fix emulation of L1T ZDC EtSums [14_2_X]

[missirol]

backport of #48963

PR description:

Verbatim backport.

From the description of #48963.

#43214 (comment) shows that the emulation of the L1T ZDC EtSums is currently inaccurate, due to

• (a) the relevant iEt values of ZDC trigger primitives (TPs) not being restricted (or capped) to a 10-bit integer, and
• (b) the ZDC-iEtSums TPs ($|i\eta| = 42$, $i\phi = 99$) occasionally missing from the unpacked HCAL digis.

The root cause of (b) is not understood yet. This PR fixes (a), and works around (b) by re-computing the relevant iEtSums values from the other (non-iEtSum) ZDC TPs, i.e. those with $|i\eta| = 42$ and $i\phi \neq 99$.

The PR includes a few additional changes, as detailed below (see the list of commits).

• Cleanup of the L1Trigger/L1TZDC package, removing several files which are unused and, imho, not really useful anymore.
• Fixes for the emulation of the ZDC L1T EtSums as described above, plus renaming the L1TZDC{Producer,Analyzer} plugins to L1TZDCEtSums{Producer,Analyzer} for clarity.
• Addition of L1TEtSumsPrinter, a simple EDAnalyzer to print out the content of l1t:EtSum objects.
• Addition of a unit test for L1TZDCEtSumsProducer, including a check on the values of the emulated L1T ZDC EtSums for a few events of 2024 PbPb data.

PR validation:

The new unit test passes.

If this PR is a backport, please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR. If this PR will be backported, please specify to which release cycle the backport is meant for:

#48963

Bugfix for the emulation of the L1T ZDC EtSums, see #43214.

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @missirol for CMSSW_14_2_X.

It involves the following packages:

• DQM/Integration (dqm)
• L1Trigger/L1TCalorimeter (l1)
• L1Trigger/L1TZDC (l1)

@BenjaminRS, @cmsbuild, @ctarricone, @gabrielmscampos, @nothingface0, @quinnanm, @rseidita can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@Martin-Grunewald, @batinkov, @francescobrivio, @mmusich, @threus this is something you requested to watch as well.
@ftenchini, @mandrenguyen, @sextonkennedy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

• Backported from fix emulation of L1T ZDC EtSums #48963

[cmsbuild]

cms-bot internal usage

[missirol]

type bugfix

[mmusich]

@cmsbuild, please test

[cmsbuild]

+1

Size: This PR adds an extra 12KB to repository
Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-bbff14/48331/summary.html
COMMIT: 057f98e
CMSSW: CMSSW_14_2_X_2025-09-28-0000/el8_amd64_gcc12
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/49010/48331/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• You potentially added 2 lines to the logs
• Reco comparison results: 4 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 46
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3483722
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 451
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3483251
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 20
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 45 files compared)
• Checked 202 log files, 172 edm output root files, 46 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[quinnanm]

+l1

[gabrielmscampos]

Differently from the original PR and the other backports, this one accused differences in WF 29696.0 and WF 29700.0 (the others WFs are notoriously spurious). Are those differences OK?

[missirol]

@gabrielmscampos

Those DQM discrepancies are related to HGCal, so I doubt they are caused by this PR.

Looking back, it looks like

• there is a problem with the reproducibility of some HGCal outputs in 14_2_X (Non reproducibility in HGCal DQM #46416),
• the problem was fixed in 15_0_X (Make HGCAL Validation reproducible #46962), but
• the fix was not yet integrated in 14_2_X ([backport 14_2_X] Make HGCAL Validation reproducible #47066).

I cannot check the DQM outputs of those old PRs, so I don't know for sure if this explains it.

In any case, it remains pretty unlikely that this PR is the source of those discrepancies. In fact, you can find the same discrepancies in another HGCal-unrelated backport to 14_2_X, i.e. #49022.

[gabrielmscampos]

+dqm

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_14_2_X IBs (tests are also fine) and once validation in the development release cycle CMSSW_16_0_X is complete. This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @sextonkennedy, @mandrenguyen, @ftenchini (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

[mandrenguyen]

+1