Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

phys-npps-mgmt-l - Re: [Phys-npps-mgmt-l] Proposal to Jamie for 1/2 FTE new EIC sw effort

phys-npps-mgmt-l AT lists.bnl.gov

Subject: NPPS Leadership Team

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Alexander Kiselev <kisselev AT mail.desy.de>
  • To: "wenaus AT gmail.com" <wenaus AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: NPPS leadership team <Phys-npps-mgmt-l AT lists.bnl.gov>, "Potekhin, Maxim" <potekhin AT bnl.gov>
  • Subject: Re: [Phys-npps-mgmt-l] Proposal to Jamie for 1/2 FTE new EIC sw effort
  • Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 22:58:46 +0200 (CEST)

Hi Torre,

looks fine to me. Was wondering to see the reply.

As a general comment, I can not react on such e-mail exchange in real time.
My "interrupt handler" does not allow for efficient context switch if there are too many distractions :-) Would be better if such an e-mail was discussed on a few days notice.

Regards,
Alexander.



On Thu, 28 May 2020, Torre Wenaus via Phys-npps-mgmt-l wrote:

Thanks, sent, without the apology :-)
  Torre

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 2:15 PM Laycock, Paul <laycock AT bnl.gov> wrote:
Thanks ! I think you could argue that, in addition to providing an
appropriate financial matching to the validation effort coming from JLab,
there is also a very strong
strategic argument that there should be validation effort coming from
both labs.  The comparisons you discuss will be crucial input for taking
decisions.  Imagine what
would happen if the validation says "JLab" and the only validation
effort is from JLab.  BNL has to play its part in ensuring an objective outcome based
on what's best for
the science.

I think you can also drop the "convoluted" apology at the end, it's his job
to understand complex problems :)

Paul

On 28 May 2020, at 12:43, Torre Wenaus <wenaus AT gmail.com> wrote:

Comments much appreciated! This is a new version, following the wise advice
to drop the travel part, and adding a paragraph about how additionally the
validation suite can
be used. With a few tweaks to perhaps make it clearer what I'm proposing.

Hi Jamie,
I have a proposal to make an addition to the EIC software effort (over and
above Kolja, including his promotion), while at the same time activating the
PHENIX DAP support.

I haven't forgotten that you have allocated 1/2 FTE for PHENIX data &
analysis preservation :-) I haven't found a way to use it on an existing person.
I have been looking
for an opportunity to add a complementary 1/2 FTE to turn it into a full
person we can hire, and I think there's a good case now for the other 1/2 FTE
to be EIC software
support. This new 1/2 FTE would be complemented by another 1/2 FTE of new EIC
software support being requested to JLab by Markus (which would be applied to
JLab based
effort).

Here's why we need an additional FTE of EIC software support.

In EIC software, the YR developments and the most recent workshop last week
have clarified our needs. The suite of simu tools we support in the software
working group are
accepted and in use across the YR working groups. It is clear that for the
indefinite future we will have two full simu + reco frameworks, fun4all and
escalate (g4e +
jana2). Actually we have three because EicRoot is still getting a lot of use.
On the fast simu side we support one, eic-smear, though some in the community
are using
delphes. What is clear now, and what we're getting requests for, is we need
cross-validation between these tools. Between full and full, fast and full,
and fast and fast if
delphes catches on. Kolja is ready to help here, in the context of eic-smear;
he can help both with the general infrastructure and applying it to
eic-smear. But he can't do
it all, and the software working group conveners are asking for help in the
form of an FTE of new postdoc-level effort. This effort would be used to help
develop the
infrastructure (common format for kinematic outputs from simu and reco,
standard set of validation ntuples and plots, validation workflows, etc.) and
to perform the
validation of our supported software packages and cross-validation between
them.

This validation suite and infrastructure will have important value beyond
validating the software itself. By enabling the comparison of full and fast
simu based on physics
performance metrics, it will provide quantitative means of assessing the
relative utility and roles of fast and full simu, enabling us to optimize
their use with their very
different processung costs and latencies. It will also provide a means of
objectively comparing detector models and monitoring the changes in their
performance as models
evolve.

Hence I am asking you for 1/2 FTE postdoc level support, which I could
combine with the DAP support to hire someone. DAP and the validation work fit
very well; validation
is part of DAP. And Markus is asking JLab management for 1/2 FTE support. 
The two labs collaborating to support an FTE worth of effort (across two
people) on a task that
is manifestly important and generic -- and which is all the more important
because we have not converged on one framework, though the work would be
needed even if we had --
would be a very good message of support for the immediate software needs of
EIC.

