Preparations for pass data

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
HyCal reconstruction: current situation current situation and future tasks. V. Mochalov, IHEP (Protvino)
Advertisements

UK egamma meeting, Sept 22, 2005M. Wielers, RAL1 Status of Electron Triggers Rates/eff for different triggers Check on physics channels Crack region, comparison.
1 Calice UK Analysis Meeting 23/1/07David Ward Cambridge data analysis work David Ward Main focus – data-MC comparisons Using “official” reconstructed.
13/02/20071 Event selection methods & First look at new PCB test Manqi Ruan Support & Discussing: Roman Advisor: Z. ZHANG (LAL) & Y. GAO (Tsinghua))
28 Feb 2006Digi - Paul Dauncey1 In principle change from simulation output to “raw” information equivalent to that seen in real data Not “reconstruction”,
EventStore Managing Event Versioning and Data Partitioning using Legacy Data Formats Chris Jones Valentin Kuznetsov Dan Riley Greg Sharp CLEO Collaboration.
S. Ritz1 Checking Out What is Checked In  Need to optimize balance of checking between users and developers. –infuse more of a culture of detailed checking.
Measuring momentum at the TIF David Stuart, UC Santa Barbara June 25, 2007.
Status of  b Scan Jianchun Wang Syracuse University Representing L b scanners CLEO Meeting 05/11/02.
1 Analysis code for KEK Test-Beam M. Ellis Daresbury Tracker Meeting 30 th August 2005.
1 HLT – a source of calibration data One of the main tasks of HLT (especially in the first years) –Monitoring of the detector performance –Analysing calibration.
1 Calice Analysis Meeting 13/02/07David Ward Just a collection of thoughts to guide us in planning electron analysis In order to end up with a coherent.
MC Study on B°  J/  ° With J/      °     Jianchun Wang Syracuse University BTeV meeting 03/04/01.
Current Status of Hadron Analysis Introduction Hadron PID by PHENIX-TOF  Current status of charged hadron PID  CGL and track projection point on TOF.
HPS Online Software Discussion Jeremy McCormick, SLAC Status and Plans.
Experience with analysis of TPC data Marian Ivanov.
Real data reconstruction A. De Caro (University and INFN of Salerno) CERN Building 29, December 9th, 2009ALICE TOF General meeting.
MC/Offline Planning M. Moulson Frascati, 21 March 2005 MC status Reconstruction coverage and data quality Running time estimates MC & reprocessing production.
Update on the new reconstruction software F. Noferini E. Fermi center INFN CNAF EEE Analysis Meeting - 15/06/20151.
1 SDD: DA and preprocessor Francesco Prino INFN Sezione di Torino ALICE offline week – April 11th 2008.
Integrated Tracker (progress, status, plans) Y. Fisyak.
LM Feb SSD status and Plans for Year 5 Lilian Martin - SUBATECH STAR Collaboration Meeting BNL - February 2005.
1 A first look at the KEK tracker data with G4MICE Malcolm Ellis 2 nd December 2005.
CBM ECAL simulation status Prokudin Mikhail ITEP.
Louis Nicolas – LPHE-EPFL T-Alignment: Track Selection December 11, 2006 Track Selection for T-Alignment studies Louis Nicolas EPFL Monday Seminar December.
STAR C OMPUTING Plans for Production Use of Grand Challenge Software in STAR Torre Wenaus BNL Grand Challenge Meeting LBNL 10/23/98.
Why A Software Review? Now have experience of real data and first major analysis results –What have we learned? –How should that change what we do next.
Forward Carriage Commissioning CLAS Collaboration Meeting 6/19/2015CLAS12 CalCom Status Update1 ECAL PCAL FTOF Panel 1A FTOF Panel 1B Detector Status PMT.
STAR Collaboration Meeting, BNL – march 2003 Alexandre A. P. Suaide Wayne State University Slide 1 EMC Update Update on EMC –Hardware installed and current.
STAR Analysis Meeting, BNL – oct 2002 Alexandre A. P. Suaide Wayne State University Slide 1 EMC update Status of EMC analysis –Calibration –Transverse.
HPS Experiment Overview John Jaros HPS Collaboration Meeting at JLAB October 26, 2015.
Javier Castillo 1 Muon Embedding Status & Open Issues PWG3 - CERN - 15/02/2011.
4/12/05 -Xiaojian Zhang, 1 UIUC paper review Introduction to Bc Event selection The blind analysis The final result The systematic error.
Overview of PHENIX Muon Tracker Data Analysis PHENIX Muon Tracker Muon Tracker Software Muon Tracker Database Muon Event Display Performance Muon Reconstruction.
L1Calo EM Efficiencies Hardeep Bansil University of Birmingham L1Calo Joint Meeting, Stockholm 29/06/2011.
15 December 2015Alan Norton, NA62, LKR WG 1 LKR Calibration Topics for 2016 Pedestals Pulser Calibration Bad Channels Time Calibration Small Pulses LKR.
 Elastic e- e- scattering has very well-known kinematics with a highly correlated energy and angle between the electrons  MC follows these models extremely.
PMT time offset calibration (not completed) R.Sawada 27/Dec/2007.
FEE studies of Carbon and CH2 using Ecal only Sebouh Paul 10/27/15.
Ssd simulation status : preparation for embedding Jonathan Bouchet Svt Meeting : 09/19.
1 Calice TB Review DESY 15/6/06D.R. Ward David Ward Post mortem on May’06 DESY running. What’s still needed for DESY analysis? What’s needed for CERN data.
MAUS Status A. Dobbs CM43 29 th October Contents MAUS Overview Infrastructure Geometry and CDB Detector Updates CKOV EMR KL TOF Tracker Global Tracking.
1 Methods of PSD energy calibration. 2 Dependence of energy resolution on many factors Constant term is essential only for energy measurement of single.
David Lange Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
HPS Trigger Update Nathan Baltzell Valery Kubarovsky Kyle McCarty Ben Raydo Bradley Yale Sebouh Paul February 24, 2016 HPS Meeting.
Update on the new reconstruction software F. Noferini E. Fermi center INFN CNAF EEE Analysis Meeting - 28/09/20151.
DB and Information Flow Issues ● Selecting types of run ● L1Calo databases ● Archiving run parameters ● Tools Murrough Landon 28 April 2009.
Michele Faucci Giannelli
April12 DST calibration status
Software for Spectrometer T0 jumps correction
Marian Ivanov TPC status report.
The VDS performance Outline: Current reconstruction / analysis
CALGO: Software Tasks cal software:
CLAS12 Commissioning with Cosmincs
Beam Gas Vertex – Beam monitor
CLAS12 Analysis and First Experiment Organization
TDCB status Jacopo Pinzino, Stefano Venditti
Pixel DQM Status & Plans
CMS Preshower: Startup procedures: Reconstruction & calibration
HARPO Analysis.
DCH calibrations 2013 Gordon Lim, UCI.
FORWARD CARRIAGE UPDATE – March-July 2015
HPS EC Report John Jaros
Recoil e- detection in Radiative tridents
Run4 Fiducial Match between Real and MC
The LHCb Level 1 trigger LHC Symposium, October 27, 2001
Hough-D(mc)- ππJpsi(Data)
Status of the cross section analysis in e! e
Presentation transcript:

