Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Configuration, Performance, and Commissioning of the ATLAS $b$-jet Triggers for the 2022 and 2023 LHC data-taking periods

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports that ATLAS rebuilt its real-time b-jet identification for LHC Run 3, replacing the Run 2 tagger with two neural-network classifiers, DL1d and GN1, and adding a fast calorimeter-based preselection step before precision…

desk verdict Solid Run 3 b-jet trigger paper with a real but MC-only headline gain; deserves review after small wording and uncertainty fixes. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11420 v2 pith:EFRTRLGB submitted 2025-01-20 hep-ex

ATLAS Collaboration This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ex
keywords b-jettriggershigh-leveltriggerflavourtaggingneuralnetworktaggersHiggsbosonpairproductionLHCRun3DL1dGN1
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

The paper reports how ATLAS rebuilt its real-time b-jet identification for LHC Run 3, replacing the Run 2 tagger with two neural-network classifiers, DL1d and GN1, and adding a fast calorimeter-based preselection step before precision tracking. The central claim is that this menu raises the trigger efficiency for Standard Model Higgs-boson-pair production by roughly 50% in the HH→bbbb channel and by up to a factor 1.7 in the HH→bbττ channel, relative to the Run 2 trigger strategy, at comparable trigger rates. If true, the same recorded luminosity now delivers about half again as many fully hadronic di-Higgs events, which are the key channel for measuring the Higgs self-coupling. The efficiency gain is largest at low di-Higgs invariant mass near the 2mH threshold, precisely the region most sensitive to the self-coupling.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the neural flavour taggers DL1d, an eight-layer perceptron taking low-level vertex and DIPS inputs, and GN1, a graph neural network consuming about twenty track quantities per jet, together with a two-step HLT structure: a loose FastDIPS preselection on EMTopo jets that runs before precision tracking, and a final selection on particle-flow jets using DL1d or GN1 operating points. The b-jet discriminant is the log-odds D_b = log(p_b/(f_c p_c + (1-f_c) p_u)) with f_c = 0.018, and operating points are defined by b-jet efficiency in simulated ttbar events. The mechanism that yields the gain is that stronger light-jet rejection allows lower jet pT thresholds and looser b-tag working points without raising the trigger rate.

What would settle it

Measure the per-jet online b-tagging efficiency for b-jets in a data sample enriched in HH-like low-mHH topology, for example HH→bbττ events selected by the tau triggers, and propagate the measured scale factors to the HH→bbbb and HH→bbττ trigger efficiencies; if the corrected efficiency gain drops below about 30% at mHH below 450 GeV, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a trigger strategy built from the DL1d and GN1 b-tagging discriminants, a FastDIPS preselection running on calorimeter jets, and asymmetric multi-b-jet chains recovers about 50% more SM HH→bbbb events and more than 50% of HH→bbττ events passing the fiducial selection, compared with the Run 2 strategy. The 2b2j_asym chain alone gives 55% efficiency on HH→bbbb and is the single most efficient chain; combining it with 3b1j_asym, 2b1j and 2b2j_cent reaches 59%. The gain reaches about 75% near mHH ~ 2mH, and the bbττ efficiency exceeds 50% with up to a 1.7 factor gain over the Run 2 tau-based strategy.

Load-bearing premise

The 50% gain is computed in full Monte Carlo simulation of HH events, and the paper's data validation covers only the 2b2j_asym chain in ttbar-enriched events, so the claim assumes the online taggers and tracking reproduce their simulated response in the HH signal phase space, especially at low mHH.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The di-Higgs analyses can collect roughly 50% more fully hadronic signal events at the same integrated luminosity, directly increasing sensitivity to the Higgs self-coupling.
  • The looser jet thresholds push trigger turn-on curves lower, so HH→bbbb events with softer b-jets, which dominate near the 2mH threshold, are recorded rather than lost.
  • Switching the 2023 baseline from DL1d to GN1 adds up to a factor two in light-flavour jet rejection at fixed b-efficiency, which will also benefit other all-hadronic searches such as supersymmetry and resonances decaying to b-quarks.
  • The FastDIPS preselection keeps CPU usage manageable, meaning the improved menu scales to higher pile-up without requiring more trigger farm capacity.
  • Data-MC agreement in ttbar-enriched events shows the online taggers behave as simulated for b-jets from top decay, supporting extrapolation to other b-rich signatures.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The largest efficiency gain appearing in the low-mHH region means the practical boost to Higgs self-coupling measurements may be larger than the inclusive 50%, since that region carries the most coupling information.
  • A direct data-driven closure test inside the HH→bbbb fiducial region, using for example tag-and-probe b-jets reweighted to the HH kinematics, would test whether the MC-only gain holds; this is an extension the paper does not perform.
  • The same two-step preselection recipe could be applied to c-tagging or to future high-pileup runs, where the fast preselection's rejection factor would need to be re-optimized.
  • The reported efficiency is relative to inclusive or fiducial HH events, not to the offline analysis selection, so the analysis-level gain will depend on how the trigger overlaps with the offline b-tagging working points.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper documents the configuration, commissioning, and performance of the ATLAS b-jet triggers in the first two years of LHC Run 3 (2022-2023). It describes the online inputs (FTF and precision tracking, primary-vertex reconstruction, EMTopo and particle-flow jets), the low-level taggers (JetFitter, SSVF, DIPS) and high-level taggers (DL1d in 2022, GN1 in 2023), the new two-step FastDIPS preselection strategy, and the full deployed trigger menu (Tables 1-4). Trigger rates are predicted from enhanced-bias data and compared with measured 2023 rates as a function of instantaneous luminosity (Figures 3-4). The event-level efficiency of the 2b2jasym chain is compared between data and ttbar Monte Carlo in events above the jet trigger turn-on plateau (Figure 5). The paper concludes that the new menu achieves about a 50% inclusive efficiency gain for HH->bbbb relative to the Run 2 strategy, an efficiency above 50% for HH->bbtautau relative to the fiducial selection, and up to a factor 1.7 improvement over the Run 2 tau-based strategy (Figures 6-7), and it reports the online and offline monitoring infrastructure used for data-quality assessment.

