Expected Tracking Performance of the ATLAS Inner Tracker at the High-Luminosity LHC

ATLAS Collaboration

Expected Tracking Performance of the ATLAS Inner Tracker at the High-Luminosity LHC

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The ATLAS Inner Tracker is expected to keep Run-3-level tracking efficiency at pile-up 200, with impact parameter resolutions improved by up to a factor of four.

desk verdict Solid, carefully executed ATLAS ITk performance projection; the 3D sensor approximation is a real caveat but the central conclusions hold up. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15090 v2 pith:AJ6UXSKS submitted 2024-12-19 hep-ex physics.ins-det

ATLAS Collaboration This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-exphysics.ins-det PACS 29.40.Gx

keywords HL-LHCpile-upATLASInnerTrackersilicontrackingdetectortrackreconstructionefficiencyimpactparameterresolutionprimaryvertexfakerate

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the new all-silicon Inner Tracker (ITk) of the ATLAS experiment, combined with adaptations to the tracking software, will handle the extreme conditions of the high-luminosity LHC: up to 200 simultaneous proton-proton collisions per bunch crossing. Using full detector simulation of the final refined layout, it reports that the physics tracking efficiency stays within about 5% of the Run 3 performance, while the fake track rate is around $3\times10^{-4}$ at pile-up 200 and track parameter resolutions improve substantially. These results matter because nearly every physics measurement at the HL-LHC begins with reconstructed charged-particle tracks, so the tracker's ability to deliver clean, precise tracks at high pile-up determines how much of the planned physics program can be achieved.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the ITk detector Layout 03-00-00: an all-silicon tracker with five pixel barrel layers plus pixel rings and four strip barrel layers plus strip disks, covering $|\eta|<4.0$, with the innermost pixel layer at radius 34 mm using $25\times100\,\mu$m 3D pixel sensors and the outer pixel layers using $50\times50\,\mu$m quad modules. The carrying mechanism is the track reconstruction chain: a seeding stage builds track seeds from triplets of pixel and strip space-points, a combinatorial Kalman filter extends the seeds into track candidates, and an ambiguity-solving stage with a global $\chi^2$ fit assigns clusters to tracks and rejects poor candidates. The high number of precision silicon measurements per track (at least nine hits across most of the acceptance) is what allows tight quality requirements that suppress fake tracks; the paper identifies merged-cluster identification as the key ingredient still needed for dense jet environments.

What would settle it

Measure the position resolution of the actual $25\times100\,\mu$m innermost-layer sensors in a test beam, including charge sharing and the magnetic-field drift that the simulation omits, and compare the resulting $d_0$ and $z_0$ resolutions with the simulation curves in the paper; if the real sensors are materially less precise, the predicted factor-of-two and factor-of-four improvements over Run 3 would not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the ITk detector, in the refined layout labelled 03-00-00, together with the adapted ATLAS track reconstruction chain, will deliver tracking performance at HL-LHC pile-up 200 that is comparable to Run 3 in efficiency while being much cleaner and more precise. In $t\bar{t}$ events at $\langle\mu\rangle=200$, the full tracking efficiency for hard-scatter particles with $p_T>1$ GeV is expected to remain within about 5% of the Run 3 detector's efficiency, the fake track creation rate is approximately $3\times10^{-4}$, and the number of reconstructed tracks scales almost linearly with the number of interactions. For 100 GeV muons the transverse impact parameter ($d_0$) resolution improves by up to a factor of two and the longitudinal impact parameter ($z_0$) resolution by up to a factor of four relative to Run 3, and the primary vertex longitudinal position resolution is maintained near 10 $\mu$m up to high pile-up density. The paper also shows that the newly covered forward region $2.4<|\eta|<4.0$ achieves tracking efficiency similar to the central region, and that the main remaining challenge is the reconstruction of tracks in dense jet cores, where merged clusters degrade efficiency unless a dedicated identification algorithm is used.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the innermost pixel layer's sensors, whose electrodes are etched through the silicon rather than lying on a flat surface, can be simulated as flat sensors with the magnetic-field drift of charge turned off, because that layer supplies the highest-precision hit for impact parameters.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

