rrb atlas progress report (part ii) 22nd october 20071 cern-rrb-2007-076 22 nd october 2007 atlas...

22nd October 2007

1RRB ATLAS Progress Report (part II)

CERN-RRB-2007-076 22nd October 2007

ATLAS Progress Report (part II)

(For the construction, installation and commissioning status of the detector systems: see Marzio Nessi in part I)

Trigger, computing, and data preparation

Moving towards operation

Brief account on other activities

Collaboration and management

Status of completion planning

Early LHC physics goals

Conclusions

22nd October 2007


Executive Board

ATLAS management: SP, Deputy SP, RC, TCCollaboration Management, experiment execution, strategy, publications, resources, upgrades, etc.

PublicationsCommittee,Speakers Committee

CB

Detector Operation (Run Coordinator)Detector operation during data taking, online data quality, …

Trigger (Trigger Coordinator)Trigger data quality,performance, menu tables, new triggers, ..

Data Preparation (Data Preparation Coordinator)Offline data quality, first reconstruction of physics objects, calibration, alignment (e.g. with Zll data)

Computing (Computing Coordinator)Core Software, operation of offline computing, …

Physics (Physics Coordinator)optimization of algorithms for physics objects, physics channels

Figure 2

(Sub)-systems:Responsible for operation and calibration of their sub-detector and for sub-system specific software

TMB

Operation Model (Organization for LHC Exploitation)(Details can be found at http://uimon.cern.ch/twiki//bin/view/Main/OperationModel )

22nd October 2007


Trigger algorithms and menus

This activity, very closely coupled to the physics studies, is a very central broad activity

The physics selections will be done along so-called trigger ‘slices’

Electron/photon These four slices are crucial for a large part of theJet physics programme, and must be operational from the startTauMuon

B-physics Very low pT threshold, will take advantage of low-luminosity

Missing ET Require refined detector understanding, and may thereforeb-tagging take some more time to become fully efficient

Minimum bias Very important for commissioning with beam

Cosmics Available now for commissioning, several algorithms used inthe global cosmics runs (M4)

The HLT software framework and steering are operational and is being optimized

RRB ATLAS Progress Report (part II)

Commissioning the trigger, trigger for commissioning

Trigger menu for initial L=1031 cm-2 s-1 being prepared Note: affordable rate to storage ~ 200 Hz (out of 106 Hz interaction rate at L=1031)

At low initial luminosity can afford: low thresholds w/o prescaling, simple selections, redundant items,several triggers for calibration and sanity checks, run High-Level-Trigger in pass-through mode, etc. Essential to understand trigger and detector

Item Trigger output rate 1031 (examples) (not prescaled) 2e5 5-10 Hze15 40 2e15 1 20 20 6 5524 15j70 27 4j23 17 25+xE32 710i+25i 5

2 e pT>5 GeV

1 jet pT>70 GeV

1 pT>25 GeV+ET

miss>32 GeV

Prelim

inary

,

for i

llustra

tion

From last cosmics run (M4):Muon tracks reconstructed by trigger

dataMC

ATLAS preliminary

top of detector

bottom of detector

Tracks reconstructed online by combining Muon chambers, calorimeters and TRT (all sub-detectorsexcept Pixels and SCT were taking data)

22nd October 2007


ATLAS Computing and Software: Timeline 2007/8

• Running continuously throughout the year (increasing rates):

– Simulation production– Cosmic ray data-taking

(detector commissioning)• January to August:

– Data streaming tests

(done, first step to FDR)• February through May:

– Intensive Tier-0 tests• From February onwards:

– Data Distribution tests• From March onwards:

– Distributed Analysis (intensive tests)

• May to end 2007:– Calibration Data Challenge

• November 2007 to spring 2008:

– Full Dress Rehearsal

• April:

– GO!

22nd October 2007


Export monitoring (ARDA dashboard) of cosmic ray data taken duringthe M4 combined commissioning running week (‘from detector to offline’)

Total throughput (MB/s)

Aug 23 – Sep 8

Data transferred (GB)Aug 23 – Sep 8

Completed file transfersAug 23 – Sep 8

Data exported toall 10 ATLAS Tier-1s and several Tier-2s


RAW DPD

RAW Event data from TDAQ: ~ 1.6 MBESD (Event Summary Data): output of reconstruction (calo cells, track hits, ..): ~ 1 MBAOD (Analysis Object Data): physics objects for analysis (e,,,jets, …): ~ 100 kBDPD (Derived Physics Data): equivalent of old ntuples: ~ 10 kB (format to be finalized)TAG Reduced set of information for event selection: ~ 1 kB

Huge efforts were made over last year(s) to keep ESD and AOD sizes to the above values (constrained by storage resources). As a result, ESD and AOD today are better optimized from technical and content (targeted to first data taking) point of views

Note: the SW infrastructure is much more complex than in the above sketch. E.g. one importantcomponent is Database, in particular the Condition Database, where calibration & alignment constants and most of metadata (e.g. detector quality and luminosity information) are stored

