1 / 39

Trigger Systems at LHC Experiments

Trigger Systems at LHC Experiments. Institute of High Energy Physics of the Austrian Academy of Sciences`. Manfred Jeitler Instr-2008, Novosibirsk, March 2008. first particle physics experiments needed no trigger were looking for most frequent events

bettynoel
Télécharger la présentation

Trigger Systems at LHC Experiments

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Trigger Systems at LHC Experiments Institute of High Energy Physics of the Austrian Academy of Sciences` Manfred Jeitler Instr-2008, Novosibirsk, March 2008

  2. first particle physics experiments needed no trigger • were looking for most frequent events • people observed all events and then saw which of them occurred at which frequency

  3. later physicists started to look for rare events • “frequent” events were known already • searching “good” events among thousands of “background” events was partly done by auxiliary staff • “scanning girls” for bubble chamber photographs

  4. +30 MinBias Higgs ->4m

  5. due to the extremely small cross sections of processes now under investigation it is impossible to check all events “by hand” • ~ 1013 background events to one signal event • it would not even be possible to record all data in computer memories • we need a fast, automated decision (“trigger”) if an event is to be recorded or not

  6. detectors yielding electrical output signals allow to select events to be recorded by electronic devices • thresholds (discriminators) • logical combinations (AND, OR, NOT) • delays • available in commercial “modules” • connections by cables (“LEMO” cables)

  7.  1 x 400 x • because of the enormous amounts of data at major modern experiments electronic processing by such individual modules is impractical • too big • too expensive • too error-prone • too long signal propagation times •  use custom-made highly integrated electronic components (“chips”) ~ 10 logical operations / module  ~ 40000 logical operations in one chip

  8. example: trigger logic of the L1-trigger of the CMS experiment

  9. When do we trigger ? • „bunch” structure of the LHC collider • „bunches” of particles • 40 MHz • a bunch arrives every 25 ns • bunches are spaced at 7.5 meters from each other • bunch spacing of 125 ns for heavy-ion operation • at nominal luminosity of the LHC collider (1034 cm-2 s-1) one expects about 20 proton-proton interactions for each collision of two bunches • only a small fraction of these “bunch crossings” contains at least one collision event which is potentially interesting for searching for “new physics” • in this case all information for this bunch crossing is recorded for subsequent data analysis and background suppression • luminosity quoted for ATLAS and CMS • reduced luminosity for LHCb (b-physics experiment) • heavy-ion luminosity much smaller

  10. the LHC experiments • 4 major experiments • 3 different main physics goals • “general purpose”: Higgs, Susy, ..... : ATLAS+CMS • b-physics: LHCb • heavy ion physics: ALICE • different emphasis on trigger: • ATLAS+CMS: high rates, many different trigger channels • LHCb: lower luminosity, need very good vertex resolution (b-decays) • ALICE: much lower luminosity for heavy ions, lower event rates, very high event multiplicities

  11. trigger:first level high level ATLAS, CMS 40 MHz  100 kHz  100 Hz LHCb 40 MHz  1 MHz  2 kHz ALICE 10 kHz  1 kHz  100 Hz Event size (bytes)

  12. read write How do we trigger ? • use as much information about the event as possible • allows for the best separation of signal and background • ideal case: “complete analysis” using all the data supplied by the detector • problem: at a rate of 40 MHz it is impossible to read out all detector data • (at sensible cost) • have to take preliminary decision based on part of the event data only • be quick • in case of positive trigger decision all detector data must still be available • the data are stored temporarily in a “pipeline” in the detector electronics • “short term memory” of the detector • “ring buffer” • in hardware, can only afford a few μs • how to reconcile these contradictory requirements ?

