Status of the analysis by the analysis team!. Join the stimulus Last meeting we were in a deep crisis… and we decided to sign a stimulus plan! We organized.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
To figure out which tubes are working fine… Compare 24 to 2.6 and 2.51 to 2.6 by taking the ratio of counts. In general, 2.4 had the most problems, and.
Advertisements

Status of Tracking at DESY Paul Dauncey, Michele Faucci Giannelli, Mike Green, Hakan Yilmaz, Anne Marie Magnan, George Mavromanolakis, Fabrizio Salvatore.
1Calice-UK Cambridge 9/9/05D.R. Ward David Ward Compare Feb’05 DESY data with Geant4 and Geant3 Monte Carlos. Work in progress – no definitive conclusions.
1 Analysis code for KEK Test-Beam M. Ellis Daresbury Tracker Meeting 30 th August 2005.
Trains status&tests M. Gheata. Train types run centrally FILTERING – Default trains for p-p and Pb-Pb, data and MC (4) Special configuration need to be.
Outline: (1) The data sample (2) Some news on the analysis method (3) Efficiency revised (4) Background revised (5) Data: spectrum + “phi-curve”
06/03/06Calice TB preparation1 HCAL test beam monitoring - online plots & fast analysis - - what do we want to monitor - how do we want to store & communicate.
SPiDeR  SPIDER DECAL SPIDER Digital calorimetry TPAC –Deep Pwell DECAL Future beam tests Wishlist J.J. Velthuis for the.
Non-identified Two Particle Correlations from Run I Understanding drift chamber tracking – Tracker and candidatory – Two particle efficiencies/ghosts A.
GEM MINIDRIFT DETECTOR WITH CHEVRON READOUT EIC Tracking Meeting 10/6/14 B.Azmoun, BNL.
Optimising Cuts for HLT George Talbot Supervisor: Stewart Martin-Haugh.
Preliminary results with the Alibava Telescope G. Casse, S. Martì, J. Rodriguez, I. Tsurin and the Alibava collaboration 1 G. Casse,20th RD50 Workshop,
Kali Calo progress report Dasha Savrina (ITEP/Moscow), Vanya Belyaev.
1 Calice UK Meeting 27/03/07David Ward Plans; timescales for having analysis results for LCWS Status of current MC/data reconstruction Reconstruction status;
EGEE-III INFSO-RI Enabling Grids for E-sciencE Overview of STEP09 monitoring issues Julia Andreeva, IT/GS STEP09 Postmortem.
SPS Timing. Outline Timing table Modes of operation Mode switch mechanism External events Creating a timing table Timing event cleaning.
August 26, 2003P. Nilsson, SPD Group Meeting1 Paul Nilsson, SPD Group Meeting, August 26, 2003 Test Beam 2002 Analysis Techniques for Estimating Intrinsic.
Refitting Tracks from DST E. Rodrigues, NIKHEF LHCb Tracking and Alignment Workshop, Lausanne, 8-9th November 2006  Motivations  Step-by-step …  Current.
TB1: Data analysis Antonio Bulgheroni on behalf of the TB24 team.
1 A first look at the KEK tracker data with G4MICE Malcolm Ellis 2 nd December 2005.
05/04/06Predrag Krstonosic - Cambridge True particle flow and performance of recent particle flow algorithms.
Beam Extrapolation Fit Peter Litchfield  An update on the method I described at the September meeting  Objective;  To fit all data, nc and cc combined,
Experiment Support CERN IT Department CH-1211 Geneva 23 Switzerland t DBES Andrea Sciabà Hammercloud and Nagios Dan Van Der Ster Nicolò Magini.
AliRoot survey: Analysis P.Hristov 11/06/2013. Are you involved in analysis activities?(85.1% Yes, 14.9% No) 2 Involved since 4.5±2.4 years Dedicated.
1 M2-M5 Efficiency and Timing checks on 7TeV beam data Alessia, Roberta R.Santacesaria, April 23 rd, Muon Operation
