Development, Validation and Integration of the ATLAS Trigger System Software in Run 2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The trigger system of the ATLAS detector at the LHC is a combination of hardware, firmware, and software, associated to various sub-detectors that must seamlessly cooperate in order to select one collision of interest out of every 40,000 delivered by the LHC every millisecond. These proceedings discuss the challenges, organization and work flow of the ongoing trigger software development, validation, and deployment. The goal of this development is to ensure that the most up-to-date algorithms are used to optimize the performance of the experiment. The goal of the validation is to ensure the reliability and predictability of the software performance. Integration tests are carried out to ensure that the software deployed to the online trigger farm during data-taking run as desired. Trigger software is validated by emulating online conditions using a benchmark run and mimicking the reconstruction that occurs during normal data-taking. This exercise is computationally demanding and thus runs on the ATLAS high performance computing grid with high priority. Performance metrics ranging from low-level memory and CPU requirements, to distributions and efficiencies of high-level physics quantities are visualized and validated by a range of experts. This is a multifaceted critical task that ties together many aspects of the experimental effort and thus directly influences the overall performance of the ATLAS experiment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".