ATLAS Simulation/Reconstruction Software
description
Transcript of ATLAS Simulation/Reconstruction Software
ATLAS Simulation/Reconstruction Software
Reported by Jim Shank, work done by Reported by Jim Shank, work done by
most US Institutes.most US Institutes.
DOE/NSF review of LHC Software and Computing ProjectsDOE/NSF review of LHC Software and Computing Projects
FermilabFermilab
27-30 November, 200127-30 November, 2001
28 Nov., 2001.28 Nov., 2001.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW. 2
Outline
Activities in all systems (mostly by physicists):Activities in all systems (mostly by physicists):
Pixels, TRT, EM Cal, Tile Cal, Muons, Trigger
Well integrated into overall ATLAS computing effort.Well integrated into overall ATLAS computing effort. In particular, the US core efforts on Athena and DB.
Review of recent activity, by sub-systemReview of recent activity, by sub-system
Future work: Data Challenges.Future work: Data Challenges.
28 Nov., 2001.28 Nov., 2001.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW. 3
ATLAS Subsystem/Task Matrix
Offline Offline
CoordinatorCoordinator
ReconstructionReconstruction SimulationSimulation DatabaseDatabase
ChairChair N. McCubbinN. McCubbin D. RousseauD. Rousseau K. AmakoK. Amako D. MalonD. Malon
Inner DetectorInner Detector D. BarberisD. Barberis D. RousseauD. Rousseau F. LuehringF. Luehring S. BentvelsenS. Bentvelsen
Liquid ArgonLiquid Argon J. CollotJ. Collot S. RajagopalanS. Rajagopalan M. LeltchoukM. Leltchouk R. SobieR. Sobie
Tile CalorimeterTile Calorimeter A. SolodkovA. Solodkov F. MerrittF. Merritt A. SolodkovA. Solodkov T. LeCompteT. LeCompte
MuonMuon To be namedTo be named J.F. LaporteJ.F. Laporte A. RimoldiA. Rimoldi S. GoldfarbS. Goldfarb
LVL 2 Trigger/ LVL 2 Trigger/
Trigger DAQTrigger DAQ
S. GeorgeS. George S. TapproggeS. Tapprogge M. WielersM. Wielers H. P. BeckH. P. Beck
Event FilterEvent Filter V. VercesiV. Vercesi F. TouchardF. Touchard
Other US roles: D. Quarrie (LBNL), Chief Architect; P. Nevski (BNL), Geant3 simu Other US roles: D. Quarrie (LBNL), Chief Architect; P. Nevski (BNL), Geant3 simu coord; H. Ma (BNL), Raw data coord; C.Tull (LBNL), Eurogrid WP8 liaisoncoord; H. Ma (BNL), Raw data coord; C.Tull (LBNL), Eurogrid WP8 liaison
28 Nov., 2001.28 Nov., 2001.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW. 4
Subdetector SW Activities Summary
Performance/design studiesPerformance/design studies
G3 based simulationG3 based simulation
Test beam Test beam
Athena integration Athena integration
Reconstruction development in CReconstruction development in C++ ++
G4 based simulation developmentG4 based simulation development
G4 physics validation G4 physics validation
XML based detector description XML based detector description
Database Database
Conditions DB
Trigger/DAQTrigger/DAQ
28 Nov., 2001.28 Nov., 2001.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW. 5
Pixels-Conditions DB (Berkeley)
Goal: To develop general mechanism for retrieving time-dependent alignment Goal: To develop general mechanism for retrieving time-dependent alignment
constants from database and using them in reconstructionconstants from database and using them in reconstruction
Requires additions to Athena infrastructure
Requires extension of existing detector description interface Will prototype using silicon and pixel detectors as the use caseWill prototype using silicon and pixel detectors as the use case Misalignments calculated from numbers stored ”Conditions Database”Misalignments calculated from numbers stored ”Conditions Database”
Delivered through a general ”Time Dependent Conditions Service” in Athena (TCS)
In addition to event store (TES):In addition to event store (TES): Need a detector store (TDeS) Need interface to conditions DB (TCS)
A prototype TDeS coded by C. Leggett and P. Calafiura (a second instance of A prototype TDeS coded by C. Leggett and P. Calafiura (a second instance of the Store-Gate Service without object deletion at the end of each event)the Store-Gate Service without object deletion at the end of each event)
Work in progress…Work in progress…
28 Nov., 2001.28 Nov., 2001.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW. 6
TRT (F. Luehring/Indiana et al)
Athena Pile-Up Requirements documentation ATL-SOFT-2001Athena Pile-Up Requirements documentation ATL-SOFT-2001
GEANT4 code writingGEANT4 code writing
TRT hit and digitization definitions
TRT GEANT3 code TRT GEANT3 code
current beampipe + geometry updates
TRT material budget
TRT atlsim example on the grid.TRT atlsim example on the grid.