Software chain

22nd October 2007


Histograms

The Analysis Model is being finalized

• This model is very elegant and “clean” since it allows: -- the same code to run at all levels, from primary AOD to DPD -- seamless code porting Athena ROOT -- the same analysis to be performed in different frameworks (Athena batch, Athena interactive, ROOT)

However, it is a viable solution only if:• No big cpu penality compared to e.g. a flat nutple• adequate/positive user feedback new DPD will be part of Release 13 production; people will be strongly ‘pushed’ to use it

egamma

TauObj

CMuon

Jet

TTrack

Cells

Cluster

Hits

Truth

ESD

MET

Electron

TauJet

Muon

PJet

TrackP

Cluster

TruthP

MET

AOD

Photon

Electron

Muon

PJet

TrackP

Cluster

TruthP

METDPD

Photon

Composites

AOD/ESDMerger

AOD/DPDMerger

M_eff Delta_R[][]

Top_mass[] Sphericity

Use

rDat

a

Metadata

Slimming, overlap removal, add UserData and Metadata

22nd October 2007


Exercise the full calibration/alignment procedure as will need to do with first data Compare performance of realistic detector after calibration and alignment to nominal (TDR) performance Understand systematic effects (material, B-field), test trigger robustness, etc Learn how to do analyses without knowing exact detector layout Timescale: first results available, will continue and be refined until data taking …

Calibration Data Challenge

Geometry ofrealistic “as-installed”detector

Reconstruction pass N

Analysis

Calib/alignconstantspass N

Condition DataBase

Calib/alignconstants from pass N-1

Pass 1 uses nominalcalibration, alignment,material

Most of it in Rel. 12, updates in Rel. 13

Simulation of O(10M) eventsSM processes

22nd October 2007


Produce samples emulating data from TDAQ output: -- bytestream format (and no MCTruth …) -- mixture of physics processes as expected at HLT output -- data organized into trigger-based streams: e/, Muon, Jets, +ET

miss, B-physics, minimum bias + Express Stream + calibration stream(s) -- files are closed at luminosity block boundaries (every ~1 min.)

“RAW” samples reconstructed at Tier0 produce ESD, AOD, TAGs RAW, ESD, AOD, TAG replicated at Tier1-s, AOD also to Tier2-s Exercise group-based DPD production at Tier1/2-s end-user analysis

Re-processing test at Tier1-s Time-varying detector problems will be injected in the data samples run Data Quality on Express Stream to spot these and fill Condition DB Will run production shifts at Tier0 and Tier1-s

A complete exercise of the full chain from TDAQ output to analysis make sure all components (from SW to Computing Model) are in place and coherent, find residual bottlenecks, mimic real data taking conditions a few months before LHC start-up

Full Dress Rehearsal

Several rounds of increasing complexity: Phase 0 : Data Streaming test : done Phase 1 : Start November 2007 Phase 2 : Start March 2008

22nd October 2007


The TGC and MDT Big Wheel alignment checks during mounting and displacements are operational

Cosmic muon during BT test

Data Preparation activities are in full swing, and now visibly under a coherent framework, spanning many areas.

Data Quality AssessmentOffline CommissioningData StreamingCalibrationAlignmentB-fieldsEvent Display, …

22nd October 2007


Constant resolution term (local fluctuations + long range term) versus accumulated luminosity

(full detector simulation)

Task:

Correct calorimeter long-range inhomo-geneities (module-to-module, temperature and HV instabilities, …), and effects from extra material in front of the calorimeter

Method:

Use Z-mass fits in Ze+e– events (rate O(1) Hz at 1033 s–1cm–2)

Inject calibration coefficients for different regions of size = 0.20.4

Performance in simulation:

With 200 pb–1, initial non-uniformities of = 2.5% can be recovered to a precision of 0.7%, which meets the requirements (TDR)

Number of Z ee events

0.7%

Overall uniformity

EM calorimeter

Example from the Data Preparation: In situ inter-calibration of the EM calorimeter using Ze+e– events.

22nd October 2007


Example from the Data Preparation: A lot of effort being made to monitor, assess and record data quality information at all data flow levels

Online DQA

Online DQA

RODs

Front-end

LVL1

LVL2

Event Builder

SFI (s)

EF EF EF EF

SFOs

T1 Oraclereplica

T2 replica

RA

W:

20

0H

z, 3

20

MB

/s

express calib

ES

D 1

00

MB

/sA

OD

20

MB

/s

On

line

DB

+ Shift Log+ DQ status+ Archives

Tier 0

T1

tra

nsf

er

MC valid.MC valid.

AMI

VerifyVerify

TAG DB

+ Calib/align+ DQ status+ Archives

to Tier0

upda

ted

calib

updated calib

Offline DQA

Offline DQA

upda

ted

stat

us

upda

ted

stat

us

initial status updates

T1 (Late Reproc.)

Prompt reco

(bulk)

Xpress reco,calibration

T2 (MC prod.)

