1: \chapter{Experimental apparatus}
2:
3: The present search for new physics is performed in data collected with Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF), a general scope detector for particles generated at high energy $p \bar p$ collisions produced by the \Tevatron\ accelerator. \Tevatron\ and the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL) are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:tevatronSketch}.
4:
5: This chapter describes the production of $p \bar p$ collisions and the CDF detector. For the many acronyms used, please consult Appendix \ref{chapter:nomenclature}.
6:
7: \begin{figure}
8: \centering
9: \includegraphics[width=13cm,angle=0]{figures/cdf/acceleratorsSketch}
10: \caption{Sketch of the FNAL accelerator complex.}
11: \label{fig:tevatronSketch}
12: \end{figure}
13:
14: %% \begin{figure}
15: %% %\centering
16: %% \begin{tabular}{cc}
17: %% \includegraphics[height=8cm,angle=0]{figures/cdf/FNAL_air} &
18: %% \includegraphics[height=8cm,angle=20]{figures/cdf/tevatronSketch} \\
19: %% (a) & (b)
20: %% \end{tabular}
21: %% \caption{Air photograph (a) and sketch (b) of the Fermilab accelerator complex.}
22: %% \label{fig:tevatronSketch}
23: %% \end{figure}
24:
25:
26: \section{Beam Production}
27: Either due to CP violation or some other unknown reason, free protons outnumber antiprotons, which makes it easier to obtain the former, and use them to generate the latter. In this section, the procedure leading to the production of the $p$ and \pbar\ beams is outlined.
28:
29: \subsection{$p$ Source}
30: %http://www-bd.fnal.gov/public/proton.html#CR
31: The production starts with storing hydrogen gas ($H_2$) in a {\bf Cockroft-Walton } chamber \cite{cockroft-walton}, in which a 750 kV DC voltage causes electric discharges which produce negative hydrogen ions ($H^-$). The $H^-$ are separated from the rest of the gas by use of a magnetic transport system and are channeled to the Linac.
32:
33: The {\bf Linac} \cite{linac} is a 130 m long Alvarez linear accelerator that transfers the $H^-$ from the Cockroft-Walton to the Booster, accelerating them from 750 keV to 400 MeV.
34:
35: %http://tdserver1.fnal.gov/8gevlinacPapers/Injection_Stripping_and_Collimation/Booster_H_Minus_Injection_FNAL_TM_872.pdf
36: %http://www-bdnew.fnal.gov/operations/rookie_books/Booster_V3_1.pdf
37: The {\bf Booster} \cite{BoosterRookie} is a 475 m long synchrotron that accelerates the $H^-$ from 400 MeV to 8 GeV in just 67 ms, hence its name. One Linac load is 40 $\mu$s long and the rotation period of the beam in the Booster during injection is 2.22 $\mu$s, which means that in principle it could take $\frac{18 \times 2.22}{40}=99.9\%$ of the Linac's load in 18 turns. Operationally however, only 5 or 6 turns get used for maximum intensity, and the rest (66.7\%) of the Linac's load is dumped.
38: At the entrance, the $H^-$ ions pass through a carbon foil, which strips off the electrons, transforming $H^-$ into $H^+$, viz.~protons. It is important that the $H^-$ pass through the carbon foil at their entrance to the ring, as they meet with the circulating $H^+$. This technique, named CEI, allows for higher beam brightness, avoiding limitations that would have otherwise followed from Liouville's theorem \cite{Hojvat:1979ya}.
39: A full Booster ``batch'' contains a maximum of $5\times 10^{12}$ protons at 8 GeV, coalesced into 84 bunches, ready to be delivered to the Main Injector.
40:
41: \subsection{Main Injector}
42: %http://www-fmi.fnal.gov/Preform%20Goals/Chapter_5.pdf
43: The {\bf Main Injector} \cite{MI} is a 3.319 km long non-circular synchrotron, serving not only the \Tevatron, but also providing protons for the production of the NuMI neutrino beam and the proton beam in the Fixed Target area. Its operations that relate to the \Tevatron\ are:
44:
45: \begin{enumerate}
46: \item \pbar\ production: A single Booster batch is injected into the MI at 8 GeV. These protons are accelerated to 120 GeV and extracted in a single turn for delivery to the \pbar\ production target. The produced antiprotons will eventually return to the MI for acceleration to 150 GeV, before they are delivered to the \Tevatron.
47: \item Collider mode: Accelerate protons or antiprotons to 150 GeV and deliver them to the \Tevatron.
48: \item End of store: Accept 150 GeV antiprotons and decelerate them to 8 GeV for storage in the Recycler.
49: \end{enumerate}
50:
51: \subsection{\pbar\ Source}
52: % http://www-bdnew.fnal.gov/pbar/documents/PBAR_Rookie_Book.pdf
53: At the {\bf \pbar\ production area}, the 120 GeV protons coming from the MI are directed onto a nickel target \cite{pbarRookie}. Before the collision, the bunch undergoes some modulation called {\em RF bunch rotation}, so as to be shorter in time and, in agreement with Liouville's theorem, contain a wider spectrum of momenta. Its being more sudden maximizes the phase-space density of antiprotons produced as secondary products of the collision with the nickel target. First, the cone of particles produced at the collision is rendered parallel by means of a lithium lens \cite{lithium}. Then, a dipole magnet selects ~8 GeV antiprotons, as that is the standard MI injection energy, and directs them into the Debuncher.
54:
55: % http://www-bdnew.fnal.gov/pbar/documents/PBAR_Rookie_Book.pdf
56: At the {\bf Debuncher} \cite{pbarRookie}, which is a ``ring'' of rounded triangular shape, the 8 GeV antiprotons are subjected to a RF bunch rotation, this time in the reverse direction, so that their beam contains a narrower spectrum of momenta and, in agreement with Liouville's theorem, spans a longer time interval. This reduction in momentum spread is done to improve the Debuncher-to-Accumulator transfer, because of the limited momentum aperture of the Accumulator at injection. The Debuncher makes use of the time between MI cycles to reduce the beam transverse size and longitudinal momentum spread through betatron and momentum stochastic cooling respectively. This further improves the efficiency of the Debuncher-to-Accumulator transfer.
57:
58: The {\bf Accumulator} \cite{pbarRookie} is a rounded triangular ``ring'', similar to the Debuncher. The reason for that is that it also applies stochastic cooling to the \pbar\ beam, which requires linear segments along the ring to accommodate pickups and kickers. The main purpose of the Accumulator is to hold antiprotons until they are needed by the \Tevatron. The antiprotons are stored in the Accumulator for hours or days, while they augment as more are produced at the nickel target. When a new pulse of antiprotons enters the Accumulator, it circulates along a trajectory of greater ``radius'' than the antiprotons that have already been cooled down. The RF decelerates the recently injected pulses of antiprotons from the injection energy to the edge of the stack tail. The stack tail momentum cooling system sweeps the beam deposited by the RF away from the edge of the tail and decelerates it towards the dense portion of the stack, known as the core. Additional cooling systems keep the antiprotons in the core at the desired momentum and minimize the transverse beam size.