ATLAS can collect physics-quality tracks at pile-up 200 without paying an efficiency penalty relative to Run 3, preserving the statistical reach of the HL-LHC runs.
Improved $d_0$ and $z_0$ resolutions will directly sharpen flavor tagging, lepton isolation, and pile-up rejection, as the paper states these algorithms benefit from the improved track parameters.
The forward region up to $|\eta|=4.0$ becomes usable for tracking-based object reconstruction with efficiency close to the central region.
The fake track rate of about $3\times10^{-4}$ at pile-up 200 means cleaner events despite far more simultaneous collisions than Run 3.
Vertex reconstruction and selection remain robust, with combined reconstruction and selection efficiency falling only to about 92% on average at pile-up 200, and longitudinal vertex resolution improving by more than a factor of two over Run 3.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Beyond the paper: if the real 3D pixel sensors in the innermost layer resolve hits better or worse than the planar approximation used in simulation, the quoted $d_0$ and $z_0$ improvement factors will shift; the size of the shift is testable with a dedicated sensor measurement or test-beam campaign.
Beyond the paper: the emulated merged-cluster identification replaces a machine-learning algorithm that is still being developed, so the jet-core efficiencies shown here are a baseline, and the final Run 4 performance in dense jets could be better or worse than displayed.
Beyond the paper: the simulation does not yet include random thermal electronic noise, so real occupancy and noise effects at pile-up 200 may add small tracking inefficiencies not captured in the quoted numbers.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know this paper is the current authoritative expected-tracking-performance reference for the ATLAS ITk at HL-LHC. It is a full-simulation study using Geant4, detailed digitization, the updated Layout 03-00-00, and the latest ATLAS tracking software. The performance numbers—tracking efficiency within 5% of Run 3 at pile-up 200, fake rates around 3e-4, and up to 2x/4x improvements in d0/z0 resolution for 100 GeV muons—are the numbers people will use to design triggers, flavor tagging, and physics projections for Run 4.

What is genuinely new is the specific layout and reconstruction chain: the innermost pixel layer moved to 34 mm, quad modules, revised forward rings, the new forward region out to |eta|<4, and the re-tuned combinatorial Kalman filter with pixel/strip seeding. The paper is careful to separate physics efficiency from technical efficiency, and it defines exactly what counts as a mis-reconstructed track. The methodology is standard ATLAS practice and the internal logic is consistent.

The soft spots are real but not disqualifying. The main one, as you flagged, is the innermost layer's 3D pixel sensors approximated as planar, with Lorentz effects disabled. That layer provides the first and most precise hit on every track, so the quoted d0 and z0 resolutions (Figures 23–24) rest on this assumption. The paper states this approximation in Sec. 3.3 but gives no cross-check against test-beam data or a TCAD-based 3D digitization model. If the true 3D sensor gives, say, 20% worse resolution or a small hit inefficiency, the headline improvement factors would be overstated. But the central claim—that ITk tracking is robust and much better than Run 3 at high pile-up—does not hinge on those exact factors. The other caveats, no thermal noise and a particle-level emulation of merged-cluster identification, are also stated and lean conservative.

The citation pattern is clean: TDRs, software papers, relevant ATLAS notes, and CMS comparisons. No code or data are shipped, but that is normal for a collaboration performance paper of this type. My honest bottom line: it is a solid, carefully executed study that should be sent to peer review. It already appeared in JINST, which suggests it passed. For anyone working on HL-LHC tracking or Run 4 physics, it is worth citing and worth reading closely. I would bring it to a reading group focused on detector performance.

Recommendation: accept for review; treat the 3D sensor approximation as a required comment for the authors, not a rejection.

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper describes the expected tracking and vertexing performance of the ATLAS Inner Tracker (ITk) for HL-LHC operations, based on the full ATLAS simulation and reconstruction chain with Layout 03-00-00. The study uses single-particle and t-tbar samples with pile-up up to 200, and compares against Run 3 detector performance. The central reported results are: a physics tracking efficiency within about 5% of Run 3 at <mu>=200, a fake-track rate near 3e-4, a quasi-linear growth of track multiplicity with pile-up, improved track-parameter resolutions (up to 2x in d0 and 4x in z0 for 100 GeV muons), and robust primary-vertex reconstruction and selection up to high local pile-up densities.

