geometry updates: Tracker and Gem affecting 2017 and 2018 scenarios

[franzoni]

Summary of changes in Global Tags

RunII simulation

• PhaseI 2017 design scenario : 90X_upgrade2017_design_IdealBS_v4 as 90X_upgrade2017_design_IdealBS_v5 with the following changes:

  • GEM slice test added: reco and sim geometry
  • pixel overlap fixes and connectors fixes, and correspondingly updated RECO geometry
  • summary of geometry related PR's involved in this talk by @ianna https://indico.cern.ch/event/592612/contributions/2447142/
  • HE sim nor reco geometries touched, all left as already merged for 90x in PR 17198

• PhaseI 2017 realistic scenario : 90X_upgrade2017_realistic_v5 as 90X_upgrade2017_realistic_v4 with the following changes:

  • GEM slice test added: reco and sim geometry
  • pixel overlap fixes and connectors fixes, and correspondingly updated RECO geometry
  • summary of geometry related PR's involved in this talk by @ianna https://indico.cern.ch/event/592612/contributions/2447142/
  • HE sim nor reco geometries touched, all left as already merged for 90x in PR 17198

• PhaseI 2017 cosmics scenario : 90X_upgrade2017cosmics_realistic_peak_v5 as 90X_upgrade2017cosmics_realistic_peak_v4 with the following changes:

  • GEM slice test added: reco and sim geometry
  • pixel overlap fixes and connectors fixes, and correspondingly updated RECO geometry
  • summary of geometry related PR's involved in this talk by @ianna https://indico.cern.ch/event/592612/contributions/2447142/
  • HE sim nor reco geometries touched, all left as already merged for 90x in PR 17198

• PhaseI 2018 design scenario : 90X_upgrade2018_design_IdealBS_v3 as 90X_upgrade2018_design_IdealBS_v2 with the following changes:

  • the same logical changes as for 2017 (above) are done here for 2018, however on top of HCAL where HE is phaseI
  • GEM slice test added: reco and sim geometry
  • pixel overlap fixes and connectors fixes, and correspondingly updated RECO geometry
  • summary of geometry related PR's involved in this talk by @ianna https://indico.cern.ch/event/592612/contributions/2447142/

• PhaseI 2018 realistic scenario : 90X_upgrade2018_realistic_v3 as 90X_upgrade2018_realistic_v2 with the following changes:

  • the same logical changes as for 2017 (above) are done here for 2018, however on top of HCAL where HE is phaseI
  • GEM slice test added: reco and sim geometry
  • pixel overlap fixes and connectors fixes, and correspondingly updated RECO geometry
  • summary of geometry related PR's involved in this talk by @ianna https://indico.cern.ch/event/592612/contributions/2447142/

• PhaseI 2018 cosmics scenario : 90X_upgrade2018cosmics_realistic_peak_v3 as 90X_upgrade2018cosmics_realistic_peak_v2 with the following changes:

  • the same logical changes as for 2017 (above) are done here for 2018, however on top of HCAL where HE is phaseI
  • GEM slice test added: reco and sim geometry
  • pixel overlap fixes and connectors fixes, and correspondingly updated RECO geometry
  • summary of geometry related PR's involved in this talk by @ianna https://indico.cern.ch/event/592612/contributions/2447142/

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @franzoni (Giovanni Franzoni) for CMSSW_9_0_X.

It involves the following packages:

Configuration/AlCa

@ghellwig, @arunhep, @cerminar, @cmsbuild, @franzoni, @mmusich, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@makortel, @Martin-Grunewald, @ghellwig, @tocheng this is something you requested to watch as well.
@davidlange6, @smuzaffar you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here #13028

[franzoni]

please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/17500/console Started: 2017/01/30 18:03

[mmusich]

Hello @franzoni,
assuming the change of the pixel geometry in DB involves among others, the same update as in #17245, I would be expecting the tracker alignment to be changed to pick-up consistently the change from 290um to of 300um sensor thickness in Fpix, that is supposed to affect positions of the senstive volumes, even if it is just a few um.
Are you planning to update those payloads in this PR later?
@ghellwig @veszpv

[franzoni]

given the splitting of phaseI 2017 VS phaseI 2018 introduced in the PR #17198
@davidlange6 @smuzaffar
do we expect the 2018 relcavals be included already in this PR
in the short matrix run at each PR ?

[davidlange6]

given what we’ve heard from the SP team, calling something 2018 is premature. I would suggest we concentrate our efforts on 2017 and an eventual phase 1 scenario that in any case can be dealt with after 2017 is sorted out. (meanwhile phase 2 tests essentially everything new in phase 1)

…

On Jan 30, 2017, at 2:05 PM, Giovanni Franzoni ***@***.***> wrote: given the splitting of phaseI 2017 VS phaseI 2018 introduced in the PR #17198 @davidlange6 @smuzaffar do we expect the 2018 relcavals be included already in this PR in the short matrix run at each PR ? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[franzoni]

Are you planning to update those payloads in this PR later?

thanks @mmusich for your query.

@arunhep and myself propose that we defer the update of the alignment for 2017 and 2018 to a later PR, possibly pre4, and to the 81X backport. Keep reading those who want the rational.

• what we get from hte PR Pixel Material Budget Changes (updated) #17245 is a 10 micron effect in FPIX; hence residuals as seen in tracking will be a fraction of 10 micron, via the non trivial jacobian - the signicance of which to be compared with the intrinsic cluster uncertainty
• we don't have , yet, the updated alignment consistent with Pixel Material Budget Changes (updated) #17245 ( we've already informed tracker alignment that it's needed @mschrode @ghellwig )
• we can't assess quantitatively the impact on tracking quality of not being fully consistent; yet the inconsistency we're talking about today is more than a factor 10 smaller than what we had in the 81X_upgrade2017_HCALdev_v2_HcalGeom-v1 campaign (where the discrepancy were 100 - hundreds microns affecting bpix in the phi coordinate). As such, what's in this PR is likely going to be useful for tracking , provided we keep this effect in mind @makortel @rovere @VinInn ( please tracking pog and validators, comment if you contest our rational )

[mmusich]

thanks @franzoni, my naive expectations on the impact of the missing conditions update go in the lines of your detailed analysis. It is nonetheless important for TRK POG to realize this update might slightly spoil the performance.

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: acafd53
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-17319/17500/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-17319/17500/summary.html

[franzoni]

Similarly to the previous updates in geometry (e.g. #17198 ) changes appear in 2017 workflows where one would not expect them, stemming from the altered psedorandom number sequence.
Difficult to conclude on the available statistics wether changes are as expected or not, at least for what concerns the changes in pixel.
Do we expect any DQM-level change stemming from the GEM inclusion (have not found GEM in DQM) ?

[franzoni]

+1

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_9_0_X IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @davidlange6, @smuzaffar

[franzoni]

@ianna
it would be great if you could double-check
that the tags we've included do correspond to what you've request in hn and we've agreed verbally
Thanks!

[ianna]

@franzoni - done. The tags are correct.

[franzoni]

thanks @ianna !

@davidlange6 : thanks to quick follow up by @ghellwig , we have the updated fully consistent alignment discussed earlier #17319 (comment)
Are we still in time for pre3
(if not of course we'll submit a PR in any case - less urgently) ?