1. Architecture/Framework Status David R. Quarrie LBNL DOE/NSF Review of U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Project NSF June 2002

2. June 20, 2002 David R. Quarrie, LBNL DOE/NSF Review 2 Outline  Major Activities  Simulation and Athena  Support/Infrastructure Activities  LHC Computing GRID Project  Feedback from last Review  Summary

3. June 20, 2002 David R. Quarrie, LBNL DOE/NSF Review 3 Event Data Model & Detector Description  Reorganization of effort focused towards DC1-2 and DC2  Headed by me  Detector DescriptionStan Bentvelsen [Nikhef]  Framework EDM:Srini Rajagopalan [BNL]  HLT EDM:Markus Elsing [CERN]  Reconstruction EDM:David Rousseau [LAL, Orsay]  Simulation EDM:Andrea Dell’Acqua [CERN]  Improve coherency and migration towards new Event Data and Detector Description Models  Needed for alignment support, material integration and performance  Broadens role of US-ATLAS in these areas

4. June 20, 2002 David R. Quarrie, LBNL DOE/NSF Review 4 Event Data Model I  Framework [BNL, LBNL]  StoreGate data access service  DataHandle & DataLink access mechanisms  Major internal redesign in conjunction with Athena changes  DataVector container class supporting polymorphism, ownership policy and relaxing constraints on items  Raw Event Data Model [BNL, CERN]  Raw Data Object Support (IdentifiableContainer)  ByteStream Support (emulation of data from DAQ)  Implemented for most detector subsystems

5. June 20, 2002 David R. Quarrie, LBNL DOE/NSF Review 5 Simulation Dataflow GeneratorHepMC ROD Emulation Algorithm Particle Filter ROD Input Digits RawDataObjects ByteStream ConversionSvc L1 Emulation (inc. L1 ROD) L1Result ROD Emulation (passthru) ByteStream ATLAS MCTruth/Gen L1 Digitization Simulation PileUp MCTruth/Sim Hits McTruth/PileUp Digitization MergedHits L1Digits L2Result EFResult L2 Selection Algorithm EF Selection Algorithm Uses RawDataObjects

6. June 20, 2002 David R. Quarrie, LBNL DOE/NSF Review 6 Event Data Model II  Data Dictionary [LBNL, Annecy]  Automatic code generation from data model specification  Multiple back-end code generators  Objectivity, scripting and browsing currently available  ROOT support in next release (4.0.0)  Annecy software engineers managed by Craig Tull [LBNL]  Not yet reached critical mass  Hope to have 3 major subsystems as customers by end of month  Wish to redirect most of LBNL effort towards GRID integration  Lack of critical mass in data dictionary a concern

7. June 20, 2002 David R. Quarrie, LBNL DOE/NSF Review 7 Detector Description  Broaden US-ATLAS role  Addition of Joe Boudreau [Pittsburg]  Ongoing involvement from LBNL  GeoModel (based on CDF design) is basis for detector description strategy  Augments existing APIs  Adds support for misalignments  Adds support for material integration/extrapolation  Adds uniform support for both Geant3 and Geant4  Aside: Will LCG cause us to redo this again?

8. June 20, 2002 David R. Quarrie, LBNL DOE/NSF Review 8 Gaudi  0.9.1  Internal redesign of transient event store  Python scripting enhancements  Several bug fixes  ATLAS code base not fully synchronized with LHCb code base  0.10.1  Major Python scripting enhancements  AIDA 2.2, 3-D Histograms, dynamic resizing of Zebra commons  ApplicationMgr Refactoring  Object Introspection  ATLAS and LHCb code bases converged (almost)  Gaudi collaboration still proving successful  Extending into GRID and software distribution arenas

9. June 20, 2002 David R. Quarrie, LBNL DOE/NSF Review 9 Scripting  At the time of the last review we had just lost Chris Day [LBNL] because of funding shortfall  Responsibility for Scripting and Software Process (USDP)  Partial replacement (PostDoc) started at LBNL in mid- January  Focus on scripting support  Development accelerating  Area of close collaboration with LHCb  Python as component “glue” as well as scripting language

10. June 20, 2002 David R. Quarrie, LBNL DOE/NSF Review 10 GUI Python as “Glue” Python math shell gaudipython DatabaseEDG API GUI Very rich set of Python standard modules Several GUI toolkits XML Very rich set specialized generic modules Athena/Gaudi Framework rootpython Root Classes PVSS JPE Java Classes LHC modules Gateways to other frameworks

11. June 20, 2002 David R. Quarrie, LBNL DOE/NSF Review 11 Pile-Up and Refactoring  Pile-Up [LBNL]  Prototype available on schedule  Needs to be stress tested by real detector subsystems  SCT in next release, LAr before Sept.  LAr is interesting because of long integration times and memory size  “Production” version by end 2002  Refactoring [LBNL]  Reverse engineering of Gaudi internals leading to a cleaner, more robust re-design  Not visible to client code  Incorporated into Gaudi 0.10.1  Approach being extended to other areas

