Update Ecal geom Z values to match v14 geometry

[tvami]

I am updating ldmx-sw, here are the details.

What are the issues that this addresses?

Resolves #1490

Check List

• I successfully compiled ldmx-sw with my developments
• I ran my developments and the following shows that they are successful.

[tvami]

The Z DQM plot looks like this now

c.f. to #1485 (comment)

I think we are good now!

[tomeichlersmith]

Just formatting change, but I think this looks good. I'm a bit concerned that my geometry layer calculator is off which would then also affect the layer weights, but if it is just missing air gaps then the layer weights would not be noticeably affected.

[tvami]

concerned that my geometry layer calculator is off

How off is it? Or you mean the numbers in the software now the numbers from your script?

[tomeichlersmith]

The z-layer positions were copied from the script into these files. Since there is a difference between those z positions and the actual simulated model, that implies there is a bug in the script. This corrects the z positions of the layers as understood by reconstruction, but it does not alter the layer weights which are calculated by the same script that calculated the original (buggy) z positions.

[tvami]

I update with the numbers that come from the script in the commit 2355879

The mean got better and now it's just a binning

[tvami]

Final proposal with a new binning:

[SanjitMasanam]

When running this script, the print_weights function outputs:

Layer      dE     X0 Lambda   Zpos
    1   2.329  0.033  0.015  7.582
    2   4.339  0.189  0.026 16.062
    3   6.495  0.474  0.035 33.226
    4   7.490  0.615  0.040 43.206
    5   8.595  0.758  0.045 60.370
    6  10.253  0.972  0.052 71.350
    7  10.915  1.057  0.055 90.014
    8  10.915  1.057  0.055 101.594
    9  10.915  1.057  0.055 120.258
   10  10.915  1.057  0.055 131.838
   11  10.915  1.057  0.055 150.502
   12  10.915  1.057  0.055 162.082
   13  10.915  1.057  0.055 180.746
   14  10.915  1.057  0.055 192.326
   15  10.915  1.057  0.055 210.990
   16  10.915  1.057  0.055 222.570
   17  10.915  1.057  0.055 241.234
   18  10.915  1.057  0.055 252.814
   19  10.915  1.057  0.055 271.478
   20  10.915  1.057  0.055 283.058
   21  10.915  1.057  0.055 301.722
   22  10.915  1.057  0.055 313.302
   23  10.915  1.057  0.055 331.966
   24  14.783  1.557  0.073 343.546
   25  18.539  2.042  0.090 365.710
   26  18.539  2.042  0.090 380.690
   27  18.539  2.042  0.090 402.854
   28  18.539  2.042  0.090 417.834
   29  18.539  2.042  0.090 439.998
   30  18.539  2.042  0.090 454.978
   31  18.539  2.042  0.090 477.142
   32  18.539  2.042  0.090 492.122
   33  18.539  2.042  0.090 514.286
   34   9.938  1.030  0.049 529.266
  Sum 416.639 41.987  2.085 536.498
 Back   1.516  0.023  0.009 536.498

Which of these columns represents the layer weights @tomeichlersmith?

[tvami]

@SanjitMasanam it is the dE values, based on
https://ldmx-software.github.io/physics/ecal/layer-weights.html#efficiently-broadcasting-layer-weights

[tomeichlersmith]

I can confirm that the dE is used as the layer weight (i.e. the average energy lost to the insensitive materials).

Thank you @SanjitMasanam for correcting the layer weight script. It appears, thankfully, to only affect the last digit of the lower value layer weights. (This makes sense since the layer weights only account for insensitive layers in between two sensitive layers while the z calculation accumulates all layers, meaning an error early on would affect all z positions but only the first few layer weights.)

ldmx-sw/Ecal/python/digi.py

Lines 209 to 214 in 45ee57d

	self.layerWeights = [
	2.312, 4.312, 6.522, 7.490, 8.595, 10.253, 10.915, 10.915, 10.915, 10.915, 10.915,
	10.915, 10.915, 10.915, 10.915, 10.915, 10.915, 10.915, 10.915, 10.915, 10.915,
	10.915, 10.915, 14.783, 18.539, 18.539, 18.539, 18.539, 18.539, 18.539, 18.539,
	18.539, 18.539, 9.938
	]

[SanjitMasanam]

Should we change the layerWeights in ldmx-sw/Ecal/python/digi.py to match the newly calculated weights then?

[tomeichlersmith]

Sure! I don't think they will have a large effect, but we might as well have them correct.