High-luminosity primary vertex selection in top-quark studies using the Collider Detector at Fermilab
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improving our ability to identify the top quark pair (t{bar t}) primary vertex (PV) on an event-by-event basis is essential for many analyses in the lepton-plus-jets channel performed by the Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF) Collaboration. We compare the algorithm currently used by CDF (A1) with another algorithm (A2) using Monte Carlo simulation at high instantaneous luminosities. We confirm that A1 is more efficient than A2 at selecting the t{bar t} PV at all PV multiplicities, both with efficiencies larger than 99%. Event selection rejects events with a distance larger than 5 cm along the proton beam between the t{bar t} PV and the charged lepton. We find flat distributions for the signal over background significance of this cut for all cut values larger than 1 cm, for all PV multiplicities and for both algorithms. We conclude that any cut value larger than 1 cm is acceptable for both algorithms under the Tevatron's expected instantaneous luminosity improvements.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".