1 MKU Tracker Alignment Strategies for ATLAS and CMS Muge Karagoz Unel On behalf of ATLAS and CMS Alignment Groups 12 th April 2007 UK HEP Forum – LHC Startup Cosener's House, Abingdon ATLAS & CMS Alignment

2 MKU Contents Will try to cover… Motivations for alignment The experiments and detectors Alignment Performances The current status and plans for early data Disclaimer: Will concentrate mostly on inner tracker alignment and make use of ATLAS. Note: most trigger plans & early physics issues will be described by the other speakers. ATLAS & CMS Alignment

3 MKU the Prerequisites ATLAS & CMS Alignment General purpose LHC detectors ATLAS & CMS need to cope with demands of LHC physics programme requirements Precision and accuracy is crucial for EWK and new physics particle ID at ultra high energies b-tagging for top and Higgs physics W-mass measurement (one of the most challenging!) Design parameters from ATLAS: Calorimetry , for electrons Tracking  p T /p T , for muons of 500 GeV Examples from ATLAS tracking: local alignment 20 % B-field to 0.1% locally material globally to 1%

4 MKU the ATLAS Detector ATLAS & CMS Alignment Inner tracker (ID) (TRT+silicon) 2T solenoid Barrel  spectrometer (MDT) with 4T toroid Endcap  spectrometer (MDT+CSC) with Endcap toroid 46 m 22 m

5 MKU the CMS Detector ATLAS & CMS Alignment Inner tracker (silicon) 4 Tesla solenoid Barrel  (DT) Endcap  (CSC) 22 m 15 m

6 MKU ATLAS & CMS Alignment SCT barrels: 4 layers SCT endcaps: 9 disks Pixels (3 layers+3 disks) TRT Barrel TRT Forward TRT Barrel Silicon Forward Silicon SubDetectorA/B/CPIXSCTPIXSCT # layers/disks/wheels32x(12/8/8)342x32x9 # modules/planes322x x1442x988 sub Total Total DoF/module: 3 translations & 3 rotations the Challenge: Atlas ID is BIG Silicon total DoF = 6x 5832 = 34992! TRT total DoF = 7x96 + 6x56= m Alignment challenge!

7 MKU ATLAS & CMS Alignment and CMS=Currently the Most Silicon 206 m 2 of Si pixels not shown Strip pitch µm σ ≈ µm, µm modules Pixels size 100x150 µm σ ≈ 10x15 µm 1900 modules IP  z (mm) r (mm) blue = double-sided‏ red = single-sided Endcap (TEC) 9 discs, 4-7 rings, 6400 modules Inner Disc (TID) 3 discs, 3 rings, 816 modules Outer Barrel (TOB) 6 layers 5208 modules Inner Barrel (TIB) 4 layers, 2724 modules Resolutions:

8 MKU ATLAS & CMS Alignment ATLAS ID Module specifications ~140mm ~70mm ASIC s Pixel detectors: real 2-D readout –Size 50  400  m with 14  115(60)  m resolution. SCT modules: double-sided strip detectors with 1-D binary RO/side (768 strips). –Strips pitch of 80  m giving 23  m resolution. –Stereo-angle of 40 mrad gives 580  m resolution in rz direction. –Mounting precision ~ 100  m –end-cap modules are in wedged shape TRT has 300k straw tubes –Size 4mmx740mm, resolution 170  m (perp to wire)

9 MKU Alignment Generalities ATLAS & CMS Alignment Alignment is determination of –Sensitive detector position, orientation (6 parameters) – module deformation due to temperature, magnetic field, material load For ex., shrinkage of muon detectors of order of 1cm with B-field on! Consists of 4 components –Assembly knowledge: construction precision and surveys, for initial position corrections and errors –Online monitoring and alignment: lasers, cameras, before and during runs –Offline track-based alignment: using physics and cosmic data track residual information –Offline monitoring and alignment: using track and particle ID parameters Challenges for the track-based alignment –Both detectors have large number of DoF to solve for. –Insensitivity to weak modes w/o additional constraints from data

