Photonics Tables Bin Optimization Kyle Mandli Paolo Desiati University of Wisconsin – Madison Wuppertal AMANDA Collaboration Meeting.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)
Advertisements

London Collaboration Meeting September 29, 2005 Search for a Diffuse Flux of Muon Neutrinos using AMANDA-II Data from Jessica Hodges University.
Status report on Light Simulator Claudia Cecchi Francesca Marcucci Monica Pepe Software meeting Udine January
Overview of what is in the MC A.Margiotta 17/05/2011.
PROGRESS ON WATER PROPERTIES ON TRACKS RECONSTRUCTION Harold Yepes-Ramirez 09/11/2011.
Status of the MICE SciFi Simulation Edward McKigney Imperial College London.
Using  0 mass constraint to improve particle flow ? Graham W. Wilson, Univ. of Kansas, July 27 th 2005 Study prompted by looking at event displays like.
Brick Finding Ankara CM 2/4/2009 Dario Autiero. A large effort was put in the last months by a team of people in order to recover the events pending due.
Particle Identification in the NA48 Experiment Using Neural Networks L. Litov University of Sofia.
A Search for Point Sources of High Energy Neutrinos with AMANDA-B10 Scott Young, for the AMANDA collaboration UC-Irvine PhD Thesis:
Tampa APS Meeting April 2004 P. Gorham 1 UH ANITA monte carlo Peter Gorham University of Hawaii A N I T A.
DATA TAKING – TESTS OF ABSORPTION LENGTH MEASUREMENTS IN ANTARES MC (group meeting) HAROLD YEPES-RAMIREZ IFIC, 22/10/10 1.
Study of optical properties of aerogel
Status of calorimeter simulations Mikhail Prokudin, ITEP.
Sean Grullon with Gary Hill Maximum likelihood reconstruction of events using waveforms.
Analysis Meeting vol Shun University.
PERFORMANCE OF THE MACRO LIMITED STREAMER TUBES IN DRIFT MODE FOR MEASUREMENTS OF MUON ENERGY - Use of the MACRO limited streamer tubes in drift mode -Use.
IceCube: String 21 reconstruction Dmitry Chirkin, LBNL Presented by Spencer Klein LLH reconstruction algorithm Reconstruction of digital waveforms Muon.
WP2 meeting, Oct 2006, CPPM Claudine Colnard - NIKHEF Claudine Colnard, Ronald Bruijn, Eleonora Presani, Siemen Meester, Paul Kooijman (presented by Maarten.
Irakli Chakaberia Final Examination April 28, 2014.
Reconstruction PDF in Inhomogeneous Ice Ribordy & Japaridze Université de Mons-Hainaut AMANDA/ICECUBE Berkeley – March '05.
Photonics Workshop Summary (IceCube style) Taking steps to address baseline change - Adopted forward-looking approach - Deliverables and milestones defined.
Binary Stochastic Fields: Theory and Application to Modeling of Two-Phase Random Media Steve Koutsourelakis University of Innsbruck George Deodatis Columbia.
Reconstruction techniques, Aart Heijboer, OWG meeting, Marseille nov Reconstruction techniques Estimators ML /   Estimator M-Estimator Background.
Photon propagation and ice properties Bootcamp UW Madison Dmitry Chirkin, UW Madison r air bubble photon.
A statistical test for point source searches - Aart Heijboer - AWG - Cern june 2002 A statistical test for point source searches Aart Heijboer contents:
Cherenkov Counters for SoLID Z.-E. Meziani on behalf of Simona Malace & Haiyan Gao (Duke University) Eric Fuchey (Temple University) SoLID Dry Run Review,
Point Source Search with 2007 & 2008 data Claudio Bogazzi AWG videconference 03 / 09 / 2010.
NESTOR SIMULATION TOOLS AND METHODS Antonis Leisos Hellenic Open University Vlvnt Workhop.
1 Calorimeter in G4MICE Berkeley 10 Feb 2005 Rikard Sandström Geneva University.
Determination of True Attenuation Lengths using SPASE-AMANDA Coincidence Data Tim Miller JHU/APL.