06/2006I.Larin PrimEx Collaboration meeting  0 analysis.
1 EMCAL Reconstruction in Pass pp 900 GeV 29/03/2010 Gustavo Conesa Balbastre.
Markus Frank (CERN) & Albert Puig (UB).  An opportunity (Motivation)  Adopted approach  Implementation specifics  Status  Conclusions 2.
Irradiated 3D sensor testbeam results Alex Krzywda On behalf of CMS 3D collaboration Purdue University March 15, 2012.
Feb. 3, 2007IFC meeting1 Beam test report Ph. Bruel on behalf of the beam test working group Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope.
Paolo Massarotti Kaon meeting March 2007  ±  X    X  Time measurement use neutral vertex only in order to obtain a completely independent.
09/06/06Predrag Krstonosic - CALOR061 Particle flow performance and detector optimization.
M. Martemianov, ITEP, October 2003 Analysis of ratio BR(K     0 )/BR(K    ) M. Martemianov V. Kulikov Motivation Selection and cuts Trigger efficiency.
AliRoot survey: Calibration P.Hristov 11/06/2013.
John Marshall, 1 John Marshall, University of Cambridge LCD WG6 Meeting, February
MAUS Status A. Dobbs CM43 29 th October Contents MAUS Overview Infrastructure Geometry and CDB Detector Updates CKOV EMR KL TOF Tracker Global Tracking.
Mitglied der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft Hit Reconstruction for the Luminosity Monitor March 3 rd 2009 | T. Randriamalala, J. Ritman and T. Stockmanns.
Tracking, Computing & other Stuff. Correlation of detector hits The track segments of inner and outer MDCs are matched on Cluster level The track segments.
ANALYSIS TRAIN ON THE GRID Mihaela Gheata. AOD production train ◦ AOD production will be organized in a ‘train’ of tasks ◦ To maximize efficiency of full.
Status of the Higgs to tau tau analysis Carlos Solans Cristobal Cuenca.
BASIC GRAPHS Physics with Technology. Scatter Plot  When doing a lab, we often graph a series of points. This is called a scatter plot. Scatter plot.
11 Sep 2007Tracking - Paul Dauncey1 Tracking Code Paul Dauncey, Imperial College London.
1 MC Production and Reconstruction Summary and Plans Valeria Bartsch, Fabrizio Salvatore, A.-M. Magnan, and Nigel Watson.
Pixel Offline Status Jianchun Wang Syracuse University 10/28/04, Pixel testbeam meeting.
Combined, Mized and ZS data analysis
y x Vincenzo Monaco, University of Torino HERA-LHC workshop 18/1/2005
Chris Gavanas 31/08/2016 Summer Student Report.
DQM4HEP Monitoring Status Tom Coates AIDA-2020 Second Annual Meeting
Using IP Chi-Square Probability
Online Monitoring : Detector and Performance check
FCC Software Status Readiness for FCC-ee Physics
Akiya Miyamoto KEK 1 June 2016
Debugging Intermittent Issues
Tracking System at CERN 06 and 07 test beams
Analysis Test Beam Pixel TPC
Results of dN/dt Elastic
Fast Action Links extension A love letter to CiviCRM
Curling Statistics: How to Score
Data Analysis in Particle Physics
Individual Particle Reconstruction
HR Metrics 2: Staffing Metrics
Hidden Markov Models Part 2: Algorithms
Dr. Izyan Hazwani + JPARC (Prof. Ejiri)
PIXEL patch efficiency
Simulation in a Distributed Computing Environment
Strengthening Program Management Building Capacity, Supporting the Work & Ensuring Quality in Supportive Service Programs Tom Balsley Office of.
Case Study 1 By : Shweta Agarwal Nikhil Walecha Amit Goyal
Dilepton Mass. Progress report.
Current Status of the VTX analysis
Presentation transcript:

Status of the analysis by the analysis team!