10 MKU Prospects for LHC Beams ATLAS & CMS Alignment With the recent magnet problems, not sure will happen in time or happen at all…  Parasitic collisions with wide range of interaction z-point

11 MKU Expected Event Rates ATLAS & CMS Alignment F. Gianotti (ICHEP 2006) Physics Run 14 TeV, L~1032…33 Large statistics of high pt muons within few weeks! Trigger studies are underway by both experiments Not much of anything else other than min bias and QCD jets

12 MKU Who Ordered Misalignment? ATLAS & CMS Alignment Misalignment studies: Ideal geometry –No misalignment Short-term (<1 fb -1 )‏ –First data taking –Hardware alignment used Long term (1-5 fb -1 )‏ –First alignment with high- statistics tracks, for first physics analysis Final alignment –Do not deteriorate detector resolution Misalignment is due to  Precision of assembly  Stress from magnetic field or thermal stress  Changes due to humidity, … Misalignment is time dependent! and when and how much the time the parts will move around is unknown. Martin Weber, CMS

13 MKU Misalignment: BSM Searches ATLAS & CMS Alignment C = 0.01 (coupling constant) C =0.1 First data Long term Dimuon Mass Example for ~early LHC physics: Resonances in Di-Muons 5  discovery reach for RS gravitons Would need about 50% less data if optimal alignment! Georg Steinbruck, CMS

14 MKU Basic Tasks and Handles ATLAS & CMS Alignment First days of data-taking: Figuring out anomalies: Calibration and alignment! First goal: working tracking reconstruction! –Hit errors, Dead/noisy hardware (and software!) components –Realistic simulation corrections, material effects –Match with muon chambers and calorimeters –Absolute momentum scale (using known resonances) –Tracking efficiency (dimuons from J/ , Upsilon, Z) CMS material corrections

15 MKU Basic Tasks and Handles ATLAS & CMS Alignment Alignment Handles: Cosmic rays Beam halo muons, beam gas events Isolated muons from b decays, isolated tracks from MB events W, Z resonances Note: Collision tracks and cosmics populate different parts of global covariance matrix of alignment -> make complete datasets Dedicated data streams Study timescales for detector movements and finalize the Software and Computing Model accordingly for long-term alignment Align first large structures, then sensors at high statistics or limit ourselves to limited number of DoF Pre+during Pilot runs

16 MKU Cosmics & Beam Halo ATLAS & CMS Alignment Provided that they do not harm sensitive detector material! ATLAS: Trigger using TileCal, current trigger rates ~ 10Hz cosmics during commissioning, do not expect stable alignment until global cosmics (~fall 2007).

17 MKU ATLAS & CMS Alignment ATLAS ID Track-based Alignment Intrinsic alignment of Silicon and TRT, Si+TRT, all rely on minimizing residuals Global  2 : –minimization of  2 fit to track and alignment parameters –6 DoF, correlations managed, small number of iterations –Inherent challenge of large matrix handling and solving Local  2 : –similar to global  2, but inversion of 6x6 matrix/module –6 DoF, no inter-module or MCS correlations –large number of iterations Robust Alignment: –weighted residuals, z & r  overlap residuals of neighbouring modules –2-3 DoF, many iterations, no minimization All algorithms implemented within ATLAS framework, sharing common tools Able to add constraints from physics & external data <- crucial! DigitsReconstructionAlignment Algorithm Align. Constants Tracks Final Alignment Constants Iteration until convergence Performances on subsequent slides

18 MKU ATLAS & CMS Alignment Method consists of minimizing a giant  2 resulting from a simultaneous fit of all particle trajectories and alignment parameters: Use the linear expansion (assume all second order derivatives negligible). Track fit solved by: alignment parameters given by: Key relation! Intrinsic measurement error + MCS track hit residual Equivalent to Millepede approach from V. Blobel for CMS ATLAS Global  2 Approach

