1 / 21

Muon Event Filter

Muon Event Filter. Stefania Spagnolo Dip. Fisica, Univ. Lecce e Sezione INFN, Lecce on behalf of the Muon HLT working group. Outline. Brief reminder the requirements; the implementation; the studies so far Status of the TrigMoore package

akando
Download Presentation

Muon Event Filter

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Muon Event Filter Stefania Spagnolo Dip. Fisica, Univ. Lecce e Sezione INFN, Lecce on behalf of the Muon HLT working group

  2. Outline • Brief reminder • the requirements; the implementation; the studies so far • Status of the TrigMoore package • Performance on recent releases (focus on the End-Cap region) • resolution and efficiency • Trigger rates at the EF vs threshold • Plans • sw developments and physics studies

  3. Brief reminder • Physics and system Requirements • EF must reduce the total data throughput to 200 Hz • EF total latency ~ 1-2 s • PT reach of the lvl1 muon trigger  5 GeV/c (lower limit) • Muon rate is dominated, at low pt, by decays in flight of light mesons, b and c quarks • LVL1 muon rate for pT > 6GeV  25 kHz @ 1033 cm-2s-1 • Cavern background and pileup at high luminosity are a source of fake muons • Physics needs high efficiency and selectivity, flexibility in order to cope with different background scenarios • The implementation • TrigMoore: an interface to the HLT Steering for the offline muon reconstruction algorithms: MOORE and MuId

  4. Brief reminder LVL1 TrigMoore: a schematic view Thanks to the ID tracking group; particularly to Alan Poppleton (iPatRec default ID reco) LVL2 (muFast) • Two different running modes: • Seeded • Reconstruction performed only in the geometrical regions provided by the RoIs of previous levels. • Full scan • Full reconstruction, ~equivalent to the offline working mode Seeding Algs Moore Algs Hypo Alg TrigMoore MuIdStandAlone Algs Hypo Alg Full functionality in barrel and end-caps MuIdCombined Algs Seed can come from LVL1 or LVL2 Hypo Alg ESD and AOD from the muon EF available

  5. Brief reminder Status at the last T&P week • from the side of the algorithm: • TrigMooreHypo – first implementation • developments for muon EF output in ESD and AOD; validated by comparing TrigMoore AOD with Moore AOD in the same job (11.0.5) • (slightly out of the scope of HLT) MuId migrated to use as input the generic track object: Trk:Track; Allows to choose among different reconstruction algorithms in the ID • From the side of the performance: • timing measurements on single muons with pile-up and nominal cavern background (400 ms average, 500 ms RMS) – room for improvement ! • trigger rates estimated in the BARREL shown at the March T&P week (on Rome-workshop data) confirmed by with more recent simulation samples and software suite • studies of fakes at high luminosity

  6. Status of the TrigMoore package

  7. Status of the TrigMoore package in 12.0.3 • Seeding Algorithms assume the seed is a MuonFeature(from muFast @ LVL2) or a LVL1 roi (seed from LVL1) • 3 istances of TrigMoore called by the steering, for reconstruction in the MS, extrapolation to the IP and combination with ID tracks, allow hypo algos to be run at each step (if requested) • TrigMoore records in the TE history a MooTrackContainer or a MuidTrackContainer for each seeding ROI and they are accessed by TrigMooreHypo for pT test • TrigMoore records all reconstructed tracks in the event in a single container in StoreGate for conversion in Trk:Track format and subsequent output in ESD and AOD Seeding Algs Moore Algs Hypo MuIdStandAlone Algs Hypo MuIdCombined Algs Hypo

  8. Status of the TrigMoore package • Seeding Algorithms assume the seed is a MuonFeature(from muFast @ LVL2) or a LVL1 roi (seed from LVL1) • 3 istances of TrigMoore called by the steering, for reconstruction in the MS, extrapolation to the IP and combination with ID tracks, allow hypo algos to be run at each step (if requested) • TrigMoore records in the TE history a MooTrackContainer or a MuidTrackContainer for each seeding ROI and they are accessed by TrigMooreHypo for pT test • TrigMoore records all reconstructed tracks in the event in a single container in StoreGate for conversion in Trk:Track format and subsequent output in ESD and AOD a problem for the integration in the online not very flexible: for 13.0.0 will separate into 3 packages Trigger Aware analyses can use the muon EF result by looking at the AOD/ESD content but cannot run the hypothesis algos on AOD

  9. Status of the TrigMoore package • First use of the TrigRoIDescriptor • for the online integration and for running more general sequences (seed can come from whatever LVL2 HLT algorithm) • new tag (TrigMoore-00-00-68) collected in 12.0.X and 12.0.3-LST • Allow running the hypothesis algorithm on AOD will be in 12.0.4 • Convert Moo(Muid)Tracks into Trk:Track for each ROI and assign KEY2KEY to each of them in order to allow navigability • Change input toTrigMooreHypo (to Containers of Trk:Track) • Ongoing work to increase modularity: • we’ll have 3 HLTalgos instead of 3 instances of TrigMoore by 13.0.0 • Online integration • problem in the retrieving of L2Result information from ByteStream solved with the use of the TrigRoIDescriptor • jobOptions for the online • works fine in the offline;  tested in the online (athenaPT)  OK • Event Filter seeded by LVL1    under test • Also preliminary check for pre-series tests OK • next week the Large Scale Test will start – TrigMoore there !

