{"@context":"http://schema.org","@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1","@reverse":{"isBasedOn":[{"@type":"ScholarlyArticle","identifier":{"@type":"PropertyValue","propertyID":"URL","value":"https://inspirehep.net/literature/1796953"}},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2020)080","@type":"JournalArticle"}]},"@type":"Dataset","additionalType":"Collection","author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"ATLAS Collaboration"},"creator":{"@type":"Organization","name":"ATLAS Collaboration"},"datePublished":"2021","description":"The factor of four increase in the LHC luminosity, from $0.5\\times 10^{34}\\,\\textrm{cm}^{-2}\\textrm{s}^{-1}$ to $2.0\\times 10^{34}\\textrm{cm}^{-2}\\textrm{s}^{-1}$, and the corresponding increase in pile-up collisions during the 2015-2018 data-taking period, presented a challenge for ATLAS to trigger on missing transverse momentum. The output data rate at fixed threshold typically increases exponentially with the number of pile-up collisions, so the legacy algorithms from previous LHC data-taking periods had to be tuned and new approaches developed to maintain the high trigger efficiency achieved in earlier operations. A study of the trigger performance and comparisons with simulations show that these changes resulted in event selection efficiencies of >98% for this period, meeting and in some cases exceeding the performance of similar triggers in earlier run periods, while at the same time keeping the necessary bandwidth within acceptable limits.","hasPart":[{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t1","@type":"Dataset","description":"A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The...","name":"Figure 1a; Efficiency corrected data"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t2","@type":"Dataset","description":"A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The...","name":"Figure 1a; Zero bias data"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t3","@type":"Dataset","description":"A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The...","name":"Figure 1a; Sum ET model"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t4","@type":"Dataset","description":"A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The...","name":"Figure 1a; Frechet Function"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t5","@type":"Dataset","description":"A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The...","name":"Figure 1a; Full model"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t6","@type":"Dataset","description":"A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The...","name":"Figure 1b; Efficiency corrected data"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t7","@type":"Dataset","description":"A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The...","name":"Figure 1b; Zero bias data"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t8","@type":"Dataset","description":"A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The...","name":"Figure 1b; Sum ET model"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t9","@type":"Dataset","description":"A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The...","name":"Figure 1b; Frechet Function"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t10","@type":"Dataset","description":"A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The...","name":"Figure 1b; Full model"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t11","@type":"Dataset","description":"The $E_T^{miss}$ model predicted trigger rate as a function of $\\mu$ for the cell $E_T^{miss}$ algorithm with a threshold of...","name":"Figure 2"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t12","@type":"Dataset","description":"The L1 $E_T^{miss}$ trigger efficiency, shown as a function of $p_T(\\mu\\mu)$ in $Z\\rightarrow\\mu\\mu$ events.","name":"Figure 3a; L1 ETmiss trigger efficiency"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t13","@type":"Dataset","description":"The efficiencies in the plot are shown for events satisfying a $Z\\rightarrow\\mu\\mu$ selection and with $p_T(\\mu\\mu)$ larger than $150\\,$GeV vs...","name":"Figure 3b; L1 ETmiss trigger efficiency stability"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t14","@type":"Dataset","description":"The L1 $E_T^{miss}$ trigger rate as a function of $\\langle\\mu\\rangle$ for runs in three different periods ($\\alpha$, $\\beta$, $\\gamma$) in...","name":"Figure 4a; L1 ETmiss trigger rate; Period alpha"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t15","@type":"Dataset","description":"The L1 $E_T^{miss}$ trigger rate as a function of $\\langle\\mu\\rangle$ for runs in three different periods ($\\alpha$, $\\beta$, $\\gamma$) in...","name":"Figure 4a; L1 ETmiss trigger rate; Period beta"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t16","@type":"Dataset","description":"The L1 $E_T^{miss}$ trigger rate as a function of $\\langle\\mu\\rangle$ for runs in three different periods ($\\alpha$, $\\beta$, $\\gamma$) in...","name":"Figure 4a; L1 ETmiss trigger rate; Period gamma"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t17","@type":"Dataset","description":"The L1 $E_T^{miss}$ trigger efficiency is shown as a function of mean pile-up for events satisfying a $Z\\rightarrow\\mu\\mu$ selection and...","name":"Figure 4b; L1 ETmiss trigger efficiency vs. mu"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t18","@type":"Dataset","description":"Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\\rightarrow\\mu\\mu$ selection with $p_T(\\mu\\mu) >...","name":"Figure 5a; acceptance vs efficiency; mu 0-20; cell"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t19","@type":"Dataset","description":"Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\\rightarrow\\mu\\mu$ selection with $p_T(\\mu\\mu) >...","name":"Figure 5a; acceptance vs efficiency; mu 0-20; tc_lcw"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t20","@type":"Dataset","description":"Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\\rightarrow\\mu\\mu$ selection with $p_T(\\mu\\mu) >...","name":"Figure 5a; acceptance vs efficiency; mu 