Cern -April 24, 2007Atlas Data Quality Workshop M. Primavera1 Muon EF Data Quality Muon EF Data...

Cern -April 24, 2007 Atlas Data Quality Workshop M. Primavera 1

Muon EF Data QualityMuon EF Data Quality

M. Primavera - I.N.F.N. Lecceon behalf of

Muon EF working group

Atlas Data Quality WorkshopCERN, April 23- 25, 2007


Preliminary considerations and first ideas on how to perform Muon EF DQM/DQA presented in Zeuthen in TDAQ Data Quality Workshop:

Online Offline: using physics signal,

comparing trigger/reconstruction

For the moment efforts are focused on Online DQM/DQA


Since the Zeuthen Wshop until now:

Monitoring experience collected during last technical run (March 19-23 ) First approaches with DQMF Studies performed in offline with Data/SW validation tools of the muon slice

to produce a preliminary list of histograms/parameters to be monitored for DQ + checks to be performed on them


Muon EFMuon EF

LVL2 (muFast)LVL2 (muFast)

Moore AlgsMoore Algs

LVL1LVL1

MuIdStandAloneMuIdStandAloneAlgs Algs

TrigMooreTrigMoore

Seeding AlgsSeeding Algs

MuIdCombinedMuIdCombinedAlgs Algs

Hypo AlgHypo Alg

Hypo AlgHypo Alg

Hypo AlgHypo Alg

LVL2 (muComb)LVL2 (muComb)

LVL2 IDLVL2 ID

Offline IDOffline ID

FEX algorithms:Moore Algs (rec. MS)MuIdStandalone Algs (muon extrap. to the inter. Region)MuIdCombined Algs (track comb. with ID)( Trigger/TrigAlgorithms/TrigMoore +”Moore”+”MuId”)

HYPO algorithms:MooreHypoMuIdStandaloneHypoMuIdCombinedHypo (Trigger/TrigHypothesis/TrigMuonHypo/TrigMooreHypo)Cut variables: pt


Existing Monitoring:

TrigMooreHisto Monitored: muons in MS rec. by FEX Moore( Trigger/TrigAlgorithms/TrigMoore)

Variables monitored: # of muon candidates pt,1/pt,a0,phi,cottheta,(x,y,z) eta,phi of LVL2 muon ROI

Histogramming based on THistSvc

Other histograms now added in private version: e.g.

# hit/track per tecnology,etc…


However, we are now starting to migrate to the common framework for HLT monitoring

(https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/Atlas/TriggerValidationHistograms)

in the next days with a “pilot “version of muon EF monitoring


Muon EF Monitoring in March Technical run (D. Scannicchio)

SW release: Used 12.0.5-HLT with some patchesSample: ~6000 events: mixed physics processes LVL1 pre-selected with low thres. (di-jets,Ws,Zs,etc.)Trigger menus: MU06 for LVL1, mu6 signature in HLT, EF finds track in MS

e.g. muon_slice_run2346-withSFO.root/Gathered-PTs/EXPERT/TrigMoore


A new ATLOG entry has been submitted:

Author : Diana and AlinaSystem : TDAQType : InformationStatus : closedSystem Affected : TDAQ | MonitoringTDAQ_Logbook : Technical RunsTDAQ_Component : IntegrationTDAQ_Case : Combined

Logbook URL : http://pcatdsrv01.cern.ch:8100/ATLAS/754

=================================

More histograms checking have been added to the DataQuality Monitoring utility.

These are 3 histograms produced by TrigMoore algorithm running in EF.For now they are checked with a very simple algorithm that verifies if the histograms are filled or not. To be replaced with more sophisticated analysis when Diana will find out more about this.

First use of online DQMF for Muon EF:Basic check histograms are filled?


Muon EF DQM/DQA

FEX Algorithm: variables to test quality of the seeded reconstruction, acceptance and rejection Wrt LVL2 or previous step, compare some variables (if available in the sequence step) with LVL2 or previous step Hypo Algorithm: cut variables on which take rejection/acceptance decision, acceptance and rejection

Significant histograms and plots shown here are produced by Muon EF offline validation code (assuming a good calibration real detector/MC…)

However, to be ready to flag real data by using meaningful checks :

As much as possible realistic data samples should be used (e.g. pt distribution of muons from theTech. run sample looks very strange for muon ….), including pile-up and cavern background effects

For the moment, exercises done with monochromatic single muons, muons from decays (dominating the EF rate at low threshold) and top, but not complete, since there are other histograms/checks identified not yet studied, here discussed (in grey)


Samples used

single muons: 6 GeV and 17 GeV muons from (single particle decays,properly weighted), official production:http://gridui02.usatlas.bnl.gov:25880/server/pandamon/query/?mode=taskquery&qDSInput=%25slice%25&qsubmit=QuerySubmithttps://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/Atlas/MuonsFromPiK

top: mc11.004100.T1_McAtNLO_top.AANT.v11000201

All processed with release 12.0.6

No final decision on granularity (barrel,Ecs, …) for proposed histos/checks, No final decision on granularity (barrel,Ecs, …) for proposed histos/checks, but all studies performed by looking to the different regionsbut all studies performed by looking to the different regions


seeded (by LVL2 ROI) reconstruction in MS (Moore in EF)

Track quality (fit 2/n.d.f.)

