Transcript ppt

Recent and future processings

1997 MonteCarlo



Changes to Kingal, Galeph, Database
Comparison with data
Status and plans for productions

1997 Data - Last reprocessing

Planning for 1998

LEP1 reprocessing status
Marco Cattaneo, 23 January 1998
1
Kingal status (B.Bloch et al.)

HVFL06 (retuning of HVFL05, for LEP1 MC)






Mixing, B & t lifetimes, b->u transitions
b+c hadron masses; c,b,t quark masses
Inclusive charm production rates
b+c hadron decay modes and branching fractions
QCD parameters fit
LEP2 Generators

Released:
HZHA02,MSSM02,DFGT01,KRLW02,EXCA01,HRWG10,PYTH04,PHOT02, PHOJ01…


Coming: KRLW03,GR4F01,KORL09
PYTH05:

PYTHIA combined with JETSET (could use for q-qbar)
 All COMMONs are double precision, so all interfaces change
 Volunteers needed for testing
Marco Cattaneo, 23 January 1998
2
Changes to material in Galeph
S.Wasserbaech, Aleph note 97-098

Fix material distribution at ITC/TPC boundary


Material in ITC wall reduced by 46%
Compensated by description of:

TPC inner field cage support
 TPC resistor chain
 TPC laser mirrors and prisms

Minor changes to VDET description
Marco Cattaneo, 23 January 1998
3
TPC hit smearing
(A.Bonissent, M.Thulasidas)

Why smear?

Track errors too small in MC
e.g. Dzo by 40%, Sdo by 25% in m+ m- events
 Not VDET (FRFT 0), not ITC (z), \ TPC
 Alignment errors not simulated


What to smear?

In 1995, smeared zo, do for all tracks
Not easy, depends on p, q, no. of VDET hits
 No effect on momentum resolution
 No effect on angles (QVSRCH)


Better to smear TPC coordinates before final track fit
Marco Cattaneo, 23 January 1998
4

Smearing matrix






MonteCarlo fixes


Takes into account correlation in misalignment errors
for all hits in the track fit
No time dependence (assume removed by alignment)
Determined for r-f and z views independently
Use difference in residuals of single helix fit to m+ mevents between data and MonteCarlo
Smearing amplitude @ 500 mm
Data and MC used different error parameterization
Comparison with data:


Large improvement for Z->m+ m- events
Extrapolation to high energy still has problems


Time dependence
Checks of QIPBTAG in progress
Marco Cattaneo, 23 January 1998
5
Calorimeters
(M-N. Minard, G.Bagliesi)

Problem since GEANT 321, 1994 geometry



ECAL endcaps:



Raise noise (back to pre-1994 value)
Change dead tower map
HCAL:



ECAL end cap energy too low
ECAL+HCAL too low in barrel
Lower cuts for following particles in HCAL showers
Deteriorate single streamer error
Now:


ECAL+HCAL total energy OK
Energy flow ~ 1% too high in barrel
Marco Cattaneo, 23 January 1998
6
MC productions
(M.Maggi et al.)

Physics groups very active



Production is quick and efficient
Many different productions at different times of year with
different program/database/bugs.
Moriond results with existing “old” productions


“old” includes large Wisconsin q-qbar production with ADBS231
Final 1997 productions:





Database 231 (material changes, ECAL+HCAL tuning)
Tune TPC hit smearing for high energy data (~ 2 weeks)
(for gg wait for new PHOJET)
CPU time available (except RAL?) but to exclusion of
production for 1998
Start mid-February, finish end March
Marco Cattaneo, 23 January 1998
7
1997 data reprocessing

Time dependent alignment (W.Wiedenmann et al.)


Reprocessed on Falcon (A.Pacheco et al.)


Due to slowly decaying TPC field distortions (charge buildup
on laser mirrors?)
Used all online cluster (9 machines), took 2 weeks
Reprocessed data quality (N.Konstantinidis, F.Cerutti et al.)


Dzo, Sdo improved
Remaining distortions have different effect on -ve and +ve
tracks

Optional sagitta correction in Alpha
Marco Cattaneo, 23 January 1998
8
Can we do better?

1997 alignment was long and painful process




Distortions not immediately apparent (low statistics)
Cannot achieve same precision at high energy as with
single helix fits on dimuon events
Probably not possible to model remaining distortions
with existing data.
More calibration data in 1998?

6 months of data taking

Probability of time dependent effects is high
 Can it be reduced?


Time dependent alignment cannot be extrapolated from
single calibration point at start of datataking
Request more fills at Z

Ideally at regular intervals (e.g. one fill per month)
 In worst case some at beginning, some near the end
Marco Cattaneo, 23 January 1998
9
Software planning for 1998

Use of POT for analysis

In 1997:

Total size of data POT: 125GB
 Total size of MC POTs: > 2000 GB
 Available stage disk space: 750 GB



In 1998, factor of ~3 more data
DST not much better (50% of POT for data only)
Use MINI for 1998 analyses!!



Physics groups should start now to study what is
missing from MINI
Ntuple productions that require POT could be done
while data is still on impatient stream
Propose to allocate up to 1/4 of stage area (200GB) to
permanent storage of data and MC MINIs
Marco Cattaneo, 23 January 1998
10
Deadlines


Data taking starts 17th May

(Easter: 12th April)

JULIA/Alephlib deadline for data taking:
17th April
1997 MonteCarlo production until end March.


1998 MonteCarlo production should start immediately after
Database, Kingal, Galeph, Julia, Alephlib deadlines for
MonteCarlo: mid-March
Marco Cattaneo, 23 January 1998
11
LEP 1 reprocessing status

DATA





1994: started in Florida
1995: final tests in progress
1993: alignment ready
1991+1992: alignment to be done
MonteCarlo




HVFL06 ready
Tuning needed for each year (volunteer exists)
Where?
Priority vs. LEP2 MC
Marco Cattaneo, 23 January 1998
12
Summary (open questions)

Schedule and priorities for final 1997 MonteCarlo
production

1997 data quality

Request for regular calibration fill at the Z in 1998

MINI format for 1998

When and where do we redo LEP1 MC?
Marco Cattaneo, 23 January 1998
13