GEANT 3 GEANT 3 GEANT 4 comparisons GEANT 4 comparisons
28 Nov., 2001.28 Nov., 2001.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW. 7
LAr Simulation (M. Leltchouk/Nevis et al)
LAr simulation coordination: M. Leltchouk/NevisLAr simulation coordination: M. Leltchouk/Nevis
Participation in G4 EM barrel developmentParticipation in G4 EM barrel development
LAr EM calorimeter hits (LArEMHit) were implemented in GEANT4 by
B.Seligman.
The ROOT I/O scheme is used for hit persistency (see The ROOT I/O scheme is used for hit persistency (see
http://www.usatlas.bnl.gov/computing/software/db/LArRoot2.htmlhttp://www.usatlas.bnl.gov/computing/software/db/LArRoot2.html
http://www.usatlas.bnl.gov/computing/software/db/rootio.htmlhttp://www.usatlas.bnl.gov/computing/software/db/rootio.html ) )
Comparisons of GEANT4 Simulations with Testbeam Data and Comparisons of GEANT4 Simulations with Testbeam Data and
GEANT3 for the ATLAS Liquid Argon Calorimeter has been presented GEANT3 for the ATLAS Liquid Argon Calorimeter has been presented
on CHEP2001on CHEP2001
28 Nov., 2001.28 Nov., 2001.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW. 8
GEANT 4 LAr Simulation
28 Nov., 2001.28 Nov., 2001.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW. 9
FCal1 Testbeam Setup in GEANT4FCal1 Testbeam Setup in GEANT4-counter
TailCatcher
Cryostat
FCal2 Module 0
Iron Shield
HoleVeto
MWPC
FCal1 Module 0
Argon Excluder
VetoWall
Setup aroundCryostat only!
FCal1
FCal2
FCal1 ElectrodePattern
28 Nov., 2001.28 Nov., 2001.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW. 10
FCal1: GEANT3/4 Comparisons of Energy ResolutionFCal1: GEANT3/4 Comparisons of Energy Resolution
Noise Cut Dependence
Rela
tive E
nerg
y R
eso
luti
on [
%]
Beam Energy [GeV]
Geant4
Geant3
Rela
tive E
nerg
y R
eso
luti
on [
%]
Beam Energy [GeV]
No Noise Cut
Fit to experimental data
GEANT4 high energyresolution problem ??
28 Nov., 2001.28 Nov., 2001.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW. 11
LAr Reconstruction -- Major Milestones Met
Early design in PASO: Early design in PASO: Jan. 2000Jan. 2000 Migrate to Athena: Migrate to Athena: May 2000May 2000
LAr Reconstruction used as a test bed for early Athena First application software to successfully migrate to Athena
3 working days at LBL3 working days at LBL
First Common Calorimeter InterfacesFirst Common Calorimeter Interfaces Oct. 2000Oct. 2000 QA review of then available components QA review of then available components Dec. 2000Dec. 2000
S. Albrand (Grenoble)
Combined Reconstruction (egamma) Combined Reconstruction (egamma) Jan. 2001Jan. 2001 Process GEANT4 LAr Hits (Root Objects) Process GEANT4 LAr Hits (Root Objects) Mar. 2001Mar. 2001 Lund ReleaseLund Release June 2001June 2001
Establishing most of the reconstruction chain From G3/G4 Hits to Particle Identification
28 Nov., 2001.28 Nov., 2001.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW. 12
LAr Data Classes
Data Objects proposed/implemented in March 2001Data Objects proposed/implemented in March 2001
J. Collot et. al.
T.
