1 / 9

Trigger Requirements

Trigger Requirements. LVL2 MS. long list to acknowledge people who reacted on a very short notice. EF MS. first thoughts from Alessandro Di Mattia, Giovanni Siragusa, Sergio Grancagnolo, Andrea Ventura, Michela Biglietti, Diana Scannicchio John Baines, Dmitri Emelyianov,

johnsalazar
Download Presentation

Trigger Requirements

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. Trigger Requirements LVL2 MS long list to acknowledge people who reacted on a very short notice EF MS first thoughts from Alessandro Di Mattia, Giovanni Siragusa, Sergio Grancagnolo, Andrea Ventura, Michela Biglietti, Diana Scannicchio John Baines, Dmitri Emelyianov, Iwona Grabowska-Bold, Alan Poppleton ID trigger / PESA LVL2 ID EF ID ID/Muon fitting in offline

  2. ID requirements Current map field size and access time OK for ID algorithms in HLT At LVL2 the access time is about 10% of the overall latency of the algorithm BUT they would not like to see this increase. Impact on performance of a similar size map, less symmetric and less granular in B-filed steps needs to be studied. Field / Pt precision: > hard to quote an absolute number > let’s put it in the other way: ID HLT needs the best resolution possible with a field map size acceptable

  3. EF Hardware baseline setup of EF: 8 core PCs, 1GByte memory per core (upgradable to 2) 1 processing task (EF process) running per core 1 GByte of memory available per process Recent Technical run: exercise the HLT sw on pre-series of the final hardware measured ~700 MBytes allocated by a single EF process (running EF for all slices: single muon/electron/gamma/tau/etc… trigger) using standard Athena Tools (i.e. magnetic field map and access tools) B-field of up to 100 MBytes (now 30MByte) are affordable and leave contingency for extra algorithms to be included in EF 1 GByte possible only on upgraded hardware (not foreseen at the moment)

  4. EF Muon Spectrometer TrigMoore uses –up to now- the offline iPatRecFitter (global Runge-Kutta based fit) Access to the field was optimized at some point on the available map: step in most of the MS volume is 320 mm, sometimes 160, 80, 40 mm (3 accesses per step to account for the local gradient) – the optimization was based on the process of using a very low step size as starting condition and increasing it up to un-observable pt measurement degradation (both on average value and resolution); Depending on the region, a given step is chosen;  Without re-optimizing the access to the map (the step size in each region) the size of the magnetic field map does not impact on the number of accesses but just for the time of a single access takes;  Field look-ups are probably the timing bottleneck for the fit !  MooMakeTracks (fit in TrigMoore based on iPatRec) takes more than 1/3 of the total TrigMoore time/event: 400ms for single muons in nominal background conditions at high luminosity) – 1s EF total latency

  5. From M.Biglietti and TrigMoore group talk at T&P week in May 2006: Muon EF performance

  6. EF Muon Spectrometer TrigMoore performance Long study to see the effect of a coarse grained map used in EF reconstruction for a detailed (nominal) map in simulation or for data ! The exercise just started with the following MS maps: • default map • 40gaus step for MS only • 80gaus step for MS only • 80gaus step + doubled step in phi and z (MS only) look at total timing of TrigMoore/track (not even isolating the fit !) • no observable effects look at measured pt for 6 GeV and 20 GeV single muons (integrating in eta/phi !) granularity in phi-eta of the performance study would be necessary  high statistics needed • no observable effects

  7. EF Muon Spectrometer

  8. Use of magnetic field in the LVL2 Muon Trigger Use of magnetic field map of Toroids in the LVL2 Muon Spectrometer Reconstruction for: • filling the performance gap that endcap Reco has with respect the Barrel Reco: the LUT approach is swamped by the high inhomogeneity field; • get rid of part of the resolution tails, which give efficiency problems while for tagging high-pT muons and rejecting low-pT muons. Goal: build a kalman filter procedure that solves the left-right ambiguity of the MDT drift circles while prividing a global fit of the muon track. Timescale: work shouldhopefully start this september. Target accuracy of the map of Toroids: • having a pT/p resolution from fit of about 4% is good for the LVL2 MS reconstruction; • but this must match the online requirements (next slide);

  9. Online requirements @ LVL2 Map size: the limit on the size can be set up to 100 MByte. • LVL2 farm will employ 8 core processor machines equipped with 8 GByte of memory; • almost 8 L2PU instances will be run, each taking ~650 MBytes ( data of the last technical run at point one with the combined LVL2 trigger slice); • this would allows for adding 1 or 2 more L2PUs instances in order to optimize the use of CPU. Access time: goal is to limit the overall access time below 1 ms. • access time of 1 ms per cell is fine, assuming a maximum number of 700 tracking steps; • the overall time increase due to the fit is expected to be ~1.5 ms and in any case tunable runtime acting on its precision.

More Related