Department of Energy/National Science Foundation

U.S. LHC Program Internal Reviews, August 15, 2006

URA Headquarters (1111 19^th^ St. N.W.)

**DRAFT AGENDAS**

**Mini-Review of U.S. ATLAS/U.S. CMS M&O Programs**

8:30 AM Executive Session for Review Committee\...P. Carolan/T.
Ferbel/S. Gonzalez/M. Pripstein

8:45 AM U.S. ATLAS M&O and Detector-Upgrade
R&D\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....M. Tuts/H. Gordon

\- Brief status of int'l ATLAS M&O and detector R&D for upgrade (\< 10
min)

\- Progress of U.S. effort in first half of 2006

\- Evaluation of U.S. plans and funding for FY'08 and beyond

\- Plans and costs for U.S. personnel based in the U.S. and at CERN
(including travel)

10:00 AM Discussion

10:15 AM Executive Session for Review Committee

10:30 AM Closeout for U.S. ATLAS

10:40 AM Break

10:50 AM U.S. CMS M&O and Detector-Upgrade
R&D\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....D. Green/J. Freeman

\- Brief status of int'l CMS M&O and detector R&D for upgrade (\< 10
min, including

EM end-crystals and migration to cavern)

\- Progress of U.S. effort in first half of 2006

\- Evaluation of U.S. plans and funding for FY'08 and beyond

\- Plans and costs for U.S. personnel based in the U.S. and at CERN
(including travel)

12:05 PM Discussion

12:20 PM Executive Session for Review Committee

12:35 PM Closeout for U.S. CMS

12:45 PM Lunch Break

**Mini-Review of U.S. ATLAS/U.S. CMS S&C Programs**

1:30 PM Executive Session for Review
Committee\...\...\....C.Tull/T.Ferbel/S. Gonzalez/M. Pripstein

1:45 PM Recent Progress in U.S. ATLAS Software and Computing J. Shank,
M. Tuts et al

\- Management issues

\- Facilities and Grids (including developments in Tier-2 centers)

\- Recent developments in Core-Software

\- Plans for support of Physics Analysis (including facilities at CERN)

3:00 PM Discussion

3:15 PM Executive Session

3:30 PM Closeout for ATLAS

3:40 PM Break

3:50 PM Recent Progress in U.S. CMS Software and
Computing\...\...\....L.Bauerdick, D. Green et al

\- Management issues

\- Facilities and Grids (including int'l support for Tier-1)

\- Recent developments in Core-Software

\- Plans for support of Physics Analysis (including facilities at CERN)

5:05 PM Discussion

5:20 PM Executive Session for Review Committee

5:35 PM Closeout for CMS

5:45 PM Adjourn

**Questions pertaining to Research Program to be addressed by the
Collaborations**

It would be helpful if responses to the questions given below, when
appropriate, be coordinated between the two experiments to provide a
uniform set of formats and units. In general, the collaborations are
expected to present their progress since the external reviews of this
past winter, and provide answers or their plans for addressing the
recommendations of the M&O and S&C reviews summarized below. Also,
please **comment on the impact of the delay expected in the start-up of
7X7 operations**.

As background material, please provide in tabular form your expected
profiles for your major research commitments in M&O and S&C for FY '06
-- '09. Please include management reserve, project management, upgrade
R&D, Tier-1 and Tier-2 facilities (both equipment and personnel), core
software (personnel: direct to experiment and to OSG/LCG/etc), large
detector subsystems, Category A, Category B, cost of operating LPC or
support centers for analysis. Split the table into M&O and S&C
components, where the totals correspond to the current financial
guidance from the agencies.

**Specific questions/issues on M&O to be addressed by U.S. ATLAS at the
Aug 15 mini-review (clearly, these cannot all be covered during the
presentations, and *written* replies to those that can already be
answered should therefore be made available a week prior to the
review):**

-   U.S. ATLAS should develop a means of tracking the progress and
    success of the model for support of analysis of data. How do
    preparations for analysis compare to those of other countries in the
    collaboration?

