ND-LAr Consortium IB Representative Meeting


Present:  Michele Weber, Alysia Marino, Alexander Olshevsky, Jonathan Asaadi, Jane Nachtman, Lisa Koerner, Mitchell Soderberg, Ryan Patterson, Steve Brice, Tim Bolton, Xiao Luo, Deborah Harris


Action Items:

Dan and Michele to send out instructions to PI’s so they can fill out their expected contributions to the ND-LAr in the Construction Era (not the prototyping era).  Labor contributions don’t have to be costed, just listed.


Dan and Michele to check with Ting that as much of the preliminary work for the ORC’s can be done even if the Module 2 and 3 arrrival date is later than originally forecast.


Michele to ask Andy and Pedro to put together a list of the software used for the 2x2 and the ND-LAr more generally to make sure we are taking advantage as much as is sensible with the MicroBooNE and SBND code development and infrastructure.


Comment on “M&S Only”:


University-supported labor will be called out in the MOU but we don’t have to cost that labour.


Asaadi:  on the I&I side:  timeline we should determine on I&I.  But the MOU Is only supposed to include the M&S, not the personnel that is needed.


There will be non-lab engineering resources that  could be a cost savings.   But that was put on the back burner because of the schedule delays.


May need to put I&I engineering resources in the MOU.


This doesn’t replace any of the funding needs that are defined in the DOE project.


Mostly this document (MOU) is for the contributing funding agencies to see that things are covered.


It’s okay for us to sign this MOU with the understanding that universities contributing labor for a time that is not in the current grant cycle.  It’s not a legally binding document.


It might be worth asking Ting if the reviews (or at least some of them) could happen even if there were only 2 modules in the cryostat underground.


Steve Brice:

ORC:  they tend to require a well-documented system.  we already have good progress on the ORC of the charge readout and electronics. I’m not as worried about the cryogenic system.


We’ve already dealt with the cryogenics.


The stuff that worries me more is the light collection where we’ve had trouble getting the documentation needed for the ORC.


Michele:  we are making progress on documentation because of the work going on at LArTF.


Alexander:  I think that Sacha’s being at Fermilab meant there was a lot of progress on documentation.


make progress on the MOU with a google document and then follow up with individual emails.


Jonathan Asaadi:  I’ve been able to boostrap a simulation using my own samples.  I’ve seen people updating gdml’s, but I can’t tell if it’s ad hoc or not.


is there a centralized stream that we’re supposed to commit to?


Michele: I don’t think there is a centralized stream but there should be.


should contact Andy and Pedro about this


Steve:  do we have a set of tools?  Is there an agreed-upon set of tools for simulation and analysis?


If not, we should have s single plan for that, and that it match the rest of DUNE.


Michele:  Yes, agreed.


somr of the tools like pandora which does 2-d reconstruction and then merges it, we will have to do.


but we do know how to use the same framework for neutrino interacctions.


we’re trying to make a coherent charge and light simulation.


Steve:  what worries me more is the analysis tools and drawing people into the effort.  if people are coming in from Microboone and SBND then we will have an easier time drawing them in if we are using the same tools.


Asaadi:  I cannot pick up any of the code for SBND and MicroBooNE.


The simulation chain is not the same.  It is problematic.


Mitchell Soderberg:  I have a student who is moving to fermilab right now, if there are workshops planned then that will help.


tthis is a topic for the next analysis meeting:


need a list of analysis tools that ND-LAr and the 2x2 plans to use, and how that connects to the rest of the DUNE software.


Action Item:  We should make that request to Pedro and Andy to put together this list.


Key Question:  are we using LArsoft, and if not, why not, and are we okay with the reasons?


Jonathan:  it’s not LArSoft.  we are using GENIE and edepsim, but we are not using LArSoft.


Mitch:  This is for sure the 2x2  You also need a GPU to do the initial steps.   


As far as getting the early analyses done, I understand why there we went that route.  It’s hard to have 3-d reconstruction that is native in LArSoft.  This group went their own way because we had to.


There are minutes attached to this event. Show them.
    • 1:30 PM 1:45 PM
      Feedback from reviews 15m
    • 1:45 PM 2:00 PM
      MOU Status 15m
    • 2:00 PM 2:15 PM
      Needs for Consortium Institution Involvement 15m
    • 2:15 PM 2:30 PM
      2x2 Status 15m