19 MKU CMS Track-based ID Alignment ATLAS & CMS Alignment Three different algorithms implemented in CMS reconstruction software Millepede-II: –Global  2 formalism –Replaces original Millepede (brute matrix inversion) with iterative solver –Most promising approach to CMS problem for long-term scenario HIP Algorithm: –Local  2, inversion of 6x6 matrix/module –correlations through iterations Kalman Filter: –Iterative, based on Kalman filter update –Converges slower Similar to ATLAS, can add constraints from physics & external data misaligment studies on pixels with HIP

20 MKU Solving Large Degrees of Freedom ATLAS & CMS Alignment ● Challenge: CMS and ATLAS have large systems to solve (100k & 36k DoF) ● Formalisms require novel techniques ● Limiting factors: ● Size: Full ID needs O(10GB) for handling the alignment matrices ● Precision: Matrices can have large condition numbers (compete with machine prec.) ● Execution time: Single-CPU machines with non-optimized libraries take hours ATLAS: Currently solving using 64-bit //-computing ⇒ full system was possible only last year! ● Solving full pixel (12.5k DoF) on 16 nodes takes only 10mins (7hrs on Intel P4, diagonalization) ● Work ongoing for improvements: already implemented MA27 in Athena: takes 7sec for 6180 DoF, single-CPU CMS: ● Millepede-II using MinRes was shown to solve 12k DoF in 30sec in single-CPU! ● Generally, issues depend on the sparsity of matrices and other factors. Things get really complicated! (During datataking, a few mins performance differences in solvers may not be our bottleneck problem!) N double precision quadruple precision ~log 10 |AA -1 -I| Inversion fails

21 MKU “Weak” Distortional Modes.. ATLAS & CMS Alignment “clocking”  R VTX constraint “telescope”  z~R cosmics radial distortions (various)  dependent sagitta  X  a  bR  cR 2  dependent sagitta “Global twist”  Rcot(  ) Problem: Certain transformations leave  2 unchanged. Need extra handles to tackle these: Requirement of a common vertex (VTX constraint), Constraints on track parameters or vertex position (external tracking, calorimeters, resonant mass,...) External constraints (hardware systems, mechanical constraints, …). Easily incorporated in the formalisms (for ex, global  2 ) Mass constraints, cosmics, E/p, charge dep

22 MKU More on Weak Global Modes ATLAS & CMS Alignment Example “lowest modes” in PIX+SCT Global Freedom ignored  Weak modes contribute to the lowest part of the eigenspectrum.  These deformations lead directly to biases on physics (systematic effects).  Such global effects already under study (lots of preliminary results, have no time to show all, so will sample in next pages!)

23 MKU ATLAS “CSC” Challenge ATLAS & CMS Alignment Level of applied misalignments: Modules = Level 3 Layers = Level 2 (barrel layers or disks)‏ Subdetectors = Level 1 (whole barrel or EC)‏ Expected misalignments: Modules: µm, 1mrad Layers: 100 µm Silicon Barrels & EC: Up to few mm From detector assembling and installation: Misalignments largest on L1 and smallest on L3 ⇒ Alignment strategy: L1 ⇒ L2 ⇒ L3 Currently using “multimuons” data with a realistic as-built geometry to align the ID algorithms Aim to test performance and understand needs for real data conditions B s studies with misalignment: 14% less candidates reconstructed (B. Epp) Same misalignments are also used to check physics performances

24 MKU CSC: Algorithm Performances ATLAS & CMS Alignment Global chi2 Check if the algorithms converge and improve residuals recover pixel Check if efficiency and track parameters improve Local chi2 Nominal 1 st Iteration 8 th Iteration Input Misalignment Robust Alignment

25 MKU CSC: Welcome to the Real World ATLAS & CMS Alignment Improved residuals is only a part of the story.. Are we able to see systematic effects (mostly weak modes) after alignment? Yes, as biases in track parameters As the algorithms cannot fix these alone, use additional constraints Transverse translations detected and already incorporated in algorithms: vertex/beam spot fit. Especially to be studied in pilot run. Also apparent in pT, mass and charge-dep. E/P handles

