1100
SCRAM_ARCH: slc7_amd64_gcc820

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-e749d1/10108/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 10174 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 35
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2543752
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 118110
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 147
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2425473
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 34 files compared)
• Checked 149 log files, 22 edm output root files, 35 DQM output files

[kpedro88]

@bsunanda I'm surprised to see a large amount of comparison changes in D49. Is this expected?

[bsunanda]

We expect differences from earlier version even for D49 - there were bugs which computed the inner radii of last layers of HGCal-EE. So all versions with HGCal will be affected.

[kpedro88]

What is the effect on D49 physics performance?

[bsunanda]

Most likely it will be enhanced. There were missing cells in the earlier version in the last 2 layers of EE section. But it would not affect too much.

[kpedro88]

It would be good to confirm this as part of validating the PR.

[cvuosalo]

+1

[kpedro88]

@bsunanda just to be clear, I'm waiting to see some physics validation before signing this PR.

[bsunanda]

I attach 4 files here. First 2 are R-Z plots of all SimHits for 2026D49 scenario for the corrected (New) and the earlier version (Old). One can see that for last 2 layers of EE (around Z = 3600 mm) the occupancy in the new plots go down to lower values and number of entries have increased for same number of t-tbar events

The other 2 plots are energy deposits in all detectors. There is no significant difference with a slight increase in mean for the new plots.

Bothe observations are expected from the fix in the geometry.

[bsunanda]

@kpedro88 I also have plots from the DIGI and RECHit level. They bear similar conclusions. Can you now sign off the PR?

[bsunanda]

@kpedro88 @silviodonato Can you approve this PR and get it integrated? I need that for a followup PR

[kpedro88]

+upgrade
@bsunanda thanks for the validation plots

[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)

[qliphy]

+1