59:
60: There is yet another ring, the {\bf Recycler} \cite{recycler}, which has a role similar to that of the Accumulator. It is a 3.3 km long ring along the MI, being therefore much longer than the Accumulator, which means that if the Accumulator is getting full it can use the Recycler to hold some antiprotons too. Spread over a longer ring, the antiprotons in the Recycler are easier to maintain stable, since the beam is less dense and the dispersive forces weaker. In addition to being longer, the Recycler employs the electron cooling method to reduce the momentum spread of the antiprotons. Electron cooling is a more modern technique than stochastic cooling, in which a cold (small momentum spread) beam of electrons travels parallel to the hot antiproton beam, serving as a heat sink, where the heat of the antiproton beam is dumped, since the two beams interact electromagnetically and from thermodynamics it is known that heat goes from the hotter system to the cooler. Once the electron beam heats up, it is discarded for a new, cold electron beam to take over. The Recycler does not only accept antiprotons that the Accumulator can not hold, but also those that the \Tevatron\ does not need any more. Since antiprotons are so hard to produce, the Recycler keeps them to be reused in the next ``store'', hence its name. When the stored antiprotons reach adequate quantity, the {\bf \Tevatron} is ready to start $p \bar p$ collisions.
61:
62: \subsection{\Tevatron}
63:
64: For over two decades, the \Tevatron\ \cite{RunIIhandbook, PDBook} has been the largest hadron collider, to be soon succeeded by the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN. It is a synchrotron accelerator with radius 1 km. Along its ring are 774 dipole and 216 quadrupole superconductive magnets, providing magnetic field of intensity 4.4 T. The magnets operate in superconductive state, with cooling from liquid helium.
65:
66: %PDG: collider parameters
67: The \Tevatron\ receives $p$ and \pbar\ bunches from the MI, where they have been accelerated from 8 to 150 GeV. The filling takes about 30 minutes, much longer than the acceleration period that is only 86 seconds. It accelerates the $p$ and the \pbar\ beam to the energy of $980$ GeV, producing head-on collisions at $\sqrt{s}=1.96$ TeV in the reference frame of CDF \cite{PDBook}. The proton and antiproton beams are both separated in 3 trains, each containing 12 bunches, therefore there are 36 $p$ and 36 \pbar\ bunches traveling in opposite directions at the same energy. Each bunch is about 18 ns (57 cm) long, which is the length of one RF bucket\footnote{A RF bucket is a slot defined by the RF electromagnetic waves, in which a bunch may be accommodated.} at the \Tevatron. The interval between successive bunch crossings is 396 ns (21 buckets), which is of course equal to the interval between successive bunches in a train. Successive trains are separated by longer (2621 ns or 139 buckets) intervals, called {\em abort gaps}.
68:
69: Each $p$ and \pbar\ bunch counts about $24 \times 10^{10}$ and $6 \times 10^{10}$ particles respectively. As of today, the beam's optical properties allow for instantaneous luminosity that is over $2\times 10^{32}~{\mbox{cm}}^{-2}{\mbox{s}}^{-1}$ at CDF, and about 15\% lower at \Dzero\ \cite{CDFvsD0lumi, VaiaCDFvsD0lumi}.
70: % At the beginning of each ``store'', the numbers of $p$ and \pbar\ circulating are maxima, but as the beams collide and particles are lost, the instantaneous luminosity reduces until, about 15 hours later, it is about 10 times smaller and the store ends.
71:
72:
73:
74:
75:
76: %--------------------------------------------------------------------
77: %--------------------------------------------------------------------
78:
79:
80:
81:
82: \section{The CDF detector}
83: \label{sec:CDFdetector}
84:
85: %Anikeev's thesis, CDFTDR.
86: %http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/internal/detectors/cdf_det.ps
87: CDF is a $\sim$5,000 ton detector \cite{CDFTDR} enveloping the B0 collision point of the \Tevatron\ (Fit.~\ref{fig:tevatronSketch}). Externally, it looks forward-backward symmetric (Fig~\ref{fig:cdfCutAway}), mostly made of steel, of dimensions that are approximately $16~\mbox{m} \times 13~\mbox{m} \times 13~\mbox{m}$. It is underground, shielded behind tons of concrete, which keeps it somewhat insulated from environmental sources of noise and prevents potentially hazardous radiation from leaking into its immediate surroundings. A three story building houses in its basement the detector and its assembly site, while in the superjacent levels it accommodates the data acquisition devices and the Control Room, from where operations are managed.
88:
89: \begin{figure}
90: \centering
91: \includegraphics[width=7cm,angle=0]{figures/cdf/cdfCutaway}
92: \caption{Cut-away view of the CDF detector.}
93: \label{fig:cdfCutAway}
94: \end{figure}
95:
96: \begin{figure}[t]
97: \centering
98: \includegraphics[width=15cm,angle=0]{figures/cdf/cdfII2}
99: \caption{Transverse section of half of the CDF detector in Run~II.}
100: \label{fig:cdfII}
101: \end{figure}
102:
103: The CDF detector allows for a broad range of physics searches, from heavy flavor physics to searches of exotic new phenomena. It combines a variety of features, i.e. tracking, timing, calorimetry and muon detection systems, all seamed together with powerful trigger and DAQ systems.
104:
105: By 1996, when the Run~I period of \Tevatron\ was over, about 90 $\mbox{pb}^{-1}$ of data had been collected, in which the long-sought $t$-quark had eventually been discovered \cite{Abe1995hr}. In preparation for the even more ambitious Run~II era, which started in 2001, CDF was decisively upgraded \cite{CDFTDR}, with new tracking and calorimetry capabilities and a much more efficient muon detection system. The DAQ system had to be upgraded too, to respond to the expected instantaneous luminosity of up to $5\times 10^{32}~{\mbox{cm}}^{-2}{\mbox{s}}^{-1}$. In the following sections, the current status of CDF will be described.
106:
107: \subsection{Coordinate Systems}
108: %Constantin's thesis
109: Before describing the most important CDF components, it would be useful to present the established system of coordinates used at the experiment.
110:
111: The Cartesian coordinate system has its axes starting at the detector's center, where the beams of $p$ and \pbar\ are supposed to collide. The $y$ axis is defined to point vertically up, and the $x$ to be perpendicular to the beam pipe and pointing in the direction away from the center of the \Tevatron\ ring. In terms of $\hat x$ and $\hat y$, $\hat z$ is $\hat x \times \hat y$, which approximately coincides with the direction in which the $p$ beam travels through the center of CDF.
112:
113: The cylindrical coordinate system reflects the approximate axial symmetry of the tracker and the calorimeter around $\hat z$, which in cylindrical coordinates remains the same unit vector it was in Cartesian. The radial unit vector $\hat r$ at each point is perpendicular to and pointing away from the $z$ axis. The azimuthal angle $\phi$ is by definition $0$ on the semi-infinite $z - x$ plane that contains the positive $x$ axis and increases in the direction of $\hat \phi = \hat z \times \hat r$.