D.
S.
Simulation Hits
DetRespSimulation RawChannels , Digits
CellBuilder
EventFilter/Builder
Electronics Calib
ClusterReconstruction
Hits
Cells
RawChannels , Digits
Digits
RawChannelsCells
Clusters
RawChannels , Digits
TBConvDigits
Test beam Zebra Tapes
HitConvHits
Objy , ROOT/IO
28 Nov., 2001.28 Nov., 2001.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW. 13
Comparison to ATRECON
28 Nov., 2001.28 Nov., 2001.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW. 14
Recent Plots using LAr recon. program
28 Nov., 2001.28 Nov., 2001.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW. 15
LAr Reconstruction Conclusion
A central framework that is evolving to provide robust support
The reconstruction design has been built over this framework
Much of the ‘Fortran’ code has been migrated.
Validation ongoing, but results are promising.
It now paves the way for work in:It now paves the way for work in: optimizing and developing new algorithms
Physics and Detector performance studies
28 Nov., 2001.28 Nov., 2001.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW. 16
Tile Calorimeter
Tile Calorimeter DB coordination: T. LeCompte/ANLTile Calorimeter DB coordination: T. LeCompte/ANL Tile Cal reconstruction coord: F. Merritt/ChicagoTile Cal reconstruction coord: F. Merritt/Chicago Tile Cal XML Detector Description has been improvedTile Cal XML Detector Description has been improved
Extended barrel completed non-uniform plate spacing included Extended barrel can be easily repositioned w.r.t. the barrel
allows studying the effect of recently introduced gap Geant4 models have been built from both XML and "by hand“ G4 vs. test beam comparisons just beginning
TileCal per se reconstruction is largely an issue of calibration (convert TileCal per se reconstruction is largely an issue of calibration (convert ADC counts to Energy) ADC counts to Energy) calibration DB access is a goal for late FY2002
TileCal classes have changed to be more in line with LAr classesTileCal classes have changed to be more in line with LAr classes Jet reconstruction classes have been streamlinedJet reconstruction classes have been streamlined
28 Nov., 2001.28 Nov., 2001.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW. 17
Tucson JetRec Working Group and Tucson JetRec Working Group and SupportersSupporters
Tucson, Arizona, August 20-22, 2001
Tucson JetRec Working Group and Tucson JetRec Working Group and SupportersSupporters
Tucson, Arizona, August 20-22, 2001
Argonne National Lab: Tom LeCompte
Brookhaven National Laboratory(*): Hong Ma, Srini Rajagopalan
TRIUMF: Monika Wielers
University of Arizona: Peter Loch
University of Chicago: Ed Frank, Ambreesh Gupta, Frank Merritt
(*) by phone
Argonne National Lab: Tom LeCompte
Brookhaven National Laboratory(*): Hong Ma, Srini Rajagopalan
TRIUMF: Monika Wielers
University of Arizona: Peter Loch
University of Chicago: Ed Frank, Ambreesh Gupta, Frank Merritt
(*) by phone
28 Nov., 2001.28 Nov., 2001.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW. 18
Tasklist for the WorkshopTasklist for the Workshop Come up with an improved JetRec software
design in view of recent suggestions for changes:
definition of basic classes -> review of use cases; establish the algorithm flow; first look at the “navigation problem”
First attempt to set up a working group
structure within the Jet/Etmiss performance group:
work plans, deliverables and commitments; reporting to Jet/Etmiss and Software groups; bi-weekly phone conferences Tuesdays, 17:00 (Geneva
time) -> next October 2, 2001!
Come up with an improved JetRec software design in view of recent suggestions for changes:
definition of basic classes -> review of use cases; establish the algorithm flow; first look at the “navigation problem”
First attempt to set up a working group
structure within the Jet/Etmiss performance group:
work plans, deliverables and commitments; reporting to Jet/Etmiss and Software groups; bi-weekly phone conferences Tuesdays, 17:00 (Geneva
time) -> next October 2, 2001!
28 Nov., 2001.28 Nov., 2001.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW. 19
Algorithmic FlowAlgorithmic Flow
T DS
CaloCellPr ot oJ et Builder
Cal
oCel
ls
Cal
oPro
toJ
ets
Example!! There is NO restriction to Calorimeter Reconstruction Objects or any other specific type in general!
