CDF International Finance Committee Meeting (October 28, 2006)

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

Attendance: Appel (FNAL-Directorate), Bock (FNAL-PPD), Ferroni (INFN),
Guibellino (INFN), Souen Hou (Taiwan)-video, Kajfasz (IN2P3), Shin-hong
Kim (Tsukuba, Japan-CDF), Konigsberg (U. Florida-CDF), Kotwal(Duke-CDF),
Lancaster (UK-CDF)-video, Lucchesi (Padova-CDF), Montgomery
(FNAL-directorate), Murat (CD-CDF), Oddone (FNAL), Riska (Finland-CDF),
Roser (FNAL-CDF), Ruiz (Spain-CDF)-video, Snider (FNAL-CD), Wagner
(Karlsruhe-Germany), White (FNAL-CD), Whitmore (NSF), Womersley
(CCLRC/PPARC-UK).

Apologies: Clark (Switzerland), Ristori (Italy)

**Agenda and Talks:**

  -------- -------------------------------------- --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Time  Topic                                  Speaker            Talk   
                                                                  

  09:00    Welcome and Lab Perspective            H. Montgomery   [[ppt]{.underline}](../../../../../../../../%5C%5CDirserver1%5Cmont$%5Cmontdocs%5Cexperiments%5Ctevatroncollider%5Ccdf%5Ccdfifc%5Cifcfall2006%5Cmont_oct06.ppt)

  09:30    CDF Status and Physics Highlights      J. Konigsberg   [[ppt]{.underline}](../../../../../../../../%5C%5CDirserver1%5Cmont$%5Cmontdocs%5Cexperiments%5Ctevatroncollider%5Ccdf%5Ccdfifc%5Cifcfall2006%5Cjaco_oct06.ppt)

  10:15    Operations Budget/physicist resources  R. Roser        [[ppt]{.underline}](../../../../../../../../%5C%5CDirserver1%5Cmont$%5Cmontdocs%5Cexperiments%5Ctevatroncollider%5Ccdf%5Ccdfifc%5Cifcfall2006%5Crob_oct06.ppt)

  10:30    Break                                                  

  11:00    Computing Highlights, Status, and      P. Murat        [[pdf]{.underline}](../../../../../../../../%5C%5CDirserver1%5Cmont$%5Cmontdocs%5Cexperiments%5Ctevatroncollider%5Ccdf%5Ccdfifc%5Cifcfall2006%5Cpasha_oct06.pdf)
           Plans                                                  

  11:45    Computing Budget                       R. Snider       [[pdf]{.underline}](../../../../../../../../%5C%5CDirserver1%5Cmont$%5Cmontdocs%5Cexperiments%5Ctevatroncollider%5Ccdf%5Ccdfifc%5Cifcfall2006%5Crick_oct06.pdf)

  12:00    Statements from Agencies & Discussions All             

  12:30    Working Lunch                                          

  13:30    Adjourn                                                
  -------- -------------------------------------- --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All talks are available at:

[**http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/ifc/2006-10-28/**](http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/ifc/2006-10-28/)

**Notes** (Based on original notes from Vicky White)

**Montgomery -- Welcome/Fermilab: Operations and Outlook**

new contract and bid -- award not yet announced. Transition period from
Nov 1 to Jan 1

\- PAC meetings resumed with meeting last week -- big support for Tev
program

\- No budget yet

Summarized CDF status and D0 status -- silicon layer 0 installed

Using YKK transparencies -- Tevatron Luminosity progress

NUMI performance and MINOS results

MiniBooNe -- getting a lot of beam when MINOS goes down.

Dan Riska commented about the very big stir aroused in Europe by the B_s
measurements.

 

**Jaco Kronigsberg**: **CDF Status and Physics**

Final P5 report done and has Tev running through FY09 as the baseline

Will still be reviewed in Spring 2007

Committee will take into account -- HEP budget situation, Limunisoity,
Staffing and overall physics output and Higgs progress. Showed the P5
roadmap for the future bar chart.

RunII publications table from 2003 to 2006 - total 103 with 44 in 2005
and 38 already in 2006. 50+ papers in the pipeline.

Operate the experiment at pretty much at 82% live

Silicon aging better than even the most optimistic estimates -- so
should be fine for the duration of the run.

Noted that computing requires continuous attention with increased data
sets, higher data acquisition and changing technology. Saluted Grid
computing.

Developing a trigger table for 3e32

Streamlining strategy -- capture knowledge as people move to LHC, get to
high quality data faster and free up resources for other tasks.

