Modified ETOF geometry implementation for ACTS track reconstruction

[ssedd1123]

Briefly, what does this PR introduce?

Tracking group complains that ACTS are unable to utilize hits from halve of ETOF for track reconstruction. They believe it was caused by incorrect layering of ETOF geometry in epic.

This pull request changes the inner implementation of ETOF geometry. I have performed some preliminary analysis to verify that ACTS is now using most ETOF hits, but the tracking group will double check my results.

For reference, please see slide 7-9 of https://indico.bnl.gov/event/27986/contributions/106788/attachments/61537/105677/tracking_050125.pdf for how many hits were lost by ACTS in the original version.

Here's how many hits are used by the updated ETOF,

Here is a map of all hits,

You can clear see that hits from both side of ETOF are used.

Most events in the simulation contains ETOF hit as well,

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

• Bug fix (issue #186)
• New feature (issue #__)
• Documentation update
• Other: __

Please check if this PR fulfills the following:

• Tests for the changes have been added
• Documentation has been added / updated
• Changes have been communicated to collaborators

Does this PR introduce breaking changes? What changes might users need to make to their code?

No

Does this PR change default behavior?

No

[bschmookler]

This is great! Thanks.

We should take a look at the Acts surfaces. I'll run the material map script with this branch as well and confirm.

[ShujieL]

Can you remind us which ePIC and EICrecon version you used to produce the hit plots you posted in the main text?

[bschmookler]

This is how the eTOF 'volume' looks when running the Acts material map with this new branch:

We now see two sensitive layers at the correct z positions, where previously we saw only one (at z = ~1860mm).

[ssedd1123]

Can you remind us which ePIC and EICrecon version you used to produce the hit plots you posted in the main text?

I did a git pull the same day I made this pull request, so my EICrecon and ePIC are the main branches on Jun 13.

[bschmookler]

This looks good to me. We should merge this and #883. We will then need to update the official material map.

I don't know why some of the checks are failing.

[ShujieL]

@veprbl we also saw a bunch of jobs failed in this PR with docker related error msg. Any suggestions?
https://eicweb.phy.anl.gov/EIC/benchmarks/physics_benchmarks/-/jobs/5714712
https://eicweb.phy.anl.gov/EIC/benchmarks/physics_benchmarks/-/jobs/5714526

Btw, please also remind me how to restart a failed job on gitlab. Thanks...

[veprbl]

@veprbl we also saw a bunch of jobs failed in this PR with docker related error msg. Any suggestions? https://eicweb.phy.anl.gov/EIC/benchmarks/physics_benchmarks/-/jobs/5714712 https://eicweb.phy.anl.gov/EIC/benchmarks/physics_benchmarks/-/jobs/5714526

Btw, please also remind me how to restart a failed job on gitlab. Thanks...

You're right. This is a known problem and there is currently no resolution other than a manual restart.
There is a button to do it on GitLab:

[bschmookler]

We need to update the official material map

[wdconinc]

We need to update the official material map

@ShujieL Can you please process the update to the material map for this PR?

[veprbl]

We need to update the official material map

@ShujieL Can you please process the update to the material map for this PR?

I will do it this time.