MEG Software

1
MEG Software

• MEG Software Group

2
Contents

• Summary of Software Meeting (3-4 Nov. 2005)
• Standard Operating System
• Transition to Subversion
• ROME based analysis tools
• Status of Software
• Software Organization
• Status of Monte Carlo
• Status of Offline Software
• Ongoing Studies Using MC
• Resources and Needs
• CPU
• DISK
• Network
• Schedule and Manpower

3
Summary of Software Meeting (3-4 Nov. 2005)

• Standard Operating System
• Scientific Linux (SL)
• Mostly used in the HEP community
• Derived from RedHat Enterprise Linux, Freely
  available
• Transition to Subversion
• A concurrent versioning system, similar to, but
  better than CVS
• Truly atomic commit (CVS file-by-file)
• Moving/renaming files and directories (CVS loses
  history)
• Free/Open source version control system
• Runs on all modern flavor of Unix, Mac Win2k/XP
• Binary package available for SL3/4

4
ROME based analysis tool

• MegRoot was rejected
• Analysis tools based on ROME was approved
• megbartender event cocktail digitization
• meganalyzer reconstruction event display
• Both for online offline
• New software coordination
• Repository Fabrizio Cei, Shuei Yamada
• MC Fabrizio Cei, Shuei Yamada
• Offline Matthias Scheebeli, Ryu Sawada
• Online Stefan Ritt

5
Status of Software

• Software Organization
• Monte Carlo Status
• Offline Software Status
• Ongoing Studies Using MC

6
Software Organization
Simulation DC H. Nishiguchi
Simulation TC P. Cattaneo
Simulation XE F. Cei S. Yamada
Simulation Beam/Target W. Ootani K. Ozone V. Tumakov
Simulation Calibration F. Cei
Simulation DC digitization P. Huwe
Simulation TC digitization P. Huwe
Simulation XE digitization Y. Uchiyama
Simulation Trigger simulation D. Nicolo Y. Hisamatsu
Analysis Framework M. Schneebeli
Analysis Database R. Sawada
Analysis DC H. Nishiguchi M. Schneebeli
Analysis TC D. Zanello
Analysis XE G. Signorelli R. Sawada
7
Procedure of Analysis
simulation
experiment

• MC simulation
• event generation
• detector simulation

GEM
DAQ

• Electronics simulation
• event cocktail
• waveform simulation
• digitization
• trigger simulation

bartender
analyzer

• Reconstruction
• Event display

8
Monte Carlo Status

• GEANT3 based simulation program GEM
• Program built around the framework REM
• Organization in modules, as an OO class
  structured like
• xxx (prefix of specific device) dch, ticp,
  ticz, xec
• yyy (suffix defining the functionality) ini,
  set, end, draw,
• Documentation under SVN in meg/rem/doc
• Interactive GEM
• Call GEANT3 functions interactively to
• Draw geometry, track and hit
• Change the running conditions
• To be done
• Learn how to use it
• Implement user interface (kumac and/or GUI)

9
Drift Chamber

• Progress
• Improved integration of time to distance profile
  from GARFIELD
• GEANT simulation of Vernier electrode patterns
• Improved hit structure
• More adequate description w/ low-E ?-rays
• Simple and small hit data structure (220 ? 8
  words/hit)
• Efficient (80 ?100) and simple hit cell
  calculation
• To be done
• Effect on signal of Vernier patterns
• Improve detail of material electronic cards,
  cables,

10
Timing Counters

• Progress
• Implementation of many geometries cables,
  jacket, bars w/ slanted ends, square fibers,
  PMTs, APDs,
• Preliminary support structure
• Generation and propagation of scintillation
  photons based on analytical calculation
  Poisson fluctuations
• To be done
• Improve details of materials and support
  structure
• Improve photon propagation model
• Cross check w/ beam test data (for ? counter)

11
Liquid Xenon Calorimeter

• Progress
• Geometry almost finalized
• InnerOuter vessel, PMT holders, PMT position,
  Honeycomb,
• Faster GEANT based optical photon tracking
  (10s/event on 3GHz Pentium4, 7.5s/event on
  2.4GHz Athlon64)
• To be done
• Implement final geometry Dense PMT layout for
  backside, hollow spacer for LR side
• Fast optical photon tracking

12
Beam and Target

• Progress
• Muon beam simulation based on phase space into
  event generator
• Elliptical tube option for target
• Implemented end cap and Rohacell insertion tube
• To be done
• Implement Beam Transport Solenoid
• Complete the beam transport within the detector
• Implement final target with support
• 3D Field map interpolation

13
Calibration

• Extensive work in the past
• Partially implemented in MC
• Progress
• Geometry and tracking media almost completed
• Event generation under testing
• To be done
• Test and commit event generator
• Complete implementation of geometry

Ni plates outside LXe calorimeter (neutron
calibration)
14
MC General Conclusion

• Simulation status satisfactory good level of
  sophistication in geometry and physical process
  simulation.
• Further refinements in geometry under way.
• Simulation of calibration procedures started.
• Some people (5 - 6) actively working.
• Its a good time for testing the mass
  production(possible problems with disk space,
  memory management)

15
Offline Software Status

• Single Event Display
• Preliminary mu -gt egamma trigger simulation
• Waveform simulation digitization
• XE DC ready
• TC preliminary
• Analysis
• Extensive works by individuals
• Partially implemented in meganalyzer
• XE Fast reconstruction (Qsum, position,),
  Position reconstruction
• DC preliminary track fit (for online display)

16
Single Event Display

• ROME and ARGUS are merged
• Both for online offline
• ROME runs in 3 modes
• ROME stand alone
• Argus stand alone
• ROME with Argus display (new mode)
• Configuration in the ROME configuration file
• No special user code needed

17
QT movie
18
Ongoing Studies Using MC

• BG Source Study
• Optimize end cap ,target system and Rohacell tube
  design
• AIF events in LXe
• Source of AIF gammas
• AIF gammas spectrum yield
• AIF Rejection
• LXe Waveform
• Waveform simulation
• Pile-up rejection

19
BG Source Study
New features
Purpose
Optimize end-caps
Upstream End-cap
DC cable duct
Rohacell Insertion Tube
Michel decay
beam
Optimize target system
20
BG from End Cap
39 photons / 50,000 Michel e
SUS
beam
Michel decay
Designed end-cap (Aluminum part)
SUS Beam Pipe
Aluminum
Bremsstrahlung photon
21
BG from Rohacell Tube
Rohacell X0 820cm density 0.052
g/cm3 C9H13O2N
Bremsstrahlung photon
3 photons / 50,000 Michel e
22
BG from DC cable duct
Bremsstrahlung photon
Carbon fiber Aluminum Cu cable
beam
Michel decay
427 photons / 50,000 Michel e
23
BG Source Study(1) Summary

• BG Sources
• Effect of cable ducts was improved down to 1/2
• Bremsstrahlung Annihilation at rest
• Effect of end-cap is relatively small
• Low E (1MeV), but pile-up study is needed
• AIF study
• target Rohacell tube
• Cable duct
• Target study
• Slant angle of the target
• Complete target support structure calibration
  system

Energy deposit in LXe MeV
24
AIF study using MC

• 1. Generate Michel e in target,
• emit them for 4p
• At the each GEANT tracking step, calculate
  annihilation probability by material information
  and Michel e momentum information
• 3. Generate 2 ? at each step
• weighted by this probability
• 4. Trace 2?, if it enters Xe cryostat

25
AIF probability map
No Cut
Z-Y View
X-Y View
Z-X View
26
AIF Spectrum Photon Yield
Photon yield per muon decay
AIF spectrum and their origin
Egam MeV/52.8MeV
Egam MeV/52.8MeV
27
AIF Event Rejection in LXe

• Different arrival times of 2 gammas
• Different Impinging points
• TODO Pattern recognition

dT2gamma sec
dX2gamma cm
28
LXe Waveform

• Waveform Simulation
• Pile-up rejection
• Take sum of PMT outputs
• Larger pulse
• Microstructure in pulse shape disappear
• Optimization for of PMTs to be summed
• Summing up all the PMTs not good from S/N
  viewpoint

29
Xe Waveform Simulation

• Sum up Gaussians over all photo electrons
• Mean arrival time of each photon
• Width TTS (1 p.e. response)

• 2. Shaping (Low Pass Filter)
• Low Pass filter
• Time constant RC 5nsec

30
Pulse Shape Fluctuation

• Pulse shapes are not constant especially for
  small pulses

Fluctuation reproduced
31
Pile-up finding

• Peak search
• Count of peaks in Moving average
• Simple but powerfulfor large DT
• Differential
• Count of peaks in Differentiation
• Powerful for small DT

32
Rejection Efficiency
(E1 E2)/52.8MeV

• Optimal Value 60 70 of Qsum
• Function of Energy

33
Rejection Efficiency

• As functions of Energy of each g and DT
• Summed up to60 Qsum
• Misidentificationprobability lt0.05
• Weak points
• DT lt 10nsec
• Small pulse aftera large one

DT 8ns
DT 50ns
DT 100ns
DT 10ns
DT 15ns
34
Resources Needs

• Data storage
• CPU Power
• Data Access

35
Data Storage Resource Needs
PSI Tapes PSI Disks MEG Needs
30-40 TBytes (free) 40 TBytes occupied by back up (to be freed) 4TBytes (backuped) 6TBytes(not backuped) 10TBytes/yr (read data) 40-50TBytes/yr (MC Production) 10TB/yr (overheads, DSTs)
total 70-80 TBytes 10TBytes 60-70TBytes/yr

• MEG Needs 5 TBytes/year of Disk Space for DATA
• Assuming 1/2 of the data collected in one year
  reside on disk for monitoring, calibrations,
  faster analysis, etc

36
CPU Resource Needs
PSI Nodes MEG Needs (CPUs/yr)
? 64 3 CPUs (real data, w/o Waveform fitting) lt 1 CPU (selected data w/ Waveform fitting) 20 CPUs (MC production bartender) 10 CPUs (MC reconstruction 3x data, w/o WF fitting) lt 1 CPU (MC selected sample w/ WF fitting)
Total 64 CPUs 33 (20 per 10 repr.) CPU/yr
128 CPUs
128 CPUs
37
Data Access Resource Needs
PSI Link Speed MEG Needs
25MBytes/s to tapes via FTP 1Gbits/s to disks from CPUs 1MBytes/s (w/ Waveform compression) 10MBytes/s (w/o Waveform compression)
OK !
38
Schedules and Manpower

• Milestones
• Manpower

39
Milestones

• Within 2-3 weeks
• New PSI cluster partly ready 128 Opterons
• MC mass production (at least signal events and
  Michel positrons)
• Start development of reconstruction Pattern
  recognition algorithms
• Start pre-selection study
• By end of September
• Finish MC mass production
• Signal, Michel positrons, backgrounds

40

• Schedule for LXe analysis
• Other sub-detectors can emulate LXe schedule

41
Man Power

• 2006Q1
• Y. Hisamatsu 0.5
• H. Nishiguchi 0.2
• W. Ootani 0.1
• K. Ozone 0.5
• R. Sawada 0.5
• Y. Uchiyama 0.7
• S. Ritt 0.1
• M. Schneebeli 0.4
• F. Cei 1.0
• G. Gallucci 1.0
• D. Nicolo0.2
• A. Papa 0.3
• R. Pazzi 1.0
• G. Signorelli 0.5
• P. W. Cattaneo 0.5
• D. Zanello 0.5
• A. Barchiesi 1.0
• W. Molzon 0.2

• 2006Q2
• Y. Hisamatsu 0.5
• H. Nishiguchi 0.3
• W. Ootani 0.1
• K. Ozone 0.5
• R. Sawada 0.5
• Y. Uchiyama 0.7
• M. Schneebeli 0.8
• F. Cei 1.0
• G. Gallucci 1.0
• D. Nicolo0.2
• A. Papa 0.3
• R. Pazzi 1.0
• G. Signorelli 0.5
• P. W. Cattaneo 0.5
• D. Zanello 0.5
• A. Barchiesi 1.0
• W. Molzon 0.2
• V. Tumakov 1.0

42
End of Slides