From gwatts@phys.washington.edu Fri Apr 30 16:43:48 2004 Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:02:11 -0700 From: Gordon Watts To: ROYON Christophe , d0dfwg@fnal.gov Cc: wobisch@fnal.gov Subject: RE: questionnaire a repondre (fwd) Hi, Thanks for your answers! I find interesting the idea that a large centrally produced root tuple is skimmed, and branches of data are dropped during the skim. I'd not thought of that idea before. Very nice. You mention the large amount of time that has gone into developing tools to run on the qcd root-tuples. Could you list some of them to give us an idea of what ones you have? One of the charges we have is to collect the lists of tools available on the various formats. Cheers, Gordon. -----Original Message----- From: ROYON Christophe [mailto:royon@hep.saclay.cea.fr] Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 12:44 AM To: d0dfwg@fnal.gov Cc: wobisch@fnal.gov Subject: Re: questionnaire a repondre (fwd) Dear all, As promised, here are the answers from the QCD group. Sorry for the delay, but as I told you before, I was at DIS last week... The answers are in the mail following the questions. Thanks Cheers Markus Christophe > > > -------- Message original -------- > Sujet: Common root-based data format. > Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 19:37:18 -0500 > De: Herbert Greenlee > De: d0-conveners@fnal.gov > Copie: D0 Data Format Working Group > > > > Hello Conveners, > > As you know, the D0 Data Format Working Group has been formed to > review analysis data formats (tuples/trees) currently being used in D0, > and to propose and develop a common root-based format. We are now in > the information gathering stage. We are interested in your opinions. > We are asking you, the physics group conveners, to assist our group in > its efforts by answering the following questions. > > As we currently envision it, a common root format would consist of a > centrally maintained set of tools (framework packages and executables) for > producing root files from thumbnails. We also envision having a centrally > produced and managed set of root files produced from Common Sample Group > thumbnails, stored in sam and possibly pinned on disk. Where and by whom > such common root files would be produced is net yet determined. The > common root files should incorporate thumbnail fixes and certified object > corrections (d0correct). Common root files would be offered to the > physics groups as an alternative format to thumbnails for doing analysis. > > Thank you for giving this matter your thoughtful attention. Please send > replies to d0dfwg@fnal.gov. > > Here are the questions. > > 1. What analysis data formats and analysis tools are members of your > group currently using? > > > We are buiding the "QCD" root tuple directly from thumbnails. We have > three version of them: > - full version (used also for JES out-of-cone studies) containing all calo > cells + calo trigger cells > - medium version without calo cells > - short version without calo cells and calo trigger cells > All these versions contain the jet blocks (0.5 and 0.7 cone), em, met, > vertex, trigger blocks > Please find more information (how to do it, list of variables...) from the > CSG web page. > > The "diffractive" root tuple is an extension of the previous one adding > > > 2. What analysis data formats or analysis tools does your group > recommend to its members? > > > everybody in the group uses the same format and the same root tuple > produced centrally (we do not have enough manpower to use different > formats). The root-tuples are also used as such by the JES group. > > 3. Do you encourage or discourage people to use tmb_tree? Why or why > not? > > We are not using at all tmb trees, and we are discouraging people to use a > new format. We spent much time developping tools running on the root tuple > and producing centrally the root tuples, and we prefer people to improve > what we have than to start from scratch. > > 4. How does your physics group support the efforts of analyzers? > That is, does your group provide centrally managed data sets, > tuples/trees, or analysis tools? > > Basically, the production of the QCD root tuples was done centrally by one > member of the group for Moriond analyses (Christophe Royon), and probably > a few other people will help and take over. > > 5. Would your group benefit from the availability of common, possibly > centrally produced root trees? What requirements would a common root > format have to fulfill for your group to benefit? > > We would prefer root tuples to root trees, but it would be nice if a > complete version (containing calo cells for instance) could be built by > D0, and we could only reduce the number of blocks to build the "QCD" or > "diffractive" root tuple. For this sake, it is necessary to check that the > variables needed by all groups will be present, which will make a huge > root tuple. Each physics group can then produce centrally his own smaller > root tuple starting from the big one. > > 6. If tmb_tree were chosen as the basis for a common format, what > changes would be required to make it attractive to your group? > > none > > 7. Does your group develop algorithms in root? Should algorithm > development in root be encouraged? What is the best way to allow the > entire collaboration to benefit from algorithms developed in root? > > The analysis is developped in root, but not algorithms. We think > algorithms should run on thumbnails and not on root tuples, and then, they > are available to everybody by definition. > > > 8. Is there any other information that you would like to bring to the > attention of the Data Format Working Group? > > No, thanks! > > Regards, > > The D0 Data Format Working Group > > > >