DB from onlineConfig, Calib

DCS, DQ status

PVSS-To-COOL (~15 min latency ?)DCS

22nd October 2007


Operation Task Sharing

The operation of the ATLAS experiment, spanning from detector operation to computing and data preparation, will require a very large effort across the full Collaboration (initially estimated at ~600 FTE effort per year, of which some 60% require presence at CERN)

The framework that has been approved by the Collaboration Board in February 2007 aiming at a fair sharing of these duty tasks (‘Operation Tasks’, OTs) is now being implemented (pilot applications now, gradually coming into full usage a few months before the LHC start-up)

The main elements are:

- OTs needs and accounting are reviewed and updated annually- OTs are defined under the auspices of the sub-system and activity managements- Allocations are made in two steps, expert tasks first, and then non-expert tasks

- The ‘fair share’ is proportional to the number of ATLAS members (per Institution or Country)- Students are ‘favoured’ by a weight factor 0.75- New Institutions will have to contribute more in the first two years (weight factors 1.5 and 1.25)

Note that physics analysis tasks, and other privileged tasks, are not OTs, of course

An important effort is ongoing to define the OTs and to finalize the Web tools in order to manage the OT planning and documenting

22nd October 2007


Detector Operation (Run Coordinator)Detector operation during data taking, online data quality, …

Executive Board

ATLAS management: SP, Deputy SP, RC, TCCollaboration Management, experiment execution, strategy, publications, resources, upgrades, etc.

PublicationCommittee,Speaker Committee

CB

Trigger (Trigger Coordinator)Trigger data quality,performance, menu tables, new triggers, ..

Data Preparation (Data Preparation Coordinator)Offline data quality, first reconstruction of physics objects, calibration, alignment (e.g. with Zll data)

Computing (Computing Coordinator)SW infrastructure, GRID,data distribution, …

Physics (Physics Coordinator)optimization of algorithms for physics objects, physics channels

(Sub)-systems:Responsible for operation and calibration of their sub-detector and for sub-system specific software …

TMB

22nd October 2007


Overview Headings Examples, comments General tasks DAQ specific LVL1 ID GEN/PIXEL/ LAr TILES MUONs

SCT and TRTDetector Operation tasks Organisational/managerial tasks Run Coordinator, System Operation Chiefs, GLIMOS, Shift-tasks ACR shifts, satelite CR shiftsExpert-tasks for det. Operation...Detector Detector and opening experts, incl calibration and alignment systems...Monitoring Part of data-preparation...Trigger Part of trigger...Tier 0 operation Tier 0 expertise, part of computing ...DAQ related General DAQ and system DAQ experts...DB Online DB ...DCS/DSS/safety/power Overall DCS and system DCS and power...Cooling/Gas Overall gas/cooling co-ord and experts...Control/counting rooms Control and couiting room incl. racks and services...Infrastructure and common systems Common systems, magnet, cryo, beampipeM&O facilities SR1, EMF for LAR, testbeams, testbeds …PIT infrastructure ( general ATLAS tasks, ) Many arranged as Services Agreements and partly covered by M&O A

Computing and softwareManagerial and organsational tasksCentral Computing Environment M&O A tasksUser support M&O A tasksSoftware Process Services M&O A tasksCentral Production Operation M&O A tasksM&O B tasks M&O B tasks Shifts Shifts for Tier O, reproccessing and simulation, plus on call

Trigger tasksManagement/Organisational tasks Shifts Shifts in pit LVL1LVL2 EFMenus Menu development and maintenancePerformance Performance (covered above?)Trigger Monitoring Monitoring of trigger performance (linked to DP)Trigger Calibration Calibration of trigger related HW Other ...

Data PreparationManagement/Organisational tasks Calibration Calibration related tasksAlignment Alignment related tasksSimulation Simulation Data Quality/monitoring including shifts Inc shifts in pit

Trigger related operation tasks at all three levels

Activities related to data QA, calibraton, alignment,

Activities related to data QA, calibraton, alignment, simulation


System activities related to data QA, calibraton,

Software tasks specific for system


System trigger expert tasks






Overall tasks being defined - many already active


Overall trigger organisation tasks in the areas mention

Performance part of LVL1

Breakdown exists in the form of M&O A and B and description of shifts


Fairly detailed breakdown exists, being implemented in commissioing

Tasks specific for operating LVL1 trigger in pit

Many DAQ areas already forseen in general tasks, but some specific remain to be specified, several being implemented in practise at point 1 milestone runs

Breakdown made, being used during ID work in pit

LAr already very active in pit commissioning - many tasks already filled

Tiles already very active in pit commissioning - many tasks already filled

Muons are following, commissioning work already ongoing

Main task groups template (simplified)

Detector Operation

Computing and software

Trigger

Data Preparation

22nd October 2007


ATLAS Forward Detectors

Very

Forward

Detectors

There is considerable progress in this area as well

Not all financing is assured yet for the FWD detectors, and new contributions are actively invited and sought for

