1. P07 –Trigger 402.06 Jeffrey Berryhill, L2 Manager, 402.06 February 2, 2016 1 Director's Progress Review -- Trigger Overview J. Berryhill, 2016 February 2

2.  Requirements and Conceptual Design  Project Definition  Project Organization and Management  Schedule  Cost and Labor Profiles  Risk and Contingency  ES&H and QA  Summary 2 Outline Director's Progress Review -- Trigger OverviewJ. Berryhill, 2016 February 2

3.  Fermilab Scientist II  Working on CMS trigger at FNAL since 2006  International PM for LS1 upgrade of calorimeter trigger 2014-5  Managing a team of 20, reporting to CMS L1 trigger  Firmware, software, installation, commissioning  Successfully run in 2015 for proton and HI collisions  Technical Work:  HLT menu manager for electron/photon triggers 2011  Developer for Run 1 trigger monitoring software 2006-10  Firmware for physics algorithms of LS1 calorimeter trigger upgrade  Management Experience: Standard Model Physics Convener 2012-3  Upper manager with a sub-manager team of 20, workforce of 200  Oversaw three dozen CMS publications 3 Trigger L2 Manager – Jeffrey Berryhill Director's Progress Review -- Trigger OverviewJ. Berryhill, 2016 February 2

4. Requirements and Conceptual Design 4 Director's Progress Review -- Trigger OverviewJ. Berryhill, 2016 February 2

5.  Reduce raw data rate of 40 MHz down to 750 kHz in 12.5  sec latency, preserving efficiency for mission-critical physics at the margin (precision Higgs, low-lying SUSY scenarios, vector boson scattering)  Achieved by execution of custom particle reconstruction algorithms and selection decisions similar to offline physics analysis, optimized for speed and data transmission feasibility.  Computed by a network of large, fast FPGAs mounted on custom PCBs in rows of crates in USC connected by high-speed backplanes and optical fibers.  Exploiting the data from new subdetectors and electronics upgrades from existing ones.  Combining the tracking data from the Track Trigger and the rest of the detector to provide the best achievable resolution for particle energy/momentum and remove the effects of pileup. 5 L1 Trigger Requirements Director's Progress Review -- Trigger OverviewJ. Berryhill, 2016 February 2

6. 6 L1 Trigger Requirements Director's Progress Review -- Trigger OverviewJ. Berryhill, 2016 February 2 Sorting/Merging Layer Muon Track-Finder MPC CSC DT LB RPC Global Correlations (Matching, PT, Isolation, vertexing, etc.) Global Correlations (Matching, PT, Isolation, vertexing, etc.) Splitters fan-out fan-out fan-out ECAL EB HCAL HB HCAL HB HCAL HF HCAL HF single xtal Regional Calo Trigger Layer Global Calo Trigger Layer Calorimeter TriggerMuon Trigger Tracker Track-Finding Track Trigger GEM + iRPC GEM + iRPC Global Trigger Tracker Stubs HGCAL on-det HGCAL on-det HGCAL off-det HGCAL off-det 402.06 U.S. Covers ~50% fraction

7. L1 Trigger Requirements  Calorimeter Trigger  Process individual readout granularity cells from EB/HB/HF and optimized readout from HGC.  Data processed by regional Layer and then final global reconstruction Layer providing the output. Similar to current calorimeter trigger, essentially scaled to higher number of channels involved.  Endcap Muon Trigger  Covering |  | from 1.6 to 2.5: rebuilt to incorporate additional chambers in endcap and to provide input to the tracking correlator.  Overlap & Barrel Muon Triggers  Modifications of existing muon triggers covering the barrel and overlap regions to provide the input to tracking correlator.  Global Correlator Trigger  L1 Track Finding is contained within the Tracker, with L1 Trigger performing correlation of produced track with muon and calorimeter trigger information.  Logic is based on adaptation of Particle Flow ideas to L1 Trigger.  Input trigger data is processed by an input Layer 1 and then final Layer 2 providing output.  Global Trigger  Will need to process more information than Phase 1 from many more objects with additional Tracking Trigger load. Design scales by ratio of data volume from phase 1 upgrade. Director's Progress Review -- Trigger OverviewJ. Berryhill, 2016 February 2 7

8. 8 L1 Trigger Requirements Director's Progress Review -- Trigger OverviewJ. Berryhill, 2016 February 2  Calorimeter Trigger:  Process individual crystal energies instead of present 5x5 towers  Higher resolution matching to tracks: ΔR < 0.006  Improvement in stand-alone electron trigger efficiency + rate→  Plots here and following from TP.