Reducing shift crew by one person and automating processes. Remote
control room in Italy

Offline -- automating detector calibrations and single point submission
for MC and extensive automation of production farms

Physics -- also lot of streamlining and automation work

Broad and deep physics program. CDF presented \~30 new 1fb-1 results at
ICHEP

B sub s oscillation result

2 more B baryons discovery

WZ "discovery" follows a 3.3 sigma evidence from D0 and showed ability
to improve analyses.

Top quark mass -- tevatron combined data . legacy of the Tevatron. Top
mass moving downwards -- pointing to light Higgs.

The road to the Higgs.

Progress on standard ntuples for all analyses

Trigger improvements -- critical to open up the trigger maximally

Approved by CDF exec board to elevate Higgs search and make it one of
main analysis missions.

Going to heavily coordinate all the efforts with a new Higgs Discovery
Group -- this will help pull CDF together and energize the
collaboration. Many young and talented people have expressed interesting
in staying to do exactly this.

 Womersley: Asked about the expected W mass error?

JK: It will have visible impact on the world average.

Riska: notes the importance of the Σ~b~ , there was a measurement that
was very old but which the PDG continued to use for want of anything
else.

Whitmore: Asked about the common working groups with D0 mentioned in the
talk.

Kajfasz: asked about the extension of the tracking to the forward
direction; what would it mean for reprocessing? "Maybe" was the
response.

There was also discussion of the Particle ID in which Jaco pointed out
that the issue is the use of isolation; at high L, the occupancy makes
it problematic but the maximumu effect is 5% at high luminosity.

Shin Hong Kim asked about expectations for the silicon; it was noted
that the S/N after 8 fb^-1^ is expected to be 8:1 in contrast to the
\<2:1 of the silicon at the end of Run I.

**Rob Roser: Budget and Operations**. 

Grew to 62 institutions and 14 countries as added Slovakia (comment that
Finnish flag was left out --oops!)

For staffing needs -- trying to

> \- Maintain current resources
>
> \- Understanding needs
>
> \- Aggressively recruiting new resources
>
> \- Streamlining operations (Jaco)

Acquiring some new resources --

> \- 2 International Fellowships to bring in a post doc and an
> experienced senior person
>
> \- Working with funding agencies and universities to obtin
> supplemental monies
>
> \- Use guest/visitors funds to fill critical needs
>
> \- 3 new groups interested in participating on CDF

Foreign contributions for FY06

Italy -- 296.2K

Japan 250.4K

Spain -- 46.8K

Finland 18.1K

UK RAL 162.6K

Canada -- 28K

Germany -- 18K

Switzerland -- 12k

Have not received funds from France, Korea, Taiwan and Russia

93% of total contributions

Resource accounting for FY07

444 total -- contribution/PhD \$7027

Detector operations budget

FY06 request 1730K

FY06 actual 1852K

FY07 request -- 1708K

Mentioned online computing in detector operations costs

COT -- adding oxygen -- don't know whether at highest luminosity this
will be enough, so proactively building a filtering system for the gas
to remove free radicals.

Online computing -- deferred purchase of level 3 computers

\- will replace 2 racks next year when 3 years old

**Scrutiny: Paolo Giubellino -- chair of the scrutiny group.**

 

Do understand all the issues and good to see management has a good
control over all of its operations and the balances of
costs/savings/etc. Basically running on a constant budget. It is
expected that there will be a significant increase in cost of tapes for
next year -- less flexibility for other things.

Happy to see most of funding agencies have honored their commitments.

Also happy to see that there is no evaporation; no real imbalance has
developed. The per capitum assessment is almost identical to last year.

It is clear that everyone is happy about this situation.

**Pasha Murat: CDF Computing:**

Single-pass processing scheme a continuing success

Unified production cycle for data reconstruction and ntuples

Automating the calibrations -- ongoing project -- preparing for running
production in 2010??

Software stable -- approaching the final production release in 1st half
o 2007.

> \- will improve tracking -- increased acceptance for the forward
> tracks
>
> \- significant gains for the high pT leptons, b-tagging
>
> \- Increased robustness of the tracking at high luminosity

Consolidating on using a small number of versions of offline software

MC production -- central supported infrastructure and efficiently using
GRID resources in opportunistic mode -- with no CDF-specific
requirements to the hardware/software of the GRID computing elements.

Grid Computing -- NAmCAF -- for north American sites. Accesses GRID
sites at MIT, Fermilab, UCSD, Florida and Chicago. Using OSG tools
underneath.

Provides up to 1000 slots of opportunistic jobs

CAF has 1800 slots + 600 farm + 300

LCGCAF -- provides a single job submission point for CDF users to
LHC-Computing-Grid sites across Europe -- developed by CDF Italian group
led by D. Lucchesi

LCG CAF only in production for a very short time. -- mainly MC factory.

Currently GridKa is contributing up to 2000 nodes to the LCG CAF.

Helsinki -- there was a glitch in the funding plans -- do plan to
provide 100 CPUs also through LCG but next year..

**Rick Snider: CDFComputing model:**

 

Number of things that drive computing plan --

> \- Increase in raw data logging rate
>
> \- Limited Fermilab computing budget
>
> \- Evolving grid infrastructure
>
> \- Anticipated decrease in effort

Identified several key areas for continued change at last IFC

> \- Increased use of incrmenatl processing
>
> \- Continue aggressively expand grid use
>
> \- Steamline and automate operations

Incremental computing means processing demand is proportional to data
logging rate

Meeting increased demand by increasing use of opportunistic resources
off-site -- moving away from model of increasing size of dedicated
remote pools

Use grid tools to automate site selection for both opportunistic and
dedicated resources -- better balances load across sites, leading to
improved utilization

Computing Model

> \- Tape archive \_ disk cache
>
> \- Production farm (uses CAF infrastructure
>
> \- CAF - 1 dedicated farm \_ 1 CDF-purchased farm in Fermigrid (OSG)
>
> \- dCAF's -- 11 remote sites -- 4 in shared pools accessed via
> glide-ins
>
> \- databases \_ networks \_ static "project" disk

Data flow --

> \- raw data written to tape
>
> \- measure final calibration (4 weeks of data per cycle)
>
> \- full reconstruction on farm
>
> \- centralized ntuple production -- all 3 now
>
> \- user analysis of ntuples and production output on CAF/dcAF
>
> \- Monte-Carlo generation/reconstruction on remote dCAFs/Grid
>
> \- Final analysis on user desktops/institutional machines

Several improvements/changes to the demand model

> \- Explicitly calculate CPU needs for all incremental computing
>
> \- Analysis CPU -- equal to total minus incremental (marked to FY2005
> inventory)
>
> \- Scale with data volume (a pessimistic assumption)
>
> \- Disk requirements model
>
> o Scale cache disk by available CPU
>
> o Scale analysis disk proportional to data volume

Table of integrated luminosity, total number of events and raw data
logging

2007 2008 2009

3.9 5.9 8.1

5.7 9.9 14

30 45 60 (even though capability is actually 60 throughout)

Nice graphs of data volume and CPU needs

Assume 42 weeks per year and 100 hours per week of beam

Projects out to 11 17 25

1 1.6 2.5

Data volume 3.8 6.4 10.3 PB

Assume constant nominal budget of \$1.25M

Defined cost for tape storage (\$400K/year)

Target CPU required for reconstruction, ntupling and analysis -- spend
\$300K/year

Purchase FY200x hardware with FY(200x-1) funds

Operating -- tape cost is \$225K

Requests to IFC -- not asking for further expansion of dedicated
resources

Provide CDF access to generic grid pools (if not already allowed) --
with priority access to some fraction of generic pools where possible.

Model assumes flat CPU pretty much at Fermilab and opportunistic use of
resources of 1 THz in 2007 (same as 2006) growing to 5 in 2008 and 13 in
2009.

Observe that what using today exceeds what the model tells us we should

Possible that size of disk cache could be flatter than shown right now
-- current cache rate is low -- only 10% or less

Comment on scale -- relative to LHC experiments .

Showed LHC estimated CPU - -but has been reduced by a lot because of
delay in schedule !!

Opportunistic use in FY2008 is about 2% of LHC total

This is uncomfortably large, but not obviously implausible

Becomes more problematic as LHC begins operating

Target 1% is more reasonable.

Cost-mitigation strategies

> \- Improve utilization efficiency
>
> \- Prioritize computing tasks
>
> o Perform fewer analyses
>
> o Defer processing some data
>
> o Reduce MC statistics

Could imagine reduction of a factor of two in combined CPU for MC,
ntupling and analysis, but at some costs to the physics

**Comment session:**

 

Mont asked for comments on going to an annual IFC in the Fall/Autumn

**Spain (Alberto Ruiz)**

Very happy with physics strategy including the new Higgs strategy.

Computing requests are feasible

**Taiwan (Suen Hou)**

Had two points to make on Grid computing and operations.

Taiwan is a Tier 1 site and

Taiwan not being used by CDF -- maybe because of Grid tools. There seems
to be no effort built from Pacific rim. Japanese might not be so
interested.

-   What about the pacific??

-   

Operations -- Taiwan group contributed a great deal in instrumentation.

The operations cost needs to be paid

**UK/PPARC (John Womersley)**

The UK congratulates the experiment on the slew of wonderful results. It
was noticeable at ICHEP that they had allocated lots of time to B
factories and not so much to the Tevatron and it should have been the
converse based on the results shown.

Within UK have gone through the three-year funding process for
universities -- allocations made. Support for CDF at about the current
level until 2008 then drops off by about half largely as a result of
losing Special Fellowship positions.

Provision has been made to pay common fund for 2007-2008 and then

half in 2009. Will need to talk about computing -- allocation based on
how many collaborators -- CDF hasn't used the central facilities so far.

UK research council structure is being changed -- PPARC being merged
with CCLRC -- Science Facilities Research Council -- Particle physics,
Astronomy, nuclear physics and operating things like synchrotron light
source, spallation neutron facility, CERN, ILL-Grenoble. Date is April
1st next year -- becoming more like DOE (was more like NSF).

Meeting once a year would be fine.

**INFN (Nando Ferroni)**

INFN is happy with CDF. He particularly liked the B~S~ result.

INFN going through a problematic period -- government budget for 2007,
still under examination, has challenged governance rules for INFN as
well all research institutions --INFN will be forced to reduce the
number of temporary positions by 50%. Also they are allowing hiring for
indefinite term but only through replacement which clearly doesn't help
their demise. They have yet to understand whether budget can be kept
constant.

CDF has a modest budget -- no problem in budget for common fund.
Personally doesn't see any problem with the computing either. Expect
that the numbers will reduce in 2009. Italian group on CDF is solid.

Once a year for IFC is ok.

**Japan (Shin Hong Kim)**

Congratulations, CDF is continuing to produce results, especially this
year with the B~S~ result. As long as CDF continues to produce great
physics results, US-Japan will give the same level of budget to CDF --
even in 2009. There are 2 new postdocs.

Grid in Japan -- there is ATLAS grid and joining ATLAS. Tier 2 in Japan
is at Univ of Tokyo which is not interested in CDF. Univ of Tsukuba is
in ATLAS and ALICE and is trying to make Tier 2 there -- may contribute
to CDF.

**IN2P3 (Erik Kajfasz)**

Representing Francois LeDiberder who send his congratulations but Eric
adds his own for the B~S~ and for top.

For Computing -- will maintain same level of support to the Tevatron as
in past -- with proportionality rule between D0 and CDF.

**Germany (Jeannine Wagner, Karlsruhe)**

They have already transferred money for 2007 operations. Up to 2008
won't reduce CDF group -- 4 postdocs and about 10 PhD students. After
that will reduce probably.

They hope that potential publications of Karslruhe University group will
be accepted within a shorter timescale -- there appear to be
difficulties.

**NSF (Jim Whitmore)**

There are beautiful results and there seems to be a good plan for how to
continue.

1.  Like the idea of common groups with D0 -- especially at this stage
    when there is a lot more data to come, not just at the end.

2.  Manpower for Tev does not look like the disaster predicted.

3.  Computing -- NSF has made a 5 year commitment for OSG -- glad to see
    making use of OSG. It is important to push other sciences -- that
    way will

> get additional funds.

With respect to support CDF by supporting base funds for groups -- the
grants ar on a three- year renewal cycle -- some will be coming up and
will compete with other proposals for funding (such as LHC efforts).

Rob Roser wanted to talk about how to get formal input into the "review"
process -- where could help, which groups etc. Jim made the same comment
as to D0 that they will welcome extra input from the Spokes.

Indeed there was some pressure on Jim Whitmore.

\[ Note this discussion started in the D0 IFC the previous day but in
the CDF meeting, Pier Oddone, who joind for the latter part of the
meeting, opined we will need agency guidance and wisdom and action to
make sure program

completes successfully. When the agencies come up with a recommendation
of priority to the operations, it may not be sufficient for them to then
rely totally on the "peer review" opinion of individuals who do not have
the same responsibility as the agencies for the well being/the
stewardship of the field. \]

**Finland (Dan Riska)**

Dan repeated hoped to provide \~100 CPUs. Have an MOU that expires soon
-- need to extend it- will propose extention to 2009. Contribution per
capita is fine.

CERN DG anticipates LHC will need a lot of publicity and so they have
prepared a communications network. Finland tested the process on CDF
discoveries especially the B~S~ and got to TV -- lot of media attention.