[BDXlist] BDX software: event builder, DSTs. First ideas and thoughts
Andrea Celentano
Andrea.Celentano at ge.infn.it
Wed Jul 13 11:33:15 EDT 2016
Dear all,
this (quite long) e-mail is a first tentative to discuss how to proceed
with the BDX software, and specifically how to define an "event", and
how to produce from "events" an "output" (DST) that can be analyzed by
people not directly involved in the JANA framework development.
The following points are well defined:
1) Whatever the DAQ system will be, we can always talk about an "event"
as a single "entity" that is written on file. Events contain multiple
information from different detector elements, and are independent.
Events should be self-consistent, and do not depend on other events.
1A) In a "fixed DAQ window" scheme, this mean that all the acquisition
windows should be long enough to contain data coming at different times,
but physically related. Example: muon+ with e+ emission, e+ impinging on
a crystal. We can expect to have a hit in a VETO (due to entering mu+) ~
2 us before the hit in the crystal. These two hits must be in the same
"event", i.e. in the same piece of information written to the file.
1B) In a sophisticated trigger-less system, as the one we foresee, the
concept of event is much more dynamic and versatile. There will be one
(or multiple) online trigger algorithms looking at the full data-stream
from the full detector, identifying proper combination of hits - where a
"combination" is defined by the physics - and write that combination as
an "event".
1C) In the MC, this kind of implementation is very natural: each "event"
is associated with a single primary particle. All the hits resulting in
any evolution of this particle - and of its daughters - are an event.
2) Reconstruction is performed using the JANA framework. By
"reconstruction" I mean the algorithms that, from the RAW evio files -
or whatever format it will be - permits to obtain calibrated information
for each hit in each sub-detector. Also, in the reconstruction
elaborated quantities are produced - basically clusters in the
calorimeter, both "single-module" clusters and "multi-module" clusters.
2A) In the reconstruction, each event - as discussed in the previous
point - is absolutely independent from the others. It is not foreseen at
all to use information from event A when reconstructing event B.
3) DSTs will be ROOT files, with a ROOT tree, where a C++ object - the
"event" is saved. In other words, "events" are C++ objects. This gives
maximum flexibility in defining what to write in an event.
Here is what I think we should write in an event - and how do to this.
A) General data:
RunN
EventN
EventType (real, MC, ...)
Absolute event time (for real data)
... others ...
This should go in an "event header", that is by itself a C++ object. The
event has a pointer to this object.
B) Trigger data
This will really depend on the type of DAQ we will use, but information
about which trigger selected the event should be there.
C) MC-truth data
For MC-only: which kind of primary event was simulated, resulting in
this event? Again, a C++ object, the event has a pointer to this (for MC
only)
D) Low-level calibrated data
For each sub-detector, all the hits, calibrated in energy and time. Note
that a given sub-detector element can have more than one hit. Example:
mu+ entering ext veto, int veto, and stopping in crystal. Mu+ then decay
to e+, e+ exits from the crystal and hit again int. veto, the same
element as before. All this information should be in the same "event".
Each hit is a C++ object. Hits are contained in proper C++ collections -
can be simple vectors, or more powerful and performant collections, such
as ROOT TClonesArrays.
E) Elaborated data
I think that here we want to start with calorimeter clusters.
* Should we do clustering in the full detector, or start with clusters
in each calorimeter module, and then combine these?
* What are the other kind of data we need here?
--------------------------------------------------------
Finally, more "technical" question, that I think it is worth to discuss.
The structure of the event can be something very specific, i.e. a class
with specific data in it, already predefined, and not changeable, like:
class TEvent{
...
...
vector<CalorimeterHit> theCalorimeterHits;
CalorimeterCluster theCluster;
...
...
}
or something more versatile, like:
class TEvent{
...
...
vector<TClonesArray*> theRawHitCollections;
vector<TClonesArray*> theReconstructedObjectsCollections;
vector<TObject*> theObjectsInThisEvent;
...
...
}
The advantage of the first approach is that it is easier to use in an
analysis (you need the calorimeter hits: you have them in a vector), and
is self-explicative at the code-level. However, the structure of an
event is fixed, and can't change... (example, if later you want to to
add another vector in the event, you need to modify the Jana code that
is producing the event, and the event class itself, being potentially
not backward-compatible).
The advantage of the second approach (that I prefer :) ) is that the
structure of an event is really versatile. Each specific event (thanks
to ROOT reflectivity) is self-explicative, and one can do something like
(please note this is just pseudo-code):
TEvent event; //an event, get it from the DST
event->ListRawHitCollections() //which are the raw hits in this event?
...
if (event->hasCollection("CalorimeterHit")){
... loop on the CalorimeterHits ...
}
For a different project, I already developed an analysis code like this,
that I'll be happy to show at one of the next BDX meetings. The
disadvantage of this approach is a longer learning curve to use DSTs.
Bests,
Andrea
More information about the BDXlist
mailing list