Significance. The manuscript is a comprehensive, state-of-the-art performance projection that will serve as a reference for ATLAS Run 4 preparations. Its methodology is sound: full Geant4 simulation, detailed digitization, MC-truth-based efficiency and resolution measurements, and direct comparison with the Run 3 detector. I found no circularity or free parameters; the fitted quantities, such as the mis-reconstructed track rate in Section 5.3, are diagnostic. The principal modeling caveats, namely the planar approximation of the innermost 3D pixel sensors, the omission of random thermal noise, and the particle-level emulation of merged-cluster identification, are explicitly stated in the manuscript. They are genuine uncertainties but do not undermine the broad conclusions, because the paper presents expected performance conditional on the current simulation model and is appropriately cautious in the jet-core discussion. The requested revisions are local and would increase transparency.

minor comments (5)

[Section 3.3] The approximation of the innermost-layer 3D pixel sensors as planar sensors, with Lorentz effects disabled, is a genuine modeling limitation. Because this approximation directly feeds the impact-parameter resolutions in Figures 23 and 24, I recommend that the text explicitly state in Section 5.4 or the conclusion that the quoted d0 and z0 improvements are conditional on this approximation, and that a sensitivity study or a reference to test-beam validation of the 3D sensor response be added if available.
[Section 3.3] The sentence noting that random/thermal noise is not yet included in the modeling should be accompanied by a brief statement of the expected direction of the effect on hit efficiency and fake rate, and why it is considered negligible relative to the ToT resolution.
[Section 4.1] The particle-level emulation of merged-cluster identification is described as conservative, but no quantitative benchmark is provided. Please include the performance numbers of the Run 3 machine-learning algorithm used as reference, or cite the relevant public note, so that the claim of conservatism can be assessed.
[Section 5.3, Figures 20-21] The mis-reconstructed track fraction is extracted from the difference between a quadratic fit over the full mu range and a linear fit extrapolated from low mu. Please state the statistical uncertainties on these fits and, ideally, the sensitivity of the result to the chosen fit ranges.
[Section 6 / Section 5.3] The conclusion states a 'quasi-linear scaling of the track multiplicity with pile-up'; the body quantifies this as a relative efficiency reduction of up to 0.7% at <mu>=200. Please make the quantitative statement in the conclusion or define 'quasi-linear' precisely.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all claimed performance numbers are measured from full simulation against Monte Carlo truth, with diagnostic fits only.

full rationale

This is a forward simulation study, not a derivation whose conclusions re-enter its inputs. The claimed deliverables (physics and technical tracking efficiencies, fake-track fraction, d0/z0/pT resolutions, vertex efficiencies) are all produced by running a Geant4-based full simulation, a digitization step, and the ATLAS tracking chain, then comparing reconstructed tracks to Monte Carlo truth (e.g., the matching fraction of Eq. (1) and the seeded/efficiency definitions of Sections 5.1 and 5.2). No headline number is obtained by fitting a parameter to a target result: the only fitting procedures in Section 5.3 are the linear and quadratic fits used to decompose track multiplicity versus pile-up and thereby estimate the mis-reconstructed-track fraction, and the independent MC-truth-based fake-track fraction of Figure 22 does not rely on those fits. The modeling simplifications noted by the reviewer (planar approximation for the innermost 3D pixel sensors with Lorentz effects disabled, Sec. 3.3; the particle-level emulation of merged-cluster identification, Sec. 4.1; and the omission of random/thermal noise, Sec. 3.3) are explicitly acknowledged approximations. They affect the realism of the projection but do not define the performance quantities in terms of themselves, so they are modeling uncertainties rather than circular steps. ATLAS Collaboration self-citations appear for context (technical design reports and prior performance notes), but no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation that is itself unverified; the cited Run 3 algorithms are used as inputs to the emulation, not as proof of the ITk results. No specific equation or construction exhibits a reduction of the claimed prediction to a fitted input or to a self-citation chain, so the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. It depends on the standard ATLAS simulation and reconstruction assumptions, the most fragile being the 3D sensor approximation and the merged cluster emulation. No free parameters are fitted to the target results; the analysis uses MC truth to define performance metrics.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Geant4-based ATLAS detector simulation accurately predicts the response of the ITk detector.
All performance numbers derive from simulation; the paper relies on the standard ATLAS simulation infrastructure described in Section 3.1.
domain assumption The Monte Carlo generators (Powheg, Pythia, EvtGen) model ttbar and pile-up events sufficiently for performance studies.
Used to generate the samples in Section 3.2; the physics of the hard scatter and pile-up is assumed to be modelled well enough to set occupancy and track density.
domain assumption The digitization thresholds and noise levels reflect the expected ITkPixV2 chip behavior.
Section 3.3 uses discriminator thresholds of 900e and 600e; random/thermal noise is not yet included, which is a recognized simplification.
domain assumption The approximation of the innermost 3D pixel sensors as planar sensors with Lorentz effects disabled does not materially change tracking performance.
Section 3.3: this approximation affects the layer that most influences impact parameter resolution; it is load-bearing for the resolution claims.
domain assumption The particle-level emulation of merged cluster identification reproduces the performance of the future machine-learning based algorithm.
Section 4.1: the emulation is based on Run 3 performance and is used in jet tracking studies; the paper calls it conservative.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Expected Tracking Performance of the ATLAS Inner Tracker at the High-Luminosity LHC." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AJ6UXSKS

@misc{pith2026241215090,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Expected Tracking Performance of the ATLAS Inner Tracker at the High-Luminosity LHC},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AJ6UXSKS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15090}
}

read the original abstract

The high-luminosity phase of LHC operations (HL-LHC), will feature a large increase in simultaneous proton-proton interactions per bunch crossing up to 200, compared with a typical leveling target of 64 in Run 3. Such an increase will create a very challenging environment in which to perform charged particle trajectory reconstruction, a task crucial for the success of the ATLAS physics program, and will exceed the capabilities of the current ATLAS Inner Detector (ID). A new all-silicon Inner Tracker (ITk) will replace the current ID in time for the start of the HL-LHC. To ensure successful use of the ITk capabilities in Run 4 and beyond, the ATLAS tracking software has been successfully adapted to achieve state-of-the-art track reconstruction in challenging high-luminosity conditions with the ITk detector. This paper presents the expected tracking performance of the ATLAS ITk based on the latest available developments since the ITk technical design reports.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[1]

Evans and P

L. Evans and P. Bryant,LHC Machine, JINST3 (2008) S08001. 30

work page 2008
[2]

ATLAS Collaboration, The ATLAS Experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, JINST3 (2008) S08003

2008
[3]

CMS Collaboration, The CMS Experiment at the CERN LHC, JINST3(2008) S08004

work page 2008
[4]

Aberle et al.,High-Luminosity Large Hadron Collider (HL-LHC): Technical design report, CERN-2020-010, 2020,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2749422

O. Aberle et al.,High-Luminosity Large Hadron Collider (HL-LHC): Technical design report, CERN-2020-010, 2020,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2749422

arXiv 2020
[5]

ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS Inner Detector: Technical Design Report, Volume 1, ATLAS-TDR-4; CERN-LHCC-97-016, 1997,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/331063

work page 1997
[6]

ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS Inner Detector: Technical Design Report, Volume 2, ATLAS-TDR-5, CERN-LHCC-97-017, 1997,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/331064

work page 1997
[7]

ATLAS Collaboration, Modelling radiation damage to pixel sensors in the ATLAS detector, JINST14 (2019) P06012, arXiv:1905.03739 [physics.ins-det]

arXiv 2019
[8]

ATLAS Collaboration, Measurements of sensor radiation damage in the ATLAS inner detector using leakage currents, JINST16 (2021) P08025, arXiv:2106.09287 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2021

Show all 64 references

[9]

ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS Inner Tracker Strip Detector: Technical Design Report, ATLAS-TDR-025; CERN-LHCC-2017-005, 2017, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2257755

2017
[10]

ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS Inner Tracker Pixel Detector: Technical Design Report, ATLAS-TDR-030; CERN-LHCC-2017-021, 2017, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2285585

2017
[11]

ATLAS Collaboration, Letter of Intent for the Phase-II Upgrade of the ATLAS Experiment, CERN-LHCC-2012-022, LHCC-I-023, 2012,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/1502664

2012
[12]

ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS Phase-II Upgrade Scoping Document, CERN-LHCC-2015-020, LHCC-G-166, 2015,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2055248

2015
[13]

ATLAS Collaboration, Jet reconstruction and performance using particle flow with the ATLAS Detector, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 466, arXiv:1703.10485 [hep-ex]

2017 arXiv
[14]

ATLAS Collaboration,ATLAS flavour-tagging algorithms for the LHC Run 2𝑝𝑝 collision dataset, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 681, arXiv:2211.16345 [physics.data-an]

2023 arXiv
[15]

ATLAS Collaboration, Graph Neural Network Jet Flavour Tagging with the ATLAS Detector, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2022-027, 2022,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2811135

2022
[16]

ATLAS Collaboration,Electron and photon efficiencies in LHC Run 2 with the ATLAS experiment, JHEP05(2024) 162, arXiv:2308.13362 [hep-ex]

2024 arXiv
[17]

ATLAS Collaboration,Reconstruction, Identification, and Calibration of hadronically decaying tau leptons with the ATLAS detector for the LHC Run 3 and reprocessed Run 2 data, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2022-044, 2022,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2827111

2022
[18]

ATLAS Collaboration, Muon reconstruction and identification efficiency in ATLAS using the full Run 2𝑝𝑝 collision data set at√𝑠= 13TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 578, arXiv: 2012.00578 [hep-ex]. 31

2021 arXiv
[19]

ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of angular and momentum distributions of charged particles within and around jets in Pb+Pb and𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠NN= 5.02TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. C100 (2019) 064901, arXiv:1908.05264 [nucl-ex], Erratum: Phys. Rev. C101 (2019) 059903

2019 arXiv
[20]

ATLAS Collaboration, Search for long-lived charginos based on a disappearing-track signature using 136fb−1 of𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠= 13TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) 606, arXiv:2201.02472 [hep-ex]

2022 arXiv
[21]

ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of the production of a𝑊 boson in association with a charmed hadron in𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠= 13TeVwith the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 032012, arXiv: 2302.00336 [hep-ex]

2023 arXiv
[22]

Cornelissen et al.,The new ATLAS track reconstruction (NEWT), J

T. Cornelissen et al.,The new ATLAS track reconstruction (NEWT), J. Phys. Conf. Ser.119 (2008) 032014

2008
[23]

ATLAS Collaboration, Software Performance of the ATLAS Track Reconstruction for LHC Run 3, Comput. Softw. Big Sci.8 (2024) 9, arXiv:2308.09471 [hep-ex]

2024 arXiv
[24]

Frühwirth, Application of Kalman filtering to track and vertex fitting, Nucl

R. Frühwirth, Application of Kalman filtering to track and vertex fitting, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A262 (1987) 444

1987
[25]

ATLAS Collaboration, Expected𝑏-tagging Performance with the upgraded ATLAS Inner Tracker Detector at the High-Luminosity LHC, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2020-005, 2020, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2713377

2020
[26]

ATLAS Collaboration, Neural Network Jet Flavour Tagging with the Upgraded ATLAS Inner Tracker Detector at the High-Luminosity LHC, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2022-047, 2022, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2839913

2022
[27]

ATLAS Collaboration,Expected performance of the ATLAS detector at the High-Luminosity LHC, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2019-005, 2019,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2655304

2019
[28]

ATLAS Collaboration, Expected performance of the ATLAS detector under different High-Luminosity LHC conditions, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-023, 2021,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2776650

2021
[29]

CMS Collaboration, Technical Proposal for the Phase-II Upgrade of the CMS Detector, CERN-LHCC-2015-010, LHCC-P-008, CMS-TDR-15-02, 2015, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2020886

2015
[30]

CMS Collaboration, The Phase-2 Upgrade of the CMS Tracker, CERN-LHCC-2017-009, CMS-TDR-014, 2017,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2272264

2017
[31]

ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, Report on the Physics at the HL-LHC and Perspectives for the HE-LHC, 2019, arXiv: 1902.10229 [hep-ex]