114:
115: Spherical coordinates are used more often than the above two systems. The reason is that, to the physical event occurring in a $p \bar p$ scattering, the cylindrical or any other symmetry of the surrounding detector is irrelevant. The dynamics of the event recognize one special axis, viz.~$z$, along which the $p$ and \pbar\ were traveling right before their collision. It is therefore convenient to define the angles of all outcoming particles with respect to $\hat z$. For any point in space, a radial unit vector $\hat r$ is defined to point in the direction away from the beginning of the coordinates. Also, a polar angle $\theta$ is defined, which is $0$ along the positive $z$ axis and increases in the direction of $\hat \theta = \hat r \times \frac{\hat r \times \hat z}{\sin\theta}$. Finally, the azimuthal angle $\phi$ is defined as in the cylindrical coordinates and increases along $\hat \phi = \hat \theta \times \hat r$.
116:
117: Since the $p$ and \pbar\ beams are unpolarized, $z$ has to be an axis of symmetry when examining a large set of events. In other words, based on the premise of isotropy of the universe which leaves $z$ as the only axis special to the scattering, there can be no law of physics that would cause a non-uniform $\phi$ distribution of the particles coming out of the scattering.
118:
119: It is common to not mention the polar angle $\theta$ per se, but instead a dimensionless quantity called ``pseudorapidity'', which is related to $\theta$ as
120: \begin{equation}
121: \eta = -\ln(\tan(\theta / 2)).
122: \end{equation}
123: $\eta$ is the $E \rightarrow \abs{\vec p}$ limit of the quantity called ``rapidity'', which is\footnote{The rapidity $y$ may not be confused with the Cartesian coordinate $y$.}
124: \begin{equation}
125: y = \frac{1}{2} \ln{\frac{E+p_z}{E-p_z}},
126: \end{equation}
127: and has the beautiful property that for any pair of rapidities, the difference $\Delta y$ is invariant under Lorentz boosts along the $z$ axis.
128:
129: \subsection{Tracking}
130: Tracking is crucial for particle identification; it has been so since the first experiments with wire and bubble chambers. Though technology has advanced, the principles remain:
131: \begin{itemize}
132: \item Only ionizing particles leave tracks, which distinguishes them from neutral ones.
133: \item The curvature of a track under the influence of Lorentz force in the presence of a magnetic field $\vec B$ is a measure of the transverse momentum ${\vec p}_T$ of the particle, namely of the projection of its momentum $\vec p$ on the plane transverse to $\vec B$.
134: \item The direction of the track can be used to estimate the direction ($\eta$,$\phi$) in which a particle is produced.
135: \item Being able to observe tracks improves our intuitive understanding of what particles are produced in an event. For example, the assembly of tracks within a cone is indicative of hadronic jet showers, while isolated tracks are more likely leptons\footnote{Even though $\tau$ is a lepton, it is common to include only electrons and muons in the term ``leptons'', because they are easier to identify than $\tau$ which often decays hadronically, so they consist more ``clear'' leptons in the experimental sense.}.
136: \item Extrapolating the tracks of an event down to their origin(s) indicates the position of the event. This can reveal the existence of displaced secondary vertices, indicative of the decay of a long-lived particle, such as a $B^0$ meson. It may also indicate the existence of multiple $p \bar p$ interactions in the same bunch crossing, by observation of multiple primary vertices in the same event.
137: \end{itemize}
138:
139: \subsubsection{Silicon Detector}
140: %Anikeev's thesis
141: %http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/internal/detectors/parameters.html
142: The first tracking device particles pass through is the Silicon Detector. Silicon allows for a highly granular and radiation tolerant tracker that can survive as near as 1.5 cm from the collision point \cite{CDFTDR}. The operation principle of a silicon micro-strip is depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:siliconSketch} \cite{PDBook, SiliconDetectors}.
143:
144: %http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/cdfnotes/cdf7949_silicon_eps.pdf
145: About 722,000 read-out channels come from the Silicon Detector \cite{Boveia:2005kj}, by far more than from any other CDF component. It is separated in three subsystems: L00, SVX and ISL (Fig.~\ref{fig:SiliconXY}, \ref{fig:RZview}).
146:
147: L00 is a single layer of single-sided silicon built directly onto the beam pipe, at 1.5 cm radius. It provides precision position measurement before the particles undergo multiple scattering.
148:
149: SVX is the heart of the Silicon Detector, consisting of 12 identical wedges in $\phi$. Each wedge contains 5 layers of double-sided silicon, oriented parallel to the beam pipe at radii from 2.5 to 10.6 cm. On one side, the silicon strips are aligned axially. The other side has $90^\circ$ stereo strips for 3 of the layers, and $1.2^\circ$ stereo strips for the remaining 2 layers. Obviously, the choice of aligning some strips non-axially was made to allow for three-dimensional track reconstruction.
150:
151: The ISL envelops SVX. It carries $1.2^\circ$ stereo double-sided silicon in a single layer for intermediate radius measurement of central\footnote{Here and below the word ``central'' is used to describe objects with $\abs{\detEta}<1.0$; ``plug'' is used to describe objects with $1.0<\abs{\detEta}<2.5$.} tracks and in two layers for tracking in the region $1<\abs{\eta} < 2$, which is not completely covered by the COT (Fig.~\ref{fig:RZview}).
152:
153: %http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/upgrades/silicon/Silicon_Sensors_Ladders.html
154: The silicon embedded strips are 8 $\mu$m wide \cite{SiliconCDF}, which brings the hit's spatial resolution down to about 12 $\mu$m. This resolution makes it possible to measure the impact parameter of a track to 40 $\mu$m, with 30 $\mu$m uncertainty due to the beam width. The $z_0$, namely the $z$-coordinate of the primary vertex, can be measured with 70 $\mu$m accuracy.
