MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981041919 · doi:10.22323/1.350.0007

ATLAS Muon Trigger performance

2019· article· en· W2981041919 on OpenAlexaff
Robin Leigh Hayes

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of 7th Annual Conference on Large Hadron Collider Physics — PoS(LHCP2019) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsTRIUMFUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMuonAtlas (anatomy)Muon colliderPhysicsCalorimeter (particle physics)Large Hadron ColliderUpgradeParticle physicsNuclear physicsLuminosityComputer scienceParticle acceleratorOperating systemDetector

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Events containing muons in the final state are an important signature for many analyses being carried out at the Large Hadron Collider, including both Standard Model measurements and searches for new physics. To be able to study such events, it is required to have an efficient and well-understood muon trigger. The ATLAS muon trigger consists of a hardware-based system (Level 1), as well as a software-based reconstruction (High Level Trigger). Due to the high luminosity in Run 2, several improvements have been implemented to keep the trigger rate low while still maintaining a high efficiency. Some examples of recent improvements include requiring co-incidence of hits in the muon spectrometer and the calorimeter and optimised muon isolation. We will present an overview of the muon trigger system, recent improvements, the performance of the muon trigger in Run 2 data and an outlook for the improvements planned for Run 3.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.010

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of 7th Annual Conference on Large Hadron Collider Physics — PoS(LHCP2019)Same topicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studiesFrench-language works237,207