Note: ATLAS forward detector and physics efforts are treated as an integral part of ATLAS

A common upgradeproposal, first to ATLAS internal, is in preparation bythe FP420 andRP220 ATLAScolleagues

22nd October 2007


LUCID

The first stage detector, with limited instrumentation, is ready for integration with the VJ section of the beam pipe

VJ beam pipe sectionThe two LUCID detectors in the test lab (2x16 PMTs, ~10%)

22nd October 2007


Inserting coordinate readout fibers in the first module

Zero Degree Calorimeter

The first stage detector will be only installed inone arm, and co-exist with LHCf

Phase 2 will still be in one arm only, after completionof LHCf, and the complete detector in both arms willfollow for phase 3

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

22nd October 2007


Prototype of the ATLAS Roman Pot

station in a test stand with probes to map the precision of the movements

Production of a full

prototype fibre detector

(corresponding to one

complete Roman Pot,

1/8 of the total)

ALFA

22nd October 2007


ATLAS organization to steer R&D for upgrades

ATLAS has, in place and operational, a structure to steer its planning for future upgrades, in particular for R&D activities needed for possible luminosity upgrades of the LHC (‘sLHC’)

This is already a rather large and broad activity…

The main goals are to - Develop a realistic and coherent upgrade plan addressing the physics potential- Retain detector experts in ATLAS with challenging developments besides detector commissioning and running- Cover also less attractive (but essential) aspects right from the beginning

The organization has two major coordination bodies

Upgrade Steering Group (USG)(Existing since three years, with representatives from systems, software, physics,and relevant Technical Coordination areas)

Project Office (UPO)(Operates since more than a year, fully embedded within the Technical Coordination)

Upgrade R&D proposals are reviewed and handled in a transparent way within the Collaboration

There is a good and constructive synergy from common activities with CMS where appropriate

The LHCC would be welcome to act as global review body for overall ATLAS upgrade plans

22nd October 2007


Note:The EU FP7sLHC proposalis of directrelevance to the UPO

22nd October 2007


Short name

Title Principle contacts

Status

17/09/07

Opto Radiation Test Programme for the ATLAS Opto-Electronic Readout System for the SLHC for ATLAS upgrades

Cigdem Issever Approved by EB

Staves Development and Integration of Modular Assemblies with Reduced Services for the ATLAS Silicon Strip Tracking Layers

C. Haber, M. Gilchriese

Approved by EB

ABC-Next Proposal to develop ABC-Next, a readout ASIC for the S-ATLAS Silicon Tracker Module Design

Francis Anghinolfi, Wladek Dabrowski

Approved by EB

Radiation BG

Radiation background benchmarking at the LHC and simulations for an ATLAS upgrade at the SLHC

Ian Dawson Approved by EB

n-on-p sensors

Development of non-inverting Silicon strip detectors for the ATLAS ID upgrade

Hartmut Sadrozinski Approved by EB

SiGe chips Evaluation of Silicon-Germanium (SiGe) Bipolar Technologies for Use in an Upgraded ATLAS Detector

Alex Grillo, S. Rescia

Approved by EB

3D sensors

Development, Testing, and Industrialization of 3D Active-Edge Silicon Radiation Sensors with Extreme Radiation Hardness: Results, Plans

Sherwood Parker now Cinzia Da Via

Approved by EB

Modules Research towards the Module and Services Structure Design for the ATLAS Inner Tracker at the Super LHC

Nobu Unno Recommended for approval by USG; awaiting CB comments

Powering Research and Development of power distribution schemes for the ATLAS Silicon Tracker Upgrade

Marc Weber Under review by USG

TRT R&D of segmented straw tracker detector for the ATLAS Inner Detector Upgrade

Vladimir Peshekhonov

New external reviewer to be found

A list of current ATLAS sLHC upgrade R&D activities, and their current status(page 1)

22nd October 2007


Gossip R&D proposal to develop the gaseous pixel detector Gossip for the ATLAS Inner Tracker at the Super LHC

H van der Graaf Expression of interest received

SoS Expression of Interest: Evaluations on the Silicon on Sapphire 0.25 micron technology for ASIC developments in the ATLAS electronics readout upgrade

Ping Gui and Jingbo Ye

Reviewers waiting for updated proposal

Thin pixels

R&D on thin pixel sensors and a novel interconnection technology for 3D integration of sensors and electronics

H-G. Moser Updated proposal under review by USG

Muon Micromegas

R&D project on micropattern muon chambers V. Polychronakos Joerg Wotschack

Proposal received, waiting for external reviewer

TGC R&D on optimizing a detector based on TGC technology to provide tracking and trigger capabilities in the MUON Small-Wheel region at SLHC

G. Mikenberg Expression of interest received

MDTReadout

Upgrade of the MDT Readout Chain for the SLHC R. Richter Expression of interest received

MDTGas R&D for gas mixtures for the MDT detectors of the Muon Spectrometer P. Branchini Expression of interest received

Selective Readout

Upgrade of the MDT Electronics for SLHC using Selective Readout R. Richter Expression of interest received

