5 March 2016 STAR Trackers Review Yuri Fisyak, Production chain timing & CPU usage Y.Fisyak.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)
Advertisements

HLT - data compression vs event rejection. Assumptions Need for an online rudimentary event reconstruction for monitoring Detector readout rate (i.e.
ALICE TPC Online Tracking on GPU David Rohr for the ALICE Corporation Lisbon.
1 Scintillating Fibre Tracker Simulation Malcolm Ellis Imperial College London Tuesday 9 th March 2004.
Algorithms and Methods for Particle Identification with ALICE TOF Detector at Very High Particle Multiplicity TOF simulation group B.Zagreev ACAT2002,
ALICE HLT High Speed Tracking and Vertexing Real-Time 2010 Conference Lisboa, May 25, 2010 Sergey Gorbunov 1,2 1 Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies,
Status of calorimeter simulations Mikhail Prokudin, ITEP.
28 February, 2003 STAR Collaboration meeting Status of the dE/dx calibration Yuri Fisyak.
PPR meeting - January 23, 2003 Andrea Dainese 1 TPC tracking parameterization: a useful tool for simulation studies with large statistics Motivation Implementation.
Framework for track reconstruction and it’s implementation for the CMS tracker A.Khanov,T.Todorov,P.Vanlaer.
STAR StiVmc V. Perevoztchikov Brookhaven National Laboratory,USA.
Many-Core Scalability of the Online Event Reconstruction in the CBM Experiment Ivan Kisel GSI, Germany (for the CBM Collaboration) CHEP-2010 Taipei, October.
9/26/11HFT soft meeting, BNL1 Chain analysis fz file MuDst.root minimc.root geant.root event.root McEvent.root StMiniMcMaker StAssociationMaker : STAR.
Helmholtz International Center for CBM – Online Reconstruction and Event Selection Open Charm Event Selection – Driving Force for FEE and DAQ Open charm:
Tracking Task Force Predrag Buncic Offline Week, 19 March 2014.
TPC online reconstruction Cluster Finder & Conformal Mapping Tracker Kalliopi Kanaki University of Bergen.
Fast reconstruction of tracks in the inner tracker of the CBM experiment Ivan Kisel (for the CBM Collaboration) Kirchhoff Institute of Physics University.
ALICE Simulation Framework Ivana Hrivnacova 1 and Andreas Morsch 2 1 NPI ASCR, Rez, Czech Republic 2 CERN, Geneva, Switzerland For the ALICE Collaboration.
Y.Fisyak, BNL - STAR Upgrade workshop, 12/2/ Integrated Tracker – STAR tracking framework of the future update on  status and  perspective IT(TF)
1 Request for MuDst revision Y.Fisyak, 03/05/08 S&C meeting.
Vienna Fast Simulation LDT Munich, Germany, 17 March 2008 M. Regler, M. Valentan Demonstration and optimization studies by the Vienna Fast Simulation Tool.
STAR STAR VMC tracker V. Perevoztchikov Brookhaven National Laboratory,USA.
MuID Software Status/Future Plan Yajun Mao (RIKEN/CIAE) PHENIX Muon Collaboration Meeting, BNL, Dec. 16, 2000.
Standalone FLES Package for Event Reconstruction and Selection in CBM DPG Mainz, 21 March 2012 I. Kisel 1,2, I. Kulakov 1, M. Zyzak 1 (for the CBM.
ITTF Status STAR Analysis Meeting Dec 5, 04 Claude Pruneau Wayne State University.
Cosmic Ray Run III Cosmic Ray AliEn Catalogue LHC08b 1.
Normal text - click to edit HLT tracking in TPC Off-line week Gaute Øvrebekk.
STAR TPC Cluster and Hit Finder Software Raimond Snellings.
V0 analytical selection Marian Ivanov, Alexander Kalweit.
Integrated Tracker (progress, status, plans) Y. Fisyak.
G. BrunoOffline week - February Comparison between test- beam data and the SPD simulations in Aliroot G. Bruno, R. Santoro Outline:  strategy of.
“Vertexig and tracking ” Entirely based on works and results by: S. Rossegger, R. Shahoyan, A. Mastroserio, C. Terrevoli Outline: Comparison Fast simulation.
LM Feb SSD status and Plans for Year 5 Lilian Martin - SUBATECH STAR Collaboration Meeting BNL - February 2005.
January 3, 2016 Third Tracking Workshop, FIAS Yuri Fisyak, Tracking in STAR Yuri Fisyak.
Photon reconstruction and matching Prokudin Mikhail.
Status of global tracking and plans for Run2 (for TPC related tasks see Marian’s presentation) 1 R.Shahoyan, 19/03/14.
STS Radiation Environment 11 th CBM Collaboration Meeting GSI, February 2008 Radoslaw Karabowicz GSI.
Global Tracking for CBM Andrey Lebedev 1,2 Ivan Kisel 1 Gennady Ososkov 2 1 GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany 2 Laboratory.
Cellular Automaton Method for Track Finding (HERA-B, LHCb, CBM) Ivan Kisel Kirchhoff-Institut für Physik, Uni-Heidelberg Second FutureDAQ Workshop, GSI.
STAR Analysis Meeting, BNL – oct 2002 Alexandre A. P. Suaide Wayne State University Slide 1 EMC update Status of EMC analysis –Calibration –Transverse.
STAR Collaboration meeting, Nantes Alexandre A. P. Suaide Wayne State University Slide 1 EMC analysis update Just to remember … What we have done.
T. Lari – INFN Milan Status of ATLAS Pixel Test beam simulation Status of the validation studies with test-beam data of the Geant4 simulation and Pixel.
Page 1 of 18 Bjorn S. Nilsen, ALICE November 16 ITS Software meeting ITS Alignment Status Plus other things By Bjørn S. Nilsen The Ohio State University.
Software Tools for Layout Optimization (Fermilab) Software Tools for Layout Optimization Harry Cheung (Fermilab) For the Tracker Upgrade Simulations Working.
Femtoscopy: the way back in the energy scale from ALICE to NICA - part II P. BATYUK, YU.KARPENKO, L. MALININA, K. MIKHAYLOV, R. LEDNICKY, O. ROGACHEVSKY,
“GRETINA/AUX Gamma Ray Tracking software” The GT tracker MSU 10/21/2012 torben lauritsen, ANL.
STAR SVT Self Alignment V. Perevoztchikov Brookhaven National Laboratory,USA.
STAR Simulation. Status and plans V. Perevoztchikov Brookhaven National Laboratory,USA.
S.A. Voloshin STAR ICHEP 2006, Moscow, RUSSIA, July 26 – August 2, 2006page1 Sergei A. Voloshin Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan for the STAR.
Sti primary track puzzle Yuri Fisyak. Charge dependent relative difference in primary track transverse momentum between Sti (.dev) and TpT On STAR collaboration.
1 Reconstruction tasks R.Shahoyan, 25/06/ Including TRD into track fit (JIRA PWGPP-1))  JIRA PWGPP-2: Code is in the release, need to switch setting.
09/06/06Predrag Krstonosic - CALOR061 Particle flow performance and detector optimization.
AliRoot survey: Reconstruction P.Hristov 11/06/2013.
Comparison of reconstruction strategies in IceCube Lake Geneva, April 2007.
Year 3 Reconstruction and Calibration Status David Hardtke LBNL 1.What’s new? 2.Status of Calibrations 3.Why we need ITTF.
June 4, 2009 STAR TPC review Estimation of TPC Aging Based on dE/dx Measurements Yuri Fisyak.
Gianluigi, 10 Sep 2012 Paris, September 10 th 2012 Status of the Pattern Recognition Code Gianluigi Boca GSI & Pavia University 1.
April12 DST calibration status
Y. Fisyak1, I. Kisel2, I. Kulakov2, J. Lauret1, M. Zyzak2
Visualization of embedding
CBM beam pipe current status
DCH missing turn analysis
Track Finding.
Progress with MUON reconstruction
STAR Geometry and Detectors
PIXEL patch efficiency
Use of Geant4 in experiment interactive frameworks AliRoot
Agenda SICb Session Status of SICb software migration F.Ranjard
Hit and Tracking Data set used: From loose to tight cuts Pythia p+p
Presentation transcript:

5 March 2016 STAR Trackers Review Yuri Fisyak, Production chain timing & CPU usage Y.Fisyak

Outline What do we compare ? How do we compare ? CPU usage Conclusions

What do we compare ? We compare performance for four versions of reconstruction program: 1.Sti (aka Star Integrated Tracker, which has been started as project in 2001 by Integrated Tracker Task Force - ITTF) is the baseline STAR tracker for last 6 years. 2.StiCA is Sti with added Cellular Automata (CA) track seed finder. CA originally was developed in HERA-B and now this development is continued by GSI group (I.Kisel, et el.) for Alice, CBM, … The fitting procedure in StiCA has not been touched. The only difference between Sti and StiCA the priority order in which track seed candidates are fitted. 3.Stv is completely new development by Victor based of full GEANT3 geometry description, new fitting, new error parameterization, … 4.StvCA is Stv which uses CA seed finder. 3

What do we compare ? (cont.) From the above list we should expect : Rather small differences between Sti and StiCA from one side and Significant differences between Sti/StiCA and Stv/StvCA. The last comment: StiCA and Stv/StvCA are playing on field of Sti. Multiple tune-ups for “calibration” parameters are optimized for Sti. 4

How do we compare ? We have to do two big chunks of comparison: 1.Reconstruction done for real data, and 2.Reconstruction done for simulated data. The performance comparison is filling the following table The comparisons are (kind of artificially) splitted in three talks: 1.This one, which contains some definitions and comparison of CPU performance 2.Comparison for real data. 3.Comparison for Monte Carlo. The full set of plots which will be referred in all three talks can be found at and 5 StiCA/StiStv/StiStvCA/Sti Parameter/ condition +/-/NA

CPU usage versus no. of TPC hits AuAu debug pp debug AuAu debug AuAu debug AuAu debug pp nodebug StiCA slightly faster than Sti (by 10÷30% depending on TPC occupancy and compiler options: debug or nodebug) mainly due to removing outliers. (Reduction of this factor from 1.5 which was claimed last year I attribute to rejections of sectors with too many hits which was introduced this year.) Stv and StvCA are slower than Sti by a factor 1.5÷3.

Conclusions StiCA/StiStv/StiStvCA/Sti CPU/event(+) 0.75(-) 2 7