scispace - formally typeset

Journal ArticleDOI

Geant4—a simulation toolkit


Abstract: G eant 4 is a toolkit for simulating the passage of particles through matter. It includes a complete range of functionality including tracking, geometry, physics models and hits. The physics processes offered cover a comprehensive range, including electromagnetic, hadronic and optical processes, a large set of long-lived particles, materials and elements, over a wide energy range starting, in some cases, from 250 eV and extending in others to the TeV energy range. It has been designed and constructed to expose the physics models utilised, to handle complex geometries, and to enable its easy adaptation for optimal use in different sets of applications. The toolkit is the result of a worldwide collaboration of physicists and software engineers. It has been created exploiting software engineering and object-oriented technology and implemented in the C++ programming language. It has been used in applications in particle physics, nuclear physics, accelerator design, space engineering and medical physics.
Topics: Applied physics (54%)

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 506 (2003) 250303
Gea nt4—a simulation toolkit
S. Agostinelli
ae
, J. Allison
as,
*, K. Amako
e
, J. Apostolakis
a
, H. Araujo
aj
,
P. Arce
l,m,x,a
, M. Asai
g,ai
, D. Axen
i,t
, S. Banerjee
bi,l
, G. Barrand
an
, F. Behner
l
,
L. Bellagamba
c
, J. Boudreau
bd
, L. Broglia
ar
, A. Brunengo
c
, H. Burkhardt
a
,
S. Chauvie
bj,bl
, J. Chuma
h
, R. Chytracek
a
, G. Cooperman
az
, G. Cosmo
a
,
P. Degtyarenko
d
, A. Dell’Acqua
a,i
, G. Depaola
y
, D. Dietrich
af
, R. Enami
ab
,
A. Feliciello
bj
, C. Ferguson
bh
, H. Fesefeldt
l,o
, G. Folger
a
, F. Foppiano
ac
,
A. Forti
as
, S. Garelli
ac
, S. Giani
a
, R. Giannitrapani
bo
, D. Gibin
m,bc
, J.J. G
!
omez
Cadenas
m,bp
, I. Gonz
!
alez
q
, G. Gracia Abril
n
, G. Greeniaus
p,h,ag
, W. Greiner
af
,
V. Grichine
f
, A. Grossheim
m,z
, S. Guatelli
ad
, P. Gumplinger
h
, R. Hamatsu
bk
,
K. Hashimoto
ab
, H. Hasui
ab
, A. Heikkinen
ah
, A. Howard
aj
, V. Ivanchenko
a,ba
,
A. Johnson
g
, F.W. Jones
h
, J. Kallenbach
aa
, N. Kanaya
i,h
, M. Kawabata
ab
,
Y. Kawabata
ab
, M. Kawaguti
ab
, S. Kelner
at
, P. Kent
r
, A. Kimura
ay,bb
,
T. Kodama
aw
, R. Kokoulin
at
, M. Kossov
d
, H. Kurashige
am
, E. Lamanna
w
,
T. Lamp
!
en
ah
, V. Lara
a,l,bq
, V. Lefebure
l
, F. Lei
bh,be
, M. Liendl
l,a,br
,
W. Lockman
j,bn
, F. Longo
bm
, S. Magni
k,au
, M. Maire
ao
, E. Medernach
a
,
K. Minamimoto
aw,al
, P. Mora de Freitas
ap
, Y. Morita
e
, K. Murakami
e
,
M. Nagamatu
aw
, R. Nartallo
b
, P. Nieminen
b
, T. Nishimura
ab
, K. Ohtsubo
ab
,
M. Okamura
ab
, S. O’Neale
s
, Y. Oohata
bk
, K. Paech
af
, J. Perl
g
, A. Pfeiffer
a
,
M.G. Pia
ad
, F. Ranjard
n
, A. Rybin
ak
, S. Sadilov
a,ak
, E. Di Salvo
c
, G. Santin
bm
,
T. Sasaki
e
, N. Savvas
as
, Y. Sawada
ab
, S. Scherer
af
, S. Sei
aw
, V. Sirotenko
i,al
,
D. Smith
g
, N. Starkov
f
, H. Stoecker
af
, J. Sulkimo
ah
, M. Takahata
ay
, S. Tanaka
bg
,
E. Tcherniaev
a
, E. Safai Tehrani
g
, M. Tropeano
ae
, P. Truscott
be
, H. Uno
aw
,
L. Urban
v
, P. Urban
aq
, M. Verderi
ap
, A. Walkden
as
, W. Wander
av
, H. Weber
af
,
J.P. Wellisch
a,l
, T. Wenaus
u
, D.C. Williams
j,bf
, D. Wright
g,h
, T. Yamada
aw
,
H. Yoshida
aw
, D. Zschiesche
af
a
European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) Switzerland
b
European Space Agency (ESA), ESTEC, The Netherlands
c
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN), Italy
d
Jefferson Lab, USA
e
KEK, Japan
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-161-275-4179; fax: +44-161-273-5867.
E-mail address: john.allison@man.ac.uk (J. Allison).
0168-9002/03/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8

