|
ATLAS Collaboration(Aad, G. et al), Akiot, A., Amos, K. R., Aparisi Pozo, J. A., Bailey, A. J., Bouchhar, N., et al. (2023). Fast b-tagging at the high-level trigger of the ATLAS experiment in LHC Run 3. J. Instrum., 18(11), P11006–38pp.
Abstract: The ATLAS experiment relies on real-time hadronic jet reconstruction and b-tagging to record fully hadronic events containing b-jets. These algorithms require track reconstruction, which is computationally expensive and could overwhelm the high-level-trigger farm, even at the reduced event rate that passes the ATLAS first stage hardware-based trigger. In LHC Run 3, ATLAS has mitigated these computational demands by introducing a fast neural-network-based b-tagger, which acts as a low-precision filter using input from hadronic jets and tracks. It runs after a hardware trigger and before the remaining high-level-trigger reconstruction. This design relies on the negligible cost of neural-network inference as compared to track reconstruction, and the cost reduction from limiting tracking to specific regions of the detector. In the case of Standard Model HH -> b (b) over barb (b) over bar, a key signature relying on b-jet triggers, the filter lowers the input rate to the remaining high-level trigger by a factor of five at the small cost of reducing the overall signal efficiency by roughly 2%.
|
|
|
ATLAS Collaboration(Aad, G. et al), Amos, K. R., Aparisi Pozo, J. A., Bailey, A. J., Bouchhar, N., Cabrera Urban, S., et al. (2023). Tools for estimating fake/non-prompt lepton backgrounds with the ATLAS detector at the LHC. J. Instrum., 18(11), T11004–61pp.
Abstract: Measurements and searches performed with the ATLAS detector at the CERN LHC often involve signatures with one or more prompt leptons. Such analyses are subject to 'fake/non-prompt' lepton backgrounds, where either a hadron or a lepton from a hadron decay or an electron from a photon conversion satisfies the prompt-lepton selection criteria. These backgrounds often arise within a hadronic jet because of particle decays in the showering process, particle misidentification or particle interactions with the detector material. As it is challenging to model these processes with high accuracy in simulation, their estimation typically uses data-driven methods. Three methods for carrying out this estimation are described, along with their implementation in ATLAS and their performance.
|
|
|
ATLAS Collaboration(Aad, G. et al), Aparisi Pozo, J. A., Bailey, A. J., Cabrera Urban, S., Castillo, F. L., Castillo Gimenez, V., et al. (2020). Operation of the ATLAS trigger system in Run 2. J. Instrum., 15(10), P10004–59pp.
Abstract: The ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider employs a two-level trigger system to record data at an average rate of 1 kHz from physics collisions, starting from an initial bunch crossing rate of 40 MHz. During the LHC Run 2 (2015-2018), the ATLAS trigger system operated successfully with excellent performance and flexibility by adapting to the various run conditions encountered and has been vital for the ATLAS Run-2 physics programme For proton-proton running, approximately 1500 individual event selections were included in a trigger menu which specified the physics signatures and selection algorithms used for the data-taking, and the allocated event rate and bandwidth. The trigger menu must reflect the physics goals for a given data collection period, taking into account the instantaneous luminosity of the LHC and limitations from the ATLAS detector readout, online processing farm, and offline storage. This document discusses the operation of the ATLAS trigger system during the nominal proton-proton data collection in Run 2 with examples of special data-taking runs. Aspects of software validation, evolution of the trigger selection algorithms during Run 2, monitoring of the trigger system and data quality as well as trigger configuration are presented.
|
|
|
ATLAS Collaboration(Aad, G. et al), Aparisi Pozo, J. A., Bailey, A. J., Cabrera Urban, S., Castillo, F. L., Castillo Gimenez, V., et al. (2020). Performance of the ATLAS muon triggers in Run 2. J. Instrum., 15(9), P09015–57pp.
Abstract: The performance of the ATLAS muon trigger system is evaluated with proton-proton (pp) and heavy-ion (HI) collision data collected in Run 2 during 2015-2018 at the Large Hadron Collider. It is primarily evaluated using events containing a pair of muons from the decay of Z bosons to cover the intermediate momentum range between 26 GeV and 100 GeV. Overall, the efficiency of the single-muon triggers is about 68% in the barrel region and 85% in the endcap region. The p(T) range for efficiency determination is extended by using muons from decays of J/psi mesons, W bosons, and top quarks. The performance in HI collision data is measured and shows good agreement with the results obtained in pp collisions. The muon trigger shows uniform and stable performance in good agreement with the prediction of a detailed simulation. Dedicated multi-muon triggers with kinematic selections provide the backbone to beauty, quarkonia, and low-mass physics studies. The design, evolution and performance of these triggers are discussed in detail.
|
|
|
ATLAS Collaboration(Aad, G. et al), Aparisi Pozo, J. A., Bailey, A. J., Cabrera Urban, S., Cardillo, F., Castillo, F. L., et al. (2021). Measurements of sensor radiation damage in the ATLAS inner detector using leakage currents. J. Instrum., 16(8), P08025–46pp.
Abstract: Non-ionizing energy loss causes bulk damage to the silicon sensors of the ATLAS pixel and strip detectors. This damage has important implications for data-taking operations, charged-particle track reconstruction, detector simulations, and physics analysis. This paper presents simulations and measurements of the leakage current in the ATLAS pixel detector and semiconductor tracker as a function of location in the detector and time, using data collected in Run 1 (2010-2012) and Run 2 (2015-2018) of the Large Hadron Collider. The extracted fluence shows a much stronger vertical bar z vertical bar-dependence in the innermost layers than is seen in simulation. Furthermore, the overall fluence on the second innermost layer is significantly higher than in simulation, with better agreement in layers at higher radii. These measurements are important for validating the simulation models and can be used in part to justify safety factors for future detector designs and interventions.
|
|