MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6920426942 · doi:10.60692/ybx27-xdr26

Online muon reconstruction in the ATLAS level-2 trigger system

2006· article· en· W6920426942 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle Detector Development and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMuonAtlas (anatomy)Event (particle physics)ATLAS experimentLarge Hadron ColliderDetectorProcess (computing)Event reconstruction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To cope with the 40 MHz event production rate of LHC, the trigger of the ATLAS experiment selects events in three sequential steps of increasing complexity and accuracy whose final results are close to the offline reconstruction. The Level-1, implemented with custom hardware, identifies physics objects within Regions of Interests and operates with a first reduction of the event rate to 75 kHz. The higher trigger levels, Level-2 and Level-3, provide a software based event selection which further reduces the event rate to about 100 Hz. This paper presents the algorithm (/spl mu/Fast) employed at Level-2 to confirm the muon candidates flagged by the Level-1. /spl mu/Fast identifies hits of muon tracks inside the barrel region of the Muon Spectrometer and provides a precise measurement of the muon momentum at the production vertex. The algorithm must process the Level-1 muon output rate (/spl sim/20 kHz), thus particular care has been taken for its optimization. The result is a very fast track reconstruction algorithm with good physics performance which, in some cases, approaches that of the offline reconstruction: it finds muon tracks with an efficiency of about 95% and computes p/sub T/ of prompt muons with a resolution of 5.5% at 6 GeV and 4.0% at 20 GeV. The algorithm requires an overall execution time of /spl sim/1 ms on a 100 SpecInt95 machine and has been tested in the online environment of the Atlas detector test beam.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.175 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information SystemSame topicParticle Detector Development and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207