-   Despite the significant U.S. effort in Technical Coordination and
    integration, there is concern that the ATLAS integration team will
    be weakened by the departure of several key engineers.

-   Last year MEG, requested that the tracking and reporting of cost and
    schedule performance be more timely and should be developed into a
    better tool for planning and making decisions. While management has
    implemented a clear change-control process to manage changes both in
    Management Reserve and scope, the tracking and reporting of costs
    still does not appear to have evolved into an optimal planning tool.

-   In light of the many subsystem requests, MEG is concerned about the
    low level of Management Reserve (MR) in FY'06-'08. As a result, U.S.
    ATLAS must optimize the allocation of MR to M&O to ensure successful
    commissioning and pre-operations of the detector. Because
    lower-priority items cannot be supported within the current plan,
    how does U.S. ATLAS management expect to ensure that this problem
    does not compromise detector readiness?

-   Around 2012, the inner Pixel layer ("B-Layer") will lose
    functionality from radiation damage. This is somewhat earlier than
    the target date of 2015 for installation of the upgraded detector.
    With conclusions and a plan of action needed prior to the end of
    2006, has a task force as yet been appointed to resolve the
    technical issues, responsibilities, and funding questions?

-   The U.S. LAr team should work with the Int'l ATLAS LAr Calorimeter
    group and ATLAS management to obtain a more detailed understanding
    of plans for the entire LAr subsystem (overall needs, available
    resources and a schedule for its deployment) for the next few years.
    This will make it possible to evaluate how the U.S. contribution
    fits into the Int\'l effort, and whether the additional U.S. (MR)
    funds for technical support are both necessary and sufficient to
    assure success of the LAr subsystem in ATLAS.

-   The U.S.  LAr team should expedite the rework of at least a few
    low-voltage power supplies, and begin acceptance testing to see
    whether their corrective measures were adequate.

-   MEG is interested in learning the results of the FY'05 LAr and Tile
    calorimeter beam tests. A summary statement and conclusions from
    these FY'05 activities was asked to be sent to the U.S. LHC Program
    Manager and the MEG prior to the April 11 U.S. LHC JOG meeting!

-   MEG is concerned about the continued slippage of commissioning and
    installation milestones of the Endcap Muon (EM). For some tasks the
    slippage has been as much as twelve months. Any progress?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   There is a risk that not all of the Endcap Muon system will be
    installed and commissioned in time for the 1^st^ LHC run in 2007.
    U.S. ATLAS should evaluate what steps can be taken to improve the
    likelihood that the EM will be installed and commissioned for
    day-one. These steps could include:

    -   Adding more labor to speed up Phase II and Phase III
        commissioning.

    -   Expediting beneficial occupancy of needed CERN support
        buildings.

    -   Providing additional funds from the Management Reserve to close
        the Endcap Muon budget shortfall in FY'06 and FY'07.

    -   Investigating whether the EM schedule can be advanced by adding
        more core-supported scientific personnel to the effort.

-   A contingency plan should be developed for completing the EM
    installation and commissioning in the eventuality that the EM is not
    finished in time for operation in the 2007 run.

-   U.S. ATLAS management is asked to re-assess the timescale and plan
    for the detectors to reach design-performance goals, and present
    this information at the next MEG meeting.

-   U.S. ATLAS plans for detector-upgrade R&D appear comprehensive,
    aggressive and appropriate, especially given the long lead-times
    required for such upgrades. In light of other M&O and S&C budget
    pressures, it is not clear whether the needed resources will indeed
    be available for this purpose.

**Specific questions/issues on M&O to be addressed by U.S. CMS at the
Aug 15 mini-review (clearly, these cannot all be covered during the
presentations, and written replies to those that can already be answered
would therefore be much appreciated a week prior to the review):**

-   How do preparations for data analysis compare to those of other
    countries?

-   MEG expects that in the upcoming reorganization of the CMS
    collaboration, the strong U.S. presence in the Computing Software
    Physics Reconstruction and Selection areas will be extended to
    Physics Analysis. Any indications of this?