Join the stimulus Last meeting we were in a deep crisis… and we decided to sign a stimulus plan! We organized a one-week workshop and we successfully restarted the engine. Now we should keep the pace in view of the new beam campaigns and on…

A word about the workshop Apr 20 --> Apr 24 in DESY 11 participants. Not too many but very effective! Four different goals: 1.Basic tutorial for normal users 2.Advanced tutorial for power users 3.Get user involved 4.Task share and ToDo list. All very successfully accomplished!

Important tasks Analysis robots –Make the analysis submission so stupid that even a robot can do it! Pre-inclusion of M26 –Prepare a M26DataGenerator and then test the rest of the analysis chain Improve the DUT integration and plots Finish up the analysis

pysub A set of python scripts (Object Oriented) almost fool proof! –Check input file –Generate steering file from a template –Run Marlin –Check the output file Leave to the user just a limited freedom: stable and working configuration Run in the same way on the local PC or on the GRID! myjob-status.py submit-align.py submit-clusearch.py submit-converter.py submit-eta.py submit-filter.py submit-fitter.py submit-hitmaker.py submit-native-copy.py submit-pedestal.py

Automatic alignment? Alignment is not like pedestals. –It is very hard to make it a blind procedure, but… Our procedure (Mille + Pede) is working with both high (>7 tracks) and low multiplicity. –Low multiplicity can be easily almost-automatized –High multiplicity more critical but if you have a similar LM run, it’s easy!

Semi-auto with LM Clear peak on the backgroud. Definition of “residual cuts” (human intervention). Complete background removal.

Where is the peak? With HM data the peak is well behind the combinatorial background! It is impossible to define residual cuts!

A needle in a haystack Can you use the same residual cuts of the LM? If the answer is yes, it means the telescope didn’t move in between, then you can go straight to the second iteration. But the number of track candidates is much higher and the number of loops is increasing more than exponentially! Brute force approach –Split the input file in several chunks, –Run on the GRID in parallel –Sum up the statistics! Best approach –Further optimize the code –Get a smart idea!

Some 15 days later… 30 jobs x 1000 evt. X 43 sec = days But running on 30 CPUs it boils done to ~12 hours that is still a lot but reasonable! Single runMerged statistics

And if I was wrong? How do I know if the residual cuts taken from the LM are good also for the HM? –Make a test setting residual cuts wrong on purpose (out of 100 um). The residual distributions on other sensors is absolutely flat! Conclusion: always check histos!

And if I don’t have a LM? You always have LM! –In a HM you can always find few events with a single track. Use them only! –Very time consuming because you need to go through the full statistics to find the residual cuts and then go back again for the real alignment. Conclusion: always take a LM! Question: do we really need HM?

Is the alignment stable? Slice down a 220k events in group of 5k (44 jobs) The blue region is the value obtained by considering the full sample Similar behavior on y, more flat on phy. 1k events ~ 24 minutes wall clock. Question: are those fluctuations important?

Test the fluctuations Do the track fitting over the 220k statistics using: a)Only one alignment constant set b)One alignment constants every 25k events (~ 2 hours) Conclusion: the difference is almost negligible. But it costs nothing! It is probably more important with M18

Does the resolution degrade with HM? Compare the residual widths in DUT mode on a LM and HM A bit worse resolution, probably due to a not perfect alignment. ~100 times slower processing for HM.

Does the resolution degrade removing one plane? It is to say, allowing the fitter to reconstruct using also 4 points? Motivation: since we are running asynchronously not all planes are capturing the same particles (but one). So the number of reco tracks is much higher if you allow at least missing hit.

Conclusion In 1.5 months we did really a lot partially recovering the “lost” time. We got a lot of momentum we should try to maintain if not increase. We are ready for the next test beam and on the good track for the M26.

Last slide Thank you all