Status Report of PRS/m

Transcription

1 Status Report of PRS/m D.Acosta University of Florida Current U.S. activities PRS/m Activities New PRS organization 1

2 EMU Software Workshop Workshop held at UCDavis in late February helped focus EMU software and physics activities Brought together software and electronics experts to close the loop on ORCA validation Reviewed detailed CMS Notes describing CSC digitization and trigger simulation Found that much of the simulation is right! Also found that some of the modeling is naïve (noise & crosstalk) Scrutinized neutron background parameterization Some problems discovered (and later fixed ) Discussed future areas of work Improved neutron parameterization Geometry description & DB, detector misalignment, Plenty of opportunities for new collaborators 2

3 Neutron Background Simulation Biggest factor affecting CSC performance High rate of large amplitude pulses seen in GIF data Can overlap and distort CSC pulses from muons spatially and temporally e.g. LCT trigger logic builds in 4-fold coincidence to reduce background rate Current simulation: UCDavis parameterization based on CMSIM 112 creates GEANT hits (JUNK flag), which in turn are fed to ORCA New simulations done by UCDavis based on CMSIM 121 corroborate earlier results However, a bug was found and subsequently fixed by Tim Cox affecting distribution of hits Nicely documented here: Tim s CPT plenary talk Impact on L1 CSC trigger studied: 3

4 CSC Event at GIF 4

5 L1 CSC Trigger Efficiency Increasing background Should crosscheck absolute level of background Also, what is effect on HLT and offline? 5

6 MC production PRS/m News ~1.2M events (high lumi) + 0.3M events (low lumi) currently in production in Italy for L2/L3 studies Problems running ORCA (or 4.5.1) analysis jobs on digis Expect ~2M events for Group Activities Optimum weighting procedures for high MC statistics Punch-through and neutron background studies Conversion to OSCAR L2/L3 studies: Muon reconstruction, muon-track matching, various muon propagators being developed Standard analysis package being developed: MuonReco/MuonAnalysis has Ntuple code New Organization Looking for additional manpower and L3 coordinator names 6

7 L2 Efficiency Losing efficiency in DT/CSC overlap w.r.t. L1 (need RPC) L2 uses L1 candidates as seeds, refines P T measurement 7

8 L2 P T Resolution Compare to L1: s ~ 23% High P T tail in DT/CSC overlap 8

9 L2 Trigger Rate Most rate comes from low P T muons, which are already isolated! 9

10 L2 Reconstruction in Overlap Low P T muons reconstructed as high P T in DT/CSC overlap 10

11 Partly caused by lost Segments Lose MB1 segment in L2 Track-Finding algorithm Poor P T resolution Should re-tune cuts But what about tracks without any MB1 segment? They are kept in L1, but will HLT be able to do anything with them, and will we be able to do physics with them? 11

12 L3 Muon Trigger Studies Start with Muon-Tracker matching Connection Machine builds seeds in tracker L2 provides seeds in muon system Propagate from muon system to outermost tracker layer GEANE, or Fast Muon Propagator (Olga Kodolova) Some work on developing common Muon-Tracker navigation methods Builds on propagators developed for Tracker Neumeister, Dorigo, Loreti, Bellucci Lacaprara 12

13 Muon-Tracker Matching Efficiency W fi m with pile-up, old tracker geometry Leonardo Bellucci 13

14 L3 P T Resolution with Tracker W fi m with pile-up, old tracker geometry Leonardo Bellucci 14

15 New Structure of PRS/m Group Level-3: Detector Hit Simulation Response Simulation & Reconstruction Alignment, Calibration, & Database Online & Control Software HLT & Physics Objects CMSIM OSCAR conversion (Geant3 Geant4) Liaison to SPROM Muon detector simulation and reconstruction in ORCA Liaison to RPROM Ugo s manpower estimates: muon/trigger 3 FTE 4 FTE 2FTE 2 FTE Most likely underestimated Development of geometry and calibration DB, impact of misalignment Liaison to DB and detector groups 4 FTE Testbeam data management, analysis tools, online monitoring What about commissioning & standalone DAQ? How much of control software done in PRS? Liaison to detector groups HLT selection for L2, L3 (isolation, mip, track matching) Analysis tools What previous HLT group was for 15

16 Some Possible Contributions All the boxes shown, and the tasks listed in the PRS section of the CMS SW&C Deliverables document need help. So take your pick! If you want ideas, here are some: Conversion from G3 to G4. Pressure to do this by year s end (How much will TeVmuonsbremsstrahlung?) Development of L3 algorithms for DAQ TDR (no U.S. involvement so far) Normalization of flux rate estimates to CSC hit rates Validation of CSC detector simulation to data (cosmic FAST site & testbeam) Integration of FAST site analysis tools and event display into ORCA and Visualization packages Misalignment studies. Introduce offsets in reconstruction and simulation and study consequences (corrections) Development of FAST simulation for Physics TDR Development of procedures for calibration, and how to apply to reconstruction 16

17 Conclusions Much more is being demanded of the PRS groups than ever before Full chain from detector control and data storage to offline reconstruction (including trigger and simulation) is included We re still learning what some of these demands are! Trying to define them for the CMS Software and Computing Tasks and Deliverables document This will take the work of the entire collaboration Almost everything outside of detector construction and core software is covered by the PRS groups There is no shortage of areas to work on! 17