Significance. The reported gain is of direct physics interest: if it holds in data, the Run 3 menu records roughly 40-70% more SM HH events than the Run 2 strategy at comparable rate, directly improving the reach of the HH self-coupling program. The paper has clear strengths: the rate predictions are data-driven (enhanced-bias data) and validated against measured 2023 trigger rates, the deployed menu and operating points are documented transparently, the tagger comparison (Figure 2) quantifies the algorithmic improvement, and the ttbar-enriched data/MC comparison (Figure 5) is an honest, explicit anchor for the online tagger performance. I found no internal inconsistency and no circularity in the central claim: the taggers are trained on ttbar MC and evaluated on independent HH MC, while operating points and rates are anchored in data. The load-bearing caveat is that the headline HH efficiency gain is a pure-MC projection whose dominant regime of improvement, the low-pT acceptance near 20-40 GeV, is only partially covered by the data validation, and the headline number is quoted without a total uncertainty.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 6.4, Figs 6-7; Abstract] The headline claim of the paper, an inclusive efficiency gain of about 50% for HH->bbbb and an efficiency above 50% for HH->bbtautau, rests entirely on a Monte Carlo projection: the efficiencies in Figures 6 and 7 are evaluated on Powheg+Pythia HH samples processed through the full Geant4 detector simulation (Section 3), and they are quoted without any statistical or systematic uncertainty, so the reader cannot tell whether the gain is about 40% or about 60%. The data validation in Section 6.3 covers only the 2b2jasym chain in ttbar-enriched events, and the abstract's wording that the improvement 'is observed' is therefore stronger than the evidence supports; notably, Section 6.4 itself qualifies the bbtautau figure as 'predicted, in simulation.' Additionally, the abstract conflates two different statements: for HH->bbbb the claim is a relative improvement of about 45% over Run 2 (59% vs 41% in Figure 6), whereas for HH->bbtautau the claim is an absolute efficiency above 50% relative to the fiducial selection with up to a factor 1.7 gain. I request: (i) a total uncertainty on the efficiencies in Figures 6 and 7, at minimum the MC statistical precision with the dominant systematics identified (for example tagger training, pile-up modeling, and jet/track response at low pT), and an explicit statement of whether the quoted values are unrounded point estimates; (ii) rewording of the abstract so that the gain is described as an expected improvement from simulation, validated in data only in a restricted phase space; and (iii) confirmation that the Run 2 baseline values (41% for bbbb, from the 13 TeV analysis of Ref. [8]) and the Run 3 values are computed with the same fiducial definitions, since the Figure 6 caption indicates the comparison mixes 13 TeV and 13.6 TeV simulated samples.
  2. [Section 6.3.2, Fig 5, Table 2] The data/MC validation excludes the kinematic regime in which the claimed gain is largest. The ttbar control selection requires at least four offline jets with pT above 120, 70, and 30 GeV, and the 2b2jasym efficiency in Figure 5 is measured only for events 'above the plateau of the jet trigger turn-on,' where the jet-pT requirements are chosen so that at least 95% of the selected events satisfy the L1 and HLT jet thresholds. This design isolates the performance of the b-tagging discriminants, which is a genuine strength, but it removes all sensitivity to the jet reconstruction and tracking acceptance at pT between 20 and 30 GeV. That is precisely the loosened acceptance responsible for the gain claimed in Section 6.4: the 2b2jasym chain in Table 2 accepts b-tagged jets with pT > 20 GeV, and the paper attributes the gain to loosened jet-pT thresholds enabled by the improved taggers. The largest improvement (about 75%) is quoted at low mHH, where the signal b-jets are softest and the FTF/precision tracking and FastDIPS preselection are known to degrade. I request either a data/MC comparison of the full chain efficiency, including the FastDIPS preselection and jet acceptance, in a phase space extending down to pT ~ 20 GeV (accepting the turn-on as an additional systematic), or a quantitative sensitivity study of how the quoted 50% gain changes under plausible data/MC differences in the low-pT acceptance, together with an explicit statement of this limitation at the point where the number is introduced.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.6, Fig 2] The sentence comparing GN1 with DL1d refers to Figure 2(a), but that panel shows the DL1d/DIPS versus DL1r comparison; the GN1 comparison appears in panel (b).
  2. [Section 7] There are typos: 'degrees of freeedom' should be 'degrees of freedom,' and 'Trigger and Data Acquistion' should be 'Trigger and Data Acquisition.'
  3. [Section 6.4] Please state the pile-up profile assumed in the HH simulation used for Figures 6 and 7 and whether the efficiencies are averaged or reweighted over the Run 3 luminosity profile, given that the 2022-2023 data cover an average number of interactions per crossing of about 30 to 70 (Section 1).
  4. [Section 6.3.2, Fig 5] The data/MC agreement in Figure 5 is characterized only as 'overall good'; adding a quantitative measure per panel (for example a chi-square value or per-bin uncertainties including correlated components) would make the validation reproducible for the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the efficiency gain is a forward Monte Carlo projection, anchored by data-driven rate constraints and by an independent ttbar-enriched data/MC comparison, rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The central claim (Section 6.4, Figures 6-7; abstract) is a simulated comparison of the Run 3 b-jet trigger menu with the Run 2 strategy on HH->bbbb and HH->bbtautau samples. No equation in the paper defines the reported gain in terms of the fit inputs. The operating points are set by rate limits measured in enhanced-bias data (Section 6.1: 'With an estimated 3b1jasym trigger rate of approximately 30 Hz, the epsilon = 82% operating point was deployed online'), and the taggers are trained on ttbar Monte Carlo (Section 5.5), not on the HH samples used to quote the efficiency. The data/MC validation in Section 6.3 uses an independently selected ttbar-enriched control sample and is restricted to jets 'above the plateau of the jet trigger turn-on', so it is a genuine external cross-check rather than a re-derivation. Self-references such as [5], [55] and [57] support algorithm details that are also demonstrated in this paper's own simulation (Figures 1-2) and in separate published ATLAS notes; none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or to forbid alternative choices. The abstract's word 'observed' for a simulation-based efficiency is an overstatement, but that is an extrapolation/validation concern, not a circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The hand-tuned inputs are the discriminant hyperparameter fc and the deployed working points; both are engineering choices that set the scale of the reported efficiency improvements. The central claim depends chiefly on the accuracy of the ATLAS simulation and on the MC-truth flavour definition, both standard domain assumptions for this type of paper.