  10. Performance on recent releases

  11. Performance on recent releases The Sample Single muons with fixed pT between 2 and 75 GeV/c CSC production with Athena 11.0.42 (Napoli Tier2 + CERN); Muon Layout Q02 Blue = MOORE, for tracks with c2 <3 Red = MuidSA, for tracks successfully fitted Pink = MuidCB, for tracks successfully fitted Reconstructionin Athena 12.0.3, TrigMoore seeded by LVL1 skip LVL2 in order to test EF coherently inbarreland endcaps No relevant bias within statistical errors Check pT rec / pT gen vs hMEAN (of a gaussian fit)shows reconstruction biasesSIGMA gives relative pT resolution h Pretty stable with pT

  12. Performance on recent releases Relative pT resolution as a function of h from s(pTrec/pTgen) s(pT)/pT vs h Expected trend observed: degraded resolution in the transition region between the barrel and endcap toroidal fields s(pT)/pT vs h pT = 8 GeV/c pT = 40 GeV/c h h

  13. MOORE MuidSA MuidCB Performance on recent releases pT = 8 GeV/c Relative pT resolution as a function of pT from s(pTrec/pTgen) stable compared to results in previous releases pT = 8 GeV/c pT = 8 GeV/c

  14. ETA PHI Moore Efficiency Performance on recent releases Efficiencies are defined wrt LVL1 accepted muons edge at h = 2.4 inefficiencies in the feet region

  15. Performance on recent releases Efficiency vs pT Blue = MOORE, for tracks with c2 <3 Red = MuidSA, for tracks successfully fitted Pink = MuidCB, for tracks successfully fitted Moore, MuidSA OK Unexpected efficiency loss (5%) of MuidCB compared to MuidSA similar behaviour in the offline package (efficiency wrt MC-truth) http://muondoc.web.cern.ch/muondoc/Software/Validation/singlemu/12.0.1/singlemu.html Under investigation: - tighter cuts in the machting account for ~2 % eff. loss - no obvious trend with h and f - what else ? plan to fix by 12.0.4

  16. Trigger Rates

  17. Trigger Rates Rates at the EF can be estimated by folding cross sections with • Efficiency of LVL1 for a given pT threshold • Efficiency of LVL2 w.r.t. LVL1 seed (skipped, i.e. e = 1) • Efficiency of EF w.r.t. seeding algo (LVL1 in this study) deserve detailed study The effect of skipping the LVL2 selection step: test in the barrel rates LVL1+EF increase by 10% for mu(6) with respect to LVL1+LVL2+EF 30% for mu(20)

  18. Trigger rates First exercise to look at rates at pT thresholds different than the typical scenarios: 6 and 20 GeV/c Luminosity set to 1033 cm-2s-1 efficiencies for LVL1 from F. Conventi for 6, 8, 10 GeV/c (in good agreement with our estimates) our estimates for 11, 20, 40 GeV/c Typical scenarios: mu(6) 3.0 kHz mu(20) 25 Hz

  19. Trigger rates First exercise to look at rates at the EF in the END CAPS and vs pT thresholds Luminosity set to 1033 cm-2s-1 Efficiencies for LVL1 from our estimate maybe slightly inaccurate for the known bugs in TGCCabling expected effects at EF <10% Typical scenarios: mu(6) 3.1 kHz mu(20) 27 Hz Barrel + EndCap EF Rate @ 1033 cm-2s-1mu(6) 6.1 kHz mu(20) 52 Hz

  20. Trigger Rates Rate for mu(5) at the EF in the barrel use LVL1 efficiency for the barrel with the trigger re-configured to have 5GeV/c as lowest threshold Luminosity set to 1033 cm-2s-1

  21. Conclusions • TrigMoore provides the requested functionality of the muon EF • from the sw architecture point of view (increasing modularity, compliant with trigger aware analysis needs) • plan to follow up the successful Moore migration to the new EDM • from the physics performance point of view (but room for refinements exists !) • First exercise to provide rates vs threshold: input for the definition of trigger menus • integrate the LVL2 (standalone and combined) in the chain • Plans • revise studies with cavern background and pile-up • revise studies of rejection of muons from p/K decays • dedicated CSC simulations requested • pursue timing optimization

More Related