-   MEG shares the concern of U.S. CMS management that current CMS
    integration efforts may be insufficient to meet the schedule, and
    recognizes that U.S. CMS is considering strengthening this effort.
    Any progress on this?

-   U.S. CMS has presented plans/costs for M&O through FY'09, and
    projections through FY'11. U.S. CMS is in the process of adjusting
    the overall budget, and plans to respond to needs in the Pixel
    subsystem. Is that settled?

-   MEG is concerned about the level of Management Reserve (MR) in
    FY'06-'08. Measures taken to secure MR in the past may not be
    adequate or advisable in the future, and are likely to have
    detrimental consequences for M&O activities. U.S. CMS should
    identify choices that will address this concern.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The M&O budget for the Forward Pixel Tracker (FPIX) is in
    transition, with current estimates indicating an approximately 60%
    increase over last year's M&O budget. It was not possible to
    evaluate the adequacy of this budget, because of the absence of
    details at this review. The FPIX is a challenging subsystem, and
    Management Reserve will be essential for its development. The
    dimensions of the problem can be evaluated once the detailed M&O
    budget is available.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   It is not clear where the funding and personnel for the replacement
    of the inner FPIX layer will come from. Because U.S. CMS does not
    view the replacement as its responsibility, this matter must be
    resolved shortly within international CMS.

-   Beam tests for ECAL and HCAL in FY'06 are critical for ensuring
    successful commissioning, and U.S. CMS must make certain that
    staffing at CERN is sufficient to carry out these responsibilities.

-   The Endcap Muon (EMU) subsystem is well advanced in its
    pre-operations and commissioning phase, prior to installation in the
    cavern. There is, however, a small projected shortfall in EMU M&O in
    FY'07-'08, but MEG is confident that minor adjustments in the
    commissioning plan can minimize the impact of this modest deficit.

-   The FY'07-'09 allocations for DAQ have to be reconciled between the
    plans of U.S. CMS management and the detailed estimate made by their
    Level-2 DAQ manager. Any significant decrease in funding will delay
    commissioning of the DAQ and detector subsystems. This should be
    resolved prior to JOG-17.

-   The detailed budget in the backup documentation should be updated
    prior to the April 11, 2006 U.S. LHC JOG-17 meeting.

**Specific questions/issues on S&C to be addressed by U.S. CMS at the
Aug 15 mini-review (clearly, these cannot all be covered during the
presentations, and written replies to those that can already be answered
would therefore be much appreciated a week prior to the review):**

-   Are U.S. Grid efforts progressing at a rate that can ensure adequate
    software infrastructure at LHC turn-on? Are there any common
    ATLAS/CMS plans to mitigate the risk of dependence on external
    resources (e.g., the OSG)?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   U.S. CMS should reexamine allocation of computing resources between
    Tier-1 and Tier-2 centers (and LPC/CAF) so as to absorb part of the
    expected shortfall in resources at the Tier-1 center. It should also
    adjust its scientific priorities to accommodate any remaining
    shortfall in Tier-1 resources.

-   The U.S. CMS collaboration should remain open to new collaborators,
    in spite of limited Tier-1 and Tier-2 resources. U.S. CMS should
    continue to refine its computing model by optimizing performance and
    resource requirements, assess its priorities and computing needs,
    pursue other funding opportunities, and work with the agencies to
    obtain adequate resources for its Tier-1 and Tier-2 facilities.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   U.S. CMS and U.S. ATLAS should work together on reconciling the
    estimated computing costs per additional collaborator. Any
    developments?

-   To minimize impact on overall U.S. LHC goals, and to address the
    questions posed by the LHCC, U.S. CMS should work with U.S. ATLAS to
    clarify the reasons for differences in their respective computing
    requirements.

-   To gain experience with a large-scale system, U.S. CMS should not
    delay the

current plan to purchase equipment for its Tier-1 center.