Example!! There is NO restriction to Calorimeter Reconstruction Objects or any other specific type in general!
Kt J et F inder
Jet
s
Jet
s
Kt J et Reconst r uct or
Jet
s
Jet
s
CaloPr ot oJ et Cont ainer
Kt Pr eClust er Builder
Prot
oJet
s
Jet
s
Kt Pr eClust er Cont ainer
Kt Candidat eJ et Cont ainer
Kt J et Cont ainer
28 Nov., 2001.28 Nov., 2001.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW. 20
Muon Spectrometer
Boston U (J.Shank), U Michigan, Harvard, BNL + CERN, Italy,..Boston U (J.Shank), U Michigan, Harvard, BNL + CERN, Italy,..
Current activity:Current activity: Muon database and detector description
Muon DB coordination: S. Goldfarb/UM
XML detector description: MDTs, RPCs, TGCs implemented; full chain to Geant4 implemented
Geometry ID scheme for all subsystems defined and documented
OO muon reconstruction (Moore) development Integrated into Athena; in repository; in early development
Limited reconstruction in the barrel
Simulation for detector layout optimization
Near term goals:Near term goals: Extend Moore to barrel, update to emerging reconstruction data model.
Trigger TDR studies: L1->L2 rejection, efficiencies
Calibration DB, trigger DB, ongoing detector description work
28 Nov., 2001.28 Nov., 2001.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW. 21
Physics Performance Comparasion CSC Doublets vs. SingletEndcap Muon System Staging Study B. Zhou & D. Levin, U. of Michigan
Final stateFinal state Recon. Efficiency Recon. Efficiency
degradationdegradation ResolutionResolutiondegradationdegradation
Non-Gaussian tailNon-Gaussian taildegradationdegradation
1 muon1 muon
< 3%< 3% for Pt range for Pt range
(20 – 500 GeV)(20 – 500 GeV)
< 2%< 2%DDP/P degradationP/P degradation(20 – 500 GeV)(20 – 500 GeV)
< 10% for 500 GeV< 10% for 500 GeVmuonsmuons
2 muons2 muons300 GeV 300 GeV
A -> 2 A -> 2 muonsmuons
~ 4% more ~ 4% more events lossevents loss
Mass resolution Mass resolution changed from changed from 3.6% - 4.0%3.6% - 4.0%
< 2% non-Gaussian < 2% non-Gaussian tail increasetail increase
4 muons4 muons150 GeV 150 GeV
H -> 4 H -> 4 muonsmuons
~ 5% more ~ 5% more events lossevents loss
No significant No significant change in mass change in mass
resolutionresolution
No significant non-No significant non-Gaussian tail Gaussian tail
increaseincrease
• US DoE/NSF Lehmann Review recommend the US ATLAS Muon Team build 50% of the CSC chambers at the initial phase of the LHC.• Physics studies used single muons , and double and four muon final states from low mass Higgs decays.
Conclusion: the US CSC muon staging plan has not shown significant impact on The low mass Higgs detections at the Day 1 of the LHC physics run.June, 2001: ATLAS management approved US staging plan.
28 Nov., 2001.28 Nov., 2001.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW. 22
Investigation of Alignment Criteria in EndCap MDTsDaniel Levin – University of Michigan
Impact on Efficiency and Resolution due to Uncertainties in chamber surveying, placement & orientation
Resolution @ 100 Gev
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 0.5 1 1.5
mrad Max
dp/p
Green: Rotation about beam
T S
Z
Criterion: Alignment tolerance should be <0.3 mrad
Efficiency
T Axis Misalignment (mrad)
28 Nov., 2001.28 Nov., 2001.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW. 23
ATLAS Muon Database Contributions (S. Goldfarb)
Overall CoordinationOverall Coordination Management of MuonSpectrometer packages for Event and Detector Description
Reduction of cross-package software dependencies, porting to CMT New packages for Objectivity DDL
Planning document for Detector Description development ATL-COM-MUON-2001-021
Event Model DevelopmentEvent Model Development MuonEvent
Completion of transient G3 hit, container classes for MDT, RPC, TGC Completion of persistent (objectivity) digit, container classes, schema for MDT, RPC, TGC
New Muon Event Model Commencement of discussions with BNL defining project for Muon Spectrometer Coordination with SCT/TRT community
Detector Description DevelopmentDetector Description Development MuonDetDescr
Completion of transient detector description classes for TGC Completion of persistent (objectivity) detector description classes, schema for MDT
MuonAGDD Evaluations of MDT, RPC, TGC descriptions for GEANT4 simulation Development of “compact” syntax definitions for MDT, RPC, TGC and Barrel Toroid Completion of XML description, expansion interface for MDT, Barrel Toroid
HEPDD (http://doc.cern.ch/age?a01380)HEPDD (http://doc.cern.ch/age?a01380) Hosted, Chaired second annual workshop on Detector Description for HEP at CERN
28 Nov., 2001.28 Nov., 2001.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW. 24
ATLAS Muon Database Contributions
Descriptions of Barrel Toroid (left)
and H8 test beam geometry (below).