f
Lebedev Institute, Russia
g
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), USA
h
TRIUMF, Canada
i
ATLAS Collaboration, CERN, Switzerland
j
BaBar Collaboration, USA
k
Borexino Collaboration, Italy
l
CMS Collaboration, CERN, Switzerland
m
HARP Collaboration, CERN, Switzerland
n
LHCb Collaboration, CERN, Switzerland
o
RWTH, Aachen, Germany
p
University of Alberta, Canada
q
ALICE Collaboration, CERN, Switzerland
r
University of Bath, UK
s
University of Birmingham, UK
t
University of British Columbia, Canada
u
Brookhaven National Laboratory, USA
v
Kfki, Budapest, Hungary
w
Universit
"
a della Calabria and INFN, Italy
x
CIEMAT, Italy
y
University of Cordoba, Spain
z
University of Dortmund, Germany
aa
FNAL, USA
ab
Fukui University, Japan
ac
IST Natl. Inst. for Cancer Research of Genova, Italy
ad
INFN Genova, Italy
ae
Universit
"
a di Genova, Italy
af
Inst. f
.
ur Theoretische Physik, Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universit
.
at, Frankfurt, Germany
ag
HERMES Collaboration, DESY, Germany
ah
Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP), Finland
ai
Hiroshima Institute of Technology, Japan
aj
Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London, UK
ak
IHEP Protvino, Russia
al
North Illinois University, USA
am
Kobe University, Japan
an
IN2P3/LAL, Orsay, France
ao
IN2P3/LAPP, Annecy, France
ap
IN2P3/LLR, Palaiseau, France
aq
EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland
ar
Lyon University, France
as
Department of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Manchester, UK
at
MEPhI, Moscow, Russia
au
INFN, Milan, Italy
av
MIT, USA
aw
Naruto University of Education, Japan
ay
Niigata University, Japan
az
Northeastern University, USA
ba
Budker Institute for Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
bb
Osaka Institute of Technology, Japan
bc
Universit
"
a di Padova, Italy
bd
University of Pittsburg, USA
be
QinetiQ, UK
bf
SCIPP/UCSC, Santa Cruz, USA
bg
Ritsumeikan University, Japan
bh
University of Southampton, UK
bi
TIFR, Mumbai, India
bj
INFN, Torino, Italy
bk
Tokyo Metropolitan University, Japan
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Agostinelli et al. / Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 506 (2003) 250303 251