2019 arXiv
[32]

ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, Snowmass White Paper Contribution: Physics with the Phase-2 ATLAS and CMS Detectors, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2022-018, CMS PAS FTR-22-001, 2022, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2805993

2022
[33]

ATLAS Collaboration, A High-Granularity Timing Detector for the ATLAS Phase-II Upgrade: Technical Design Report, ATLAS-TDR-031; CERN-LHCC-2020-007, 2020, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2719855. 32

2020
[34]

ATLAS Collaboration, Software and computing for Run 3 of the ATLAS experiment at the LHC, (2024), arXiv:2404.06335 [hep-ex]

2024 arXiv
[35]

Bandieramonte, R

M. Bandieramonte, R. M. Bianchi, J. Boudreau, A. Dell’Acqua and V. Tsulaia, The GeoModel tool suite for detector description, EPJ Web Conf.251 (2021) 03007

2021
[36]

ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS HL-LHC Computing Conceptual Design Report, CERN-LHCC-2020-015, LHCC-G-178, 2020,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2729668

2020
[37]

Frixione, G

S. Frixione, G. Ridolfi and P. Nason, A positive-weight next-to-leading-order Monte Carlo for heavy flavour hadroproduction, JHEP09(2007) 126, arXiv:0707.3088 [hep-ph]

2007 arXiv
[38]

Nason, A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms, JHEP11(2004) 040, arXiv:hep-ph/0409146

P. Nason, A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms, JHEP11(2004) 040, arXiv:hep-ph/0409146

2004 arXiv
[39]

Frixione, P

S. Frixione, P. Nason and C. Oleari, Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method, JHEP11(2007) 070, arXiv:0709.2092 [hep-ph]

2007 arXiv
[40]

Alioli, P

S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari and E. Re,A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX, JHEP06 (2010) 043, arXiv: 1002.2581 [hep-ph]

2010 arXiv
[41]

NNPDF Collaboration, R. D. Ball et al.,Parton distributions for the LHC run II, JHEP04(2015) 040, arXiv:1410.8849 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[42]

ATLAS Collaboration, Studies on top-quark Monte Carlo modelling for Top2016, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2016-020, 2016,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2216168

2016
[43]

Sjöstrand et al.,An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2, Comput

T. Sjöstrand et al.,An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2, Comput. Phys. Commun.191 (2015) 159, arXiv: 1410.3012 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[44]

ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS Pythia 8 tunes to7TeV data, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2014-021, 2014, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/1966419

2014
[45]

NNPDF Collaboration, R. D. Ball et al.,Parton distributions with LHC data, Nucl. Phys. B867 (2013) 244, arXiv:1207.1303 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[46]

D. J. Lange,The EvtGen particle decay simulation package, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A462 (2001) 152

2001
[47]

Bierlich et al.,A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3, SciPost Phys

C. Bierlich et al.,A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3, SciPost Phys. Codeb. (2022) 8, arXiv:2203.11601 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[48]

ATLAS Collaboration, The ATLAS Simulation Infrastructure, Eur. Phys. J. C70(2010) 823, arXiv: 1005.4568 [physics.ins-det]

2010 arXiv
[49]

Agostinelli et al.,Geant4 – a simulation toolkit, Nucl

S. Agostinelli et al.,Geant4 – a simulation toolkit, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506 (2003) 250

2003
[50]

Bichsel, Straggling in thin silicon detectors, Rev

H. Bichsel, Straggling in thin silicon detectors, Rev. Mod. Phys.60 (1988) 663

1988
[51]

RD53 Collaboration, RD53 pixel chips for the ATLAS and CMS Phase-2 upgrades at HL-LHC, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A1067 (2024) 169682

2024
[52]

Gorelov et al., A Measurement of Lorentz Angle and Spatial Resolution of Radiation Hard Silicon Pixel Sensors, Nucl

I. Gorelov et al., A Measurement of Lorentz Angle and Spatial Resolution of Radiation Hard Silicon Pixel Sensors, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A481 (2002) 204. 33

2002
[53]

ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS Run 3 charged particle track seed finding performance, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2023-034, 2023,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2882156

2023
[54]