0-20; mht"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t21","@type":"Dataset","description":"Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\\rightarrow\\mu\\mu$ selection with $p_T(\\mu\\mu) >...","name":"Figure 5a; acceptance vs efficiency; mu 0-20; pufit"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t22","@type":"Dataset","description":"Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\\rightarrow\\mu\\mu$ selection with $p_T(\\mu\\mu) >...","name":"Figure 5a; acceptance vs efficiency; mu 0-20; pufit>110"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t23","@type":"Dataset","description":"Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\\rightarrow\\mu\\mu$ selection with $p_T(\\mu\\mu) >...","name":"Figure 5b; acceptance vs efficiency; mu 20-30; cell"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t24","@type":"Dataset","description":"Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\\rightarrow\\mu\\mu$ selection with $p_T(\\mu\\mu) >...","name":"Figure 5b; acceptance vs efficiency; mu 20-30; tc_lcw"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t25","@type":"Dataset","description":"Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\\rightarrow\\mu\\mu$ selection with $p_T(\\mu\\mu) >...","name":"Figure 5b; acceptance vs efficiency; mu 20-30; mht"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t26","@type":"Dataset","description":"Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\\rightarrow\\mu\\mu$ selection with $p_T(\\mu\\mu) >...","name":"Figure 5b; acceptance vs efficiency; mu 20-30; pufit"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t27","@type":"Dataset","description":"Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\\rightarrow\\mu\\mu$ selection with $p_T(\\mu\\mu) >...","name":"Figure 5b; acceptance vs efficiency; mu 20-30; pufit>110"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t28","@type":"Dataset","description":"Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\\rightarrow\\mu\\mu$ selection with $p_T(\\mu\\mu) >...","name":"Figure 5c; acceptance vs efficiency; mu 30-40; cell"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t29","@type":"Dataset","description":"Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\\rightarrow\\mu\\mu$ selection with $p_T(\\mu\\mu) >...","name":"Figure 5c; acceptance vs efficiency; mu 30-40; tc_lcw"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t30","@type":"Dataset","description":"Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\\rightarrow\\mu\\mu$ selection with $p_T(\\mu\\mu) >...","name":"Figure 5c; acceptance vs efficiency; mu 30-40; mht"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t31","@type":"Dataset","description":"Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\\rightarrow\\mu\\mu$ selection with $p_T(\\mu\\mu) >...","name":"Figure 5c; acceptance vs efficiency; mu 30-40; pufit"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t32","@type":"Dataset","description":"Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\\rightarrow\\mu\\mu$ selection with $p_T(\\mu\\mu) >...","name":"Figure 5c; acceptance vs efficiency; mu 30-40; pufit>110"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t33","@type":"Dataset","description":"Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\\rightarrow\\mu\\mu$ selection with $p_T(\\mu\\mu) >...","name":"Figure 5d; acceptance vs efficiency; mu 40-; cell"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t34","@type":"Dataset","description":"Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\\rightarrow\\mu\\mu$ selection with $p_T(\\mu\\mu) >...","name":"Figure 5d; acceptance vs efficiency; mu 40-; tc_lcw"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t35","@type":"Dataset","description":"Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\\rightarrow\\mu\\mu$ selection with $p_T(\\mu\\mu) >...","name":"Figure 5d; acceptance vs efficiency; mu 40-; mht"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t36","@type":"Dataset","description":"Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\\rightarrow\\mu\\mu$ selection with $p_T(\\mu\\mu) >...","name":"Figure 5d; acceptance vs efficiency; mu 40-; pufit"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t37","@type":"Dataset","description":"Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\\rightarrow\\mu\\mu$ selection with $p_T(\\mu\\mu) >...","name":"Figure 5d; acceptance vs efficiency; mu 40-; pufit>110"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t38","@type":"Dataset","description":"Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\\mu\\mu)>150\\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two...","name":"Figure 6a; acceptance vs efficiency; pTmumu>150; cell"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t39","@type":"Dataset","description":"Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\\mu\\mu)>150\\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two...","name":"Figure 6a; acceptance vs efficiency; pTmumu>150; pufit"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t40","@type":"Dataset","description":"Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\\mu\\mu)>150\\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two...","name":"Figure 6a; acceptance vs efficiency; pTmumu>150; pufit+cell>65"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t41","@type":"Dataset","description":"Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\\mu\\mu)>150\\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two...","name":"Figure 6a; acceptance vs efficiency; pTmumu>150; pufit+cell>70"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t42","@type":"Dataset","description":"Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\\mu\\mu)>150\\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two...","name":"Figure 6a; acceptance vs efficiency; pTmumu>150; pufit>110"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t43","@type":"Dataset","description":"Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\\mu\\mu)>150\\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two...","name":"Figure 6a; acceptance vs