155:
156: \begin{figure}
157: \centering
158: \includegraphics[width=13cm,angle=0]{figures/cdf/siliconSketch}
159: \caption[Schematic of a silicon particle sensor.]{Schematic of a silicon particle sensor. An array of finely spaced p-type silicon strips is implanted in an n-type silicon substrate, typically $300$ $\mu$m thick. The n-p contact is then reversely polarized, typically with a depletion voltage of 150 V. When an ionizing particle traverses the depletion zone it creates a localized stream of $e^-$-hole pairs, which are collected by the nearest strips, where after amplification they are detected as small current signals. There are variations in the design of silicon strips, such as double-sided strips where signals are read from both sides. The spatial resolution of the most advanced silicon strip can be as fine as 2 - 4 $\mu$m, limited mostly by diffusion \cite{PDBook,SiliconDetectors}.}
160: \label{fig:siliconSketch}
161: \end{figure}
162:
163: \begin{figure}
164: \centering
165: \includegraphics[width=10cm,angle=0]{figures/cdf/siliconXY}
166: \caption[The CDF Silicon Detector (XY view)]{The CDF Silicon Detector (XY view) \cite{Boveia:2005kj}.}
167: \label{fig:SiliconXY}
168: \end{figure}
169:
170: \begin{figure}
171: \centering
172: \includegraphics[width=15cm,angle=0]{figures/cdf/RZview}
173: \caption[Schematic profile (RZ view) of the central part of the CDF detector.]{Schematic profile (RZ view) of the central part of the CDF detector \cite{SiliconCDF}. The Time Of Flight detector (not shown) is between the COT and the solenoid. The central electromagnetic and hadronic calorimeter are not depicted either.}
174: \label{fig:RZview}
175: \end{figure}
176:
177:
178: \subsubsection{Central Outer Tracker}
179: The COT \cite{COT1,COT2} is a cylindrical multi-wire open-cell drift chamber surrounding the Silicon Detector (Fig.~\ref{fig:RZview}).
180:
181: %Constantin's thesis
182: %http://ncdf82.fnal.gov/~binkley/COT-CDF-note.ps
183: %http://ncdf82.fnal.gov/~binkley/cot/cotelec.html
184: %http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/cdfnotes/cdf3648_cot_design.ps.gz
185: COT contains Argon-Ethane ($Ar-C_2H_6$) in a 1:1 mixture. When charged particles traverse the gaseous mixture they leave a trail of ionization electrons, which drift under the influence of an 1.9 kV/cm electric field. The latter is produced by field planes and homogenized by potential and shaper wires. After some time that depends on the distance they travel, the ionization electrons are collected by sense wires immersed in the gas producing a detectable\footnote{When an ionization electron approaches the 40$\mu$m thick sense wire it is accelerated by its rapidly increasing ($1/r$) electric field, producing an ``avalanche'' of secondary ionization electrons and thus enhancing the signal.} electric signal. The $r-\phi$ location of the track with respect to the sense wire is then estimated from the time it takes to detect the signal. The drift distance is less than 0.88 cm and is covered in less than 100 ns, which is less than the 396 ns between successive bunch crossings, therefore causes no pile-up of signals from different events.
186:
187: The field panels, shape, potential and sense wires are all grouped in electrostatically shielded cells (Fig.~\ref{fig:COTcell}). Each cell contains 12 sense, 13 potential and 4 shaper wires. Sense and potential wires alternate with successive sense wires being 7mm apart. Combining drift time information from several wires, the single hit resolution reduces to about 140 $\mu$m.
188: \begin{figure}
189: \centering
190: \includegraphics[width=8cm,angle=0]{figures/cdf/cotCell}
191: \caption[Three COT cells from the second superlayer (XY view).]{Three COT cells from the second superlayer (XY view). Their inclination with respect to the radial direction is equal to the Lorentz angle of $35^\circ$ (see text).}
192: \label{fig:COTcell}
193: \end{figure}
194:
195: Cells are arranged in 8 superlayers (Fig.~\ref{fig:COTsuperlayers}). The wires in the $1^{\mbox{st}}$ and $5^{\mbox{th}}$ superlayer are not oriented axially, but at a stereo angle of $+3^\circ$. Similarly, there is a stereo angle of $-3^\circ$ in superlayers 3 and 7. Like in the case of the Silicon Detector, the reason that 4 out of the 8 superlayers are oriented non-axially is to allow for tracking in the three dimensions\footnote{If all COT wires were parallel to the $z$ axis, then the $z$ coordinate of hits would be unknown.}.
196:
197: \begin{figure}
198: \centering
199: \includegraphics[width=12cm,angle=0]{figures/cdf/cotLayers}
200: \caption[Part of the COT endplate (XY view).]{Part of the COT endplate (XY view). The wire-plane slots grouped into eight superlayers are shown.}
201: \label{fig:COTsuperlayers}
202: \end{figure}
203:
204: It was mentioned that ionization electrons drift under the influence of an electric field $\vec E$, but there is also a magnetic field $\vec B$ parallel to the $z$ axis. So, as the force $-e\vec E$ accelerates the electron, the force $-e\vec \upsilon \times \vec B$ turns it on the $x-y$ plane (Fig.~\ref{fig:lorentzAngle}). At any time the velocity of the electron in the medium can be parametrized as $\vec \upsilon = \mu \vec E$, where $\mu$ is the {\em mobility} of the medium. Assuming that the $\vec E$ field is homogeneous on the $x-y$ plane and the electron is non-relativistic, the equilibrium is at an angle $\psi$ with respect to $\vec E$ that is $\psi_L =\arctan \mu \abs{\vec B}$. $\psi_L$ is called the Lorentz angle and for the COT it is about $35^\circ$. The wires in the COT cells are then arranged along the direction determined by the Lorentz angle, to minimize the drift time and maximize the COT efficiency and resolution (Fig.~\ref{fig:COTcell}).
205:
206: \begin{figure}
207: \centering
208: \includegraphics[width=12cm,angle=0]{figures/cdf/lorentzAngle}
209: \caption[The trajectory of an ionization electron in the $\vec E$ and $\vec B$ field of the COT.]{The trajectory of an ionization electron in the $\vec E$ and $\vec B$ field of the COT. The condition $e E \sin\psi_L = e\upsilon B=e\mu E \cos\psi_L B$ determines the Lorentz angle $\psi_L = \arctan \mu B$.}
210: \label{fig:lorentzAngle}
211: \end{figure}
212:
213: \subsubsection{Magnet}
214: A 1.4 T magnetic field is produced in the $- \hat z$ direction by the superconductive solenoid surrounding the COT (Fig.~\ref{fig:RZview} and \ref{fig:cdfII}).
215:
216: The magnetic field is essential for the measurement of the transverse momentum ($p_T$) of ionizing particles. Greater magnetic field intensity and bigger tracking volume radius improve $p_T$ resolution, which on the other hand is limited by the spatial resolution of the tracker and multiple scattering \cite{PDBook}. At CDF, the $p_T$ resolution is $\delta(1/p_T)=\frac{0.15\%}{\mbox{{\small GeV/c}}}$.
217:
218: \subsubsection{Track reconstruction}
219: %http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/cdfnotes/cdf1790_svx_tracking.ps.gz
220: %http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/thesis/cdf5561_tracking_performance.ps.gz
221: The Silicon Detector and the COT record a large number of hits in each event, viz.~discrete positions from which ionizing particles seem to have passed.
222: But the hits alone do not suffice. In each event there are tens of charged particles, as well as false hits. What is needed is an algorithm to reconstruct tracks out of the thousands of hits of each event.
223:
224: Every track is a helix that can be parametrized in terms of the variables in Table \ref{tab:helixParameters}. Essentially, tracking algorithms fit for those 5 parameters to best match the observed hits \cite{Tracking1, Tracking2}.