12. June 20, 2002 David R. Quarrie, LBNL DOE/NSF Review 12 GRID enabling Athena  Much of effort so far has been on developing middleware  Data access and management, job submission, authentication, etc.  ANL and BNL efforts have focussed on this  ATLAS/LHCb also doing job submission & software distribution  LBNL group begun to look at integration into Athena itself  Initial testbed incorporates GRID monitoring capabilities  Collaboration with Valerie Taylor (NorthWest)  Extend to Grid Monitoring Architecture (GMA) developed at NERSC  MonitorSvc

13. June 20, 2002 David R. Quarrie, LBNL DOE/NSF Review 13 Simulation and Athena  Direct Geant4 integration into Athena has been endorsed by new Simulation coordinator  Prototype [LBNL] incorporated into release  Some legacy FADS/GOOFY use  Not planned to be used for production  G4 component of DC1-2 will use integrated system  Geant3 simulation (atlsim) also being directly integrated into Athena [BNL, LBNL]  Prototype exists but not ready for production use  Goal is full symmetry between G3 and G4

14. June 20, 2002 David R. Quarrie, LBNL DOE/NSF Review 14 Support Activities  Tutorials  Lot of emphasis on tutorials  Introductory Athena tutorial web-based [LBNL, U. Michigan]  Advanced tutorials on Data Dictionary and StoreGate  Documentation  Separate Developer Guide and User Guide & Tutorial  New version released next week  Feedback from users shows still need to work on help, bug tracking and documentation  Lack of a bug tracking system is a real problem

15. June 20, 2002 David R. Quarrie, LBNL DOE/NSF Review 15 Configuration Management  Migration from previous SRT tool to CMT complete  Not a US-ATLAS deliverable but we played a major role  Developing policies and procedures  Trial releases to uncover problems and inconsistencies  Providing developer help and consultancy  Time to review experience and revisit some policies?  Support situation in ATLAS improved with formation of Infrastructure Group  Librarian, Release Coordinator, etc.  Hopefully will lessen our “fire-fighting”

16. June 20, 2002 David R. Quarrie, LBNL DOE/NSF Review 16 US ATLAS Presence at CERN  LBNL has one developer at CERN full-time  Massimo Marino  Craig Tull returned to LBNL  Goal is to maintain approximately 1-2 people there  Massimo’s tour ends in April 2003  Has proven to be really useful and beneficial  But a strain on maintaining critical mass at LBNL  Especially given funding uncertainties  I’d like to encourage this commitment to be augmented by others

17. June 20, 2002 David R. Quarrie, LBNL DOE/NSF Review 17 LHC Computing GRID Project  Goal is reduction in cost via common projects  Both hardware and software  US-ATLAS actively involved in RTAGs and first work project  Persistency  Short-term penalty  Maintaining effort on short term deliverables  Some might be superceded by common project deliverables later  While encouraging LCG involvement  Compare with Norman McCubbin’s comment on GRID  “Today it’s a net negative for ATLAS”  A lot of hopes and worry focused on first project  CERN’s prior history has not been good

18. June 20, 2002 David R. Quarrie, LBNL DOE/NSF Review 18 Recommendations from last Review (1) 1. With the chief architect, the US-ATLAS group commands an important position in the international collaboration. This will lead inevitably to the diversion of manpower for solving short-term problems in the future as it has in the past. The committee recommends to the international collaboration that it provide the chief architect with resources to fulfill that role. Until that issue is resolved we recommend to US-ATLAS to continue this kind of fire-fighting for the common good of ATLAS.  No change  My direct responsibilities have increased with EDM and Detector Description  But these are short-term, focused on DC1-2 and DC-2  I have responded by handing off most direct responsibility for Athena  Paolo Calafiura [LBNL]  We are continuing the “fire-fighting” policy

19. June 20, 2002 David R. Quarrie, LBNL DOE/NSF Review 19 Recommendations from last Review (2) 1. An additional drain of manpower is the continuous support of software that has not been approved by the collaboration. The committee recommends to international ATLAS management to enforce decisions about choices of software to the collaboration. 2. The committee recommends to the US-ATLAS software group to be less willing to take up additional workload purely driven by part of the collaborations non-compliance with already taken software decisions.  Some progress on this  Direct integration of Geant4 into Athena adopted.  Joe Boudreau (Pittsburg) added to Detector Description effort  ATLAS international is strongly encouraged to provide a concrete staffing plan for DC1  Not really in place  Staffing augmented by reducing CERN database contribution

20. June 20, 2002 David R. Quarrie, LBNL DOE/NSF Review 20 Summary  Major focus is the Data Challenges  Increased short-term emphasis on Event Data Model and Detector Description  Continuing good collaboration with LHCb on Athena/GAUDI  Slow integration of GRID capabilities into Athena  LCG Ramp-up is causing strain on short-term deliverables