free parameters (2)
  • fc (c-jet fraction in the b-jet discriminant) = 0.018
    Hyperparameter in Eq. (1), D_b = log[p_b / (fc*p_c + (1-fc)*p_u)]. It fixes the assumed c-jet fraction in the background and directly shifts the operating points and hence the quoted trigger efficiencies. The value is inherited from prior ATLAS flavour-tagging optimization [5], not measured here.
  • Deployed b-tagging operating points across trigger chains = 60%, 70%, 77%, 82%, 85% depending on chain
    Each chain's working point was chosen as an engineering trade-off between HLT rate and signal efficiency; e.g. the 3b1j_asym chain uses the 82% point to keep its rate near 30 Hz (Section 6.1). The choices, not derived from first principles, set the scale of the reported HH efficiency gain.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The MC simulation chain (Powheg, Pythia, EvtGen, Geant4) accurately models ttbar and HH signal production and the detector response for the quoted efficiencies.
    Section 3 describes the simulation setup. Data/MC agreement is shown only for ttbar-enriched events (Figure 5), while the HH efficiency gain (Figures 6 and 7) relies on the same simulation.
  • domain assumption The MC-truth flavour labelling of jets matches physical jet flavour.
    Section 5.2.4 labels jets by weakly-decaying b/c/tau hadrons with pT > 5 GeV within dR = 0.3; the training (Section 5.5) and all efficiency definitions inherit this operational definition.
  • domain assumption The discriminant D_b with fc = 0.018 is a sufficient statistic for online b-jet selection.
    Equation (1) is posited as the correct way to combine flavour probabilities, and fc is fixed rather than optimized in this paper.
  • domain assumption Enhanced-bias data from earlier runs predict the online HLT rates of the new menu.
    Section 6.1 uses enhanced-bias data to estimate rates and choose operating points; measured rates for selected chains (Figure 4) support the method, but the extrapolation is assumed for all chains.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Configuration, Performance, and Commissioning of the ATLAS $b$-jet Triggers for the 2022 and 2023 LHC data-taking periods." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EFRTRLGB

@misc{pith2026250111420,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Configuration, Performance, and Commissioning of the ATLAS $b$-jet Triggers for the 2022 and 2023 LHC data-taking periods},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EFRTRLGB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11420}
}
abstract

In 2022 and 2023, the Large Hadron Collider produced approximately two billion hadronic interactions each second from bunches of protons that collide at a rate of 40 MHz. The ATLAS trigger system is used to reduce this rate to a few kHz for recording. Selections based on hadronic jets, their energy, and event topology reduce the rate to $\mathcal O(10)$ kHz while maintaining high efficiencies for important signatures resulting in $b$-quarks, but to reach the desired recording rate of hundreds of Hz, additional real-time selections based on the identification of jets containing $b$-hadrons ($b$-jets) are employed to achieve low thresholds on the jet transverse momentum at the High-Level Trigger. The configuration, commissioning, and performance of the real-time ATLAS $b$-jet identification algorithms for the early LHC Run 3 collision data are presented. These recent developments provide substantial gains in signal efficiency for critical signatures; for the Standard Model production of Higgs boson pairs, a 50% improvement in selection efficiency is observed in final states with four $b$-quarks or two $b$-quarks and two hadronically decaying $\tau$-leptons.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Improved analysis of non-resonant Higgs boson pair production in the $b\bar{b}\tau^+\tau^-$ final state with $196$ fb$^{-1}$ of data collected at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV and 13.6 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    hep-ex 2026-07 accept novelty 4.5 of 10

    ATLAS finds μ_HH = 2.6^{+1.4}_{-1.0} in bbττ with Run 2+3 data, 2.6σ over background-only, and first 3.5σ evidence for ZH in this final state.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [8]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Search for nonresonant pair production of Higgs bosons in the𝑏 ¯𝑏𝑏 ¯𝑏 final state in𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠= 13TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 052003, arXiv: 2301.03212 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    Evans and P

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

    2008

  3. [2]

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

    2008

  4. [3]

    ATLAS Collaboration,The ATLAS experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider: a description of the detector configuration for Run 3, JINST19(2023) P05063, arXiv: 2305.16623 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2023

  5. [4]

    ATLAS Collaboration,The ATLAS trigger system for LHC Run 3 and trigger performance in 2022, JINST19 (2024) P06029, arXiv:2401.06630 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [5]

    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]. 25

    arXiv 2023

  7. [6]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Observation of𝐻→𝑏 ¯𝑏 decays and𝑉𝐻 production with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B786 (2018) 59, arXiv:1808.08238 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2018