bl
Universit
"
a di Torino, Italy
bm
Universit
"
a di Trieste and INFN Trieste, Italy
bn
UCSC, Santa Cruz, USA
bo
Universit
"
a di Udine and INFN Udine, Italy
bp
University of Valencia, Spain
bq
IFIC Instituto de Fisica Corpuscular de Valencia, Spain
br
Vienna University of Technology, Austria
Geant4 Collaboration
Received 9 August 2002; received in revised form 11 March 2003; accepted 14 March 2003
Abstract
Geant4 is a toolkit for simulating the passage of particles through matter. It includes a complete range of
functionality including tracking, geometry, physics models and hits. The physics processes offered cover a
comprehensive range, including electromagnetic, hadronic and optical processes, a large set of long-lived
particles, materials and elements, over a wide energy range starting, in some cases, from 250 eV and extending in
others to the TeV energy range. It has been designed and constructed to expose the physics models utilised, to handle
complex geometries, and to enable its easy adaptation for optimal use in different sets of applications. The toolkit
is the result of a worldwide collaboration of physicists and software engineers. It has been created exploiting
software engineering and object-oriented technology and implemented in the C++ programming language.
It has been used in applications in particle physics, nuclear physics, accelerator design, space engineering and medical
physics.
r 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PACS: 07.05.Tp; 13; 23
Keywords: Simulation; Particle interactions; Geometrical modelling; Software engineering; Object-oriented technology; Distributed
software development
1. Introduction
Modern particle and nuclear physics experi-
ments pose enormous challenges in the creation of
complex yet robust software frameworks and
applications. Of particular importance is the
ever-increasing demand for large-scale, accurate
and comprehensive simulations of the particle
detectors used in these experiments. The demand
is driven by the escalating size, complexity, and
sensitivity of the detectors and fueled by the
availability of moderate-cost, high-capacity com-
puter systems on which larger and more complex
simulations become possible. Similar considera-
tions arise in other disciplines, such as: radiation
physics, space science, nuclear medicine and, in
fact, any area where particle interactions in matter
play a role.
In response to this, a new object-oriented
simulation toolkit, Gea nt4, has been developed.
The toolkit provides a diverse, wide-ranging, yet
cohesive set of software components which can be
employed in a variety of settings. These range from
simple one-off studies of basic phenomena and
geometries to full-scale detector simulations for
experiments at the Large Hadron Collider and
other facilities.
In defining and implementing the software
components, all aspects of the simulation process
have been included: the geometry of the system,
the materials involved, the fundamental particles
of interest, the generation of primary particles of
events, the tracking of particles through materials
and external electromagnetic fields, the physics
processes governing particle interactions, the
response of sensitive detector components, the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Agostinelli et al. / Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 506 (2003) 250303252

generation of event data, the storage of events and
tracks, the visualisation of the detector and
particle trajectories, and the capture for subse-
quent analysis of simulation data at different levels
of detail and refinement.
Early in the design phase of the project, it was
recognised that while many users would incorpo-
rate the Geant4 tools within their own computa-
tional framework, others would want the
capability of easily constructing stand-alone ap-
plications which carry them from the initial
problem definition right through to the production
of results and graphics for publication. To this
end, the toolkit includes built-in steering routines
and command interpreters which operate at the
problem setup, run, event, particle transportation,
visualisation, and analysis levels, allowing all parts
of the toolkit to work in concert.
At the heart of this software system is an
abundant set of physics models to handle the
interactions of particles with matter across a very
wide energy range. Data and expertise have been
drawn from many sources around the world and in
this respect Geant4 acts as a repository that
incorporates a large part of all that is known about
particle interactions; moreover it continues to be
refined, expanded and developed. A serious
limitation of many previous simulation systems
was the difficulty of adding new or variant physics
models; development became difficult due to the
increasing size, complexity and interdependency of
the procedure-based code. In contrast, object-
oriented methods have allowed us effectively to
manage complexity and limit dependencies by
defining a uniform interface and common organi-
sational principles for all physics models. Within
this framework, the functionality of models can be
more easily seen and understood, and the creation
and addition of new models is a well-defined
procedure that entails little or no modification to
the existing code.
Geant4 was designed and developed by an
international collaboration, formed by individuals
from a number of cooperating institutes, HEP
experiments, and universities. It builds on the
accumulated experience of many contributors to
the field of Monte Carlo simulation of physics
detectors and physical processes. While geogra-
phically distributed software development and
large-scale object-oriented systems are no longer
a novelty, we consider that the Geant4 Collabora-
tion, in terms of the size and scope of the code and
the number of contributors, represents one of the
largest and most ambitious projects of this kind. It
has demonstrated that rigorous software engineer-
ing practices and object-oriented methods can be
profitably applied to the production of a coherent
and maintainable software product, even with the
fast-changing and open-ended requirements pre-
sented by physics research.
In the following sections we present a detailed
overview of Geant4 and its features and capabil-
ities, including the design and implementation of
the various categories of physics models. Many
new physics models have been developed, and
others have been refined or extended. They have
been created to support a growing range of
applications for the software, including particle,
nuclear, medical, accelerator and space physics.
The code and documentation, as well as tutorials
and examples, are available from our Web site [1].
1.1. History of Geant4
The origin of Geant4 development can be
traced back to two studies done independently at
CERN and KEK in 1993 [2]. Both groups sought
to investigate how modern computing techniques
could be applied to improve what was offered by
the existing GEANT3 program [3], which was a
benchmark and source of ideas and valuable
experience. These two activities merged and a
proposal was submitted to the CERN Detector
Research and Development Committee (DRDC)
[4] to construct a simulation program based on
object-oriented technology. The resulting project
was RD44, a worldwide collaboration that grew to
include the efforts of 100 scientists and engineers,
drawn from more than 10 experiments in Europe,
Russia, Japan, Canada and the United States.
The design choices faced by RD44 and the
decisions arrived at are described in later sections,
but key to its success was a careful design adapting
object-oriented methodology and an early decision
to use the practical C++ language.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Agostinelli et al. / Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 506 (2003) 250303 253