26 MKU ATLAS ID Alignment: CTB Performances ATLAS & CMS Alignment First real data from ID at H8 beam in 2004 Large statistics of e + /e - and  (2-180 GeV) (O(10 5 ) tracks/module/E), B-field on-off runs Limited layout (6 PiX, 8 SCT, 6 TRT) Results from various algorithms are being combined: reached a level sensitive to effects at a few microns! Before After Robust PIXEL Overall residual resolution obtained: Pix residual sigma ~10  m, SCT ~ 20  m z y x 6 PIXEL modules 8 (-1) SCT Modules (1 dead) Excellent agreement

27 MKU ATLAS SR1 Cosmics: Performances ATLAS & CMS Alignment Global  2 Before Alignment Robust Global  2 Local  2 Helen Hayward Average Unbiased Residual Sigma [mm] Surface (SR1) runs in spring 2006: ~400k Barrel cosmics recorded (22% of SCT, 13% of TRT) No B-field! No momentum! MSC important ~<10 GeV, need to deal with larger residuals than CTB Excellent assembly precision! TRT+SCT: relative twist of SCT and TRT of 0.2 mrad Largest sample used ~200k tracks

28 MKU ATLAS ID optical alignment (FSI) ATLAS & CMS Alignment Barrel SCT End-cap SCT 165x2= (3x[80+16])+(2x72)=512 Frequency Scanning Interferometry: Geodetic grid of 842 simultaneous length measurements (precision <1  m ) between nodes on SCT support structure. Grid shape changes determined to < 10  m in 3D. Time + spatial frequency sensitivity of FSI complements track based alignment: –Track alignment average over ~24hrs+. high spatial frequency eigenmodes, “long” timescales. –FSI timescale (~10mins) low spatial frequency distortion eigenmodes -> weak global modes! Software principles already studied, implementation to be finalized! Spatial frequency eigenmode FSI Time seconds minutes hours days months Tracks

29 MKU ATLAS FSI on detector ATLAS & CMS Alignment Distance measurements between grid nodes precise to <1  m ATLAS FSI barrel is mostly serviced and cabled in the pit (only waiting for endcap for final touch). FSI will be used intensively before and during the early runs and the track-based alignment and FSI interplay will be tested. Stability of the detector will tell how frequent data needs taken during normal operation.

30 MKU ATLAS  -spectrometer Alignment Spectrometer: 1252 MDT chambers (708 Barrel, 544 Endcap) Muon track will be measured with 3 drift tube chambers (~18-20 layers) Requirement: 10% p T resolution on 1TeV muon: sagitta of 500 μm measured with 50 μm accuracy  muon chambers must be aligned to 30 μm (Intrinsic resolution of a channel: 80 μm ) When Toroid is on, chambers will move by several mm => Optical alignment needed. hourly geometry changes expected. ATLAS & CMS Alignment MDTs monitored for 9 chamber distortions, eg, elongation, sagging,.. 3 system with 3- point principle CCD Spot target Lens 91mm 53 mm BCam Florian Bauer, 4/9/2006, LHC Alignment Workshop

31 MKU ATLAS  alignment Status Optical alignment software validated at CTB, hardware installation underway. 2 softwares: ASAP (barrel) and AraMyS (endcap) Combine optical information with straight/High Pt tracks in global fit Describe the 9 chamber deformations in the fit => DoFs per chamber. Handle up to 10k DoFs both in the Barrel and Endcap Run online with a latency of 24h. => robust algorithms, automated dataflow, monitoring, use of Databases as IO For alignment&calibration, a special L2 trigger data stream is being setup Misalignment studies show that the algorithms see the misalignments Obtaining the required alignment is shown to take about 1/2 day, assuming parallel inner/outer chambers (ATLAS T&P week). ATLAS & CMS Alignment EndCap Barrel

32 MKU CMS Hardware Alignment System ATLAS & CMS Alignment Components Internal muon alignment barrel (all chambers) endcap (selected) Internal tracker alignment (LAS) TEC w.r.t. TOB; TEC w.r.t. TIB. Muon w.r.t. tracker (Link system) Specifications Tracker structures ~10-100μm Muon chambers at ~ 100μm Muon vs tracker ~ 100μm LAS: monitor selected modules to get global alignment beams in total Beams treated like tracks

