Maria Gabriella Catanesi ( INFN Bari Italy) 11th ICATPP Conference

Villa Olmo, Como (Italy) 5-9 October 2009

Input for prediction of neutrino fluxes for the MiniBooNE and K2K experiments

Pion/ Kaon yield for the design of the proton driver and target system of Neutrino Factories and SPL- based Super-Beams

Input for precise calculation of the atmospheric neutrino flux (from yields of secondary π ,K)

Input for Monte Carlo generators (GEANT4, e.g. for LHC or space applications)

HARP physics motivations

Barton et. al.

Abbott et. al.

Eichten et. al.

Measurements.

1-2 pT points3-5 pT points>5 pT points

1 GeV 10 100

1 TeV

Parent energy

101 GeV

10

100

1 TeV

10

Daughte

r

en

erg

yExisting measurements @ 1999 (harp proposal)

Boxes show importance of phase space region for contained atmospheric neutrino events.

Overall quoted errors Absolute rates: ~15%Ratios: ~5%

These figures are typical of this kind of detector setup

Running neutrino experiments

Design of future projects

Primary energy, target material and geometry, collection scheme• maximizing the π+, π - production rate /proton /GeV• knowing with high precision (<5%) the PT distributionCERN scenario: 2.2-5 GeV/c proton linac.

Phase rotation• longitudinally freeze the beam: slow down earlier particles, accelerate later ones• need good knowledge also of PL distribution

Università degli Studi e Sezione INFN, Bari, ItalyRutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, UK Institut für Physik, Universität Dortmund, GermanyJoint Institute for Nuclear Research, JINR Dubna, RussiaUniversità degli Studi e Sezione INFN, Ferrara, ItalyCERN, Geneva, Switzerland TU Karlsruhe, GermanySection de Physique, Université de Genève, SwitzerlandLaboratori Nazionali di Legnaro dell' INFN, Legnaro, ItalyInstitut de Physique Nucléaire, UCL, Louvain-la-Neuve, BelgiumUniversità degli Studi e Sezione INFN, Milano, ItalyP.N. Lebedev Institute of Physics (FIAN), Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, RussiaInstitute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, RussiaUniversità "Federico II" e Sezione INFN, Napoli, ItalyNuclear and Astrophysics Laboratory, University of Oxford, UKUniversità degli Studi e Sezione INFN, Padova, Italy LPNHE, Université de Paris VI et VII, Paris, FranceInstitute for High Energy Physics, Protvino, RussiaUniversità "La Sapienza" e Sezione INFN Roma I, Roma, ItalyUniversità degli Studi e Sezione INFN Roma III, Roma, ItalyDept. of Physics, University of Sheffield, UKFaculty of Physics, St Kliment Ohridski University, Sofia, BulgariaInstitute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Academy of Sciences, Sofia, BulgariaUniversità di Trieste e Sezione INFN, Trieste, ItalyUniv. de Valencia, Spain

TheThe HARP HARPCollaboratioCollaboratio

nn

24 institutes24 institutes~120 ~120

collaboratorscollaborators

Detector layout

Large Anglespectrometer

Forward spectrometer

Large Angle Spectrometer: 0.35 rad < < 2.15 rad 100 MeV/c < p < 700

MeV/c Super Beams - Nufactories

Forward Spectrometer: 30 mrad < < 210 mrad. 750 MeV/c < p < 6.5

GeV/c K2K,MiniBoone, Cosmic

rays

More details in the NIM paper “The Harp Detector @ the CERN PS”

Fast readout

˜103 eventi/PS spill, one spill=400ms. Event rate ˜ 2.5KHzAround 106 events/day(very ambitious for a TPC!)

Short Time Scale ! ( february 2000 – summer 2001)

Make use (where possible) of existing material and/or detectors

Cost optimisation

Minimize efforts and time-scale

Main features of the Project

The HARP experimentThe HARP experiment

Software

On

line

Offl

ineLarge AngleDetectors

TPC B

arre

l R

PC

ForwardSpectrometer

Forw

ard

R

PC

Drift

Ch

am

bers

Ch

ere

nko

v

TO

F W

all

EM

W

all

Beam Instrumentationand Trigger

Beam

C

here

nkovs

Beam

TO

Fs

Tra

ckers

MW

PC

Inn

er

Trig

ger

Forw

ard

Trig

ger

Mu

on

C

atch

er

Big parallel effort:Design and construction at the same time

TPC July 2000HARP Construction

Forward Spectrometer July 2000

HARP technical runHARP technical run

October 2000

August 2001:August 2001:August 2001:August 2001:

A coordinate effort was needed to have a running software in a short time !