The R&D phase was completed in December
1998 [1] with the delivery of the first production
release. Subsequently the Geant4 Collaboration
was established in January 1999 to continue the
development and refinement of the toolkit, and to
provide maintenance and user support.
1.2. Organisation of the collaboration
A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) [5]
signed by all participating parties governs the
formal collaboration. It is subject to tacit renewal
every 2 years and sets out a collaboration structure
composed of a Collaboration Board (CB), a
Technical Steering Board (TSB) and several work-
ing groups. The MoU also defines the way in
which collaboration resources—money, man-
power, expertise, and key roles and activities (such
as program librarian and documentation man-
ager)—are measured in Contribution Units (CU),
and it further delineates how the boards are
constituted depending on the CU count for each
signatory. Participating groups include experimen-
tal teams and collaborations, laboratories and
national institutes.
It is the CB’s mandate to manage these
resources and to monitor the agreed responsibil-
ities among the affiliates. This body is also charged
with the evolution of the MoU. The TSB, on the
other hand, is the forum where technical matters,
like software engineering details and physics model
implementation issues, are discussed and decided
and where priorities are given to user requests. Its
primary tasks are the supervision of the produc-
tion service and the user support and the over-
seeing of ongoing further development of the
program. The TSB is chaired by the spokesperson
of the Collaboration, who is appointed by and
reports to the CB. The spokesperson is (re)elected
every two years.
Every domain of the Geant4 software that
corresponds to a releasable component (library) is
individually managed by a working group of
experts. In addition, there is a working group for
each of the activities of testing and quality
assurance, software management and documenta-
tion management. A coordinator who is selected
by the TSB heads each group. There is also an
overall release coordinator. This clean overall
problem decomposition makes the distributed
software design and development possible in a
worldwide collaboration. Every group can work in
parallel, allowing an optimal use of manpower and
expertise.
1.3. User support, documentation and source code
The Collaboration provides documentation and
user support for the toolkit. The support model is
described in more detail in Section 3.6.
Documentation [6] includes installation, user
and reference guides, and a range of training kits
(see also Section 1.4). It is intended to cover the
need of the beginner through to the expert user
who wishes to expand the capabilities of Gea nt4.
User support covers help with problems relating
to the code, consultation on using the toolkit and
responding to enhancement requests. A user may
also expect assistance in investigating anomalous
results.
A Web-based reporting system and a list of
frequently asked questions (FAQs) are available
on the Geant4. Web site [1]. The Collaboration
also runs a Web-based user forum [7], with sub-
forums according to areas of different interest.
Regular releases of the source code and doc-
umentation are freely available on the Web.
1.4. Examples and training kits
The toolkit includes examples at three levels:
*
Novice: for understanding basic functionalities;
*
Extended: focused on specific domains of
application (they may also need additional
third party libraries);
*
Advanced: full programs created to utilise
Geant4 in HEP experiments, and for space
and medical applications.
They are intended to develop the user’s under-
standing in many areas. Initial emphasis is on the
classes describing the user’s setup, which are
required by the toolkit. These classes are explained
in Section 2.4.
Geant4 also provides a training kit. It consists
of a modular set of units, each covering a specific
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Agostinelli et al. / Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 506 (2003) 250303254