  8. [7]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Observation of Higgs boson production in association with a top quark pair at the LHC with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B784 (2018) 173, arXiv:1806.00425 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of the𝑡¯𝑡 production cross-section and lepton differential distributions in𝑒𝜇 dilepton events from𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠= 13TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 528, arXiv:1910.08819 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of the top quark mass in the𝑡¯𝑡→lepton+jets channel from√𝑠= 8TeV ATLAS data and combination with previous results, Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 290, arXiv: 1810.01772 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Search for heavy particles decaying into top-quark pairs using lepton-plus-jets events in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠= 13TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018) 565, arXiv:1804.10823 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Search for heavy particles in the𝑏-tagged dijet mass distribution with additional𝑏-tagged jets in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠= 13TeV with the ATLAS experiment, Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) 012001, arXiv:2108.07586 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Search for pair production of higgsinos in events with two Higgs bosons and missing transverse momentum in√𝑠= 13TeV𝑝𝑝 collisions at the ATLAS experiment, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 112011, arXiv:2401.14922 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Bellm et al.,Jet Cross Sections at the LHC and the Quest for Higher Precision, Eur

    J. Bellm et al.,Jet Cross Sections at the LHC and the Quest for Higher Precision, Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 93, arXiv:1903.12563 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  7. [15]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Measurements of top-quark pair single- and double-differential cross-sections in the all-hadronic channel in𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠= 13TeV using the ATLAS detector, JHEP01 (2021) 033, arXiv: 2006.09274 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Configuration and performance of the ATLAS𝑏-jet triggers in Run 2, Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 1087, arXiv:2106.03584 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

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

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    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

  11. [19]

    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

  12. [20]

    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]. 26

    2007 arXiv

  13. [21]

    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

  14. [22]

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

    2015 arXiv

  15. [23]

    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

  16. [24]

    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

  17. [25]

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

    2014

  18. [26]

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

    2013 arXiv

  19. [27]

    ATLAS Collaboration,ATLAS𝑏-jet identification performance and efficiency measurement with𝑡¯𝑡 events in𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠= 13TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 970, arXiv: 1907.05120 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Measurements of jet observables sensitive to𝑏-quark fragmentation in𝑡¯𝑡 events at the LHC with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) 032008, arXiv: 2202.13901 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Butterworth et al.,PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II, J

    J. Butterworth et al.,PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II, J. Phys. G43(2016) 023001, arXiv: 1510.03865 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  22. [30]

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

    2001

  23. [31]

    Sjöstrand, S

    T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands,A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1, Comput. Phys. Commun.178 (2008) 852, arXiv:0710.3820 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  24. [32]

    ATLAS Collaboration, The Pythia 8 A3 tune description of ATLAS minimum bias and inelastic measurements incorporating the Donnachie–Landshoff diffractive model, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2016-017, 2016,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2206965

    2016

  25. [33]

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

    2010 arXiv

  26. [34]

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

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

    2003

  27. [35]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Performance of the ATLAS muon triggers in Run 2, JINST15(2020) P09015, arXiv:2004.13447 [physics.ins-det]

    2020 arXiv

  28. [36]

    A. Armbruster et al., The ATLAS Muon to Central Trigger Processor Interface Upgrade for the Run 3 of the LHC, 2017 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS/MIC) (2017) 1

    2017

  29. [37]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Search for Low-Mass Dijet Resonances Using Trigger-Level Jets with the ATLAS Detector in𝑝𝑝 Collisions at√𝑠= 13TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett.121 (2018) 081801, arXiv: 1804.03496 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Performance of the ATLAS trigger system in 2015, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 317, arXiv:1611.09661 [hep-ex]. 27

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Zyla, et al.,Review of Particle Physics, Prog

    Particle Data Group, P. Zyla, et al.,Review of Particle Physics, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys.2020 (2020) 083C01

    2020

  32. [40]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Early Inner Detector Tracking Performance in the 2015 Data at√𝑠= 13TeV, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2015-051, 2015,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2110140

    2015

  33. [41]

    ATLAS Collaboration,The ATLAS Inner Detector Trigger performance in𝑝𝑝 collisions at900GeV and 13.6TeV for LHC Run 3 operation during 2022, ATL-DAQ-PUB-2023-002, 2023, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2881679

    2022

  34. [42]

    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

  35. [43]

    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

  36. [44]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Jet energy scale and resolution measured in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠= 13TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 689, arXiv: 2007.02645 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    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

  38. [46]

    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

  39. [47]

    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

  40. [48]