Both geometries were generated using
compact AGDD syntax and both were
developed by REU summer students,
under the supervision of S. Goldfarb.
28 Nov., 2001.28 Nov., 2001.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW. 25
ATLAS Muon Database Planning Data Challenge 0Data Challenge 0
Persistent (objectivity) detector description classes, schema for RPC, TGC Data Challenge 1Data Challenge 1
Access to Geometry Version O in Athena from AMDB (Naples + SG) General Development to Event ModelGeneral Development to Event Model
MuonEvent New packages for technology-dependent software Modifications necessary for new geometry implementation
New Muon Event Model Initial implementation of Muon Digit Container and Identifier Classes (BNL) Implementation of new identifier scheme (BNL + SG)
General Development to Detector Description General Development to Detector Description (These plans detailed in document ATL-COM-MUON-2001-021) MuonDetDescr
Completion and testing of objectivity persistency New AGDD_DetDescrSource classes to interface MuonDetDescr with AGDD
MuonAGDD Completion of syntax, XML descriptions, interfaces for RPC, TGC, CSC, inert
material Extensive testing, evaluation of AGDD with G4 Simulation, Moore, Muonbox
HEPDD--Plan to Host/Chair Third Annual Workshop on Detector Description for HEPHEPDD--Plan to Host/Chair Third Annual Workshop on Detector Description for HEP
28 Nov., 2001.28 Nov., 2001.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW. 26
Offline Muon Reconstruction (Moore)
MMuon uon OObject bject OOriented riented ReReconstruction (Moore).construction (Moore).
Runs in the Athena Framework using the ATLAS CMTRuns in the Athena Framework using the ATLAS CMT
StrategyStrategy Base algorithms on trigger simulation:
Make roads from trigger chambers MDT Pattern recognition added (see next slides) Fitting from iPat
Graphics currently using GraXML and ATLANTIS
28 Nov., 2001.28 Nov., 2001.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW. 27
Pattern Recognition: Track Finding
x, y plane
z, y plane
Inner station
Outer station
Middle station
28 Nov., 2001.28 Nov., 2001.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW. 28
EfficiencyE
ffici
en
cy (
%)
PT (GeV)
Muonbox
MOORE
620 100 300 1000
A Muon track consists ofhits from at least 2 stationsand is successfully fitted.
The efficiency is normalizedto all events with the generated muon within ||<1at the event vertex
28 Nov., 2001.28 Nov., 2001.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW. 29
ResolutionP
T-r
eso
lutio
n (%
)
PT (Gev)
6 20 100
300
1000The resolution is defined as the of the gaussian fit to the
PTrec/PT
gen distribution
28 Nov., 2001.28 Nov., 2001.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW. 30
Pull of 1/PT
PT = 1000 Gev PT = 6 Gev
σ = 1.1941 σ = 6.176
The error on 1\PT pull is due to the material
pull = difference between the reconstructed and true values normalised to the
error on the reconstructed value.