  13.  multi-level trigger • first stage takes preliminary decision based on part of the data • rate is already strongly reduced at this stage • ~1 GHz of events (= 40 MHz bunch crossings)  ~100 kHz • only for these bunch crossings are all the detector data read out of the pipelines • still it would not be possible (with reasonable effort and cost) to write all these data to tape for subsequent analysis and permanent storage • the second stage can use all detector data and perform a “complete analysis” of events • further reduction of rate: ~100 kHz  ~100 Hz • only the events thus selected (twice filtered) are permanently recorded

  14. How does the trigger actually select events ? • the first trigger stage has to process a limited amount of data within a very short time • relatively simple algorithms • special electronic components • ASICs (Application Specific Integrated Circuits) • FPGAs (Field Programmable Gate Arrays) • something in between “hardware” and “software”: “firmware” • written in programming language (“VHDL”) and compiled • fast (uses always same number of clock cycles) • can be modified at any time when using FPGAs • the second stage (“High-Level Trigger”) has to use complex algorithms • not time-critical any more (all detector data have already been retrieved) • uses a “computer farm” (large number of PCs) • programmed in high-level language (C++)

  15. How does the trigger actually select events ? • the first trigger stage has to process a limited amount of data within a very short time • relatively simple algorithms • special electronic components • ASICs (Application Specific Integrated Circuits) • FPGAs (Field Programmable Gate Arrays) • something in between “hardware” and “software”: “firmware” • written in programming language (“VHDL”) and compiled • fast (uses always same number of clock cycles) • can be modified at any time when using FPGAs • the second stage (“High-Level Trigger”) has to use complex algorithms • not time-critical any more (all detector data have already been retrieved) • uses a “computer farm” (large number of PCs) • programmed in high-level language (C++) • see Marta Felcini’s talk tomorrow

  16. ATLAS+CMS:what’s the difference ? • similar task • similar conditions • similar technology

  17. ATLAS+CMS:what’s the difference ? • similar task • similar conditions • similar technology • let’s hope both ATLAS and CMS will fly .... • .... and none will crash

  18. ATLAS+CMS:what is common ? • same physics objectives • same input rate • 40 MHz bunch crossing frequency • similar rate after Level-1 trigger • 50 .. 100 kHz • similar final event rate • 100 .. 200 Hz to tape • similar allowed latency • pipeline length • within this time, Level-1 trigger decision must be taken and detectors must be read out • ~ 3 μs • 2.5 μs for ATLAS, 3.2 μs for CMS

  19. ATLAS+CMS:what is different ? • different magnetic field • toroidal field in ATLAS (plus central solenoid) • get track momentum from η (pseudorapidity) • solenoidal field only in CMS • get track momentum from φ (azimuth) • number of trigger stages • two stages (“Level-1” and “High-Level Trigger”) in CMS • ATLAS has intermediate stage between the two: “Level-2” • Level-2 receives “Regions of Interest (RoI)” information from Level-1 • takes a closer look at these regions • reduces rate to 3.5 kHz • allows to reduce data traffic

  20. ATLAS+CMS:which signals are used by the first-level trigger ? • muons • tracks • several types of detectors (different requirements for barrel and endcaps): • in ATLAS: • RPC (Resistive Plate Chambers): barrel • TGC (“Thin Gap Chambers”): endcaps • not in trigger: MDT (“Monitored Drift Tubes”) • in CMS: • DT (Drift Tubes): barrel • CSC (Cathode Strip Chambers): endcaps • RPC (Resistive Plate Chambers): barrel + endcaps • calorimeters • clusters • electrons, jets, transverse energy, missing transverse energy • electromagnetic calorimeter • hadron calorimeter • only in high-level trigger: tracker detectors • silicon strip and pixel detectors, in ATLAS also straw tubes • cannot be read out quickly enough

  21. how to find muon tracks ?(CMS: solenoidal field)

  22. calorimeter trigger

  23. ATLAS+CMS:principle of the first-level trigger • data are stored in “pipelines” for a few microseconds • e.g. in CMS: 3.2 s = 128 clock cycles at 40 MHz • question of cost • decision must never take longer! (must be synchronous!) •  no iterative algorithms • decision based on “look-up tables” • all possible cases are provided for • OR, AND, NOT can also be represented in this way

  24. principle of event selection: ATLAS vs. CMS ATLAS: • Level-1 trigger delivers numbers of candidate objects • muon tracks, electron candidates, jets over appropriate threshold • no topological information used (no angular correlation between different objects) • Level-2 trigger carries out detailed analysis for “Regions of Interest” • using complete detector information for these regions • High-Level trigger analyzes complete detector data for the whole detector CMS: • no “cuts” at individual low-level trigger systems • only look for muons, electrons, jets, choose the “best” of these candidate objects and forward to Level-1 Global trigger • so, all possible kinds of events may be combined • selection is only made by “Level-1 Global Trigger” • trigger information from all muon detectors and calorimeter systems available: completely flexible • High-Level trigger analyzes complete detector data for the whole detector