High Rate MDT

R&D on Precision Drift-Tube Detectors for Very High Background Rates at SLHC

R. Richter Expression of interest received

Diamond Diamond Pixel Modules for the High Luminosity ATLAS Inner Detector Upgrade

M. Mikkuz Under review by USG

ID Alignment

ID Alignment Using the Silicon Sensors H. Kroha EoI Received

Fast Track Trigger

FTK, a hardware track finder M. Shochet Under review by USG

A list of current ATLAS sLHC upgrade R&D activities, and their current status(page 2)

22nd October 2007


Collaboration composition

Since the last RRB in April 2007 three new Institutions have been admitted unanimously in the Collaboration, following the standard procedures defined in the initial Construction MoU

(Collaboration Boards of 13th July and 12th October 2007)

Department of Physics, Georg-August-University Göttingen, Germany(HLT, data preparation, grid computing, Pixel upgrade)

Universidad Antonio Nariño (UAN), Bogotá, Colombia(HLT, computing tools)

A joint Chilean team formed by members of Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (PUC), SantiagoUniversidad Técnica Federico Santa María (UTFSM), Valparaíso(HLT, computing, electronics engineering)

The RRB is kindly requested to endorse the admission of these three new Institutions in the ATLAS Collaboration

22nd October 2007


ATLAS Collaboration

(Status October 2007)

37 Countries 167 Institutions 2000 Scientific Authors total(1600 with a PhD, for M&O share)

New Institutions admitted unanimously at the last two CB meeting:University Göttingen, GermanySantiago (PUC)/ Valparaíso (UTFSM), Chile Bogotá (UAN), Colombia

Albany, Alberta, NIKHEF Amsterdam, Ankara, LAPP Annecy, Argonne NL, Arizona, UT Arlington, Athens, NTU Athens, Baku, IFAE Barcelona, Belgrade, Bergen, Berkeley LBL and UC, HU Berlin, Bern, Birmingham, Bogota, Bologna, Bonn, Boston, Brandeis,

Bratislava/SAS Kosice, Brookhaven NL, Buenos Aires, Bucharest, Cambridge, Carleton, Casablanca/Rabat, CERN, Chinese Cluster, Chicago, Chile, Clermont-Ferrand, Columbia, NBI Copenhagen, Cosenza, AGH UST Cracow, IFJ PAN Cracow, DESY,

Dortmund, TU Dresden, JINR Dubna, Duke, Frascati, Freiburg, Geneva, Genoa, Giessen, Glasgow, Göttingen, LPSC Grenoble, Technion Haifa, Hampton, Harvard, Heidelberg, Hiroshima, Hiroshima IT, Indiana, Innsbruck, Iowa SU, Irvine UC, Istanbul Bogazici, KEK,

Kobe, Kyoto, Kyoto UE, Lancaster, UN La Plata, Lecce, Lisbon LIP, Liverpool, Ljubljana, QMW London, RHBNC London, UC London, Lund, UA Madrid, Mainz, Manchester, Mannheim, CPPM Marseille, Massachusetts, MIT, Melbourne, Michigan,

Michigan SU, Milano, Minsk NAS, Minsk NCPHEP, Montreal, McGill Montreal, FIAN Moscow, ITEP Moscow, MEPhI Moscow, MSU Moscow, Munich LMU, MPI Munich, Nagasaki IAS, Nagoya, Naples, New Mexico, New York, Nijmegen, BINP Novosibirsk, Ohio SU, Okayama, Oklahoma, Oklahoma SU, Oregon, LAL Orsay, Osaka, Oslo, Oxford, Paris VI and VII, Pavia, Pennsylvania,

Pisa, Pittsburgh, CAS Prague, CU Prague, TU Prague, IHEP Protvino, Regina, Ritsumeikan, UFRJ Rio de Janeiro, Rome I, Rome II, Rome III, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, DAPNIA Saclay, Santa Cruz UC, Sheffield, Shinshu, Siegen, Simon Fraser Burnaby,

SLAC, Southern Methodist Dallas, NPI Petersburg, Stockholm, KTH Stockholm, Stony Brook, Sydney, AS Taipei, Tbilisi, Tel Aviv, Thessaloniki, Tokyo ICEPP, Tokyo MU, Toronto, TRIUMF, Tsukuba, Tufts, Udine/ICTP, Uppsala, Urbana UI, Valencia, UBC Vancouver, Victoria, Washington, Weizmann Rehovot, FH Wiener Neustadt, Wisconsin, Wuppertal, Yale, Yerevan

22nd October 2007


Management

There are no changes to be reported for the ATLAS management

The Executive Board has been completed for all systems and activities with the appointment of the Trigger Activity Coordinator at the July Collaboration Board

The present composition is shown in the organization chart (following slide), which is valid until end of February 2008

Collaboration Board Chair

As foreseen by the standard ATLAS rules, the present Deputy Collaboration Board Chair