33 MKU CMS Hardware Alignment System ATLAS & CMS Alignment R-sensors Z-sensors Note: only small sample of analog sensors shown Clinometers Transfer plate DCOPS CMS LAS has been used in parts successfully during reconstruction and is installed at the test centre at CERN for tests Treats beams as tracks: nothing but another straight track fit! Full CMS hardware is 40k parameters Lots of software challenges, similar to track-based algorithms muon

34 MKU Surveying the Detectors ATLAS & CMS Alignment ATLAS SCT Barrel photogrammetry survey was done in 2006 at SR1 measurements tell two faces appear to be rotated in opposite directions, hinting at twists of the complete barrel (order of 100 μm). CMS results from including survey constraints in alignment shows improvement in residuals (similarly in ATLAS)

35 MKU ATLAS & CMS Tracker Status ATLAS & CMS Alignment ATLAS: Barrel tracker (except pixel) integrated in the pit and soon will take cosmics data. Pixels and endcap taking cosmics at surface. Endcaps installation end of may, pixels will go in mid-june. CMS: Strip tracker complete and its 1/8th is being read out. August onward, it will be completely in the pit and will take cosmics from mid-october. Installation plans for pixel is to be ready for data taking in ATLAS TRT+SCT Endcap CMS outerbarrel slice test (Feb07) 0.1mm

36 MKU Conclusions Both experiments have similar challenges and ideas for alignment, with different choice of optical alignment systems. Both experiments’ track-based alignment software are in place, heavily tested, and providing proof of principles. They are at the cutting edge of today’s computing resources. We have been looking at real data already! Misaligned simulation studies underway. A lot has been learned, fixed, improved, but there is a lot more to do! We will be ready for collision data, however, full scalability needs to be proven with real collision data conditions: datastream from triggers, huge data samples, computing power, GRID-readiness, etc. The first collisions will be useful to exercise further the tools and understand the actual needs (time-scales, online monitoring,...) rather than providing the final set of constants. Thankfully we do not need to reinvent most of the wheel, previous colliders suffered from similar symptoms. We need to be prepared for the unexpected, many issues upstream and downstream of alignment algorithms will exist and need to be understood: we cannot expect to obtain final module level alignment from day 1, but will likely nail down the global structures quickly. ATLAS & CMS Alignment Please Stay Tuned!

37 MKU Thanks Ian Tomalin (CMS/RAL) for pointing me to the CMS information and answering my questions. Pawel Bruckman (ATLAS/Oxford) Jochen Schieck (ATLAS/MPI Munich) Andrea Bocci (ATLAS/Duke) Maria Costa (ATLAS/Valencia) Numerous figures/slides borrowed from various talks, especially from the LHC alignment workshop of last fall. Of course, thanks to all the alignment and detector teams of both experiments! ATLAS & CMS Alignment

38 MKU ATLAS & CMS Alignment BACKUP

39 MKU ATLAS schedule ATLAS & CMS Alignment

40 MKU ATLAS ID r  view ATLAS & CMS Alignment 4cm 30cm 56cm 107cm

41 MKU Robust Alignment: Concept ATLAS & CMS Alignment Sum over neighbours, take correlations into account Correct for change in radius Sum over all modules in a ring

42 MKU ATLAS & CMS Alignment Global Chi2 can add extra terms to the weight matrix and the big vector of the final system of equations to incorporate external FSI constraint FSI + Track Alignment How to include time dependency? 1.FSI provides low spatial frequency module corrections at time t i, t 0 <t i <t 1 2.Track recorded at time t i is reconstructed using FSI module correction at time t i. 3.Global (or robust) Chi sq uses FSI corrected tracks to construct chi sq and minimises to solve for high spatial frequency modes, averaged over t 0 <t i <t 1, low frequency modes frozen. 4.Subsequent reconstruction of track at time t j uses average alignment from global (or robust) chi sq + time dependent FSI module correction, t j, t 0 <t j <t 1

43 MKU ATLAS & CMS Alignment The challenge of putting it all together: Alignment data flow (Martin Weber)