Revision as of 14:57, 12 July 2012

GlueX Offline Software Meeting
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
1:30 pm EDT
JLab: CEBAF Center, F326/327

Agenda

1. Announcements
2. Review of minutes from the last meeting: all
3. Planning for the next Data Challenge: Curtis
   1. GlueX-doc-2031.
   2. Notes on the Data Challenge: Mark
4. REST format: Richard
5. Reconstruction sub-group reports
   1. Calorimeters
   2. Tracking
   3. PID
6. Action Item Review
   • Recently Resolved
   • Outstanding Items
7. Review of recent repository activity: all

Communication Information

Video Conferencing

• ESNet: 8542553
• EVO:
  • Meeting URL: http://evo.caltech.edu/evoNext/koala.jnlp?meeting=e9eIeivev8aMaMIvaaI9
  • Phone Bridge ID: 13 0949

Slides

Talks can be deposited in the directory /group/halld/www/halldweb1/html/talks/2012-3Q on the JLab CUE. This directory is accessible from the web at https://halldweb1.jlab.org/talks/2012-3Q/ .

Minutes

Present:

• CMU: Will Levine, Paul Mattione, Curtis Meyer
• IU: Ryan Mitchell, Matt Shepherd
• JLab: Eugene Chudakov, Mark Ito (chair), David Lawrence, Simon Taylor, Elliott Wolin
• UConn: Richard Jones

Planning for the next Data Challenge

Curtis introduced the topic and lead us through [??? his GlueX Note]. The contents

1. Introduction
2. Earlier Data Challenges
3. Goals of The Next Data Challenge
4. Procedures
   1. Generate pythia Events
   2. Inject Physics into the Sample
   3. Producing DSTs from the Monte Carlo
   4. Physics Analysis of DSTs
   5. Amplitude Analysis of mini-DSTs
5. Conclusions

See his notes for details.

Mark then led us through a set of notes outlining a possible direction.

• Ideas: He summarized communication from interested folks since the last offline meeting.
• Tools: He listed some tools that may help us.
• Mini Data Challenges: He proposed a series of short data challenges to help develop tools and refine goals.
• Analysis System: He endorsed Matt's idea that we include a reconstructed data delivery system as part of this effort.

See his wiki page for details.

Discussion:

• David suggested that we get more than one person involved in the effort.
• Richard advocated the use of GlidenWMS as a work management system rather than PanDA.
• David wondered whether the extra layer of a work management system gave us any real benefit. Richard pointed out that some of the functionality that Mark mentioned (tracking output files, etc.) may not be provided by these systems.
• Curtis announced that he has asked Mark and Matt to manage the effort. Bi-weekly meetings will be called.

rest format with existing analysis framework save mc record, 5 pi plus proton 500 bytes montecarlo section, remote vertices as well tagger hits: 20 hits on average, 170 byte neutral shower, all clusters in barrel and fcal, notation about charge track matching 9 clusters, 600 bytes correlations are zero's often dcharged track hypothesis, 9 average, 1484 bytes kaons, anti-protons in the data event size is about 2.7 kb/event, 1.8 kb/event compressed consider suggestion by Paul and Matt to store more information timing chisq, record actual times on tof, with tof hits, 70 bytes same thing for start counter hits root format, run convertor source must be re-entrant, tree storage incompatible with jana input

opposite pid upgrade meeting