Kerstin Jon-And, Stockholm University, Sweden

will take over the function as CB Chair for two years starting in 2008, whereas the present CB Chair Christopher Oram, TRIUMF, Canada

will still act for one year as Deputy CB Chair in 2008

22nd October 2007


ATLAS OrganizationOctober 2007

ATLAS Plenary Meeting

Collaboration Board(Chair: C. Oram

Deputy: K. Jon-And)

Resources ReviewBoard

Spokesperson(P. Jenni

Deputies: F. Gianottiand S. Stapnes)

Technical Coordinator

(M. Nessi)

Resources Coordinator(M. Nordberg)

Executive Board

CB Chair AdvisoryGroup

Inner Detector(L. Rossi,

K. EinsweilerP. Wells, F. Dittus)

Tile Calorimeter(B. Stanek)

Magnet System(H. ten Kate)

ComputingCoordination

(D. Barberis,D. Quarrie)

Data Prep.Coordination

(C. Guyot)

LAr Calorimeter(H. Oberlack,D. Fournier,J. Parsons)

Muon Instrum.(G. Mikenberg,

F. Taylor,S. Palestini)

Trigger/DAQ( C. Bee,

L. Mapelli)

ElectronicsCoordination(P. Farthouat)

PhysicsCoordination

(K. Jakobs)

AdditionalMembers

(T. Kobayashi,M. Tuts, A. Zaitsev)

Commissioning/Run Coordinator

(G. Mornacchi)

TriggerCoordination

(N. Ellis)

22nd October 2007


Updated Financial Overview

Financial frameworkInitial Construction MoU 1995 475 MCHFUpdated construction baseline 468.5 MCHFAdditional Cost to Completion (accepted in RRB October 2002) 68.2 MCHF based on the Completion Plan (CERN-RRB-2002-114)Additional CtC identified in 2006 and detailed in CERN-RRB-2006-069) 4.4 MCHFTotal costs for the initial detector 541.1 MCHF

Missing funding at this stage for the initial detector:Baseline Construction MoU, mainly Common Fund 7.4 MCHF(of which 2.8 MCHF are in progress of being paid, and 4.6 MCHF remain at risk)

2002 Cost to Completion (CC and C&I) calculated shares 9.3 MCHF(of which 2.8 MCHF are in progress of being paid, and assuming that the U.S. will provide their remaining 4.5 MCHF on a best effort basis,2 MCHF remain at risk)

It must be stressed that all these resources, already specified in the 2002 Completion Plan, are needed to complete the initial detector

Note for planning purposes that the following items are not included: - This assumed beam pipe closure end August 2007, later dates would imply additional manpower costs of 200-250 kCHF per month (not all on CtC)- No provision for future ‘force majeure’ cost overruns- Re-scoping of the design-luminosity detector, estimated material costs of parts not included in present initial detector (CERN-RRB-2002-114) 20 MCHF- Forward detectors parts (luminosity) not funded yet 1.5 MCHF

22nd October 2007


Cost to Completion, and initial staged detector configuration

As a reminder from previous RRB meetings:

The Cost to Completion (CtC) is defined as the sum of Commissioning and Integration (C&I) pre-operation costs plus the Construction Completion (CC) cost in addition to the deliverables

The following framework was accepted at the October 2002 RRB (ATLAS Completion Plan, CERN-RRB-2002-114rev.):

CtC 68.2 MCHF (sum of CC = 47.3 MCHF and C&I = 20.9 MCHF)

Commitments from Funding Agencies for fresh resources (category 1) 46.5 MCHFFurther prospects, but without commitments at this stage (category 2) 13.6 MCHF

The missing resources, 21.7 MCHF, have to be covered by redirecting resources from staging and deferrals

The funding situation will be reviewed regularly at each RRB, and is expected to evolve as soonas further resources commitments will become available

The physics impact of the staging and deferrals was discussed in detail with the LHCC

It was clearly understood that the full potential of the ATLAS detector will need to be restoredfor the high luminosity running, which is expected to start only very few years after turn-on of the LHC, and to last for at least a decade

22nd October 2007


Funding Agency Member New funding New funding CtC 2006(CtC) Fee 2004-6 (category 1) requests proposed