225:
226: \begin{table}
227: \centering
228: \begin{tabular}{c p{13cm}}
229: $\theta$ & the polar angle at minimum approach, which refers to the point of the track closest to the $z$ axis. \\
230: $C$ & semi-curvature of the track (inverse of diameter), with the same sign as the particle's electric charge. \\
231: $z_0$ & $z$ coordinate at minimum approach. \\
232: $D$ & signed impact parameter: distance between helix and the $z$ axis at minimum approach. The sign of $D$ is given from its formal definition: $D = \mbox{sign}(q)(\sqrt{x_0^2+y_0^2}-\rho)$, where $q$ is the ionizing particle's charge, ($x_0$,$y_0$) is the center of the track's projection onto the $x-y$ plane, and $\rho$ is the radius of the same projection. Fig.~\ref{fig:signOfD} demonstrates combinations of positive and negative $D$ and $C$. \\
233: $\phi_0$ & Direction of track on $x-y$ plane at minimum approach, i.e.~the polar angle of the particle's $p_T$ at minimum approach.
234: \end{tabular}
235: \caption{The 5 parameters of a helical track.}
236: \label{tab:helixParameters}
237: \end{table}
238:
239: \begin{figure}
240: \centering
241: \includegraphics[width=10cm,angle=0]{figures/cdf/dSign}
242: \caption{Combinations of positive and negative $D$ and $C$ (see Table \ref{tab:helixParameters}).}
243: \label{fig:signOfD}
244: \end{figure}
245:
246: %http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/cdfnotes/cdf4934_track_match_1_2.ps.gz
247: %Segment Linking algorithm.
248:
249: %http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/cdfnotes/cdf5562_cot_histo_tracking.ps.gz
250: %The Histogram tracking algorithm is used both in the Silicon Detector and the COT.
251:
252: %Constantin's thesis.
253: %inside/out tracking algorithm
254:
255: %http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/thesis/cdf5561_tracking_performance.ps.gz
256: Tracking in the COT using the Segment Linking algorithm involves first reconstructing linear segments of the track in each of the eight superlayers \cite{Tracking2}. Then, the linear segments from the axial layers are linked to form a 2D track on the $x-y$ plane, starting the extrapolation with the outmost segment as seed. The $r-z$ projection of the track is attained by linking the segments from the stereo superlayers. Eventually, the track is characterized by the $\chi^2$ of the fit, and is only kept if that figure of merit is below threshold.
257:
258: An alternative is the Histogram Tracking algorithm \cite{Tracking2}. It starts with a coarse approximation of the final track, which is attained by extrapolating a segment of the track called ``telescope'', such as the outer superlayer segment. The extrapolated telescope corresponds to a helix whose parameters carry large uncertainty, therefore instead of a curve it can imagined as a tube, to visualize those uncertainties (Fig.~\ref{fig:histogramMethod}). In each layer the tube crosses there may be hits that fall inside the tube. For those hits, the likelihood is calculated to belong to the track. Each crossed layer is translated into a histogram of those likelihoods. Those histograms coming from different layers are then combined into a final one, and the track is reconstructed as the helix which maximizes the combined likelihood. Compared to the Segment Linking algorithm, this alternative is slower but more efficient in cases of missing and accurate in cases of spurious hits.
259:
260: \begin{figure}
261: \centering
262: \includegraphics[width=10cm,angle=0]{figures/cdf/histogramMethod}
263: \caption{Schematic of the Histogram Tracking method.}
264: \label{fig:histogramMethod}
265: \end{figure}
266:
267: The Histogram Tracking algorithm is also applied in Silicon tracking, where the part of the track in the COT is used as the telescope.
268:
269: In Silicon tracking \cite{Tracking2}, the information of the $z$ of the primary vertex is used. That is known by combining hits from the stereo strips and extrapolating to the beam axis. This produces a variety of candidates, each of different likelihood, so in the end the primary vertex is at the most likely $z$.
270:
271: The Stand-Alone algorithm for Silicon tracking uses information exclusively from silicon hits, therefore has the advantage of using the whole $\abs{\eta}<2$ acceptance of the Silicon Detector. It starts by finding hits in places where axial and stereo strips intersect. Then, triplets of aligned hits are identified. The information of the primary vertex is used to constrain the candidate helices. In the end the best fitting helix is kept.
272:
273: %http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/upgrades/computing/projects/reconstruction/tracking/user-docs/OIoverview.html
274: The Outside-In algorithm \cite{TrackingOutsideIn} takes COT tracks and extrapolates them into the Silicon Detector, adding hits via a progressive fit. As each layer of silicon is encountered, a road size is established based on the error matrix of the track. Hits that are within the road are added to the track, and the track parameters and error matrix are refit with this new information. A new track candidate is generated for each hit in the road, and each of these new candidates are then extrapolated to the next layer in, where the process is repeated. As the extrapolation proceeds, the track error matrix is inflated to reflect the amount of scattering material encountered. At the end of this process, there may be many track candidates associated with the original COT track. The candidate that has hits in the largest number of silicon layers is chosen as the winner; if more than one candidate has the same number of hits, the $\chi^2$ of the fit in the silicon is used to decide.
275:
276: %Chris Hays's paper, from the tracking CDF webpage
277: The Inside-Out algorithm \cite{TrackingInsideOut} performs the reverse extrapolation: from the Silicon Detector to the COT. Its goal is to use the Stand-Alone silicon track to associate it with COT hits and improve the efficiency of reconstruction of tracks that do not cross more than 4 COT superlayers.
278:
279:
280:
281: \subsection{Calorimetry}
282: CDF is equipped with sampling electromagnetic and hadronic calorimeters in the central and plug region, enhanced with shower maximum and preshower detectors for improved particle identification \cite{CDFTDR}. Central calorimeters cover $2\pi$ rads in $\phi$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:cdfCutAway}). The central electromagnetic calorimeter covers $\abs{\eta}<1.1$ and the hadronic $\abs{\eta}<1.3$. The plug calorimeters reach as far as $\abs{\eta}=3.6$. They are segmented in wedge-shaped towers pointing to the center of CDF. Each tower covers about 0.1 units of $\eta$ and $15^\circ$ in $\phi$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:cdfII}). For increased acceptance, the hadronic calorimeter has the endwall calorimeter, spanning $30^\circ < \abs{90^\circ-\theta} < 45^\circ$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:RZview}).
283:
284: \subsubsection{Electromagnetic Calorimeter}
285: CEM and PEM comprise lead absorber sheets alternating with scintillator layers. Light produced at the scintillator is transfered by WLS fibers to two PMTs that correspond to each tower\footnote{Having two PMTs per tower allows for cross-check of the validity of signals, using time information and comparing the difference in the signal intensity in the two.}.
286:
287: The CEM has a total maximum thickness of about 19 $X_0$, in 20-30 (varying with $\abs{\eta}$) layers of 3 mm lead and 5 mm scintillator. Its energy resolution, after \textit{in situ} calibration, is found to be $13.5\%/\sqrt{E_T}\oplus 2\%$.