9. 9 L1 Trigger Requirements Director's Progress Review -- Trigger OverviewJ. Berryhill, 2016 February 2 Maintain muon efficiency and sharpen L1 PT and angular resolution to achieve high matching efficiency with track trigger Calorimeter- and track-seeded approach to taus can maintain ~ 50 kHz trigger rate with ~ 50% efficiency for VBF H →ττ

10. “CTP7” card in current calorimeter trigger Optical 10G links Xilinx Virtex 7 FPGAs ZYNC w/linux for control and monitoring Developed by Wisconsin for Phase 1 upgrade Building blocks: PCBs with large FPGAs Director's Progress Review -- Trigger OverviewJ. Berryhill, 2016 February 2 10 “MTF7” card in current muon trigger ~100 Optical 10G links Xilinx Virtex 7 FPGAs Large fast RAM for PT LUTs Developed by Florida for Phase 1 upgrade R&D program to advance each of these ingredients

11. Architecture example: Calorimeter trigger Director's Progress Review -- Trigger OverviewJ. Berryhill, 2016 February 2 11 Crate 1/18Crate 18/18 Processor Track Correlator … … Regional Layer 1: 135 boards Global Reconstruction Layer 2: 45 boards HCALECAL HGC 18 crates 32k fibers HCALECAL HGC Example crate from Phase 1 HF

12. Project Organization 12 Director's Progress Review -- Trigger OverviewJ. Berryhill, 2016 February 2

13. 13 402.06 Organization Chart to L3 Director's Progress Review -- Trigger OverviewJ. Berryhill, 2016 February 2 402.06 Trigger Jeff Berryhill (FNAL) 402.06.03 Calorimeter Wesley Smith (UW) 402.06.04 Muon Darin Acosta (UF) 402.06.05 Global Correlator Rick Cavanaugh (UIC)

14. 14 402.06 Organization Chart to L3 Director's Progress Review -- Trigger OverviewJ. Berryhill, 2016 February 2 402.06 Trigger Jeff Berryhill (FNAL) 402.06.03 Calorimeter Wesley Smith (UW) 402.06.04 Muon Darin Acosta (UF) 402.06.05 Global Correlator Rick Cavanaugh (UIC) Proposing construction for 55% of system Proposing construction for 100% of endcap muon track finding system Proposing construction for 55% of system

15. L1 Trigger Components (US) 402.06  Calorimeter Trigger 402.06.03 (L3 PM: Wesley Smith, Wisconsin)  Previous Run 1 and Phase 1 involvement shared ~50/50 with UK  HL-LHC: Board and algorithm R&D+design+install, 55% CORE for boards/fibers/crates  Endcap Muon Trigger 402.06.04 (L3 PM: Darin Acosta, Florida)  Previous Run 1 and Phase 1 involvement at 100% level  HL-LHC: Board and algorithm R&D+design+install, 100% CORE for boards/fibers/crates  Global Correlator 402.06.05 (L3 PM: Richard Cavanaugh, UIC/FNAL)  Totally new subproject of larger scope than Phase 1 global reconstruction layer  Strong interest from several US groups targeting 50% level involvement  HL-LHC: Board and algorithm R&D+design+install, 55% CORE for boards/fibers/crates  Board R&D/design strongly overlaps between sub-projects (and with L1 track trigger) Director's Progress Review -- Trigger OverviewJ. Berryhill, 2016 February 2 15

16.  Key people with significant previous roles in L1 trigger/HLT  Wesley Smith (UW), Run 1 trigger coordinator  Darin Acosta (UF), current deputy L1 PM  Tulika Bose (BU), Trigger Studies Group coordinator  US institutions involved Calorimeter: Wisconsin/UIC/Fermilab/Iowa Endcap muon: UF/Rice/TAMU/NEU Global Correlator: Wisconsin/UIC/Fermilab/UF/Rice/TAMU/NEU/Northwestern/ Cornell/Ohio State 16 Management and Project Team Director's Progress Review -- Trigger OverviewJ. Berryhill, 2016 February 2

17. Schedule 17 Director's Progress Review -- Trigger OverviewJ. Berryhill, 2016 February 2

18. 18 Construction Schedule Director's Progress Review -- Trigger OverviewJ. Berryhill, 2016 February 2 FY25 FY24 FY23FY22FY21FY20 FY19FY18 FY17 CD4 CD1 CD2 CD3 CD0 Specification and Technology R&D Trigger TDR Pre- production Installation LS 2 LS 3 Physics LHC Schedule CDR PDR CD3A FDR Prototyping and Demonstrators Production Readiness Review Production and Test Test & Commission Four phases: Technology R&D (2016-17) Demonstrator prototypes for 2020 CMS TDR (2018-19) Pre-production round of boards for 2021 ESR (2020) Full production of boards for LS3 install (2021-23)