Figures (14)
Citations
More filters

Journal ArticleDOI
Georges Aad1, T. Abajyan2, Brad Abbott3, Jalal Abdallah4  +2964 moreInstitutions (200)
17 Sep 2012-Physics Letters B
Abstract: A search for the Standard Model Higgs boson in proton–proton collisions with the ATLAS detector at the LHC is presented. The datasets used correspond to integrated luminosities of approximately 4.8 fb−1 collected at View the MathML source in 2011 and 5.8 fb−1 at View the MathML source in 2012. Individual searches in the channels H→ZZ(⁎)→4l, H→γγ and H→WW(⁎)→eνμν in the 8 TeV data are combined with previously published results of searches for H→ZZ(⁎), WW(⁎), View the MathML source and τ+τ− in the 7 TeV data and results from improved analyses of the H→ZZ(⁎)→4l and H→γγ channels in the 7 TeV data. Clear evidence for the production of a neutral boson with a measured mass of View the MathML source is presented. This observation, which has a significance of 5.9 standard deviations, corresponding to a background fluctuation probability of 1.7×10−9, is compatible with the production and decay of the Standard Model Higgs boson.

8,774 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
17 Sep 2012-Physics Letters B
Abstract: Results are presented from searches for the standard model Higgs boson in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s)=7 and 8 TeV in the CMS experiment at the LHC, using data samples corresponding to integrated luminosities of up to 5.1 inverse femtobarns at 7 TeV and 5.3 inverse femtobarns at 8 TeV. The search is performed in five decay modes: gamma gamma, ZZ, WW, tau tau, and b b-bar. An excess of events is observed above the expected background, a local significance of 5.0 standard deviations, at a mass near 125 GeV, signalling the production of a new particle. The expected significance for a standard model Higgs boson of that mass is 5.8 standard deviations. The excess is most significant in the two decay modes with the best mass resolution, gamma gamma and ZZ; a fit to these signals gives a mass of 125.3 +/- 0.4 (stat.) +/- 0.5 (syst.) GeV. The decay to two photons indicates that the new particle is a boson with spin different from one.

8,357 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
Abstract: The Pythia program can be used to generate high-energy-physics ''events'', i.e. sets of outgoing particles produced in the interactions between two incoming particles. The objective is to provide as accurate as possible a representation of event properties in a wide range of reactions, within and beyond the Standard Model, with emphasis on those where strong interactions play a role, directly or indirectly, and therefore multihadronic final states are produced. The physics is then not understood well enough to give an exact description; instead the program has to be based on a combination of analytical results and various QCD-based models. This physics input is summarized here, for areas such as hard subprocesses, initial- and final-state parton showers, underlying events and beam remnants, fragmentation and decays, and much more. Furthermore, extensive information is provided on all program elements: subroutines and functions, switches and parameters, and particle and process data. This should allow the user to tailor the generation task to the topics of interest.

5,971 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
John Allison1, K. Amako2, John Apostolakis3, Henrique Araujo4  +69 moreInstitutions (17)
Abstract: Geant4 is a software toolkit for the simulation of the passage of particles through matter. It is used by a large number of experiments and projects in a variety of application domains, including high energy physics, astrophysics and space science, medical physics and radiation protection. Its functionality and modeling capabilities continue to be extended, while its performance is enhanced. An overview of recent developments in diverse areas of the toolkit is presented. These include performance optimization for complex setups; improvements for the propagation in fields; new options for event biasing; and additions and improvements in geometry, physics processes and interactive capabilities

5,363 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
W. B. Atwood1, A. A. Abdo2, A. A. Abdo3, Markus Ackermann4  +289 moreInstitutions (37)
Abstract: (Abridged) The Large Area Telescope (Fermi/LAT, hereafter LAT), the primary instrument on the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope (Fermi) mission, is an imaging, wide field-of-view, high-energy gamma-ray telescope, covering the energy range from below 20 MeV to more than 300 GeV. This paper describes the LAT, its pre-flight expected performance, and summarizes the key science objectives that will be addressed. On-orbit performance will be presented in detail in a subsequent paper. The LAT is a pair-conversion telescope with a precision tracker and calorimeter, each consisting of a 4x4 array of 16 modules, a segmented anticoincidence detector that covers the tracker array, and a programmable trigger and data acquisition system. Each tracker module has a vertical stack of 18 x,y tracking planes, including two layers (x and y) of single-sided silicon strip detectors and high-Z converter material (tungsten) per tray. Every calorimeter module has 96 CsI(Tl) crystals, arranged in an 8 layer hodoscopic configuration with a total depth of 8.6 radiation lengths. The aspect ratio of the tracker (height/width) is 0.4 allowing a large field-of-view (2.4 sr). Data obtained with the LAT are intended to (i) permit rapid notification of high-energy gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) and transients and facilitate monitoring of variable sources, (ii) yield an extensive catalog of several thousand high-energy sources obtained from an all-sky survey, (iii) measure spectra from 20 MeV to more than 50 GeV for several hundred sources, (iv) localize point sources to 0.3 - 2 arc minutes, (v) map and obtain spectra of extended sources such as SNRs, molecular clouds, and nearby galaxies, (vi) measure the diffuse isotropic gamma-ray background up to TeV energies, and (vii) explore the discovery space for dark matter.

