MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165310928 · doi:10.1051/epjconf/202125104015

Integration and Commissioning of the Software-based Readout System for ATLAS Level-1 Endcap Muon Trigger in Run 3

2021· article· en· W3165310928 on OpenAlexaff
K. Sugizaki

Bibliographic record

VenueEPJ Web of Conferences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle Detector Development and Performance
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Particle Physics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLarge Hadron ColliderAtlas (anatomy)ATLAS experimentSoftwareEvent (particle physics)MuonPhysicsDetectorResistive touchscreenComputer hardwareComputer scienceParticle physicsOperating systemTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Large Hadron Collider and the ATLAS experiment at CERN will explore new frontiers in physics in Run 3 starting in 2022. In the Run 3 ATLAS Level-1 endcap muon trigger, new detectors called New Small Wheel and additional Resistive Plate Chambers will be installed to improve momentum resolution and to enhance the rejection of fake muons. The Level-1 endcap muon trigger algorithm will be processed by new trigger processor boards with modern FPGAs and high-speed optical serial links. For validation and performance evaluation, the inputs and outputs of their trigger logic will be read out using a newly developed software-based readout system. We have successfully integrated this readout system in the ATLAS online software framework, enabling commissioning in the actual Run 3 environment. Stable trigger readout has been realized for input rates up to 100 kHz with a developed event-building application. We have verified that its performance is sufficient for Run 3 operation in terms of event data size and trigger rate. The paper will present the details of the integration and commissioning of the software-based readout system for ATLAS Level-1 endcap muon trigger in 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score0.180

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEPJ Web of ConferencesSame topicParticle Detector Development and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207