Preparations for pass1 2016 data HPS collaboration meeting May 3-5 2017 Rafayel Paremuzyan with Nathan Baltzell

2016 Data, pass0 and pass1 Suggestions are welcome pass0 10 % pass, every 10th file Took about 4 days to process Things to add in pass1 ===ECAL=== Time depended Ecal gains (Sebouh) ===SVT=== check that alignment Include Bad SVT channels Check all calibrations are correct Fix track parameters for detached vertex. ===run/event info=== Event timestamp is just TI timestamp (not real time) SVT bias flag SVT position flag run DB information Improved Cluster-Track Matching (Sebouh) Matching is different for 5 and 6 hit tracks. ---- If SVT alignment will be changed, then matching should be recalculated Pass0 included ===ECAL=== time calibration energy calibration time walk corrections time offset corrections ===SVT=== time offsets ===run/event info=== SVT header flag SVT burst-mode noise flag SVT latency flag (should always be good) Suggestions are welcome

Blinding/Unblinding Pass1 (blinded pass) Upass1 (Unblinded) Every 10th file 0, 10, 20 etc All skims that don’t interfere with the trident analysis in principle can be unblinded Skims Fee, Moller, V0, with their corresponding DSTs and Ntuples Pulser, Single0, Single1, Pair0? Above skims are faster (x10), only events with the corresponding trigger are reconstructed. Ntuple maker is now more practical, should it go to production? V0: Only requires v0 candidate Moller: Moller Candidate && pair0 Fee: Only single1 trigger This can also include calibration runs, Straight through tracks, Carbon, bias scan, Ecal only, low/high current Tightening skims? Will be good to have a document validating cuts, and someone (or two) to review, especially v0 When pass1 is done, this skim can be started DQMs Does DQM get enough attention? Should we keep it?

Job outputs/processing time LCIO skims DST skims Ntuple skims To reduce tape operations, if the total size doesn’t exceed 20 Gib, the whole run can be tarred, and sent to tape as a single file Except the recon.slcio, the rest of the blinded pass1 can go to work disk, until we are will be ready for unblindg the whole data set. Unblinding the 100%, estimated time will be 900h which translates into 37.5 days