    ATLAS Collaboration, The performance of the jet trigger for the ATLAS detector during 2011 data taking, Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 526, arXiv:1606.07759 [hep-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  41. [49]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Performance of pile-up mitigation techniques for jets in𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠= 8TeV using the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C76 (2016) 581, arXiv: 1510.03823 [hep-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  42. [50]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Performance of𝑏-jet identification in the ATLAS experiment, JINST11 (2016) P04008, arXiv:1512.01094 [hep-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  43. [51]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Secondary vertex finding for jet flavour identification with the ATLAS detector, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2017-011, 2017,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2270366

    2017

  44. [52]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Topological𝑏-hadron decay reconstruction and identification of𝑏-jets with the JetFitter package in the ATLAS experiment at the LHC, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2018-025, 2018, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2645405

    2018

  45. [53]

    Zaheer et al.,Deep Sets, NIPS (2017), arXiv:1703.06114 [cs.LG]

    M. Zaheer et al.,Deep Sets, NIPS (2017), arXiv:1703.06114 [cs.LG]

    2017 arXiv

  46. [54]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Deep Sets based Neural Networks for Impact Parameter Flavour Tagging in ATLAS, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2020-014, 2020,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2718948. 28

    2020

  47. [55]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Fast𝑏-tagging at the high-level trigger of the ATLAS experiment in LHC Run 3, JINST18(2023) P11006, arXiv:2306.09738 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Ramachandran et al.,Searching for Activation Functions, 2017, arXiv:1710.05941 [cs.NE]

    P. Ramachandran et al.,Searching for Activation Functions, 2017, arXiv:1710.05941 [cs.NE]

    2017 arXiv

  49. [57]

    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

  50. [58]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Identification of Jets Containing𝑏-Hadrons with Recurrent Neural Networks at the ATLAS Experiment, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2017-003, 2017, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2255226

    2017

  51. [59]

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba,Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization, 2017, arXiv: 1412.6980 [cs.LG]

    2017 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Chollet et al.,Keras, 2015,url: https://keras.io

    F. Chollet et al.,Keras, 2015,url: https://keras.io

    2015

  53. [61]

    Zaheer et al.,Automatic differentiation in PyTorch, NIPS (2017), url: https://openreview.net/forum?id=BJJsrmfCZ

    M. Zaheer et al.,Automatic differentiation in PyTorch, NIPS (2017), url: https://openreview.net/forum?id=BJJsrmfCZ

    2017

  54. [62]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Trigger monitoring and rate predictions using Enhanced Bias data from the ATLAS Detector at the LHC, ATL-DAQ-PUB-2016-002, 2016, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2223498

    2016

  55. [63]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Performance of the upgraded PreProcessor of the ATLAS Level-1 Calorimeter Trigger, JINST15 (2020) P11016, arXiv:2005.04179 [physics.ins-det]

    2020 arXiv

  56. [64]

    P. D. Group,Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 030001

    2024

  57. [65]

    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

  58. [66]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Electron and photon performance measurements with the ATLAS detector using the 2015–2017 LHC proton–proton collision data, JINST14(2019) P12006, arXiv: 1908.00005 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  59. [67]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of differential cross-sections in𝑡¯𝑡 and𝑡¯𝑡+jets production in the lepton+jets final state in𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠= 13TeV using140fb−1 of ATLAS data, JHEP08(2024) 182, arXiv:2406.19701 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Gouzevitch and A

    M. Gouzevitch and A. Carvalho,A review of Higgs boson pair production, Reviews in Physics5 (2020) 100039

    2020

  61. [69]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Search for the non-resonant production of Higgs boson pairs via gluon fusion and vector-boson fusion in the𝑏 ¯𝑏𝜏+𝜏− final state in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠= 13TeVwith the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 032012, arXiv:2404.12660 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Operation of the ATLAS trigger system in Run 2, JINST15 (2020) P10004, arXiv: 2007.12539 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  63. [71]

    ATLAS Collaboration,ATLAS data quality operations and performance for 2015–2018 data-taking, JINST15 (2020) P04003, arXiv:1911.04632 [physics.ins-det]

    2020 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Demokritos

    ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS Computing Acknowledgements, ATL-SOFT-PUB-2023-001, 2023, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2869272. 29 The ATLAS Collaboration G. Aad 104, E. Aakvaag 17, B. Abbott 123, S. Abdelhameed 119a, K. Abeling 56, N.J. Abicht 50, S.H. Abidi 30, M. Aboelela 46, ...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.