Top events<pt> = 35 GeV

< > = 0.92

Muons from <pt> = 8 GeV

< > = 0.91Checks: monitor <> and r.m.s.


seeded (by LVL2 ROI) reconstruction in MS (Moore in EF)

Track 2 probability

Checks: compare distribution with reference histos

Final track normalized (divided by errors) residuals distribution per Final track normalized (divided by errors) residuals distribution per

tecnology good sensitivity to calibration and alignmenttecnology good sensitivity to calibration and alignment

Checks: if gaussian, fit results with < > / compatible with 0/1

Top events


seeded (by LVL2 ROI) reconstruction in MS (Moore in EF )

Track pt, ,

Top eventsTop events

Top events


Checks: compare distributions with reference (in realistic conditions), all checks should be calibrated with real data

6 GeV Muons, all eta

17 GeV Muons, barrel 17 GeV Muons, ECs



seeded (by LVL2 ROI) reconstruction in MS (Moore in EF )

Nhtec = Track number of hits per technology (MS) vs eta

Checks: stability in <> and r.m.s. of number of hitsper tecnology in defined eta region

Top ev. MDT hits< > =20.34r.m.s.=6.5

|| < 2.4

Top ev. phi hits< > =5.7r.m.s.=2.1

Muons from MDT hits< > =19.25r.m.s.=5.6


seeded (by LVL2 ROI) reconstruction in MS (Moore in EF ) Rhits= Nh

tec/(total # of hits per tec. in ROI) good sensitivity to background conditions

R = + / -


R MOORE MuiCB

6 GeV 0.990.01 0.990.01

17 GeV 1.010.02 1.000.02

Top ev. 1.160.14 1.160.14

all eta

+ -

Checks: R stability within errors


Track estrapolation to the interaction region (MuId Standalone in EF)

monitor match parameters of MuId Standalone track with the closest ID track

monitor parameterization for energy loss in the calorimeters (ptMuIdSA-ptMoore) wrt pt

(pt,,) after estrapolation check as already described


Combined reconstruction with ID (MuId Comb. in EF)

Final track 2,(pt, , ) at interaction point check as already described

R = + / - check as already described

PCA (a0,z0) at the interaction region if prompt muons, distributions are also related to the luminous region dimensions

Top ev., ~ 50mTop ev., ~ 5.4 cmz0 a0

Checks: monitor <> and 2

of gaussian fits of MuIdCB Z0

a0 :distributions with non gaussian tails could require a fit with sum of 2 gaussians: the ratio of integrals of the two gaussian can be used to monitor the relative weight core/tails in distribution


TrigMOORE wrt LVL2

Comparison with LVL2 ROI (pt(?),,)

track multiplicity per ROI sensitivity to background, ROI overlapping, etc.

Top ev., MuId comb pt vs pt LVL2<> ~ -44 MeV ~ 318 MeV

Top ev., MuId comb phi vs phi LVL2<> ~ 0 ~ 0.3 mrad

Checks: monitor <> , and 2 of the fit of the differences (e.g. MuId CB FEX var - LVL2) : same as page before for non gaussian tails


“Muon EF Trigger monitoring”

Acceptances (|| < 2.4) wrt LVL2 or wrt previous step

Acceptance Muons from top (%) <pt> ~ 35 GeV

6 GeV single muons (%)

17 GeV single muons (%)

MOORE wrt LVL2

96.8±0.5 95.9±0.1 96.1±0.2

MuidSAwrt LVL2

95.3±0.6 90.4±0.1 95.0±0.2

MuidCB wrt LVL2

93.8±0.7 89.0±0.1 93.3±0.2

MuidSA wrt MOORE

98.4±0.4 94.3±0.1 98.8±0.1

MuidCB wrt MuiSA

96.9±0.5 98.4±0.1 98.3±0.1

Checks: acceptance stability by checking counters


Hypo algorithms

For the moment implemented at the end of the muon EF sequence (MuIdCombined) and not applied in validation. Presently cut variable is pt only, thus for monitoring:

histograms/parameters to be checked: pt spectrum before and after cut/acceptance (= accepted # / total # of triggers )

Total # of histos to be checked for Muon EF: reasonably < 50 (considering all sequence steps and , slices), maybe collecting experience the number of really meaningful histograms will decrease


Plans (short term)

Implementing histograms inside the code by using common monitoring tools for trigger

continue studies on realistic data samples in order:

• to individuate other meaningful variables for DQ• to evaluate reliability of the proposed checks• to understand sensitivity to different run conditions/data deteriorations

Getting familiar with DQMF algorithms in the Workbench and online

Plans (middle term)

Start thinking to the implementation of a higher level Muon slice DQ in “quasi-online”/offline environments for deeper DQM/DQA


Backup slides


LVL2::muFastLVL2::muComb

L2_muX EF::TrigMooreEF:TrigMuidSA

EF_muX

EF::IDEF_muXEF::TrigMuidCBEF_muX

New HLT Sequence:

Hypo Test

Hypo Test

Hypo Test

Cern -April 24, 2007Atlas Data Quality Workshop M. Primavera1 Muon EF Data Quality Muon EF Data...

Documents

Transcript of Cern -April 24, 2007Atlas Data Quality Workshop M. Primavera1 Muon EF Data Quality Muon EF Data...