2 possible approaches :

1 Try to produce the

results using all the programs that we already have

Don't make any general integration having in mind that some work will be lost

Postpone the creation of the “true” Software environment

22 Create a Software

Architecture ASAP Push on the integration

of the different software modules

Stop the development with the already used programs

Choice 1 pro & con

Pro No time spent working in the Organization Matter No formalisms and defined rules and discipline Concentration of the efforts only on the primary

scope

Con A (large) fraction of the work will be not usable in the

future Possible errors due to lack in communications

between different programs Possible interferences and conflicts at the integration

time

Choice 2 pro & con

Pro A (large) fraction of the work will be usable in the future Optimize the resources and minimize the problems at the

integration time Allows a coherent effort and minimize conflicts

Con Time spent working in the Organization Matter formalisms and defined rules and discipline are a must and

a consensus on this point is mandatory Need (sometime) specialized manpower

Software: The HARP StrategySoftware: The HARP Strategy

Harp was approved in the February 2000 and the data taking

was started in summer 2001

To optimize quality , developing time and human resources

we decided to use software engineering tools and in particular

to realize an Architectural Design

This choice was successfully and we build a first running

version of the full chain of our software in few months from

June to October 2001

But what this practically means ?But what this practically means ?Use a well tested method to follow the software development from the very early stage (Project and Managements Plans, User and software Requirements) until the final product tests (Test plan and release procedure)

The starting point should be always the Software Project Management Plan that describes

1. The objectives to be reached by the program and the organization of the work

2. The task and responsibilities 3. The schedule4. The strategy to minimize risks

1. the objectives to be reached by the program and the organization of the work

User Requirements : define the functionality that the software must have for reach the results

Example:UR-4: The user shall be able to describe the detector

geometry consistently, though allowing different representations, for different applications.

Type: capability ( or constrain)Priority: essentialStatus: implementedSRDreferences: SR-19, SR-20, SR-21

SR-1: The software shall run on PCs with Linux operating system. Type: constraint Priority: essential Status: implemented

SR-2: The software shall have been developed in C/C++ programming language (at least for the collaboration-wide software). Type: constraint Priority: essential Status: implemented

The Software Requirements derive from the User Requirements and from strategic decisions taken in the collaboration.

What is a Architectural Design ?

The Architecture of a software is realized determining the components (domain decomposition) and the set of dependency relations between the identified elementsEach component is an independent unit of source code and librariesThe connection between the different domains defines the dependences and produces the time sequence for the test and release of the official code Software managment is part of the process

A correct decomposition allows a parallel development of the different peaces of code and the resource optimization Big effort during the summer

2000

As example…

ROOT CLHEP GEANT4

Display

Event Model

FRAME

Detector Description

SimulationReconstruction

Detector Response

Task and responsibilities:

In general is convenient to match the responsibility assignment to the results of the domain decomposition

In this way will be no ambiguity left between the subcomponents

The share of the work is easier and maximize the parallel development reducing conflicts and/or interferences

Unit test , System test and release procedure were defined and implemented

Software verification and validation are included User and Software documention are essential parts

The schedule : The schedule was defined on the base of the

Domain dependency structure and from the definition of the testing and release procedure

For each step of the development you can define a schedule and the result of this effort should be a Software Release.

It will evolve in a new one following the same test procedures

Configuration

Software: HARP_DEV , HARP_FILES code packages + ext.libs + data files

Analysis: HARP_ANALYSIS analysis package (+ lib, exe)

Production: HARP_PROD production scripts and executables +

run files

The Software is not a static object:The development is organized as cycles For each cycle all the steps should be revised(scopes, schedules etc. etc.)

As example in HARP we have realized until now several cycles to reach different goals

1. Technical Run 20002. Start of Run 20013. SPSC presentation October 20014. Large Angle Analysis may 20025. Mock Data Challenge6. Migration from Objectivity to Oracle (2003)7. ….8. Full Data and MC Production v7r8

The HARP software components described have been developed and used for detector calibration and performance studies, trigger and background studies, beam particle identification, on-line applications, data quality, and productions for data analysis.

•DAQ :data acquisition software based on the DATE package (ALICE).

•HarpEvent : HARP transient event model, including a structured description of settings, reconstruction objects,based on Gaudi (LHCb)

•HarpDD HARP detector geometry and materials data (including alignment and calibration )

•DetRep :geometrical representations of the detector (physics applications) based on the GEANT4 solid modelling

•EventSelector event selection and data navigation functionality.

•Simulation is based on GEANT4.

•Reconstruction computation of reconstructed objects at various levels (including KALMAN Filters )

•HarpUI event display used also online based on ROOT

•DetResponse is the component implementing the digitization of the main detectors.

also used for the T9 beam simulation, and for understanding and resolving trigger rate problems.

TPC Track

Reconstruction

Clustering

Track fit (helix)

Momentum fit

Pattern recognition

Equalisation

FW: PID principle

CERENKOV

TOF

CAL

TOF

CERENKOV

Persistency

ObjyHarp HARP persistent event model. It is based on ObjectivityDB database, and mirrors the transient event model.ObjectCnv unpacking of the raw data and the construction of the transient C++ objects used by the physics applications. It can use transparently both online data and stored offline data, as well as MonteCarlo output.