-   U.S. CMS should participate in CMS discussions to address the Tier-1
    shortfall in

resources, explore optimization of resources between Tier-1 and Tier-2
centers,

and prioritize its scientific goals, should constraints be forced by the
shortfall.

-   U.S. CMS should request the grid middleware projects to hire
    personnel for this

year's service challenges to address the problems of scaling with data
rate.

-   U.S. CMS should devise a metric that summarizes the overall progress
    in

reaching milestones of Tier-1 and Tier-2 activity that are similar to
the plots used

for monitoring CMS construction items.

-   U.S. CMS should develop specific measures to be monitored during the
    CSA

2006 tests to confirm the effectiveness and suitability of the new
framework and

its EDM.

-   U.S. CMS should define the general goals of the upcoming end-to-end
    test (CSA

2006\) and the associated U.S. CMS responsibilities.

-   Now that the focus has shifted from design and implementation of the
    new

framework and EDM, U.S. CMS should prepare a more detailed plan for

activities of their software developers. In particular, the
collaboration must

choose between extending development in the framework towards additional

functionality and new efforts such as development of reconstruction and
analysis

algorithms.

-   While the existing staffing plan for maintenance and support
    activities seems

reasonable, the review panel recommended that U.S. CMS prepare a
detailed

plan for the upcoming end-to-end test that would buffer key developers
from the

expected onslaught of questions from the user community.

-   What are the U.S. CMS plans and expectations for Tier-3 centers?
    What are their roles? How will they be funded?

**Specific questions/issues on S&C to be addressed by U.S. ATLAS at the
Aug 15 mini-review (clearly, these cannot all be covered during the
presentations, and written replies to those that can already be answered
would therefore be much appreciated a week prior to the review):**

-   Are U.S. Grid efforts progressing at a rate that can ensure adequate
    software infrastructure at LHC turn-on? Are there any common
    ATLAS/CMS plans to mitigate the risk of dependence on external
    resources (e.g., the OSG)?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ATLAS should continue to refine its computing model, and optimize
    its overall

performance and resources.

-   The implementation of the plan for support of user analysis must be
    adapted to the present U.S. ATLAS S&C budget guidelines.

-   The contention over the U.S. ATLAS Management Reserve is an internal
    matter that should be resolved accordingly.

-   U.S. ATLAS should encourage international ATLAS to define a plan for
    the complete cosmic-ray run that would exercise the trigger, data
    acquisition, and software reconstruction chain.

-   As experience accrues, the size and composition of the Resource
    Allocation Committee should be optimized.

-   The U.S. ATLAS collaboration should remain open to new
    collaborators; however, ATLAS should develop a strategy that does
    not compromise the success of the project due to insufficient
    computing resources.

-   Since the collaboration is likely to grow, U.S. ATLAS should
    continuously assess its physics priorities and the corresponding
    computing needs, to pursue other funding opportunities and to work
    with the funding agencies to obtain adequate resources.

-   To minimize impact on overall U.S. LHC goals, and to address the
    questions posed by the LHCC, U.S. CMS should work with U.S. ATLAS to
    clarify the reasons for differences in their respective computing
    requirements.

-   Efforts should be undertaken to define the relationship and
    responsibilities of physicists at Tier-2 centers and those at the
    Analysis Support Centers.

-   U.S. ATLAS should ensure that personnel at grid middleware projects
    become engaged in this year's service challenges, and especially in
    issues pertaining to scaling.

-   U.S. ATLAS should pursue acquisition of redundant network
    connectivity to the BNL Tier-1 center.

-   U.S. ATLAS should test the scaling properties of dCache-managed
    distributed disk systems.

-   U.S. ATLAS should articulate a plan for verifying that the proposed
    solution for schema evolution works sufficiently well to meet the
    needs of the collaboration.

-   U.S. ATLAS should periodically revisit the matter of staffing of the
    analysis support group to determine whether it is working
    effectively, especially with regard to the use of software
    professionals.

-   What are the U.S. ATLAS plans and expectations for Tier-3 centers?
    What are their roles? How will they be funded?