MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297786321

Commissioning of the ATLAS Electron and Photon Trigger Selection

2010· preprint· en· W4297786321 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueCERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2010
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle Detector Development and Performance
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtlas (anatomy)Large Hadron ColliderParticle physicsProject commissioningCharm (quantum number)SoftwareSelection (genetic algorithm)Computer scienceEvent (particle physics)PhysicsLuminosityNuclear physicsComputer hardwareOperating systemArtificial intelligenceAstronomyAstrophysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the start-up of the LHC end of 2009, the trigger commissioning is in full swing. The ATLAS trigger system is divided into three levels: the hardware-based first level trigger, and the software-based second level trigger and Event Filter, collectively referred to as the High Level Trigger (HLT). Initially, events have been selected online based on the Level-1 selections with the HLT algorithms run but not rejecting any events. This has been an important step in the commissioning of these triggers to ensure their correct functioning and subsequently to enable the HLT selections. Due to increasing LHC luminosity and the large QCD cross section, this has been a vital step to select leptons from J/Psi, bottom, charm, W and Z decays. This presentation gives an overview of the trigger performance of the electron and photon selection. Comparisons of the online selection variables with the offline reconstruction are shown as well as comparisons of data with MC simulations on which the current selection tuning is performed. Finally, an outlook will be given on the strategy how the electron and photon menus will evolve with increasing luminosities.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.578
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.246 · 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.

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicParticle Detector Development and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207