28 Nov., 2001.28 Nov., 2001.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW. 31
Moore Plans
Release the code documentedRelease the code documented
Extend Moore in the End-cap regionsExtend Moore in the End-cap regions
Look into using the Level-1 simulation code directlyLook into using the Level-1 simulation code directly
Need to get the material description Need to get the material description
Plan to use Cobra fittingPlan to use Cobra fitting
Exploring Graphics with Atlantis and continue with GraXMLExploring Graphics with Atlantis and continue with GraXML
Implement the current O-Layout Implement the current O-Layout
Participate in the Data Challenge (1)Participate in the Data Challenge (1)
28 Nov., 2001.28 Nov., 2001.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW. 32
Trigger/DAQ Offline Software
The ATLAS High Level Trigger (HLT) is mostly a software triggerThe ATLAS High Level Trigger (HLT) is mostly a software trigger
LVL2: Optimized algorithms and simple trigger menus
Event Filter: Offline-like algorithms, full event, and latest calibrations
The The LVL1 triggerLVL1 trigger is a hardware trigger and needs special simulation in offline is a hardware trigger and needs special simulation in offline
TDAQ software is similar to other detector software in terms of offline TDAQ software is similar to other detector software in terms of offline
requirements and applicationsrequirements and applications
Full simulation is used in design and optimization of TDAQ system
Offline software is used to monitor performance (rates, efficiency, single
component performance)
However, very stringent QC needed; “mission criticality”
28 Nov., 2001.28 Nov., 2001.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW. 33
T/DAQ Offline Software: Status
LVL1 simulation exists in Athena for e/LVL1 simulation exists in Athena for e/// trigger trigger
Recently, most effort has been in the design of the HLT framework. Recently, most effort has been in the design of the HLT framework.
Main requirement in design:Main requirement in design: Use the same software in online and offline environments
Also plan to have similar framework for LVL2 and EFAlso plan to have similar framework for LVL2 and EF Possibly sharing of (some) services and algorithms
Presently evaluating Athena for use as EF frameworkPresently evaluating Athena for use as EF framework If OK for EF, then consider use at LVL2
First cycle of design recently finished; now implementing first prototypeFirst cycle of design recently finished; now implementing first prototype Aim for vertical slice prototype for Spring 2002 Exploitation for HLT/DAQ/DCS TDR in late 2002
28 Nov., 2001.28 Nov., 2001.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW. 34
HLT Offline Software: Design
High Level Design stage High Level Design stage
is finishedis finished
Aim is to use same Aim is to use same
design for LVL2 and EFdesign for LVL2 and EF
System factorized in System factorized in
work areaswork areas
Steering
Algorithms
Data Manager
Event Data Model
Interactions needed (and Interactions needed (and
ongoing) with offline and ongoing) with offline and
architecture groupsarchitecture groups
28 Nov., 2001.28 Nov., 2001.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW. 35
Validation of Athena for HLT Use
The ATLAS EF will use selection and classification algorithms derived The ATLAS EF will use selection and classification algorithms derived
from the offline suitefrom the offline suite
Offline software performance therefore has a direct impact on EF farm Offline software performance therefore has a direct impact on EF farm
size and costsize and cost
The HLT community has started “validation studies” (detailed The HLT community has started “validation studies” (detailed
benchmarking) of Athena, offline algorithms, and event modelbenchmarking) of Athena, offline algorithms, and event model
The aim is to set metrics for monitoring trends in software performanceThe aim is to set metrics for monitoring trends in software performance
It is clear that the software is presently far from adequateIt is clear that the software is presently far from adequate Not fair to judge during development phase But benchmarking can (and has) helped spur improvements Feedback during monthly meetings with A-team and regular interactions with
developers
Software performance is also important for offline – hope that offline Software performance is also important for offline – hope that offline
community will continue this workcommunity will continue this work
28 Nov., 2001.28 Nov., 2001.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW.J. Shank ATLAS Simulation/Recon. SW. 36
Summary
New ATLAS framework, Athena, enthusiastically embraced by broad New ATLAS framework, Athena, enthusiastically embraced by broad
spectrum of sub-system community.spectrum of sub-system community.
Many US physicists active in CMany US physicists active in C++++ code development code development
Well integrated into overall ATLAS software effort
Schedule: Schedule:
DC 0 12/01 Should have full OO sw ready.
Still some Fortran wrapping (muons)
DC1 02/02 Large scale simulation/reconstruction.
Some with GEANT4
Objectivity and Root IO.