-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.3k
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
Run3-gex101 Add the geometry version with the added GE21 demonstrator #36338
Conversation
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-36338/27089
|
A new Pull Request was created by @bsunanda (Sunanda Banerjee) for master. It involves the following packages:
@civanch, @Dr15Jones, @makortel, @cvuosalo, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @AdrianoDee, @srimanob can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
@cmsbuild Please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-86692e/20946/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
<PartSelector path="//MB.*PhiGas"/> | ||
<PartSelector path="//MB.*ZGas"/> | ||
<PartSelector path="//ME.*ActiveGasVol"/> | ||
<PartSelector path="//GHA.*"/> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is the GEM sensitive volume right? I think we want to remove this, and keep consistent with the other geometries
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
GHA* corresponds to the sensitive part and this is consistent with other product file - mainly the ones corrected fro Phase2
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, but this is for CSC, and as Tim said today, the CSC digitizer is internally doing a microsimulation from the simhits, whereas in GEM we have a simple efficiency based digitizer that has been adapted to the existing simulation, which is using the MuonChamber cuts. So, I think it would be better to be consistent with the previous xmls. We are also planning to update the digitizer later on, maybe @jshlee could comment more on that.
Hi Ian, Sunanda,
I'm sorry - I am not exactly following what's been changed/being reverted but please don't change CSC without some thought. I'm sure you won't :)
(Although we do a micro-simulation across the CSC gas gap, corresponding to a simhit, we still want GEANT to get the best possible estimate of the energy loss. Although that is not used at present - we get our own from the micro-simulation - in the future I think it likely we will want to, somehow, use the GEANT energy loss, because I don't see any other way of ensuring the digitization of energy loss from non-muon and exotic charged particles gets done correctly.).
Regards, Tim
________________________________
From: Ian J. Watson ***@***.***
Sent: 03 December 2021 20:19
To: cms-sw/cmssw
Cc: Tim Cox; Mention
Subject: Re: [cms-sw/cmssw] Run3-gex101 Add the geometry version with the added GE21 demonstrator (PR #36338)
@watson-ij commented on this pull request.
________________________________
In Geometry/MuonSimData/data/muonProdCuts/2021/v3/muonProdCuts.xml<#36338 (comment)>:
+ <PartSelector path="//MB.*N"/>
+ <PartSelector path="//MB.*P"/>
+ <PartSelector path="//ME.*Space"/>
+ <PartSelector path="//RR.*"/>
+ <PartSelector path="//GE.*"/>
+ <Parameter name="CMSCutsRegion" value="MuonChamber" eval="false"/>
+ <Parameter name="ProdCutsForGamma" value="1.0*mm"/>
+ <Parameter name="ProdCutsForElectrons" value="0.002*mm"/>
+ <Parameter name="ProdCutsForPositrons" value="0.002*mm"/>
+ </SpecPar>
+ <SpecPar name="MuonSensitive_DT-CSC">
+ <!-- 1 keV for gamma/e-, 1 MeV for e+ -->
+ <PartSelector path="//MB.*PhiGas"/>
+ <PartSelector path="//MB.*ZGas"/>
+ <PartSelector path="//ME.*ActiveGasVol"/>
+ <PartSelector path="//GHA.*"/>
Yes, but this is for CSC, and as Tim said today, the CSC digitizer is internally doing a microsimulation from the simhits, whereas in GEM we have a simple efficiency based digitizer that has been adapted to the existing simulation, which is using the MuonChamber cuts. So, I think it would be better to be consistent with the previous xmls. We are also planning to update the digitizer later on, maybe @jshlee<https://github.com/jshlee> could comment more on that.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#36338 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABGYLHXXYLKGZC47RSSFJFDUPEJ5NANCNFSM5JHOTSYA>.
Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS<https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675> or Android<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub>.
|
Hi Tim, Indeed, this isn't about changing the CSC, but about whether the GEM sensitive volumes should follow exactly what CSC is doing or not. For this new file, which would include the GE2/1 demonstrator we just installed, the only relevant difference for this discussion should be the GHA.* (gem sensitive volumes) being added to the MuonSensitive_CSC-DT, which is something we tried when trying to find the source of the ME0 vs GE0 simhit rate differences, though ultimately we found the ME0 wasn't included in any of the prod cuts and was just taking the default values. Cheers, |
<!-- <PartSelector path="//REG.*"/> --> | ||
<!-- <PartSelector path="//REH.*"/> --> | ||
<Parameter name="CMSCutsRegion" value="MuonSensitive_RPC" eval="false"/> | ||
<Parameter name="ProdCutsForGamma" value="1.0*cm"/> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The original value for this line was 8.5 m, and you are changing it to 1.0 cm. How is this change related to the demo GEM chamber? What effect will it have to make such a large change in value?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is done in consultation with Vladimir - 8.5m means no production of photons at all which is not a reliable cut off for Geant4 (might be OK for Geant3).
Ah, I missed that the values are also changed. Ignore my comment, sorry for the noise. |
I'm going through the muonProdCuts.xml files again a bit more slowly this time, to try to sort through this, since I think I was confusing myself with the various files. We have:
So, the version here is basically the same as the M10 file, in which case @cvuosalo your comment would also apply to M10? Or these values should be updated for 2026, but not 2021? [1]
[2] https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/master/Geometry/MuonSimData/data/PhaseII/muonProdCuts.xml [3]
[4] https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/master/Geometry/MuonSimData/data/muonProdCuts/2026/v2/muonProdCuts.xml [5]
[6] https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/master/Geometry/MuonSimData/data/muonProdCuts/2021/v1/muonProdCuts.xml |
GHA is present for the 2021 version - the only difference between the one in M10 and one here is removal of 2 regions for RPC which are present in Phase2 and not in Run3 |
@watson-ij Please check now |
@cmsbuild Please test |
+Upgrade From the upgrade side, new xml(s) are added in Geometry/GEMGeometryBuilder. |
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. @perrotta, @dpiparo, @qliphy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
hold As mentioned in the PR description, the production cut file in the PR will be discussed in the next SIM meeting (17 Dec). If I understand correctly, we can hold this PR until then. |
Pull request has been put on hold by @srimanob |
@srimanob, we need to discuss at SIM meeting if we have to do something on top of this PR. This PR itself is fine. Please, unhold. |
unhold |
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. @perrotta, @dpiparo, @qliphy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
@civanch I've unholded the PR, and I signed it before for the Upgrade side. This PR is ready to go if no more concerns. Thanks for clarification. |
+1 |
PR description:
Add the geometry version with the added GE21 demonstrator. All the files referred in this PR refer to Run3 scenario with the demonstrator GE21 chamber. The production cut file used here is preliminary and will be decided only after discussion in the SIM meeting
PR validation:
Use an overlap tool in Geometry/MuonCommonData/test/python
if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR:
Nothing special