288:
289: PEM contains 22 layers of lead, 4.5 mm each\footnote{The first layer is an exception, being 1 cm thick and read out separately to be used as a preshower detector.}, and its scintillator layers are 4 mm thick. Its total thickness is 21 $X_0$. Its resolution is $16\%/\sqrt{E_T}\oplus 1\%$.
290:
291: In both CEM and PEM, there is a shower maximum detector, 6 $X_0$ into the calorimeter, where an electromagnetic shower statistically contains the biggest number of particles \cite{PDBook}. CES is a multi-wire proportional chamber with strip readout in the $z$ direction and wire along $\phi$. PES has scintillator strips that cross to form a 2-dimensional grid in each plug.
292: With resolution of about 2 mm in the central and 1 mm in the plug, the showermax detectors facilitate the matching of tracks with calorimeter hits, improving $e^\pm/\gamma$ identification. Also, sampling the profile of the electromagnetic showers at 6 $X_0$ allows for improved $\gamma/\pi^0$ identification.
293:
294: Finally, between the solenoid and the first layer of the CEM lies a set of multi-wire proportional chambers, the CPR, which samples the electromagnetic showers at 1.075 $X_0$, viz.~the solenoid's thickness. This information greatly enhances $\gamma$ and soft $e^\pm$ identification \cite{CDFTDR}.
295:
296: \subsubsection{Hadronic Calorimeter}
297: The hadronic calorimeter is similar to the electromagnetic, except that it uses iron for absorber instead of lead.
298: The CHA is 4.7 $\lambda_0$ thick, consisting of 32 2.5 cm iron layers alternating with 1 cm scintillator layers. Its energy resolution is $75\%/\sqrt{E_T}\oplus3\%$.
299:
300: %Sakumoto's email.
301: The WHA has similar energy resolution \cite{Abe:1988me}; $75\%/\sqrt{E_T}\oplus4\%$. It contains 15 layers of iron, 5 cm each, alternating with 1 cm layers of scintillator, adding up to 4.5 $\lambda_0$.
302:
303: The PHA is thicker, containing 7 $\lambda_0$ in 23 layers of iron, 51 mm each, alternating with 6 mm layers of scintillator. Its energy resolution is $80\%/\sqrt{E_T}\oplus5\%$.
304:
305:
306:
307: \subsection{Muon System}
308: %http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/internal/physics/joint_physics/instructions/muon_cuts_gen6.html
309: CDF is equipped with four muon detectors (Fig.~\ref{fig:muonDetectors}), which will be described in this section.
310:
311: Muons weigh 200 times more than electrons, therefore radiate about $200^2=40,000$ times less by bremsstrahlung. They do not deposit much energy in the calorimeter, but rather traverse the whole detector almost unimpeded. This makes them easier to identify by installing wire chambers around the detector, beyond the calorimeter and even beyond extra absorbing material; muons are virtually the only ionizing particles that can reach there.
312:
313: Shielding the muon detectors behind absorber increases the detected muons' purity, but also enhances multiple scattering, which makes it harder to match the small track segment in the muon detector (called ``stub'') with the corresponding COT track. However this is not a very big problem, especially for high-$p_T$ muons, since the displacement due to multiple scattering is about $\frac{15\ \mbox{cm}}{p_T}$, for the $p_T$ is in GeV/c \cite{CDFTDR}. Furthermore, some low-$p_T$ muons can not reach the muon detectors, but that is not a problem either, since the threshold is lower than 2.2 GeV/c \cite{CDFTDR}, far lower than the $p_T$ of the muons considered in this analysis.
314:
315: \begin{figure}
316: \centering
317: \includegraphics[width=7cm,angle=0]{figures/cdf/muonDetectors}
318: \caption{The muon detectors of CDF.}
319: \label{fig:muonDetectors}
320: \end{figure}
321:
322: %http://www-cdfonline.fnal.gov/ops/cdf_muon/
323: %http://www-cdfonline.fnal.gov/ops/cdf_muon/docs/muon_tutorial_TLCompte.pdf
324: %Anikeev's thesis
325: \subsubsection{Central Muon detector (CMU)}
326: The CMU \cite{CDFTDR} surrounds the hadronic calorimeter, at radius 3.47 m, covering the $\abs{\eta}<0.6$ region. It consists of argon-ethane wire chamber cells operating in proportional mode, organized in stacks of four. Each wire chamber is $2.7\times6.4\times226\ \mbox{cm}^3$ with a resistive stainless steel wire along its biggest dimension, which is aligned parallel to the $z$ axis. In $\phi$ it is segmented in 24 wedges, each containing 4 stacks side by side, therefore each wedge contains a chamber of $4\times4=16$ cells (Fig.~\ref{fig:CMU}).
327:
328: \begin{figure}
329: \centering
330: \includegraphics[width=10cm,angle=0]{figures/cdf/cmuChamber}
331: \caption{Cross section of a CMU chamber. Each vertical array is one stack.}
332: \label{fig:CMU}
333: \end{figure}
334:
335: The drift times ($<800$ ns) are used to measure the $r-\phi$ projection of the track. The $z$ coordinate of the track is extracted with about 10 cm precision, using the {\em charge division} method, whose principle is explained in Fig.~\ref{fig:chargeDivision}. To apply this method, every couple of $\phi-$adjacent cells have their wires ganged together at one end.
336:
337: \begin{figure}
338: \centering
339: \includegraphics[width=5cm,angle=0]{figures/cdf/chargeDivision}
340: \caption[The principle of charge division method.]{The principle of charge division method. The ionization charge is collected at some position $d$ along the $z$ axis, and splits into two currents: $I_1$ and $I_2$. From Ohm's law, $I_1 R (1 + \frac{L-d}{L}) = I_2 R \frac{d}{L} \Rightarrow I_1 (2L-d) = I_2 d \Rightarrow d = \frac{2LI_1}{I_2 + I_1}$. With the approximation that all currents last for the same amount of time $\Delta t$, we can write $Q_i = I_i\mbox{const}_{\Delta t}$. Therefore, by measuring $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ one can determine $d=\frac{2LQ_1}{Q_1+Q_2}$.}
341: \label{fig:chargeDivision}
342: \end{figure}
343:
344:
345: \subsubsection{Central Muon Upgrade detector (CMP)}
346: The CMP (Fig.~\ref{fig:muonDetectors}) is shielded behind about 7.8 $\lambda_0$, comprising the calorimeter, the magnet return yoke and extra steel absorber. Compared to the CMU, which was shielded behind only 5 hadronic interaction lengths, the CMP provides higher purity in muon identification \cite{CDFTDR}. Those reconstructed muons that have a stub in both the CMU and the CMP are called ``CMUP muons''.
347:
348: The CMP is not azimuthally symmetric, but resembles a box surrounding the central region of the detector ($\abs{\eta} < 0.6$). It is made of wire chambers similar to those used for the CMU, but just bigger: $2.5\times15\times640\ \mbox{cm}^3$.