(incl. in CC) incl. Member F (category 2) sharingTotal CC C&I Total Total Total

Argentina 75Armenia 66 48 18 38 45Australia 357 242 115 75 357Austria 67 52 15 38 80Azerbaijan 43 38 5 38 38Belarus 85 75 10 75 75Brazil 64 47 17 38 41Canada 2090 1528 562 263 2090China NSFC+MSTC 141 99 42 38 141Czech Republic 316 196 120 113 316Denmark 422 290 132 38 58 375France IN2P3 5890 4176 1714 225 5890France CEA (1) 1940 1379 561 38 1940Georgia 42 37 5 38 38Germany BMBF 4531 3250 1281 338 4531Germany DESY 38Germany MPI 1093 761 332 38 1093Greece 261 173 88 113 261Israel 739 497 242 113 739Italy 6638 4650 1988 450 6288Japan 4362 3029 1333 563 4362Morocco 57 47 10 38 42Netherlands 1934 1368 566 75 1934Norway 581 391 190 75 581Poland 136 94 42 75 136Portugal 446 265 181 38 339 107Romania 140 85 55 38 140Russia 2991 1995 996 263 1759JINR 1066 660 406 38 521Serbia 300Slovak Republic 72 53 19 38 82Slovenia 223 152 71 38 223Spain 1706 1109 597 113 1706Sweden 1691 1121 570 150 1691Switzerland 2372 1701 671 75 2372Taipei 445 318 127 38 445Turkey 85 75 10 75 75United Kingdom 4387 3063 1324 450 4387US DOE + NSF (2) 12245 8438 3807 1238 12245CERN 8452 5770 2682 38 9300 4400

Total 68176 47272 20904 5563 66699 482 4400

(1) The commitment shown does not include a 1 MCHF additional engineering contribution provided on the initial BT contract (see MoU Annex 8.A) (2) The remaining 4.5 MCHF to C&I is provided on a best effort basis New funding requests as prospects (category 2) are without firm commitment from the Funding Agencies

Cost to Completion 2002

calculated share

Cost to Completion Funding (kCHF)

(Status CERN-RRB-2007-075October 2007)

22nd October 2007


Full “vertical slice” of the barrel tested on CERN H8 beam line May-November 2004

x

z

y

Geant4 simulation of test-beam set-up

O(1%) of the ATLAScoverage

~ 90 million events collected e, 1 250 GeV , , p up to 350 GeV 20-100 GeV B-field = 0 1.4 T

Many configurations (e.g. additional material in ID, 25 ns runs, …)

- All sub-detectors (and LVL1 trigger) integrated and run together with common DAQ- Data analyzed with common ATLAS software- Gained experience also with Condition DB

Getting ready for the first physics analysesA major ingredient for the physics preparation is the understanding of the detector performancegained in many test beam campaigns, which culminated in the large 2004 Combined Test Beamefforts with large-scale set-ups for the barrel and end-cap regions in the SPS H8 and H6 beams

(Of course only a few examplesout of a rich amount of data canbe mentioned…)

22nd October 2007


Tracking and alignment in Inner Detector

xy

z

(p)/p %

Pion momentum resolution using Pixels+SCT

p (GeV)

Achieved alignment precision: 5-10 m Corrections (noisy/dead channels, alignment constants) stored in Condition DB

Note: no TRT,B=1.4 T

Alignment, reconstruction and simulation tools are in good shape

6 pixel modules and 8 SCT modules (inside B = 01.4 T)6 TRT modules (outside field)

9 GeV test beam p’s

Pixels

SCT TRT

22nd October 2007


Data Simulation

K1 = 50.7±1.5 m K1 = 40±3 m

0.29±0.01 X0 0.32 ±0.02 X0

Data Simulation

K1 = 50.7±1.5 m K1 = 40±3 m

0.29±0.01 X0 0.32 ±0.02 X0

Muon sagitta resolution measured in the 2004 combined test beam

Data fitted with:

ATLAS preliminary

• p = muon momentum from beam magnet• K1 = intrinsic resolution • K2 = multiple scattering

K12 (K2/p)2

Peak-to-peak dispersion ~ 18 m

Muon alignment (optical sensors) tested by moving (rotations, displacements) barrel MDT

Barrel

-36 mV-40 mV-44 mV

Thresholds:

horizontal error barsgive beam spread

22nd October 2007


Transition between end-cap (EM, hadronic/HEC) and forward (FCAL) calorimeters at =3.2 was studied with dedicated combined test-beam in H6 beam

Data described well by MC in complex region with 3 different calorimeters and dead material

EM HEC

FCAL

=3.2End-cap cryostat

FCAL2

HEC

200 GeV scan across transition

Preliminary

Background: fake ETmiss tails from instrumental effects

(calorimeter non-compensation, resolution, cracks, …)

HEC

EMFCAL

22nd October 2007


Prospects for physics in 2008-2009 (examples …)

We will jump immediately into a new territory …

LHC

Tevatron

QCD Jet cross-sections

10 eventswith 100 pb-1


1 pb-1 3 days at 1031 at 30% efficiency

ATLAS preliminary

J/

10 pb-1

ATLAS preliminary

Y

After all cuts:~ 4200 (800) J/ (Y) evts per day at L = 1031

(for 30% machine x detector data taking efficiency)~ 15600 (3100) events per pb-1

Muon Spectrometer alignment, ECAL uniformity, energy/momentum scale of full detector, lepton trigger and reconstruction efficiency, …

The first peaks …

After all cuts:~ 160 Z evts per day at L = 1031

~ 600 events per pb-1

tracker momentum scale, trigger performance, detector efficiency, sanity checks, …

Precision on (Z with 100 pb-1: <2% (experimental error), ~10% (luminosity)

22nd October 2007


100 pb-1

M(3jets) GeV

The first top quarks in Europe A top signal can be observed quickly, even with limited detector performance and simpleanalysis …. and then used to calibrate the detector and understand physics

tt 250 pb for tt bW bW bl bjj

Isolated lepton pT> 20 GeV

ETmiss > 20 GeV

3 jets pT> 40 GeV

1 jets pT> 20 GeV

NO b-tag !!

