Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs1 STT Fitting and Luminosity Fitting hardware description Current situation –Processing time –Instantaneous Lumi Dependence Possible.

Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs1 STT Fitting and Luminosity Fitting hardware description Current situation –Processing time –Instantaneous Lumi Dependence Possible changes –Instantaneous Lumi Dependence –Processing time Summary Do we need to build more TFC’s at all? (and new hotlink merging card?)

Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs2 Fitting Hardware:TFC Fitting time considerations: 1. Buffer Occupancy (16 evts.) 2. Bus contention 3. Processing time *Subject to shared bus constraints RED = external connection DSP’s see only a “road”, not an event… Input, each DSP* and output are run in parallel including multi-events in DSP’s Input logic (coord/road) LUT PCI-A L3 FIFO + logic L2 ouput logic PCI-B PCI-C Input buffer Output buffer LUT DSP

Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs3 Fitting Hardware:TFC Input buffer Output buffer LUT DSP Input logic (coord/road) LUT PCI-A L3 FIFO + logic L2 ouput logic PCI-B PCI-C Input buffer Output buffer LUT DSP “Odd” roads “Even” roads 33 MHz 33/2 MHz Actually have 8 DSP’s/TFC as 2x4

Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs4 Look at Lumi Effects in Data Derive efficiency and purity with respect to reco+CTT tracks in STT acceptance Already seeing effects from instantaneous lumi STT per track Efficiency STT track Purity Thanks, Huishi 2 mm road(?) Data taken 7/14/04

Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs5 Efficiency vs. Rejection in MC 2 track trigger 1 track trigger Efficiency Rejection 100 Signal & background as defined later: Signal, bb final state Bkg, “uu” final state

Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs6 But, currently: Lots of Extra CPU Time Available Early queuing studies: 50  s mean fitting time is fine! Fitting Time,  s Fraction/  s L = 23e30 “No” tails Pass 1 pass 2 No fit = 16  s No “by hand” optimization, e.g. each hit seen 4x now, could logically reduce to 2x

Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs7 And buffer/logic occupancy low Lumi(e30) Mostly empty/idle at existing luminosities. Extended readout, 2x Easily tolerate very large increases everywhere in logic proc. and buffers These data are with extended read out mode, so higher occupancy

Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs8 Revised fit algorithm for Run 2B Higher inst. lumi means more hits. –What does this do to pattern recognition? –No effect on parameter calculation precision Use data and MC –Run 2A detector don’t expect Layer 0 to provide much patrec help Full software chain ready Look at relative effects Samples –Run 2 data (7/14/04) Run 195134, L=62e30 Run 195138, L=23e30 Run 195143, L=15e30 –Run 2 MC, “b Signal” WH->mnbb 0.5 mb WH->mnbb 7.5 mb –Run 2 MC, “b Bkg” Z->udsuds 0.5 mb Z->udsuds 7.5 mb MC ala Uli’s earlier study MC, 2 ways: default, or remove ladders bad in data

Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs9 Look at ways to modify hit selection Current algorithm –Bounded exec time! –Uses “Static Road” Hits closest to circle though CFT-H, -A & beam spot –Require barrel order –Can skip 1 SMT superlayer –If 1 st fit is bad, drop a hit (if all 4 layers) New possibilities –Keep bounded time? –Try “Dynamic Road” Hits closest to circle through CFT-H, -A & an STT hit – Test barrel effects – Retain 1 layer skipping –Test different hit removal algorithms None, 1 st layer, …

Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs10 Two circle definition algorithms: Static Road (Current) Dynamic Road (D0 Note 3743) one circle for selection here, 2 circles Always choose hits closest to the circle… Hit Selection:Details CFT H CFT A Beam spot

Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs11 Hit Selection: Details In addition have limited z-information via barrel segmentation (allow at most 1 barrel transition) Do we first check all combinations, then select? r z Some Acceptable combinations r z Some unaccepable combinations

Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs12 Hit Selection: Details For either algorithm choose: 1. width in which to search: 1mm, 2mm 2. look at hits in valid barrel(z) combos only Choose what to do with 4 th SMT hit if bad 1 st pass fit? Refit after 1. Drop hit with worst  2 2. Drop inner layer (suggested by scanning) 3. Drop 1 st layer if 1 st or 2 nd layer is worst 4. Never Do or do not impose barrel ordering

Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs13 Fitting: Current algorithm Static road: use beam spot Road half-width: 1mm All hits-in-road (do not make list of hits in valid combinations before selection (time) Require barrel ordering If bad 1 st fit, drop hit with worst  2

Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs14 Make efficiency vs. rejection plots For example, 2 track trigger low & high lumi 3 “algorithms”, 1 track in trig. Have many, many curves… Rejection

Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs15 Choosing an algorithm Too many curves to overlay in a reasonable manner. So, make tables of rejection at specific efficiencies for  1 or  2 track(s) satisfying S b >X in trigger, low and high luminosities

Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs16 Rejection at  = 80% 1 Track 2 Track Processing Mode Algorithm Low High Low High Standard Static Road, 2mm 2.6 2.4 2.2 1.8 Static Road, 1mm 2.9 2.4 2.2 2.0 Dynamic Road, all hits 3.0 2.5 2.8 2.4 Dynamic Road, combo hits 2.9 2.6 2.8 2.4 1 pass Static Road, 2mm 2.5 1.8 1.9 1.7 Static Road, 1mm 2.3 1.9 2.1 1.8 Dynamic Road, all hits 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.1 Dynamic Road, combo hits 2.8 2.9 2.3 2.1 Drop 1 st not 2 nd Static Road, 2mm 2.6 2.3 2.0 1.7 Static Road, 1mm 2.9 2.2 2.3 1.9 Dynamic Road, all hits 3.1 2.7 2.6 2.4 Dynamic Road, combo hits 3.1 2.8 2.5 2.4 Drop inner Static Road, 2mm 2.8 2.2 2.0 1.9 Static Road, 1mm 2.7 2.4 2.3 1.8 Dynamic Road, all hits 3.2 2.8 2.5 2.3 Dynamic Road, combo hits 3.2 2.9 2.5 2.3 No barrel order Static Road, 2mm 2.8 2.3 2.2 1.9 Static Road, 1mm 2.8 2.4 2.1 1.9 Dynamic Road, all hits 3.0 2.1 2.7 2.5 Dynamic Road, combo hits 3.0 2.2 2.8 2.6 Standard MC

Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs17 1 Track 2 Track Processing Mode Algorithm Low High Low High standard Static Road, 2mm 5.6 3.9 5.3 3.5 Static Road, 1mm 5.9 3.9 5.2 3.4 Dynamic Road, all hits 4.5 3.4 6.4 4.8 Dynamic Road, combo hits 4.6 3.5 6.4 4.9 1 pass Static Road, 2mm 5.0 3.3 3.4 2.7 Static Road, 1mm 5.4 3.5 4.2 2.4 Dynamic Road, all hits 7.3 4.5 4.6 3.6 Dynamic Road, combo hits 7.4 4.8 6.0 4.3 drop 1 st not 2 nd Static Road, 2mm 6.3 4.0 3.7 2.7 Static Road, 1mm 6.1 4.2 4.7 3.1 Dynamic Road, all hits 5.1 3.7 6.6 4.8 Dynamic Road, combo hits 5.2 3.8 6.7 5.0 drop inner always Static Road, 2mm 6.0 4.3 4.6 3.1 Static Road, 1mm 5.9 4.2 4.5 3.0 Dynamic Road, all hits 5.7 3.8 6.5 5.1 Dynamic Road, combo hits 5.7 3.9 6.6 5.2 no barrel order Static Road, 2mm 5.6 3.4 4.9 3.4 Static Road, 1mm 5.5 3.3 4.8 3.3 Dynamic Road, all hits 4.1 2.6 6.9 3.4 Dynamic Road, combo hits 4.3 2.8 6.7 3.9 Rejection at  = 70% Standard MC

Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs18 Rejection at  = 50% 1 Track 2 Track Processing Mode Algorithm Low High Low High standard Static Road, 2mm 12.0 7.2 24.0 12.0 Static Road, 1mm 12.0 7.3 23.0 11.0 Dynamic Road, all hits 8.6 5.7 18.0 9.2 Dynamic Road, combo hits 8.7 5.9 18.0 9.3 1 pass Static Road, 2mm 19.0 10.0 14.0 7.3 Static Road, 1mm 19.0 11.0 18.0 8.4 Dynamic Road, all hits 14.0 8.2 31.0 17.0 Dynamic Road, combo hits 15.0 8.8 31.0 17.0 drop 1 st not 2 nd Static Road, 2mm 14.0 8.8 22.0 12.0 Static Road, 1mm 14.0 8.8 26.0 13.0 Dynamic Road, all hits 9.7 6.2 21.0 9.8 Dynamic Road, combo hits 9.8 6.4 21.0 10.0 drop inner always Static Road, 2mm 12.0 8.0 25.0 12.0 Static Road, 1mm 12.0 8.0 24.0 13.0 Dynamic Road, all hits 9.9 6.0 20.0 11.0 Dynamic Road, combo hits 9.9 6.4 20.0 12.0 no barrel order Static Road, 2mm 11.0 6.0 20.0 9.3 Static Road, 1mm 11.0 5.9 20.0 9.1 Dynamic Road, all hits 7.3 4.1 15.0 5.8 Dynamic Road, combo hits 8.0 4.4 16.0 6.9 Standard MC

Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs19 Rejection at  = 20% 1 Track 2 Track Processing Mode Algorithm Low High Low High standard Static Road, 2mm 40.0 18.0 170.0 40.0 Static Road, 1mm 40.0 20.0 140.0 42.0 Dynamic Road, all hits 22.0 18.0 65.0 33.0 Dynamic Road, combo hits 22.0 18.0 63.0 31.0 1 pass Static Road, 2mm 61.0 41.0 180.0 110.0 Static Road, 1mm 58.0 35.0 190.0 93.0 Dynamic Road, all hits 44.0 21.0 160.0 54.0 Dynamic Road, combo hits 43.0 23.0 160.0 50.0 drop 1 st not 2 nd Static Road, 2mm 48.0 24.0 190.0 72.0 Static Road, 1mm 47.0 25.0 170.0 70.0 Dynamic Road, all hits 26.0 16.0 83.0 33.0 Dynamic Road, combo hits 25.0 17.0 83.0 34.0 drop inner always Static Road, 2mm 33.0 21.0 110.0 64.0 Static Road, 1mm 35.0 21.0 110.0 60.0 Dynamic Road, all hits 28.0 16.0 83.0 36.0 Dynamic Road, combo hits 27.0 17.0 80.0 37.0 no barrel order Static Road, 2mm 40.0 17.0 110.0 34.0 Static Road, 1mm 42.0 17.0 100.0 35.0 Dynamic Road, all hits 18.0 12.0 46.0 17.0 Dynamic Road, combo hits 20.0 14.0 50.0 18.0 Standard MC

Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs20 Hit Selection: An unbounded aside Allow unbounded execution time – Try all combinations – Save best  2 /road Compare with best of the other algorithms – use default MC Show rejection ratio Rejection “All Combos” Rejection “Standard” So >1 means “all” is better Rejection Ratios 1 Track 2 Track. Low High Low High E=80% 1.13 0.86 1.03 1.15 70% 0.67 0.67 1.17 0.92 50% 0.42 0.45 0.52 0.46 20% 0.31 0.34 0.24 0.20 There are a few points with 15% increase in rejection, but most show significant loss

Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs21 Revised Algorithm Efficiency/Rejection will be lumi dependent Algorithm high effi: Dynamic low effi: Static Consistent pattern for both MC samples – all barrels live – good barrels live Best Choice Algorithm(  10%) Effi 1 Trk 2 Trk. 80% Dynamic Dynamic 1 not 2 1 not 2 70% Dynamic Dynamic 1 pass 1 not 2 50% Static Dynamic 1 pass 1 pass 20% Static Static 1 pass 1 pass

Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs22 Revised Algorithm What to do? – Can we make a decision about needing more TFC’s without actually choosing the algorithm today? Compare time of – dynamic road, all hits, 2 passes allowed (longest) – with current standard algorithm NB: Ignoring “valid combos” choice <10% in rejection, but much faster Choosing “wrong” road alg. is mild at high efficiency but 50% loss in rej at high rejections 2 nd pass algorithm could be chosen at run-time Hit rejection algorithms have modest impact on processing time, so focus on initial selection

Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs23 Comparison: 1 Track Req. Rejection Efficiency Default MC

Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs24 Comparison: 2 Track Req. Rejection Efficiency Default MC

Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs25 Dynamic Road, “1 st not 2 nd ”: Processing Time Hit Selection –Marginal increase, still fixed –Dynamic: Need one fit for each hit in minimum occupancy layer: +???% Layer 0 – Limited impact (+20% overall) – Linear in hit selection – Marginal change in parameter calculation 3x5 matrix -> 3x6 matrix Extra term in  2

Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs26 How many hits? Monte Carlo 7.5 minbias = 1.55 Current data 60e30. = 1.60

Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs27 Dynamic Road, 2 pass: Processing Time Hit Selection –Marginal increase, still no tails – Need one fit for each hit in minimum occupancy layer: +60% Layer 0 – Limited impact (<20% overall) – Linear in hit selection – Marginal change in parameter calculation 3x5 matrix -> 3x6 matrix Extra term in  2 Net: +80%, incl. extra hits and matrix for Layer0 Maybe processing time increases 2x? gives = 30  s still well below problem times

Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs28 What about occupancy? Roads/TFC – Current means All roads: 3.1/tfc/evt Fittable: 2.2/tfc/evt – 8-fold parallel CPU’s For < 8 tracks, small change in time Then for <16 small change – Doesn’t seem like a problem Hits/road – 15e30 to 60e30 gave +25% – similar factor for final luminosity, so if linear, another +25% Known code inefficiency – each hit looked at 4x, could be <= 2x – get hits in 2 mm, then discard those outside 1 mm. Compute dx for all… What about skip bit?

Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs29 What about occupancy? Use data sender with kludged high multiplicty evts to test – data vs. kludge (no spike) – send with Poisson interval – Event time (t fit = 34  s) Rate t evt (  s) (kHz) “Std” “Big” 2 kHz 47 48 3 46 47 4 76 5 80 6 49 85 <>, Green = data <>, red = 2.5x data

Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs30 What would we save? Making exact copies of TFC’s – No firmware mods needed – All parts in hand. Need boards and assembly. Designing and building hotlink merge cards* –Have 0 th order layout. Finalize and order –Have draft firmware (JDH or new eng.) –Both based on existing board Building other boards? –Motherboards, LRB’s, LTB’s *or 2 more MBT’s + L2CTT software

Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs31 What would we not save? In any scenario, need to revise – software (incl. trigsim fitters) – LUT’s to accommodate Layer 0 Who? – Junjie Zhu, as a post doc (11/15) – Ken Herner, student (10/15) Both already familiar w/D0 – JDH – if build, 1 engineer (Chuck Pancake)

Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs32 Conclude Do not add additional TFC’s/crate Likely switch to Dynamic Road algorithm –2 nd pass definition can be tweaked… –Plan to use current except drop 1 st layer if 2 nd contributes most to  2 No matter which of these are used, none require more hardware

Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs33 Extras follow

Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs34 Rejection at  = 80% 1 Track 2 Track Processing Mode Algorithm Low High Low High standard Static Road, 2mm 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.8 Static Road, 1mm 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.7 Dynamic Road, all hits 2.0 2.2 1.8 1.8 Dynamic Road, combo hits 1.9 2.1 1.8 1.9 1 pass Static Road, 2mm 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.1 Static Road, 1mm 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.9 Dynamic Road, all hits 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.8 Dynamic Road, combo hits 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.7 Drop 1 st not 2 nd Static Road, 2mm 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9 Static Road, 1mm 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.8 Dynamic Road, all hits 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.8 Dynamic Road, combo hits 2.0 2.1 1.8 2.0 Drop inner always Static Road, 2mm 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.9 Static Road, 1mm 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.8 Dynamic Road, all hits 2.0 2.1 1.8 1.8 Dynamic Road, combo hits 2.0 2.1 1.8 1.9 No barrel order Static Road, 2mm 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.7 Static Road, 1mm 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.8 Dynamic Road, all hits 2.1 2.1 1.8 2.0 Dynamic Road, combo hits 2.1 2.2 1.8 1.9 Ladder removed MC

Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs38 How many fits are multi-pass? Use highest lumi run from data, and use 7.5 mb MC As with previous, use trigsim and standard algorithm Plot dropped layer, with 0 meaning no drop. Use (current) 1 mm road 1 pass, 77% Run 195134 Skipped Layer 23% of fits (in data) require a 2 nd pass

Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs1 STT Fitting and Luminosity Fitting hardware description Current situation –Processing time –Instantaneous Lumi Dependence Possible.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs1 STT Fitting and Luminosity Fitting hardware description Current situation –Processing time –Instantaneous Lumi Dependence Possible."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs1 STT Fitting and Luminosity Fitting hardware description Current situation –Processing time –Instantaneous Lumi Dependence Possible.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Sep. 10, 2004Hobbs1 STT Fitting and Luminosity Fitting hardware description Current situation –Processing time –Instantaneous Lumi Dependence Possible."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback