MuonGeoModel Structure Clients Validation run-time Conditions EDM Raw geometry issues Available Tools Status Connection with the COOL Alignment (A-lines)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
TRT LAr Tilecal MDT-RPC BOS Pixels&SCT 1 The Atlas combined testbeam Thijs Cornelissen, NIKHEF Jamboree, Nijmegen, December 2004.
Advertisements

ACAT05 - DESY Zeuthen125/05/2005 Detector Description of the ATLAS Muon Spectrometer and H8 Muon Testbeam D. Pomarède CEA/DAPNIA/SEDI/LILAS - Saclay.
12/06/2008Muon Week - CERN1 Muon Detector Description status and plans summary of contributions from Laurent Chevalier, Andrea Dell’Acqua, Jean Francois.
RPC timing in simulation Current Situation MC Geant4 RPCSensitiveDetector.cxx Or RPCSensitiveDetectorCosmics.cxx RPC_Digitization RPC_digit_To_RDO RPC_RDO_To_Prep:
Identifiers for Everyone J. Bogart Core Software Workshop April
August 98 1 Jürgen Knobloch ATLAS Software Workshop Ann Arbor ATLAS Computing Planning ATLAS Software Workshop August 1998 Jürgen Knobloch Slides also.
The digitization procedure occurs separately for each Muon technology, MDT, CSC, RPC and TGC. Here the main steps of each MuonHits to Muon Digits conversion.
Framework for track reconstruction and it’s implementation for the CMS tracker A.Khanov,T.Todorov,P.Vanlaer.
ALICE Offline week, CERN 21 February 2005 I. Hrivnacova 1 New geometry framework in MUON I.Hrivnacova IPN, Orsay ALICE Offline week, CERN 21 February 2005.
1 Tracking Reconstruction Norman A. Graf SLAC July 19, 2006.
Frank Lehner U Zurich Proposal to use the Atlas SCT database for Run IIb  Why to switch now? u existing database (db) at UIC incomplete and unlikely to.
ATLAS EXPERIMENT INTEGRATION TASK: SPACE MANAGEMENT Tatiana Klioutchnikova 05/06/
Alignment Strategy for ATLAS: Detector Description and Database Issues
28/05/2008Muon Combined Performance Meeting 1 Muon Detector Description and Simulation status and plans summary of contributions from Laurent Chevalier,
Event Data Model in ATLAS Edward Moyse (CERN) On behalf of the ATLAS collaboration CHEP 2004, Interlaken.
N ATIONAL E NERGY R ESEARCH S CIENTIFIC C OMPUTING C ENTER Charles Leggett The Athena Control Framework in Production, New Developments and Lessons Learned.
Software Solutions for Variable ATLAS Detector Description J. Boudreau, V. Tsulaia University of Pittsburgh R. Hawkings, A. Valassi CERN A. Schaffer LAL,
Manoj Kumar Jha INFN – Bologna On Behalf of ATLAS Muon Calibration Group 20 th October 2010/CHEP 2010, Taipei ATLAS Muon Calibration Framework.
Databases E. Leonardi, P. Valente. Conditions DB Conditions=Dynamic parameters non-event time-varying Conditions database (CondDB) General definition:
1 Gabriella Cataldi (INFN Lecce) Michela Biglietti (Universita’ di Napoli-Federico II) and the HLT.
ALICE Simulation Framework Ivana Hrivnacova 1 and Andreas Morsch 2 1 NPI ASCR, Rez, Czech Republic 2 CERN, Geneva, Switzerland For the ALICE Collaboration.
19/07/20061 Nectarios Ch. Benekos 1, Rosy Nicolaidou 2, Stathes Paganis 3, Kirill Prokofiev 3 for the collaboration among: 1 Max-Planck-Institut für Physik,
A few issues about MuonGeoModel stefania spagnolo 2/7/08.
LAV Software Status Emanuele Leonardi – Tommaso Spadaro Photon Veto WG meeting – 2015/03/24.
Muon Spectrometer Detector Description Outline: - Present situation - Missing elements - New chain to update parameters - Alignment issues - GeoModel issues.
Darmstadt, 15. November 2015 Tobias Stockmanns, FZ Jülich1 A STEP to ROOT converter for the FairRoot framework ALICE-FAIR Computing Meeting, GSI,
Clash Cleanup and Cutout Implementation Dennis Wright ATLAS Muon Week 9 June 2008.
Progress report on Muon Reconstruction based on Kalman filter Y. Fisyak, BNL.
CHEP /21/03 Detector Description Framework in LHCb Sébastien Ponce CERN.
8 June 2006V. Niess- CALOR Chicago1 The Simulation of the ATLAS Liquid Argon Calorimetry V. Niess CPPM - IN2P3/CNRS - U. Méditerranée – France On.
The GeoModel Toolkit for Detector Description Joe Boudreau Vakho Tsulaia University of Pittsburgh CHEP’04 Interlaken.
CHEP07 conference 5 September 2007, T. Cornelissen 1 Thijs Cornelissen (CERN) On behalf of the ATLAS collaboration The Global-  2 Track Fitter in ATLAS.
M. Bianco On behalf of the ATLAS Collaboration
14/11/2007CERN - Muon Week1 Detector Description status and plans Laurent Chevalier Dapnia – Saclay Stefania Spagnolo Univ. del Salento and INFN Lecce.
1 MuonGeoModel status report focus on issues relevant to , 20 Access to Condition DB with M. Verducci, R. Harrington MDT deformations with I. Logashenco.
VMC workshop1 Ideas for G4 navigation interface using ROOT geometry A.Gheata ALICE offline week, 30 May 05.
Muon Reconstruction with Moore and MuonIdentification The Moore/MUID group Atlas Physics Workshop Athens, May 2003.
05/04/06Predrag Krstonosic - Cambridge True particle flow and performance of recent particle flow algorithms.
CHEP /21/03 Detector Description Framework in LHCb Sébastien Ponce CERN.
Detector Description in LHCb Detector Description Workshop 13 June 2002 S. Ponce, P. Mato / CERN.
Michele de Gruttola 2008 Report: Online to Offline tool for non event data data transferring using database.
4P13 Week 12 Talking Points Device Drivers 1.Auto-configuration and initialization routines 2.Routines for servicing I/O requests (the top half)
4/9/2007RPC converter1/18 RPC bytestream converter: Brainstorming a summary of discussions involving M.Bianco, G.Cataldi, G.Chiodini, E.Gorini, A.Guida,
S t a t u s a n d u pd a t e s Gabriella Cataldi (INFN Lecce) & the group Moore … in the H8 test-beam … in the HLT(Pesa environment) … work in progress.
2002 LHC days in Split Sandra Horvat 08 – 12 October, Ruđer Bošković Institute, Zagreb Max-Planck-Institute for Physics, Munich Potential is here...
TC Straw man for ATLAS ID for SLHC This layout is a result of the discussions in the GENOA ID upgrade workshop. Aim is to evolve this to include list of.
27 March 2003RD Schaffer & C. Arnault CHEP031 Use of a Generic Identification Scheme Connecting Events and Detector Description in Atlas  Authors: C.
30/09/081 Muon Spectrometer Detector Description Outline: - Present situation - Dead Matter - Validation - GeoModel.. Laurent Chevalier, Andrea Dell’Acqua,
12/06/2008Muon Week - CERN1 Muon Detector Description status and plans summary of contributions from Laurent Chevalier, Andrea Dell’Acqua, Jean Francois.
18/04/2007Muon Week - CERN1 Detector Description status report Laurent Chevalier Stefania Spagnolo.
A Level-2 trigger algorithm for the identification of muons in the ATLAS Muon Spectrometer Alessandro Di Mattia on behalf of the Atlas TDAQ group Computing.
Level 1-2 Trigger Data Base development Current status and overview Myron Campbell, Alexei Varganov, Stephen Miller University of Michigan August 17, 2000.
Detector Description (Overview) C.Cheshkov. 25/9/2006Detector Description (C.Cheshkov)OutlineTerminology Overview on: Detector geometry implementation.
ATLAS The ConditionDB is accessed by the offline reconstruction framework (ATHENA). COOLCOnditions Objects for LHC The interface is provided by COOL (COnditions.
Status of Digitization, Testbeam Simulation, and Production ATLAS Muon Week -CERN, February 18th 2005 Daniela Rebuzzi – Pavia University and INFN.
ATLAS Detector Resources & Lumi Blocks Enrico & Nicoletta.
This document is a working document and a base for discussions. Everybody who thinks to have better ideas is warmly invited to change it ! Muon alignment.
Muon identification in ATLAS Peter Kluit (NIKHEF).
CS161 – Design and Architecture of Computer
JUNO Offline Geometry Management
HEP detector description supporting the full experiment life cycle
Muon Spectrometer Detector Description
Vincenzo Innocente CERN/EP/CMC
MuonGeoModel status of progress on main items
Update primary numbers active part
MuonGeoModel – recent developments
Mdt example now: MdtReadoutElement = 1 multilayer
Detector Geometry Description
MuonGeoModel: status and plans
Implementation of Chamber Misalignments and Deformations in the
Presentation transcript:

MuonGeoModel Structure Clients Validation run-time Conditions EDM Raw geometry issues Available Tools Status Connection with the COOL Alignment (A-lines) Deformations (B-lines) Measurement surfaces Local-Global transforms Clashes Cutouts use of G4 Assemblies

Two layers in MuonGeoModel  Raw Geometry for use in simulation  (GeoPhys)Volume hierarchy + materials + tags/identifiers + relative transforms  some volumes (Detector Elements) cache full transforms  deepest level in detector elements is the active gas volume  some transforms are alignable  Readout Geometry for use in reconstruction  Detector Manager providing access to  Detector Elements – XxxReadoutElements  provide access to readout granularity: i.e. strip position  Xxx = Mdt [multilayer]  Csc [chamber layer]  Rpc [module]  Tgc [module]  MuonStations: group of assembled Detector Elements with a common alignable transform Structure Clients Validation run-time Conditions EDM Raw geom. issuesMuonGeoModel

Clients of MuonGeoModel  Simulation (Geant 4) via Geo2G4 -involves raw geometry-  translates  GeoPhysVolume tree into a G4 volume hierarchy  Geo tags and identifiers into G4 volume names and copy numbers  GeoTransforms into G4 transforms  Digitization  Data Preparation  PrepRawData from RDO or from bytestream  Services in the muon sw  exceptions: MdtCablingSvc, RpcCablingSvc  Calibration  Reconstruction  exceptions: MuonBoy & related sw, MuFast (LVL2 muon trigger) Structure Clients Validation run-time Conditions EDM Raw geom. issuesMuonGeoModel -involve readout geometry-

Structure Clients Validation run-time Conditions EDM Raw geom. issuesMuonGeoModel Validation Tools: Hit relocation test coherence between raw geometry and readout geometry  Simulate geantino tracks  hits hold an identifier Id (from G4 volume names + copy numbers) and local coordinates Ploc in the sensitive volume frame  Relocate geantino hits  convert Ploc into a global position Pglob using Id and MuonGeoModel readout geometry  Measure distance between Pglob and the geantino track (ideally 0)  Code and python available in MuonSpectrometer/MuonGeoModelTest mm mm

Structure Clients Validation run-time Conditions EDM Raw geom. issuesMuonGeoModel Validation Tools: AmdcMGM test coherence of geometry implementation in two independent models: MuonGeoModel and Amdc assuming same primary numbers and definitions the flow:  ascii amdb (primary numbers)  in oracle tables (via sql scripts) read by MuonGeoModel  in oracle “blob” (dump) read by Amdc  compute x,y,x of the centre of strips/wires  compare x,y,z from GeoModel and x,y,z from Amdc  for layout MuonSpectrometer-R-Light   0  for layout MuonSpectrometer-R-Light-Egg-Rndm mostly 0, in some cases -under investigation-  < 30 microns (Muonboy[Amdc] performance OK on data simulated with MuonSpectrometer-R-Light-Egg-Rndm)

Structure Clients Validation run-time Conditions EDM Raw geom. issuesMuonGeoModel Graphic Tools HepVis – very useful but with some limitations for complex shapes Volume Clash Diagnostic No built-in GeoModel diagnostic Geant4 recursive Geometry test – very heavy Inert materials:  Barrel Toroid  Endcap Toroids  Feet  Shielding  Calorimeter Saddle (work in progress) No validation tools other than graphics

Alignment Constants Built-in GeoModel capability: Built-in GeoModel capability: AlignableTransform = NominalTransform x DeltaTransform MuonSpectrometer-R-Light-Egg-Rndm  A-lines available in the “static” geometry DB along with P-lines;  Successful test of the implementation of DeltaTransforms from amdb conventions about A-line parameters Real life and Condition Data Challenge MuonGeoModel will get P-lines from the static geometry DB and A-lines from the Condition DB using the Interval of Validity Service; in practice  a Service (+ a Tool) in MuonConditions/MuonCondUtils provide methods to  retrieve from the Cond.DB A-lines + B-lines; store them in StoreGate  provide A-lines to the MuonGM::MuonStations which update the DeltaTransform  deployed for COOL 1.3 (atlas-rel. ≤12.0.5) under test; in dev. for COOL 2.0(13.0.0)  MuonGeoModel side ready  These methods are registered to the IoV Service for call-back  when a transition from one IoV to another occurs the methods are invoqued  Data preparation and reconstruction will always get the updated geometry Structure Clients Validation run-time Conditions EDM Raw geom. issuesMuonGeoModel