E. Lund, L. Bugge, I. Gavrilenko and A. Strandlie,Track parameter propagation through the application of a new adaptive Runge-Kutta-Nyström method in the ATLAS experiment, JINST4 (2009) P04001

2009
[55]

Cornelissen et al.,The global𝜒2 track fitter in ATLAS, J

T. Cornelissen et al.,The global𝜒2 track fitter in ATLAS, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.119 (2008) 032013

2008
[56]

Cornelissen et al.,Concepts, Design and Implementation of the ATLAS New Tracking (NEWT), ATL-SOFT-PUB-2007-007, 2007,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/1020106

T. Cornelissen et al.,Concepts, Design and Implementation of the ATLAS New Tracking (NEWT), ATL-SOFT-PUB-2007-007, 2007,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/1020106

2007
[57]

ATLAS Collaboration,A neural network clustering algorithm for the ATLAS silicon pixel detector, JINST9 (2014) P09009, arXiv:1406.7690 [hep-ex]

2014 arXiv
[58]

ATLAS Collaboration, Performance of the ATLAS track reconstruction algorithms in dense environments in LHC Run 2, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 673, arXiv:1704.07983 [hep-ex]

2017 arXiv
[59]

ATLAS Collaboration, Development of ATLAS Primary Vertex Reconstruction for LHC Run 3, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2019-015, 2019,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2670380

2019
[60]

Cacciari, G

M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez,The anti-𝑘𝑡 jet clustering algorithm, JHEP04(2008) 063, arXiv: 0802.1189 [hep-ph]

2008 arXiv
[61]

Cacciari, G

M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez,FastJet user manual, Eur. Phys. J. C72 (2012) 1896, arXiv: 1111.6097 [hep-ph]

2012 arXiv
[62]

ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS Insertable B-Layer Technical Design Report, ATLAS-TDR-19; CERN-LHCC-2010-013, 2010, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/1291633, Addendum: ATLAS-TDR-19-ADD-1; CERN-LHCC-2012-009, 2012,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/1451888

2010
[63]

Abbott et al.,Production and integration of the ATLAS Insertable B-Layer, JINST13(2018) T05008, arXiv:1803.00844 [physics.ins-det]

B. Abbott et al.,Production and integration of the ATLAS Insertable B-Layer, JINST13(2018) T05008, arXiv:1803.00844 [physics.ins-det]

2018 arXiv
[64]

Demokritos

ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS Computing Acknowledgements, ATL-SOFT-PUB-2023-001, 2023, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2869272. 34 The ATLAS Collaboration G. Aad 105, E. Aakvaag 17, B. Abbott 124, S. Abdelhameed 120a, K. Abeling 56, N.J. Abicht 50, S.H. Abidi 30, M. Aboelela 46, ...

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Evans and P

L. Evans and P. Bryant,LHC Machine, JINST3 (2008) S08001. 30

work page 2008

[2] [2]

ATLAS Collaboration, The ATLAS Experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, JINST3 (2008) S08003

2008

[3] [3]

CMS Collaboration, The CMS Experiment at the CERN LHC, JINST3(2008) S08004

work page 2008

[4] [4]

Aberle et al.,High-Luminosity Large Hadron Collider (HL-LHC): Technical design report, CERN-2020-010, 2020,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2749422

O. Aberle et al.,High-Luminosity Large Hadron Collider (HL-LHC): Technical design report, CERN-2020-010, 2020,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2749422

arXiv 2020

[5] [5]

ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS Inner Detector: Technical Design Report, Volume 1, ATLAS-TDR-4; CERN-LHCC-97-016, 1997,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/331063

work page 1997

[6] [6]

ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS Inner Detector: Technical Design Report, Volume 2, ATLAS-TDR-5, CERN-LHCC-97-017, 1997,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/331064

work page 1997

[7] [7]

ATLAS Collaboration, Modelling radiation damage to pixel sensors in the ATLAS detector, JINST14 (2019) P06012, arXiv:1905.03739 [physics.ins-det]

arXiv 2019

[8] [8]

ATLAS Collaboration, Measurements of sensor radiation damage in the ATLAS inner detector using leakage currents, JINST16 (2021) P08025, arXiv:2106.09287 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2021