349:
350: A bigger difference is that CMP contains scintillator counters in addition to wire chambers. The scintillator layers lie on the outer side of the chambers and provide timing information that is used to discard out-of-time muon candidates, which could not possibly be muons originating from the center of the detector. Furthermore, timing helps not have stubs from different bunch crossings piled up, given that the drift time in the CMP can be as large as 1.7 $\mu$s \cite{CDFTDR}. Eventually, the dimensions of the scintillator counters are $2.5\times30\times320\ \mbox{cm}^3$, so two silicon counters are needed to cover the $z$ dimension of the CMU, providing the very crude information of whether a muon stub has positive or the negative $z$ coordinate.
351:
352: \subsubsection{CMX}
353: CMX \cite{CDFTDR} is very similar to CMP; it consists of same type wire chambers and silicon counters. It differs significantly in geometry though. It covers the region $0.6 < \abs{\eta} < 1$ and is shaped like a conic section on each side of the detector (Fig.~\ref{fig:muonDetectors}). The wire chambers are grouped in wedges, each $15^\circ$ in $\phi$. Each wedge contains 48 chambers, arranged in 8 layers. The lower $90^\circ$ of the CMX, which physically penetrate the floor supporting the detector, are called ``miniskirt'' for obvious reason (Fig.~\ref{fig:muonDetectors}). This part was not instrumented until past 2003.
354:
355: \subsubsection{IMU}
356: IMU \cite{CDFTDR} covers the region $1 < \abs{\eta} < 1.5$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:muonDetectors}). It comprises silicon counters and wire chambers of dimensions $2.5\times8.4\times363\ \mbox{cm}^3$. In combination with ISL tracking, it provides muon reconstruction and momentum measurement in the $\abs{\eta} > 1$ region.
357:
358:
359: \subsection{Cerenkov Luminosity Counter}
360: %http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/~konigsb/instr02.ps
361: CDF is equipped with the CLC \cite{CLC}, a detector dedicated to measuring instantaneous luminosity ($\Ell$). It consists of $2 \times 48$ Cerenkov counters placed in the far forward and backward region ($3.75 < \abs{\eta} < 4.75$). filled with isobutane at nearly atmospheric pressure.
362:
363: The number of $p\bar p$ interactions ($n$) in a bunch crossing follows the Poisson distribution with mean $\mu = \sigma_{p\bar p}\Ell t_{BC}$, where $\sigma_{p \bar p}$ is the cross section of inelastic $p \bar p$ scattering and $t_{BC}$ is the time interval between bunch crossings.
364:
365: Bunch crossings with $n=0$ occur with probability $P_0(\mu)=e^{-\mu}$. By measuring the fraction of empty crossings $\mu$ can be measured\footnote{Of course it is necessary to correct the measured $\mu$ by dividing with the CLC acceptance $\epsilon$.} and therefore $\cal L$.
366:
367: An alternative method consists in measuring directly $\mu$ as $N/N_1$, where $N$ is the number of CLC counts of some bunch crossing, and $N_1$ is the average number of CLC counts in the case of single-interaction bunch crossings. $N_1$ can be measured at low $\Ell$, when $\mu \ll 1$.
368:
369: The first method, of measuring empty crossings, has the advantage of not needing any information such as $N_1$, but at high $\Ell$ empty crossings become rare, making this method inefficient. On the other hand, the second method depends on the $N_1$ information, and $N/N_1$ in reality does not scale linearly with \Ell, as the CLC occupancy grows and is eventually saturated due to the finite number of counters, therefore correction for this non-linearity are required.
370:
371: The uncertainty in the integrated luminosity measured with the CLC is 6\%, to which the biggest contribution comes from the uncertainty in $\sigma_{p\bar p}$ at 1.96 TeV.
372:
373:
374: \subsection{Data Acquisition}
375: %Each $p\bar p$ collision produces a plethora of stimulated sensors in CDF. Fundumentally, before any reconstruction is made, the physics event consists in the set of digitized readings of the stimulated photomultipliers, scintillator tiles/strips, silicon pixels/strips and readout wires. To be able to examine an event, its constituent bits and reconstructed objects need to be stored in an entry to a database\footnote{Technically, this database is actually a ROOT tree, and there are potentially several such trees in which the same event may be registered, by satisfying simultaneously several corresponding sets of selection criteria.}.
376:
377: CDF employs approximately $10^6$ readout channels. A bunch crossing at $\Ell \sim 2\times10^{32}$ \lumiUnits\ yields on average about 5 $p\bar p$ interactions. An event of such multiplicity takes about 200 kB of digitized information volume. It becomes then obvious that not every single bunch crossing can be read, as that would require the enormous bandwidth of $\sim$630 GB/s.
378:
379: Apart from technically inevitable, it is also sensible to record only those events that pass some quality selection and would be of some interest\footnote{In an experiment of the broad scope of CDF it is not trivial to decide which events could be of some interest, since different analyses may see interest in different kinds of events. Furthermore, nobody is certain what the signature of physics beyond the Standard Model will be.}. For example, an event with leptons should be retained, while for multi-jet events it is enough to keep only a fraction of them, since they are so abundant in $p\bar p$ collisions.
380:
381: The DAQ system \cite{CDFTDR} is responsible for selecting the best events as they occur. Fig.~\ref{fig:DAQ} provides an overview of the DAQ architecture.
382: \begin{figure}
383: \centering
384: \includegraphics[width=13cm,angle=0]{figures/cdf/daq}
385: \caption{Diagram of the CDF DAQ system.}
386: \label{fig:DAQ}
387: \end{figure}
388:
389:
390: \subsubsection{Level-1}
391:
392: The frequency of 2.5 MHz at which bunches cross is too high to allow for full reconstruction of every event, so the first level of selection is based on fragments of information. This happens in Level-1; an accept/reject decision is made using ``primitives'', namely coarse information on COT tracks and stubs in the CMU, CMP and CMX \cite{CDFTDR}. Systems providing primitives are depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:L1L2}. The XFT crudely reconstructs COT tracks on the $x-y$ plane. The XTRP extrapolates XFT tracks through the calorimeter and the muon system finding matching hits/towers.
393:
394: Based on the primitives, several algorithms $-$ also called ``individual triggers'' $-$ contribute to the Level-1 decision. For example, effort is made to keep events with high-$p_T$ tracks, or leptons, or large missing transverse energy (\met) etc.
395:
396: The latency of Level-1 is 5.5 $\mu$s, in which 14 bunch crossings occur. Therefore, all front-end electronics are equipped with buffers of enough capacity to contain information from 14 bunch crossings. Level-1 then works as a synchronous pipeline; by the time 14 events are pushed back into the buffer, at least one event has been examined and pulled from it, freeing a slot for the current event to be buffered.
397:
398: Less than 2\% of the events pass Level-1, making its accept rate less than 50 kHz.