ObjyPersistency is the component implementing the adapter to use the Objectivity or Oracle databases, while allowing the physics applications not to depend at compile time on the I/O solution.

In 2003 (following a CERN decision) HARP migrated its data to Oracle, thus an equivalent component implementing HARP persistent event model in Oracle exists. The transition was transparent for the other users/developers

iDSTmySQL is the component implementing the DST concept for distribution in the collaboration. It contains the persistent-capable physics objects (including reconstruction, simulation, geometry, and event model objects). It supports both a neutral file format and Linux mySQL.

The entire software chain can be rerun on the data produced/retrieved in iDSTmySQL without needing to access the Cern mass storage system (CASTOR) and central data-bases (Objectivity, Oracle).

This allows full distribution of the analysis work in the HARP institutes.

iDST

Data taking summary

K2K: Al MiniBoone: Be

LSND: H2O

5%50%

100%Replica

5%50%

100%Replica

10%100%

+12.9 GeV/c

+8.9 GeV/c

+1.5 GeV/c

SOLID:

CRYOGENIC: EXP:

HARP took data at the CERN PS T9 beamline in 2001-2002 Total: 420 M events, ~300 settings

top: simulated track and noise hits in the TPG; middle: highlightedhits are those assigned by the pattern recognition to belong to the same track;bottom: track fitted on the selected hits.

Performances

All HARP data (with few exceptions) were successfully reconstructed and analyzed (~ 50 TByte including calibration data)

The same software release (v7r8) was uses without bug fixing to process all data

A factor (5-10) larger of corresponding MC events have been also produced

Productions

HARP data are reconstructed in production at a rate varying from 0.3 sec/evt/GHz (large angle) to 2.1 sec/evt/GHz (all forward detectors)

HARP data are simulated in production at a rate of 1.7 sec/evt/GHz for both large angle and forward detectors simulation.

These rates allow in all cases more than one million events per day per 10 GHz(i.e. 3 standard processors clocked at 3 GHz).

Far/Near Ratio in K2K

HARP gives ~ factor 2 error reduction across all energies

Near Detector

Far Detector

Predicted Flux Shape Predicted Far/Near Ratio

Near/Far Ratio

Nucl.Phys.B732:1-45,2006 hep-ex/0510039

Miniboone: 8.9 GeV p beam hitting a berillium target

Decay region

25 m50 m 450 m

1.8 m

Drawing not to scale

The Harp data cover this region

published on EPJ C hep-ex/0702024v2

HARP Be 8.9 GeV 5% Target Results

Harp Forward Spectrometer Acceptance

π+

Neutrinofactorystudy

d/d cross-sections can be fed into

neutrino factory studies

to find optimum design

Warning the above has fixed integration

range, but optimization may be

momentum dependent

yield/Ekin

+

-

+

-

the next step : MICEThe International Muon Ionization CoolingExperiment

From MICE Proposal :

The full software simulation and reconstruct ion chain of the TPGwas obtained using the HARP pattern recognition and track fitting programswith minor modifications

a)

b)

c)a) Hits (including noise)b) Track findingc) Fitted tracks

TPG: from simulation to prototyping

(R&D)TPG-head module 3-GEM amplification stage 30 cm X read-out: ~7x105 hexagonal pads

grouped in 3 sets of strips dephased y 120o

(Hexaboard) FADC electronics (100 ns sampling time,

from HARP TPC Prototype of the ALTRO cip

Test bed: cylindrical field cage (80 cm X,150 cm length)

Solenoidal B field ~ 0.7 T (max)

GEM-1

guard ring

HARP solenoid: [0,0.7] T

cathode plane: 25 kV

field cage

gas:Ar(90%)+CO2(10%)

TPG head

beam

source

Full volume: concept

drift length: 150 cm

diameter: 80 cm EB

90Sr sourceB~0.07 TVdrift ~ 1cm/s

R~27 mmpT~0.57 MeV/c

res 40 m

using the HARP Software

One GEM module on pad plane

Completed stack under HV test

E.Radicioni Elba-2006

front view• 4mm induction gaps Ar/CO2 90/10

• Edrift = 160V/cm, σT=200μm (minimum)

• HVGEM = 320V HVIND=780V (~2 KV/cm, σT maximum)

sid

e

vie

w

Large Gems Prototypes:

For ν close detectors T2K ( but also ... LHC,LC )

ConclusionsThe HARP experiment was build in a very short time

To cope with this aggresive schedule we decide to choose

for the Software to use software engineering tools and in

particular to realize an Architectural Design

This choice was successfully and we build a first running

version of the full chain of our software in few months

from June to October 2001

A (large) fraction of the work was easily reused in

other applications