3,293 citations


References
More filters

Book
01 Jan 1990-
TL;DR: This book discusses Object Modeling as a Design Technique, Object Diagram Compiler, and the Future of Object-Oriented Technology.
Abstract: 1. Introduction. I. MODELING CONCEPTS. 2. Modeling as a Design Technique. 3. Object Modeling. 4. Advanced Object Modeling. 5. Dynamic Modeling. 6. Functional Modeling. II. DESIGN METHODOLOGY. 7. Methodology Preview. 8. Analysis. 9. System Design. 10. Object Design. 11. Methodology Summary. 12. Comparison of Methodologies. III. IMPLEMENTATION. 13. From Design to Implementation. 14. Programming Style. 15. Object-Oriented Languages. 16. Non-Object-Oriented Languages. 17. Databases. 18. Object Diagram Compiler. 19. Computer Animation. 20. Electrical Distribution Design System. 21. Future of Object-Oriented Technology. Appendix A: OMT Graphical Notation. Appendix B: Glossary. Index.

5,396 citations


Book
01 Jan 1990-
TL;DR: This chapter discusses the development of Object-Oriented Programming Languages and the Structure of Complex Systems, and the role of Classification in this development.
Abstract: I. CONCEPTS. 1. Complexity. The Inherent Complexity of Software. The Structure of Complex Systems. Bringing Order to Chaos. On Designing Complex Systems. Sidebar: Categories of Analysis and Design Methods. 2. The Object Model. The Evolution of the Object Model. Elements of the Object Model. Applying the Object Model. Sidebar: Foundations of the Object Model. 3. Classes and Objects. The Nature of an Object. Relationships Among Objects. The Nature of a Class. Relationships Among Classes. The Interplay of Classes and Objects. On Building Quality Classes and Objects. Sidebar: Invoking a Method. 4. Classification. The Importance of Proper Classification. Identifying Classes and Objects. Key Abstractions and Mechanisms. Sidebar: A Problem of Classification. II. THE METHOD. 5 .The Notation. Elements of the Notation. Class Diagrams. State Transition Diagrams. Object Diagrams. Interaction Diagrams. Module Diagrams. Process Diagrams. Applying the Notation. 6 .The Process. First Principles. The Micro Development Process. The Macro Development Process. 7. Pragmatics. Management and Planning. Staffing. Release Management. Reuse. Quality Assurance and Metrics. Documentation. Tools. Special Topics. The Benefits and Risks of Object-Oriented Development. III. APPLICATIONS. 8. Data Acquisition: Weather Monitoring Station. Analysis. Design. Evolution. Maintenance. Sidebar: Weather Monitorint Station Requirements. 9. Frameworks: Foundation Class Library. Analysis. Design. Evolution. Maintenance. Sidebar: Foundation Class Library Requirements. 10. Client/Server Computing: Inventory Tracking. Analysis. Design. Evolution. Maintenance. Sidebar: Inventory Tracking System Requirements. 11. Artificial Intelligence Cryptanalysis. Analysis. Design. Evolution. Maintenance. Sidebar: Cryptanalysis Requirements. 12. Command and Control Traffic Management. Analysis. Design. Evolution. Maintenance. Sidebar: Traffic Management System Requirements. Afterword. Appendix: Object-Oriented Programming Languages. A.1 Concepts. A.2 Smalltalk. A.3 Object Pascal. A.4 C++. A.5 Common Lisp Object System. A.6 Ada. A.7 Eiffel. A.8 Other Object-Oriented Programming Languages. Notes. Glossary. Classified Bibliography. A. Classification. B. Object-Oriented Analysis. C. Object-Oriented Applications. D. Object-Oriented Architectures. E. Object Oriented Databases. F. Object-Oriented Design. G. Object-Oriented Programming. H. Software Engineering. I. Special References. J. Theory. K. Tools and Environments. Index. 0805353402T04062001

3,212 citations


Book
James F. Ziegler1, J.P. BiersackInstitutions (1)
09 Nov 2013-
Abstract: The purpose of this chapter is to review the calculation f the stopping and the final range distribution of ions in matter. During the last thirty years there have been published scores of tables and books evaluating the parameters of energetic ion penetration of matter. Rarely have the authors of these reference works included any evaluation of the accuracy of the tabulated numbers. We have chosen to show the development of ion penetration theory by tracing how, as the theory developed through the years, various parts have been incorporated into tables and increased their accuracy. This approach restricts our comments to those theoretical advances which have made significant contributions to the obtaining of practical ion stopping powers and range distributions. The Tables reviewed were chosen because of their extensive citation in the literature.

3,197 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
01 Jul 1983-Physics Reports
Abstract: While muchhasbeenlearnedrecentlyaboutquark andgluon interactionsin theframeworkof perturbativeQuantumChromodynamics,the relationbetweencalculatedpartonpropertiesandobservedhadrondensitiesinvolves modelswhere dynamicsandjet empincal ruleshaveto be combined.Thepurposeof this article is to describea presentlysuccessful approachwhich is basedon a cascadejet model usingStringdynamics.It can readily lead to Monte Carlo jet programmesof greatuse when analyzingdata. Production processesin an iterative cascadeapproach,with tunneling in a constantforce field, arereviewed. Expecteddifferencesbetweenquark and gluon jets are discussed.Low transversemomentum phenomenaare alsoreviewed with emphasison hyperon polarization. In so far as this approachusesa fragmentationschemebasedon String dynamics,it wasdeemedappropriateto alsoincludeunderthesamecovera specialreport on theClassicaltheoryof relativisticStrings,seenasthe classicallimit of theDual Resonancemodel. TheEquationsof motion and interactionamongstringsarepresented. Single ordersfor this issue PHYSICSREPOR1’S(Review Sectionof PhysicsLetters)97, Nos.2 & 3 (1983)31—171. Copies of this issue may be obtainedat the price givenbelow. All ordersshouldbe sentdirectly to the Publisher.Ordersmust be accompaniedby check. Single issuepriceDfl. 79.00, postageincluded. 34 B. Andersson et a!., Patton fragmentation and siring dynamics testsof the theory,in particularof the perturbativeQCD structure,containse.g.nonscalingdeviations from the partonmodel. There are at this point already some difficulties becauseit is well-known that any finite energy hadronicdistributionwill containnonscalingcontributions,sometimesto an evenlargerdegreethanthe inherent scale breaking effects of the theory. Further the pencilsharpenergyand momentumdistributions from the single partonsareessentiallydistorted, widenedin transversedirectionsandeven the basicquantumnumberslike chargeandstrangeness etc.seemto havebeentransportedsometimes ratherfar away in longitudinal rapidity space.It has thereforebecomeincreasinglyobvious over the yearsthat in order to compareexperimentto basictheory,it is necessaryto havereliabledescriptionsof the transferfrom the partonicstageto the hadronicone,i.e. to haveconsistentmodelsfor the process of partonfragmentation. Suchmodelsmayon the onehandbe lookedupon solely as phenomenological parametrizationsand rulesof thumb in order to obtain a translationfrom onelanguageto another.As such theyare useful for analysis of experiment as well as for the planning. On the other hand one may as always in connectionwith phenomenologytry to obtain a dynamicalframeworkthat servesas a motivation anda generalizingprinciple for theconstructions. It shouldbekept in mind, however,that thereareno easilyavailablemeasuresof the successof such a venture.As Bacontold us a long time ago,it is actuallyonly possibleto learnthat oneis wrong by a comparisonbetweenmodel calculationsand experimentalfindings. If the predictionagreesthereis no reassurancethat one is evenworking in the right basicdirection (althoughthereis evidentlya possible reasonto feelsomeconfidence!). A modestmeasureof successwould be a demandthat the numberof phenomenological parameters andthe variation in size of their valuesare nonincreasingfunctionsof time as well as the numberof independent experimentalfindings. It is alsoof evidentinterestthat thesamebasicschemeis applicable in different contextssuch as different partonic processesand different parts of phase-space. Several schemeswith a more or less profound theoreticalfoundationhavebeensuggestedbut we will in this review be concernedonly with iterative cascadejet modelsbasedupon string dynamics.The present experiencefrom thesemodelsshowsthat at leastthe above-mentionedcriteriafor successarefulfilled. We will in this reviewmostlydiscussa possibledynamicalframeworkbehindthe modelsandwe will only usecomparisonsto datain order to demonstratemattersof principle.One of the nice featuresof the models is their stochasticstructurewhich readily lends itself to an implementationin terms of computergeneration.Severalsuch MonteCarlojet programsareavailable[21for the interestedreader to makemuchmore detailedcomparisons. Our approachwill primarily be of a semi-classicalnature,i.e. we will at most placesmakeuseof a classicaldynamicalframeworkfor our considerations. We will, however,at all necessaryplacespoint to the basicquantummechanicalconstraints. It is well-known that by meansof a careful choice of dynamicalvariablesit is often possibleto circumvent such constraints.As an example we note that it is in general not possible to give independentvaluesto canonicallyconjugatevariablessuch as momentum(p) andposition(x) dueto Heisenberg’suncertaintyprinciple:

1,890 citations


Book
01 Jan 1994-
TL;DR: The Capability Maturity Model for Software and the Evolution of the CMM: BackGROUND, CONCEPTS, STRUCTURES and USAGE are explained.
Abstract: I. THE CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL FOR SOFTWARE: BACKGROUND, CONCEPTS, STRUCTURES AND USAGE. 1. Introducing Software Process Maturity. The Evolution of the CMM. Immature versus Mature Software Organizations. Fundamental Concepts Underlying Process Maturity. Total Quality Management and the CMM. Customer Satisfaction. Benefits and Risks of Model-Based Improvement. 2. The Software Process Maturity Framework. Behavioral Characterization of the Maturity Levels. Skipping Maturity Levels. Visibility into the Software Process. Prediction of Performance. 3. The Structure of the Capability Maturity Model. Internal Structure of the Maturity Levels . Maturity Levels. Key Process Areas. Key Practices. Common Features. 4. Interpreting the CMM. Interpreting the Key Practices. The Key Process Area Template. Interpreting the Common Features. Organizational Structure and Roles. Understanding Software Process Definition. The Evolution of Processes. Applying Professional Judgment. 5. Using the CMM. A CMM-Based Appraisal Method. Process Assessments and Capability Evaluation. Software Process Improvement. Using the CMM in Context. 6. A High-Maturity Example: Space Shuttle Onboard Software. Introduction. Background. Approaches to Process Improvement. Overall Lessons. II. THE KEY PRACTICES OF THE CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL FOR SOFTWARE. 7. The Key Areas for Level 2: Repeatable. Requirements Management. Software Project Planning. Software Project Tracking and Oversight. Software Subcontract Management. Software Quality Assurance. Software Configuration Management. 8. The Key Process Areas for Level 3: Defined. Organization Process Focus. Organization Process Definition. Training Program. Integrated Software Management. Software Product Engineering. Intergroup Coordination. Peer Reviews. 9. The Key Process Areas for Level 4: Managed. Quantitative Process Management. Software Quality Management. 10. The Key Process Areas for Level 5:Optimizing. Defect Prevention. Technology Change Management. Process Change Management. Appendix A: References. Appendix B: Acronyms. Appendix C: Glossary. Appendix D: Abridged Version of the Key Practices. Appendix E: Mapping the Key Practices to Goals. Appendix F: Comparing ISO 9001 and the CMM. Appendix G: An Overview of ISO's SPICE Project. Appendix H: Change History of the CMM. Appendix I: Change Request Form. Index. 0201546647T04062001

1,393 citations


Network Information
Related Papers (5)
27 Mar 2006, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science

John Allison, K. Amako +71 more

09 May 2006, Journal of High Energy Physics

Torbjörn Sjöstrand, Stephen Mrenna +1 more

16 Apr 2008, Journal of High Energy Physics

Matteo Cacciari, Gavin P. Salam +1 more

01 Jun 2008, Computer Physics Communications

Torbjörn Sjöstrand, Torbjörn Sjöstrand +3 more

14 Aug 2008, Journal of Instrumentation

S. Chatrchyan, G. Hmayakyan +3174 more

Performance
Metrics
No. of citations received by the Paper in previous years
YearCitations
202216
20211,480
20201,570
20191,502
20181,507
20171,346