19. Cost 19 Director's Progress Review -- Trigger OverviewJ. Berryhill, 2016 February 2

20.  Required hardware and construction M&S costs  Assume board/fiber/crate unit costs and I/O capacity per board similar to Phase 1 ($15k/board for calo./corr. trigger)  Assume board computational capacity will advance to meet HL-LHC reconstruction algorithm requirements  Scale up system size to reflect known I/O needs for HL-LHC trigger  Labor and engineering  FTE estimated from previous experience with Phase 1 construction project  Labor rates from existing personnel and standard Uni/Lab rates as needed  Travel  1-2 trips per year for international workshops, 1-2 US CMS events  $3k/international trip, $1k/trip domestic  M&S and labor estimate maturity is “Conceptual”  (M5/L5 with 40-60% uncertainty) Basis of Estimate 20 Director's Progress Review -- Trigger OverviewJ. Berryhill, 2016 February 2

21. 21 Cost Cost = AY $M (No Contingency) J. Berryhill, 2016 February 2Director's Progress Review -- Trigger Overview L3 AreaM&SLaborTotalR&D Management0.2 0.1 Calorimeter2.61.03.60.6 Muon1.31.22.50.4 Global Correlator1.31.02.31.5 Total5.23.38.52.6

22. 22 Cost Profile Director's Progress Review -- Trigger OverviewJ. Berryhill, 2016 February 2

23. 23 Labor FTE Profile Director's Progress Review -- Trigger OverviewJ. Berryhill, 2016 February 2

24.  C&S understood since based on Phase 1 Trigger Upgrade Systems experience  Boards are extrapolations of existing Phase 1 Trigger Upgrade Boards  Using most conservative costing model (construct with Phase 1 hardware)  R&D and technology advances offer opportunities to reduce cost.  C&S based on experience of the same team that built and wrote software and firmware for Phase 1 Trigger Upgrade  Exploiting new commercial tools offer opportunities to reduce amount of custom written FW and SW  Opportunities already realized in Phase 1 Cal. Trig. Upgrade 24 Cost and Schedule Risks Director's Progress Review -- Trigger OverviewJ. Berryhill, 2016 February 2

25.  Senior Engineer becomes unavailable (Low Risk)  Hire new engineer, subcontract to consulting firm, use FNAL engineer  Software or Firmware does not meet requirements (Low Risk)  Hire extra expert effort to recover schedule and help personnel  Boards are delayed (design, manufacture or testing) (Low Risk)  Hire extra effort to speed up testing schedule  Vendor non-performance (Low Risk)  Acquire spending authority to use alternative vendors (while original funds are being unencumbered).  Input or output electronics (non-trigger) delayed (Low Risk)  Built in capabilities of trigger electronics provide signals for their own inputs & outputs 25 Managed Trigger Risks & Mitigation Director's Progress Review -- Trigger OverviewJ. Berryhill, 2016 February 2

26. ES&H Quality Assurance Quality Control 26 Director's Progress Review -- Trigger OverviewJ. Berryhill, 2016 February 2

27.  No hazardous materials required; no special conditions for labor.  Safety: follows procedures in CMS-doc-11587, FESHM  L2 Manager (J.B.) responsible for applying ISM to trigger upgrade (Under direction of US CMS Project Management)  Modules similar to others built before, of small size and no high voltage  Integrated into existing well-tested and long-term performing safety system  All activities and personnel at CERN regulated by CERN Safety Rules (e.g. safety training courses required of all personnel) 27 Environmental protection, health and safety Director's Progress Review -- Trigger OverviewJ. Berryhill, 2016 February 2

28. Summary 28 Director's Progress Review -- Trigger OverviewJ. Berryhill, 2016 February 2

29. Summary The L1 trigger project is essential to realize the physics goals of CMS during HL-LHC (precision Higgs, VBS, BSM), as well as realizing the full potential of other upgrades. US institutions plan to continue as the leading participants in L1 trigger R&D and production, with a proposal to build 50% of the final system and provide commensurate hardware and firmware engineering. A model of the US involvement has been developed with cost estimates in line with the CMS technical proposal, with appropriate level of detail entering the R&D phase of the project. Estimated total construction (R&D) cost of 8.5M$ (2.6M$) Director's Progress Review -- Trigger OverviewJ. Berryhill, 2016 February 2 27