Interested to hear what you think. This is a bit convoluted, I'm happy to
clarify as needed!

  Torre

On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 12:33 PM Laycock, Paul <laycock AT bnl.gov> wrote:
Hi Torre, I would completely drop the travel support request, it's not
the right time and risks weakening your argument by mixing a high priority
request with
something not currently relevant.  When travel restarts we will be
scrutinised more than before and there will be an assumption that we will
travel less than
before corona.  That may even require some prioritisation exercise,
asking for new travel budgets in this context is bad timing.

For the software position, and thinking about the bottom line (you're
discussing money) as described there is no guiding strategy.  It should be
clear that by
investing effort now in validation of these tools, we can more accurately
assess future simulation needs.  By distinguishing between the use of full
and fast sim
based on physics performance needs, we will be able to optimise their use and
the associated costs.

Paul


On 27 May 2020, at 11:59, Torre Wenaus via Phys-npps-mgmt-l
<Phys-npps-mgmt-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi all,
I plan to make the following proposal to Jamie following discussion among the
EIC SW WG conveners. If you think it is misguided, or you have any comments at
all, please let me know!
  Torre

Hi Jamie,
A couple questions about EIC software support. The deadline for new EIC detector
R&D proposals is coming next month. Up to now we've relied on a small
allocation to software consortium R&D to support travel. That account (which
I manage now) is down to $7k or so. How can we replenish our travel funds? A new
software R&D proposal is probably not the sensible way to do it. Can we get
$20k or so (when we start to travel again) from your detector budget?

The other question is about effort. I haven't forgotten that you have allocated
1/2 FTE for PHENIX data & analysis preservation :-) I haven't found a way to
use
it on an existing person. I have been looking for an opportunity to add a
complementary 1/2 FTE to turn it into a full person we can hire, and I think
there's a
good case now for the other 1/2 FTE to be EIC software support, with another
1/2 FTE of new EIC software support being requested to JLab by Markus (which
would
presumably be applied to JLab based effort). Here's why we need an additional
FTE of EIC software support.

In EIC software, the YR developments and the most recent workshop last week
have clarified our needs. The suite of simu tools we support in the software
working
group are accepted and in use across the YR working groups. It is clear that
for the indefinite future we will have two full simu + reco frameworks,
fun4all and
escalate (g4e + jana2). Actually we have three because EicRoot is still
getting a lot of use. On the fast simu side we support one, eic-smear, though
some in
the community are using delphes. What is clear now, and what we're getting
requests for, is we need cross-validation between these tools. Between full
and full,
fast and full, and fast and fast if delphes catches on. We are going to ask
Kolja to help here, in the context of eic-smear; he can help both with the
general
infrastructure and applying it to eic-smear. But he can't do it all, and the
software working group conveners are asking for help in the form of an FTE of
new
postdoc-level effort. This effort would be used to help develop the
infrastructure (common format for kinematic outputs from simu and reco,
standard set of
validation ntuples and plots, validation workflows, etc.) and to perform the
validation of our supported software packages and cross-validation between
them.

I am asking you for 1/2 FTE postdoc level support, which I could combine with
the DAP support to hire someone. DAP and the validation work fit very well;
validation is part of DAP. And Markus is asking JLab management for 1/2 FTE
support.  The two labs collaborating to support an FTE worth of effort
(across two
people) on a task that is manifestly important and generic -- and which is
all the more important because we have not converged on one framework, though
the
work would be needed even if we had -- would be a very good message of
support for the immediate software needs of EIC.

Interested to hear what you think on these points.

  Torre

--
-- Torre Wenaus, BNL NPPS Group, ATLAS Experiment
-- BNL 510A 1-222 | 631-681-7892 |  wenaus AT gmail.com | npps.bnl.gov | 
wenaus.org
-- NPPS Mattermost room: https://chat.sdcc.bnl.gov/npps/channels/town-square
_______________________________________________
Phys-npps-mgmt-l mailing list
Phys-npps-mgmt-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/phys-npps-mgmt-l




--
-- Torre Wenaus, BNL NPPS Group, ATLAS Experiment
-- BNL 510A 1-222 | 631-681-7892 |  wenaus AT gmail.com | npps.bnl.gov | 
wenaus.org
-- NPPS Mattermost room: https://chat.sdcc.bnl.gov/npps/channels/town-square




--
-- Torre Wenaus, BNL NPPS Group, ATLAS Experiment
-- BNL 510A 1-222 | 631-681-7892 |  wenaus AT gmail.com | npps.bnl.gov | 
wenaus.org
-- NPPS Mattermost room: https://chat.sdcc.bnl.gov/npps/channels/town-square




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page