399:
400: \subsubsection{Level-2}
401: Level-2 functions as an asynchronous pipeline, where events are processed in FIFO mode \cite{CDFTDR}. With no more than $50$ kHz input rate, it can afford up to 1/50 kHz = 20 $\mu$s to decide on each event\footnote{Actually, since up to 4 events can be kept in the Level-2 buffer, the latency can be even greater, without causing dead-time, provided that this is not the case for too many events.}.
402:
403: In its decision, Level-2 takes into account the primitives of Level-1, in addition to showermax information, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:L1L2}.
404: \begin{figure}
405: \centering
406: \includegraphics[width=10cm,angle=0]{figures/cdf/l1l2}
407: \caption[Information flow within Level-1 and Level-2.]{Information flow within Level-1 and Level-2. XCES is a system that generates the stimulated showermax bitmap and finds matching tracks extrapolated by XTRP to define electron candidates. The SVT extrapolates XFT tracks into the SVX, providing the $D$ and $\phi_0$ information (Table \ref{tab:helixParameters}). The TSI coordinates the flow of information and interfaces to the CDF clock, which is used to know when a bunch crossing is occurring.}
408: \label{fig:L1L2}
409: \end{figure}
410:
411: The acceptance rate of Level-2 is less than 1 kHz. Effort is made to maintain this rate as close to 1 kHz as possible, by readjusting the trigger requirements as \Ell\ changes, making them stricter at high \Ell\ and looser at low \Ell.
412:
413: \subsubsection{Event Builder}
414:
415: In the case of a Level-2 accept, the whole detector is eventually read out. The EVB collects the fragments of the event and passes them to Level-3. Reading out the front-end electronics of the whole detector takes about 1 ms, which is why this step is only possible after having discarded over 99.96\% of the events.
416:
417: %http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/cdfnotes/cdf8021_evb2_datacheck.ps
418: EVB (Fig.~\ref{fig:EVB}) lies in 21 VME crates, each containing one Linux computer, referred to as SCPU \cite{EVBaces}. Each crate is dedicated to reading a different part of the detector. Apart from the SCPU, each crate contains a series of memory buffers, the VRBs. When the front-end crates are read, the information of the event is first stored in the VRBs. Each SCPU reads the VRBs of it own crate through the VME backplane of the crate, which in combination with the GigaBit Ethernet networking allows for the desired system speed. On reading the VRBs, a byte-count check is performed, as well as checks of the size of each buffer entry \cite{EVBchecks}. Though in principle EVB should not be discarding any events, it does so if information is missing or corrupted.
419:
420: The function of the EVB is coordinated by the EVB Proxy, a process running on a dedicated Linux machine. All acknowledgement messages within the EVB are circulated through the EVB Proxy, and so does any information exchanged with the TSI and Level-3.
421:
422: \begin{figure}
423: \centering
424: \includegraphics[width=10cm,angle=0]{figures/cdf/evb}
425: \caption{Diagram of the Event Builder.}
426: \label{fig:EVB}
427: \end{figure}
428:
429:
430: \subsubsection{Level-3}
431:
432: Level-3 is the last stage of trigger selection \cite{EVBaces}. Receiving events from the EVB at $<1$ kHz, it is purely software implemented, performing three basic functions:
433: \begin{enumerate}
434: \item{Concatenates same-event fragments coming from the EVB into an event entry.}
435: \item{Imposes the final selection, taking into account the reconstructed objects information.}
436: \item{Submits passing events to the CSL for storage.}
437: \end{enumerate}
438:
439: There is a whole cluster of 411 Linux computers counting 2.4 THz of CPU dedicated to Level-3. Though all computers are nearly identical, they are separated in three categories, depending on their task:
440: \begin{itemize}
441: \item{18 Converter nodes: They receive event fragments from the EVB and combine them to form self-contained event records which they pass to available Processor nodes.}
442: \item{384 Processor nodes: Upon reception of events from a Converter, they apply the Level-3 filter to either discard or pass them to an Output node, after some reformatting that reshapes the passing entries to their final format.}
443: \item{9 Output nodes: They receive the passing events from Processor nodes and propagate them to the CSL for storage.}
444: \end{itemize}
445:
446: The Level-3 cluster is separated in 18 identical subsets, called ``subfarms''\footnote{A term appropriate for a subdivision of the whole Level-3 cluster, which is called ``farm'' in CDF jargon.}. This way, data handling proceeds in 18 independent, parallel streams which share the load of incoming events. Each subfarm contains 1 Converter, 21 or 22 Processors, and shares an Output with another subfarm. On every Processor, 5 Level-3 filters run simultaneously, on hyper-threaded dual-core Intel CPUs. The Converter of each subfarm is allowed to only submit events to Processors of its own subfarm, and the Processors of each subfarm can only send events to the Output node serving it.
447:
448: The operation of Level-3 is coordinated by the Level-3 Proxy application, running on a dedicated computer. The Proxy collects and sends acknowledgements from and to the computers of the cluster, and communicates with the EVB Proxy to indicate among other things which Converter is available to receive the next event.
449: % Furthermore, it provides the interface between the Level-3 and the RunControl, which is the application used by the shift crew to control data-taking.
450:
451: Filtering is done by a program written in \texttt{C++}, the Level-3 filter executable, which applies criteria stored in a centralized database implemented in Oracle. In the database is stored the {\em trigger table}, which is a list of ``triggers''. Each trigger is structured to contain the following information:
452: \begin{enumerate}
453: \item{The prerequisite Level-1 and Level-2 triggers.}
454: \item{The \texttt{C++} reconstruction modules that should be used and in what order.}
455: \item{The specific selection criteria decided having some physics goal, for example a cut in some invariant mass in the event.}
456: \item{The name of the dataset in which to store the event if it passes the trigger selection.}
457: \end{enumerate}
458:
459: The output rate of Level-3 is about 100 Hz. The events passing Level-3 are sent to the CSL for immediate storage. From there, they are shortly sent to the FCC for permanent storage on magnetic tape.
460:
461:
462: \subsection{Off-line production}
463: Data analysis is not performed on the raw data. Before the data on tape are usable, the off-line production process has to take place.
464:
465: At production \cite{CDFTDR}, the raw data banks are unpacked and physics objects are reconstructed in full detail. This is similar to what is done at Level-3, but the off-line reconstruction is much more elaborate, applying the latest calibrations, since those reconstructed objects will be the final ones to be used for analysis.
466:
467: Since passing Level-3, each event contains the information of the dataset(s) it belongs to. At the production, even further partitioning is made; datasets are collections of filesets, which are collections of files containing events.
468:
469: For the needs of each analysis, the raw data are taken from the appropriate dataset and are converted to a convenient format. Since ROOT \cite{ROOT} is the adopted analysis framework, the format varies between different architectures of ROOT Trees. For example, one is the ``topNtuple'', used mostly by collaborators doing $t$-quark analyses, but a more common format, used also in the present analysis, is the ``Standard Ntuple'' (\Stntuple).
470:
471:
472:
473:
474: