|
ATLAS Collaboration(Aaboud, M. et al), Alvarez Piqueras, D., Aparisi Pozo, J. A., Bailey, A. J., Barranco Navarro, L., Cabrera Urban, S., et al. (2019). Electron and photon energy calibration with the ATLAS detector using 2015-2016 LHC proton-proton collision data. J. Instrum., 14, P03017–60pp.
Abstract: This paper presents the electron and photon energy calibration obtained with the ATLAS detector using about 36 fb(-1) of LHC proton-proton collision data recorded at root s = 13 TeV in 2015 and 2016. The different calibration steps applied to the data and the optimization of the reconstruction of electron and photon energies are discussed. The absolute energy scale is set using a large sample of Z boson decays into electron-positron pairs. The systematic uncertainty in the energy scale calibration varies between 0.03% to 0.2% in most of the detector acceptance for electrons with transverse momentum close to 45 GeV. For electrons with transverse momentum of 10 GeV the typical uncertainty is 0.3% to 0.8% and it varies between 0.25% and 1% for photons with transverse momentum around 60 GeV. Validations of the energy calibration with J/psi -> e(+)e(-) decays and radiative Z boson decays are also presented.
|
|
|
ATLAS Collaboration(Aad, G. et al), Alvarez Piqueras, D., Aparisi Pozo, J. A., Bailey, A. J., Cabrera Urban, S., Castillo, F. L., et al. (2019). Electron and photon performance measurements with the ATLAS detector using the 2015-2017 LHC proton-proton collision data. J. Instrum., 14, P12006–69pp.
Abstract: This paper describes the reconstruction of electrons and photons with the ATLAS detector, employed for measurements and searches exploiting the complete LHC Run 2 dataset. An improved energy clustering algorithm is introduced, and its implications for the measurement and identification of prompt electrons and photons are discussed in detail. Corrections and calibrations that affect performance, including energy calibration, identification and isolation efficiencies, and the measurement of the charge of reconstructed electron candidates are determined using up to 81 fb(-1) of proton-proton collision data collected at root s = 13 TeV between 2015 and 2017.
|
|
|
ATLAS Collaboration(Aaboud, M. et al), Alvarez Piqueras, D., Aparisi Pozo, J. A., Bailey, A. J., Barranco Navarro, L., Cabrera Urban, S., et al. (2019). Electron reconstruction and identification in the ATLAS experiment using the 2015 and 2016 LHC proton-proton collision data at s=13 TeV. Eur. Phys. J. C, 79(8), 639–40pp.
Abstract: Algorithms used for the reconstruction and identification of electrons in the central region of the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) are presented in this paper; these algorithms are used in ATLAS physics analyses that involve electrons in the final state and which are based on the 2015 and 2016 proton-proton collision data produced by the LHC at root s = 13 The performance of the electron reconstruction, identification, isolation, and charge identification algorithms is evaluated in data and in simulated samples using electrons from Z -> ee and J/psi -> eedecays. Typical examples of combinations of electron reconstruction, identification, and isolation operating points used in ATLAS physics analyses are shown.
|
|
|
Oliver, S., Rodriguez Bosca, S., & Gimenez-Alventosa, V. (2024). Enabling particle transport on CAD-based geometries for radiation simulations with penRed. Comput. Phys. Commun., 298, 109091–11pp.
Abstract: Geometry construction is a fundamental aspect of any radiation transport simulation, regardless of the Monte Carlo code being used. Typically, this process is tedious, time-consuming, and error-prone. The conventional approach involves defining geometries using mathematical objects or surfaces. However, this method comes with several limitations, especially when dealing with complex models, particularly those with organic shapes. Furthermore, since each code employs its own format and methodology for defining geometries, sharing and reproducing simulations among researchers becomes a challenging task. Consequently, many codes have implemented support for simulating over geometries constructed via Computer-Aided Design (CAD) tools. Unfortunately, this feature is lacking in penRed and other PENELOPE physics-based codes. Therefore, the objective of this work is to implement such support within the penRed framework. New version program summary Program Title: Parallel Engine for Radiation Energy Deposition (penRed) CPC Library link to program files: https://doi.org/10.17632/rkw6tvtngy.2 Developer's repository link: https://github.com/PenRed/PenRed Code Ocean capsule: https://codeocean.com/capsule/1041417/tree Licensing provisions: GNU Affero General Public License v3 Programming language: C++ standard 2011. Journal reference of previous version: V. Gimenez-Alventosa, V. Gimenez Gomez, S. Oliver, PenRed: An extensible and parallel Monte-Carlo framework for radiation transport based on PENELOPE, Computer Physics Communications 267 (2021) 108065. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2021.108065. Does the new version supersede the previous version?: Yes Reasons for the new version: Implements the capability to simulate on CAD constructed geometries, among many other features and fixes. Summary of revisions: All changes applied through the code versions are summarized in the file CHANGELOG.md in the repository package. Nature of problem: While Monte Carlo codes have proven valuable in simulating complex radiation scenarios, they rely heavily on accurate geometrical representations. In the same way as many other Monte Carlo codes, penRed employs simple geometric quadric surfaces like planes, spheres and cylinders to define geometries. However, since these geometric models offer a certain level of flexibility, these representations have limitations when it comes to simulating highly intricate and irregular shapes. Anatomic structures, for example, require detailed representations of organs, tissues and bones, which are difficult to achieve using basic geometric objects. Similarly, complex devices or intricate mechanical systems may have designs that cannot be accurately represented within the constraints of such geometric models. Moreover, when the complexity of the model increases, geometry construction process becomes more difficult, tedious, time-consuming and error-prone [2]. Also, as each Monte Carlo geometry library uses its own format and construction method, reproducing the same geometry among different codes is a challenging task. Solution method: To face the problems stated above, the objective of this work is to implement the capability to simulate using irregular and adaptable meshed geometries in the penRed framework. This kind of meshes can be constructed using Computer-Aided Design (CAD) tools, the use of which is very widespread and streamline the design process. This feature has been implemented in a new geometry module named “MESH_BODY” specific for this kind of geometries. This one is freely available and usable within the official penRed package1. It can be used since penRed version 1.9.3b and above.
|
|
|
ATLAS Collaboration(Aad, G. et al), Alvarez Piqueras, D., Aparisi Pozo, J. A., Bailey, A. J., Cabrera Urban, S., Castillo, F. L., et al. (2020). Evidence for electroweak production of two jets in association with a Z gamma pair in pp collisions at root S=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector. Phys. Lett. B, 803, 135341–23pp.
Abstract: Evidence for electroweak production of two jets in association with a Z gamma pair in root s = 13 TeV proton-proton collisions at the Large Hadron Collider is presented. The analysis uses data collected by the ATLAS detector in 2015 and 2016 that corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb(-1). Events that contain a Z boson candidate decaying leptonically into either e(+)e(-) or mu(+)mu(-), a photon, and two jets are selected. The electroweak component is measured with observed and expected significances of 4.1 standard deviations. The fiducial cross-section for electroweak production is measured to be sigma(Z gamma jj-Ew) = 7.8 +/- 2.0 fb, in good agreement with the Standard Model prediction.
|
|