Ice Investigation with PPC Dmitry Chirkin, UW (photon propagation code)
Detection of electromagnetic showers along muon tracks Salvatore Mangano (IFIC)
IceCube simulation with PPC Dmitry Chirkin, UW Madison, 2010.
Attenuation measurement with all 4 frozen-in SPATS strings Justin Vandenbroucke Freija Descamps IceCube Collaboration Meeting, Utrecht, Netherlands September.
Ciro Bigongiari, Salvatore Mangano Results of the optical properties of sea water with the OB system.
The Tale of IceCube and GRB080319B or the Mystic Magic of TestDAQ Alexander Kappes UW-Madison IceCube Collaboration Meeting May 3, 2008, Madison.
IceCube simulation with PPC Photonics: 2000 – up to now Photon propagation code PPC: now.
HEP Tel Aviv University LumiCal (pads design) Simulation Ronen Ingbir FCAL Simulation meeting, Zeuthen Tel Aviv University HEP experimental Group Collaboration.
3D Event reconstruction in ArgoNeuT Maddalena Antonello and Ornella Palamara 11 gennaio 20161M.Antonello - INFN, LNGS.
TRANSMISSION LENGTH STATUS HAROLD YEPES-RAMIREZ IFIC, January 12 th
Comparison of different km3 designs using Antares tools Three kinds of detector geometry Incoming muons within TeV energy range Detector efficiency.
Adam Blake, June 9 th Results Quick Review Look at Some Data In Depth Look at One Anomalous Event Conclusion.
Review of Ice Models What is an “ice model”? PTD vs. photonics What models are out there? Which one(s) should/n’t we use? Kurt Woschnagg, UCB AMANDA Collaboration.
ESTIMATING THE 6m TAGGER ACCEPTANCE Thomas Schörner-Sadenius, UHH ZEUS Collaboration meeting DESY, 27 February 2006.
Ciro Bigongiari, Salvatore Mangano, Results of the optical properties of sea water with the OB system.
IceCube simulation with PPC Dmitry Chirkin, UW Madison, 2010 effective scattering coefficient (from Ryan Bay)
DirectFit reconstruction of the Aya’s two HE cascade events Dmitry Chirkin, UW Madison Method of the fit: exhaustive search simulate cascade events with.
PMT time offset calibration (not completed) R.Sawada 27/Dec/2007.
Geant4 Simulation for KM3 Georgios Stavropoulos NESTOR Institute WP2 meeting, Paris December 2008.
Muon Energy reconstruction in IceCube and neutrino flux measurement Dmitry Chirkin, University of Wisconsin at Madison, U.S.A., MANTS meeting, fall 2009.
1 Cosmic Ray Physics with IceTop and IceCube Serap Tilav University of Delaware for The IceCube Collaboration ISVHECRI2010 June 28 - July 2, 2010 Fermilab.
First All-Sky Measurement of Muon Flux with IceCube IceCube REU Summer 2008 Kristin Rosenau Advisor: Teresa Montaruli.
Water Properties Phone Conference1 Light Generation in KM3 and Photonics Corey Reed (Nikhef) Photon Studies KM3 MC MMC+Photonics Summary.
IceCube Collaboration Meeting Ghent, October 9, 2007
Status of AIF analysis Daisuke Kaneko.
2nd edition Amasim and Photonics Stephan Hundertmark
Systematic uncertainties in MonteCarlo simulations of the atmospheric muon flux in the 5-lines ANTARES detector VLVnT08 - Toulon April 2008 Annarita.
Freeze-In and Hole Ice Studies with Flashers
Photonics Implementation
Preliminary Comparison of Monte Carlo and 9-string IceCube Data
Claudio Bogazzi * - NIKHEF Amsterdam ICRC 2011 – Beijing 13/08/2011
J/   analysis: results for ICHEP
Summary of yet another Photonics Workshop AMANDA/IceCube Collaboration Meeting Berkeley, March 19, 2005.
Dilepton Mass. Progress report.
Photonics Workshop AMANDA/IceCube Collaboration Meeting Berkeley, March 19, 2005 Going the last mile…
Status report on CATA-01/POLA-01 coincidence measurements
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Presentation transcript:

Photonics Tables Bin Optimization Kyle Mandli Paolo Desiati University of Wisconsin – Madison Wuppertal AMANDA Collaboration Meeting

Stephan: comparison between PTD bulk tables and Photonics bulk tables (muon, shower) –Check if Photonics bulk tables are consistent with PTD –New AMASIM release and bulk tables test Thomas: implement PSI interface for Photonics, PTD and NN-fit tables Johan: work with Thomas in PSI and produce Stephan’s test using PSI –Check results consistency with different interface (IceCube) Daan: working on NN-fit procedure of Photonics tables and produce comparison tests with tables themselves –Check if NN fit are a good approximation to speedup simulations Where are we ?

Ignacio: implement the zenith bin-wise production –Another simulation speed up possibility Adam,David H.: check memory map feasibility –Yet another simulation speed up possibility Kyle M.: Photonics tables bin optimization –Come up with a binning as a good compromise between good ice description and an acceptable table size Bin optimization is the topic of this talk Where are we ?

Light tracking binning: –Photons tracked using 6 parameters: ρ, φ, z, t, θ e, θ a This affects the table size Light source binning: –depth (z) & angle (θ) binning This affects the number of tables Table types: –Point-like ems and muon tables (differential or level1 tables) –Infinite muon tables (extended source or level2 tables) –Time-integrated amplitude PDF tables (.abs, smaller tables) –Integral PDF time tables (.prob, full binning tables) –Differential time probability table 1-slide tutorial

only ice propertiesProduce single given source locations (z=0): only ice properties Produce this table with different tracking binning in ρ, φ, z, t, (θ e,θ a integrated) –with statistical errors (interfaces do not read errors at the moment) Bin optimization proposed procedure Tableρφzt size/table Ranges0; 4500; ; 4500; 6000 Tab MB Tab MB Tab MB Tab MB Tab MB Tab MB Tab MB Tab MB

Use Time delay given source-receiver dist d –Receiver at reference origin –Light sources (10 GeV ems) on z=0, random in circle at a given d Sampling different table projections as in a simulation Mean Amplitude & Mean Time Delay versus distance d –Light sources on z=0, random in disk up to ρ max Perform a statistical test on ems tables –Kolmogorov-Smirnov test between most dense table and the others Calculate max y distance of cumulative histo and the probability that the 2 histograms are generated by a random sampling of the same distribution Use of PSIUse of PSI => advantage of root => still in development (but new release now) Optimization procedure

Time delay distribution 20,000 random samples

Time delay distribution 20,000 random samples

Time delay distribution 20,000 random samples

Compare the most dense table with the others –Calculate the probability that tables in each pair is derived by random sampling of the same distribution –Test statistic depends on K-S max distance and number of entries in each histo K-S Test: what we expect tab-pairs Prob Increase bins Increase prob

K-S Test

Tab pairRel Prob Tab (1.00) Tab (3.53) Tab (0.33) Tab (0.1) Tab Tab e-7 Tab e-17

Tab 5 seems to be ~10% consistent with the most dense table Statistical errors from tables (not accessible) and MC simulation Table bins reminder Tableρφzt size/table Tab MB Tab MB Tab MB Tab MB Tab MB Tab MB Tab MB Tab MB

Mean Amplitude & Time Delay vs distance

K-S Test

Tab pairRel Prob Tab Tab Tab Tab Tab Tab e-6 Tab e-20

Given statistical fluctuations and table size: Tab 5 good compromise Table bins reminder Tableρφzt size/table Tab MB Tab MB Tab MB Tab MB Tab MB Tab MB Tab MB Tab MB

A set of tables where only one dimension tracking binning is varied –The test suggests that changing binning in one dimension does not significantly affect the tables precision for a relatively wide range of binning. A set of infinite muon tables to perform the same test –This test was NOT done so far –Would require other tables … The source location binning to be tested (= layers) –NEXT STEP : it requires the generation of whole set of tables Other tests

Suggested table with enough precision and reasonable size –We already used this. Not much improvement ! Conclusion on tracking binning Tableρφzt size prob/diffsize abs Tab MB0.06 MB Range / Infinite muon Tables These tables have not been tested (educated guess so far) lρφt size prob/diffsize abs MB0.12 MB MB0.06 MB Range

What we used so far Source location binning z_lowz_highz_stepa_lowa_high a_step#tables (40) (18) 779 With these values we have 779 ems.prob ems.abs = 1558 ems tables = 2.34 GB 779 mu.prob mu.abs = 1558 mu tables = 4.67 GB 779 mu.prob mu.abs = 1558 mu tables = 2.34 GB Total size : ~ 7 GB (4.67 GB)

Angular splitting in simulation –Load only the tables corresponding to all z-values and to only the 2 θ-values around the muon track zenith angle Gain a factor 18/2=9 table size to load = 520 MB Use of NN fits of the tables –Do not load any table but use the fit function The function is complicated but <<< 1GB Speed seems to be very competitive versus tables Precision under extensive check Memory mapping –Load tables (or portion of tables) on disk and access them using specific algorithm Under investigation. More complicated than it seems. Size and Speed

Produce baseline tables (ems, muon diff tables) –Photon survival probability only with ice properties –Binned in θ a Store those tables : 86 GB but only once ! –Different efficiencies can be included without re-generating tables Include efficiencies, and produce.prob,.abs and.diff Special tables: –UHE, monopole tables : wider ranges (up to 1000 m in z and ρ) –.diff (dP/dt) tables for reconstruction with finer bins and less dimensions –Propose to generate them separately Final Table Production

Efficiencies to be included –Like in previous tables production ? Final Table Production ParameterDescriptionWhat is it GLASS_N Glass refraction index Borosilicate glass (P. Sudhoff) GEL_N Gel refraction index “standard gel” n=1.41 (dada_attn.f) QE Quantum Efficiency Hamamatsu 8” (R5912) from catalogue GLASS Glass transmittance Benthos housing (P. Sudhoff) GEL Gel transmittance “standard gel” 100% (dada_attn.f) SENS Angular sensitivity Measurement by CHW (AIR ) HOLE Hole ice model 50cm scattering length OM_CORR Curvature correction 13” benthos housing DYNODE 1 st dynode coll eff PMT Collection area (m^2)

Lots of progress recently and still on the way Waiting for layered tables: will be on disk next week –Still waiting for me ? I remind that we already have tables ! Efficiencies can be changed faster Start simulation for further tests –Purely interface reading (i.e. PSI) –AMASIM runs: speed –Theta angle binning of muons –NN testing NEED OF PEOPLE CURIOUS ABOUT THE SECRETS OF PHOTONICS Conclusions

Conclusions