From royon@hep.saclay.cea.fr Thu Apr 22 13:20:32 2004 Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:44:17 +0200 (MEST) From: ROYON Christophe 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 > > > >