  25. LHCb: the challenge • study b-meson decays • need very good vertex resolution • lower luminosity • 2  1032 • 50 times lower than ATLAS and CMS • aim at having only one proton-proton collision per bunch crossing • to correctly attribute primary and secondary vertices: “pile-up protection” • important difference from ATLAS & CMS ! • achieved by deliberately defocusing the beam • detector looks rather like a fixed-target experiment • concentrate on forward direction • single-arm forward spectrometer • can take useful data at initial low-luminosity LHC operation

  26. LHCb: the approach • Level-0 trigger • implemented in hardware • reduction from 40 MHz bunch-crossing rate down to 1 MHz • 10 times more than ATLAS or CMS ! • allowed latency: 4 μs • reject pile-ups (several proton collisions in one bunch crossing) • uses also vertex detector (“VELO”, VErtex LOcator) • different from other LHC experiments • alongside muon and calorimeter information • High-Level trigger • computer farm, using full detector information • reduce data rate to 2 kHz • 20 times more then ATLAS or CMS

  27. ALICE: the challenge • study heavy-ion collisions • quark-gluon plasma • study also proton-proton interactions for comparison • lower bunch-crossing frequency and luminosity for heavy ions • bunches arrive every 125 ns • luminosity: 1027 cm-2 s-1 • factor of 10 millions below proton-proton luminosity • rate: 10 kHz for lead-lead collisions • 200 kHz for proton collisions • enormous complexity of events • tens of thousands of tracks per event • per pseudorapidity interval: dN / dη ~ 8000

  28. ALICE: the approach • detectors can be slower, but must cope with high track multiplicity •  choice of Time Projection Chamber (TPC) as principal tracking detector (drift time up to 100 μs !) • no spatial correlation of objects in first-level trigger • is done by High Level Trigger, which has much bigger time budget • “past-future protection”: protect against pile-up of events from different bunch crossings • some detectors are faster than the TPC  for certain studies, read out only them • “detector clusters” • only LHC detector which aims at analyzing partial events

  29. ALICE: the approach • detectors can be slower, but must cope with high track multiplicity •  choice of Time Projection Chamber (TPC) as principal tracking detector (drift time up to 100 μs !) • no spatial correlation of objects in first-level trigger • is done by High Level Trigger, which has much bigger time budget • “past-future protection”: protect against pile-up of events from different bunch crossings • some detectors are faster than the TPC  for certain studies, read out only them • “detector clusters” • only LHC detector which aims at analyzing partial events

  30. ALICE: the trigger structure • no pipeline (as in the other LHC experiments) • trigger dead-time • only one or a few events can be buffered at low level before readout • several low-level triggers with different latencies for different subdetectors • Level-0: 1.2 μs • Level-1: 6.5 μs • Level-2: 88 μs • computer farm for High-Level Trigger

  31. Where we are today ... • trigger is one of the most challenging and important tasks in major experiments at modern hadron colliders • at LHC, very similar setup for most experiments • only heavy-ion experiment ALICE differs significantly • when accelerator goes online, we will see which solutions are most appropriate • draw lessons for the future

  32. ... and where do we go from here? • upgrading the LHC to Super-LHC makes sense only if trigger systems are upgraded at the same time • ATLAS and CMS will have to use their trackers in the first-level trigger • but this is easier said than done • remember Hans-Jürgen Simonis’ comments on the CMS tracker • probably, computers will get faster and more (all?) trigger processing will be done in software • stay tuned ... and help!

  33. THANK YOU Спасибо to the organizers of Instr-2008 for inviting me to give this presentation Thanks to all members of the ATLAS, CMS, LHCb and ALICE collaborations who helped me to prepare it

  34. backup

  35. structure of the ATLAS Level-1 trigger

  36. structure of the CMS Level-1 trigger

  37. LHCb: the detector

More Related