Status of CSC Trigger

1
Status Report of PRS/? D.Acosta University of
Florida Current U.S. activities PRS/?
Activities New PRS organization
2
EMU Software Workshop

• Workshop held at UCDavis in late February helped
  focus EMU software and physics activities
• Brought together software and electronics
  experts to close the loop on ORCA validation
• Reviewed detailed CMS Notes describing CSC
  digitization and trigger simulation
• Found that much of the simulation is right!
• Also found that some of the modeling is naïve
  (noise crosstalk)
• Scrutinized neutron background parameterization
• Some problems discovered (and later fixed)
• Discussed future areas of work
• Improved neutron parameterization
• Geometry description DB, detector
  misalignment,
• Plenty of opportunities for new collaborators

3
Neutron Background Simulation

• Biggest factor affecting CSC performance
• High rate of large amplitude pulses seen in GIF
  data
• Can overlap and distort CSC pulses from muons
• spatially and temporally
• e.g. LCT trigger logic builds in 4-fold
  coincidence to reduce background rate
• Current simulation
• UCDavis parameterization based on CMSIM 112
  creates GEANT hits (JUNK flag), which in turn are
  fed to ORCA
• New simulations done by UCDavis based on CMSIM
  121 corroborate earlier results
• However, a bug was found and subsequently fixed
  by Tim Cox affecting distribution of hits
• Nicely documented here
• http//ucdcms.ucdavis.edu/ptc/Cmsim/Junk/mc_junk
  _bug.html
• Tims CPT plenary talk
• Impact on L1 CSC trigger studied

4
CSC Event at GIF
5
L1 CSC Trigger Efficiency
Increasing background
Should cross-check absolute level of background
Also, what is effect on HLT and offline?
6
PRS/? News

• MC production
• 1.2M events (high lumi) 0.3M events (low
  lumi) currently in production in Italy for L2/L3
  studies
• Problems running ORCA 4.4.0 (or 4.5.1) analysis
  jobs on digis
• Expect 2M events for 20022003
• Group Activities
• Optimum weighting procedures for high MC
  statistics
• Punch-through and neutron background studies
• Conversion to OSCAR
• L2/L3 studies
• Muon reconstruction, muon-track matching,
  various muon propagators being developed
• Standard analysis package being developed
• MuonReco/MuonAnalysis has Ntuple code
• New Organization
• Looking for additional manpower and L3
  coordinator names

7
L2 Efficiency
Losing efficiency in DT/CSC overlap w.r.t. L1
(need RPC)
L2 uses L1 candidates as seeds, refines PT
measurement
8
L2 PT Resolution
Compare to L1? 23
High PT tail in DT/CSC overlap
9
L2 Trigger Rate
Most rate comes from low PT muons, which are
already isolated!
10
L2 Reconstruction in Overlap
Low PT muons reconstructed as high PT in DT/CSC
overlap
11
Partly caused by lost Segments
Lose MB1 segment in L2 Track-Finding algorithm ?
Poor PT resolution Should re-tune cuts But what
about tracks without any MB1 segment? They are
kept in L1, but will HLT be able to do anything
with them, and will we be able to do physics with
them?
12
L3 Muon Trigger Studies

• Start with Muon-Tracker matching
• Connection Machine builds seeds in tracker
• L2 provides seeds in muon system
• Propagate from muon system to outermost tracker
  layer
• GEANE, or
• Fast Muon Propagator (Olga Kodolova)
• Some work on developing common Muon-Tracker
  navigation methods
• Builds on propagators developed for Tracker

Neumeister, Dorigo, Loreti, Bellucci
Lacaprara
13
Muon-Tracker Matching Efficiency
W ? ? with pile-up, old tracker geometry
Leonardo Bellucci
14
L3 PT Resolution with Tracker
W ? ? with pile-up, old tracker geometry
Leonardo Bellucci
15
New Structure of PRS/? Group
Level-3
Detector Hit Simulation
Response Simulation Reconstruction
Alignment, Calibration, Database
Online Control Software
HLT Physics Objects
CMSIM?OSCAR conversion (Geant3 ?
Geant4) Liaison to SPROM
Muon detector simulation and reconstruction in
ORCA Liaison to RPROM
Testbeam data management, analysis tools, online
monitoring What about commissioning standalone
DAQ? How much of muon/trigger control software
done in PRS? Liaison to detector groups
HLT selection for L2, L3 (isolation, mip, track
matching) Analysis tools What previous HLT group
was for
Development of geometry and calibration DB,
impact of misalignment Liaison to DB and detector
groups
Ugos manpower estimates3 FTE 4
FTE 2FTE
2 FTE

4 FTE Most likely
underestimated
16
Some Possible Contributions

• All the boxes shown, and the tasks listed in the
  PRS section of the CMS SWC Deliverables document
  need help. So take your pick!
• If you want ideas, here are some
• Conversion from G3 to G4. Pressure to do this
  by years end (How much will TeV muons
  bremsstrahlung?)
• Development of L3 algorithms for DAQ TDR (no
  U.S. involvement so far)
• Normalization of flux rate estimates to CSC hit
  rates
• Validation of CSC detector simulation to data
  (cosmic rays _at_ FAST site testbeam)
• Integration of FAST site analysis tools and
  event display into ORCA and Visualization
  packages
• Misalignment studies. Introduce offsets in
  reconstruction and simulation and study
  consequences (corrections)
• Development of FAST simulation for Physics TDR
• Development of procedures for calibration, and
  how to apply to reconstruction

17
Conclusions

• Much more is being demanded of the PRS groups
  than ever before
• Full chain from detector control and data storage
  to offline reconstruction (including trigger and
  simulation) is included
• Were still learning what some of these demands
  are!
• Trying to define them for the CMS Software and
  Computing Tasks and Deliverables document
• This will take the work of the entire
  collaboration
• Almost everything outside of detector
  construction and core software is covered by the
  PRS groups
• There is no shortage of areas to work on!