Deformation Constants No Built-in GeoModel capability Access to B-lines from the Cond.DB can follow the same approach as for A-lines once B-lines are read, a pointer to them is assigned to the class describing the corresponding MDT multilayer - to be done (minimal intervention) - Use of B-lines in MuonGeoModel Too heavy implementing them in raw-geometry  why simulating run-time conditions, other than for testing purposes ?  a memory saving mechanism in GeoModel/G4 assumes a regular multilayer organization  high risk of clashes Deformations must be treated in Readout Geometry  a plan (under development and test) for deformations in MDT multi-layers only  all deformations except wire sagging can be described with tilt and shift of individual tubes in the multilayer  full MDT tube transform comes from (first to last):  nominal (translations only) tube_to_multilayer  delta_deformation - add tilt and shift in the multilayer frame (B-lines)  nominal multilayer_to_station  delta_station_alignement (A-lines)  nominal station_to_global (P-lines) Structure Clients Validation run-time Conditions EDM Raw geom. issuesMuonGeoModel

Deformation Constants Deformations for reconstruction clients  reconstruction typically uses  tubePos() i.e. tube fullTransform applied to 0,0,0  transform(Identifier Id),  surface(Identifier Id)  normal(Identifier Id)  which all use the tube full transform  directly account for deformations  wire-sagging will be handled in the RioCreators since SaggedLineSurfaces are associated to MDT tubes (under test in the MIG nightlies) Plans for testing deformations in Readout Geometry (including wire sagging)  simulate single muons with a nominal geometry layout (R-light)  digitize by emulating chamber distortions  convert the hit local coordinates into nominal global coordinates  point belonging to the track  convert the global position into local coordinates in tilted and shifted tube (according to B-lines)  use the new local coordinates to compute drift time  reconstruct assuming B-lines  code in the digitizers  for handling wire sagging on demand available – to be tested  for other deformations on demand to be done – easy once the implementation in MuonGeoModel is fully available Structure Clients Validation run-time Conditions EDM Raw geom. issuesMuonGeoModel

Structure Clients Validation run-time Conditions EDM Raw geom. issuesMuonGeoModel New Tracking Geometry interfaces surfaces, bounds, normals, center, transform( tube/strip dependent methods)  Requested by generic track fitters and tracking (pattern recognition) tools  all implemented (refinements needed for TGC phi strips)  MDT  from StraitLIneSurface with cylindrical bounds (working fine)  to SaggedLineSurface (+ SaggingLineDescriptor) with cylindrical bounds per each tube  optimize the number of descriptors – needs testing  RPC  PlaneSurface with rectangular bounds per gas-gap and per view (first local coord. is the one measured) – parallel strips - OK  CSC  PlaneSurface with trapezoidal bounds – per gas-gap and per view – parallel strips – OK  TGC  PlaneSurface with trapezoidal bounds per gas-gap and per view – parallel wire-gangs BUT almost pointing phi strips  measuring phi, not local cartesian x  An option under study: use a disc surface with trapezoidal bounds for phi-surfaces  some work needed in the new tracking geometry primitives

Structure Clients Validation run-time Conditions EDM Raw geom. issues MuonGeoModel Volume Clashes in MuonGeoModel discussed in more detail in the Simulation Report HERE try to categorize the reasons and outline general solutions:  Wrong implementation of primary numbers: no much to do other than adding man- power  Cutouts in the station mother volume  Missing description of cutouts Cutouts in Amdb Cutouts in Amdb are described for station components  in MuonGeoModel can be implemented with boolean operations  BUT must be propagated to  the embedding station mother volume  all child volumes in the hierarchy  implemented only in BOG otherwise conflicting with the ATLAS feet  special description of the multilayers (sub-multilayers of different length)  cutouts propagated, by hand, to the station mother volume  no other station components affected

Structure Clients Validation run-time Conditions EDM Raw geom. issues MuonGeoModel Actions in GeoModel allow to perform some operation in a recursive way on a geometry tree:  under development a kernel action to treat cutouts (subtract recursively a shape from all volumes in a tree)  strictly needed to describe cutouts involving several components in a station BMS, BMF, etc. Geant4 Assemblies  groups of volumes linked by a common transform (without an envelop)  Geo2G4 translates GeoPhysVolumes with material “Ether” into G4 Assemblies  would be ideal for stations  no need to propagate component cutouts to the embedding station  a switch to use assemblies for (some) stations in MuonGeoModel - done  assemblies for stations need a new identification scheme to be shared by MuonGeoModel and G4 Sensitive Detectors – done  Memory allocated per event by the simulation of the Muon Spectrometer  standard (no assemblies) 390 MByte  assemblies for all stations 600 MByte (unfeasible)  assemblies for BOG with cutouts 394 MByte - done

MuonGeoModel general status Structure Clients Validation run-time Conditions EDM Raw geometry issues OK for active elements almost missing for dead materials work in progress no show-stoppers foreseen almost there optimize TGC phi view clean up clashes Cutouts from a general tool to do: all new dead material blocks