3 jets with largest ∑ pT

Top signal observable in early days with no b-tagging and simple analysis(~3000 evts for 100 pb-1) measure tt to ~20%, mt to <10 GeV with 100 pb-1?

(ultimate LHC precision on mt: ~ 1 GeV)

In addition, excellent sample to: • commission b-tagging, set jet E-scale using W jj peak, …• understand / constrain theory and MC generators using e.g. pT spectra

ATLAS preliminary

22nd October 2007


1 fb-1

An ideal candidate for an early discovery:A narrow resonance with mass ~ 1 TeV decaying into e+e-

with 100 pb-1 large enough signal for discovery up to m > 1 TeV signal is (narrow) mass peak on top of small Drell Yan background ultimate calorimeter performance not needed

Mass Expected events for 1 fb-1 Integrated luminosity needed for discovery (after all analysis cuts) (corresponds to 10 observed evts)

1 TeV ~ 160 ~ 70 pb -1

1.5 TeV ~ 30 ~ 300 pb -1

2 TeV ~ 7 ~ 1.5 fb -1

Z’e+e- with SM-like couplings (ZSSM)

Ultimate ATLAS reach (300 fb-1): ~ 5 TeV

Is it a Z’ or a Graviton ? From angular distribution of e+e- can disentangle Z’ (spin=1) from G (spin=2) Requires more data (~ 100 fb-1)

22nd October 2007


Jets + ETmiss

100 pb-1

m ~ 1 TeV

m ~ 700 GeV

Another example: Supersymmetry

m (˜ q , ˜ g ) ~ 1 TeVForexpect 10 evts/day at L=1032

m (˜ q , ˜ g ) ~ 1 TeV

˜ q

˜ g

If it is at the TeV scale, it should be found “quickly” …. thanks to:

large (strong) cross-section for spectacular signatures (many jets, leptons, missing ET)

˜ q ̃ q , ˜ g ̃ q , ˜ g ̃ g production

Planning for future facilities would benefit a lot from quick determination of scale of New Physics. With ~ 1 fb-1 LHC could tell if “standard” SUSY accessible to s 1 TeV ILC.

Ldt Discovery of well understood data (95% C.L. exclusion)

0.1-1 fb-1 (2009) ~1.1 TeV (1.5 TeV)1 fb-1 (2009-2010) ~1.7 TeV (2.2 TeV)300 fb-1 (ultimate) up to ~ 3 TeV

LHC reach for gluino mass

Hints with only 100 pb-1 up to m~1 TeV, butunderstanding backgrounds requires ~1 fb-1

22nd October 2007


ATLAS (2003)30 fb-1

Eve

nts

/ 0

.5 G

eV

ATLAS + CMS(March 2006)

1

10

10-1

Need Ldt of several fb-1 of well-understood data per experiment

mH (GeV)

1 fb-1 for 95% C.L. exclusion 5 fb-1 for 5 discoveryover full allowed mass rangeFinal word about Higgs mechanism by early 2010 ?

The more difficult case: light Higgs boson

Most difficult region: need to combine many channels (e.g. H , qqHqq) with small S/B

H ZZ* 4l, 10 fb-1

Preliminary,selections not optimized

For mH > 140 GeV discovery easier with H ZZ(*) 4l(narrow mass peak, small B). H WW ll (dominant at160-175 GeV) is counting experiment (no mass peak)

22nd October 2007


Conclusions

The ATLAS project is proceeding within the framework of the accepted 2002 Completion Plan,and all the resources requested in that framework are needed to complete the initial detector, which are then also just sufficient to cover the additional CtC costs reported in 2006

Construction and installation are now ending soon, and the emphasis has strongly shifted onto the commissioning and the start-up of operation

The most critical detector issue is the delay of the Inner Detector in-situ commissioning, which has an impact on the overall installation completion as Marzio Nessi has shown (other critical issues remain the calorimeter electronics and muon power supplies)

Very major software, computing, trigger, data preparation and physics activities are underway

The worldwide LHC Computing Grid (WLCG) is the essential backbone for all distributed computing resources

Commissioning and planning for the early physics phases are in full swing

ATLAS is on track for the eagerly awaited LHC physics

(ATLAS expects to remain at the energy frontier of HEP for the next 10 – 15 years, and the Collaboration has already set in place a coherent organization to evaluate and plan for upgrades in order to exploit future LHC machine high-luminosity upgrades)

(Informal news on ATLAS is available in the ATLAS eNews letter at http://aenews.cern.ch/)

rrb atlas progress report (part ii) 22nd october 20071 cern-rrb-2007-076 22 nd october 2007 atlas...

Documents