efficiency; pTmumu>150; pufit110+cell65"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t44","@type":"Dataset","description":"Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\\mu\\mu)>150\\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two...","name":"Figure 6b; acceptance vs efficiency; pTmumu>175; cell"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t45","@type":"Dataset","description":"Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\\mu\\mu)>150\\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two...","name":"Figure 6b; acceptance vs efficiency; pTmumu>175; pufit"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t46","@type":"Dataset","description":"Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\\mu\\mu)>150\\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two...","name":"Figure 6b; acceptance vs efficiency; pTmumu>175; pufit+cell>65"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t47","@type":"Dataset","description":"Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\\mu\\mu)>150\\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two...","name":"Figure 6b; acceptance vs efficiency; pTmumu>175; pufit+cell>70"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t48","@type":"Dataset","description":"Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\\mu\\mu)>150\\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two...","name":"Figure 6b; acceptance vs efficiency; pTmumu>175; pufit>110"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t49","@type":"Dataset","description":"Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\\mu\\mu)>150\\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two...","name":"Figure 6b; acceptance vs efficiency; pTmumu>175; pufit110+cell65"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t50","@type":"Dataset","description":"Turn-on efficiency curves are shown for $Z\\rightarrow\\mu\\mu$ events for three algorithms: the cell algorithm alone, the pufit algorithm alone and...","name":"Figure 7a"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t51","@type":"Dataset","description":"Turn-on efficiency curves are shown for $Z\\rightarrow\\mu\\mu$ events for three algorithms: the cell algorithm alone, the pufit algorithm alone and...","name":"Figure 7b"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t52","@type":"Dataset","description":"Efficiencies for $Z\\rightarrow\\mu\\mu$ events are shown for the L1 $E_T^{miss}>50\\,$GeV trigger and for the complete L1+HLT trigger chain that also...","name":"Figure 8a"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t53","@type":"Dataset","description":"Efficiencies for $Z\\rightarrow\\mu\\mu$ events are shown for the L1 $E_T^{miss}>50\\,$GeV trigger and for the complete L1+HLT trigger chain that also...","name":"Figure 8b"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t54","@type":"Dataset","description":"Efficiencies for $Z\\rightarrow\\mu\\mu$ events are shown for the L1 $E_T^{miss}>50\\,$GeV trigger and for the complete L1+HLT trigger chain that also...","name":"Figure 8c"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t55","@type":"Dataset","description":"Efficiencies for $Z\\rightarrow\\mu\\mu$ events are shown for the L1 $E_T^{miss}>50\\,$GeV trigger and for the complete L1+HLT trigger chain that also...","name":"Figure 8d"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t56","@type":"Dataset","description":"HLT_xe70_mht trigger output rate as a function of $\\langle\\mu\\rangle$ shown for an example run in year 2015.","name":"Figure 9; 2015; mht 70"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t57","@type":"Dataset","description":"HLT_xe90_mht trigger output rate as a function of $\\langle\\mu\\rangle$ shown for an example run in year 2016.","name":"Figure 9; 2016; mht 90"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t58","@type":"Dataset","description":"HLT_xe110_mht trigger output rate as a function of $\\langle\\mu\\rangle$ shown for an example run in year 2016.","name":"Figure 9; 2016; mht 110"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t59","@type":"Dataset","description":"HLT_xe110_pufit trigger output rate as a function of $\\langle\\mu\\rangle$ shown for an example run in year 2017. This trigger included...","name":"Figure 9; 2017; cell 50, pufit 110"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t60","@type":"Dataset","description":"HLT_xe110_pufit_xe65 trigger output rate as a function of $\\langle\\mu\\rangle$ shown for an example run in year 2018.","name":"Figure 9; 2018; cell 65, pufit 110"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t61","@type":"Dataset","description":"HLT_xe110_pufit_xe70 trigger output rate as a function of $\\langle\\mu\\rangle$ shown for an example run in year 2018.","name":"Figure 9; 2018; cell 70, pufit 110"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t62","@type":"Dataset","description":"Full-chain trigger efficiencies for each year as a function of $p_T(\\mu\\mu)$. The efficiency corresponds to that of the lowest unprescaled...","name":"Figure 10a"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t63","@type":"Dataset","description":"Full-chain trigger efficiencies for 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 as a function of $\\langle\\mu\\rangle$ for $p_T(\\mu\\mu)>150$ GeV. The efficiency corresponds...","name":"Figure 10b"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t64","@type":"Dataset","description":"Efficiencies for the first-level trigger L1XE50 and the combined L1+HLT trigger chain HLT_xe110_pufit_xe65_L1XE50 in data recorded in the year 2018...","name":"Figure 11a"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t65","@type":"Dataset","description":"Efficiencies for the first-level trigger L1XE50 and the combined L1+HLT trigger chain HLT_xe110_pufit_xe65_L1XE50 in data recorded in the year 2018...","name":"Figure 11b"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t66","@type":"Dataset","description":"Efficiencies for the first-level trigger L1XE50 and the combined L1+HLT trigger chain HLT_xe110_pufit_xe65_L1XE50 in data recorded in the year 2018...","name":"Figure 11c"},{"@id":"https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.95967.v1/t67","@type":"Dataset","description":"Efficiencies for the first-level trigger L1XE50 and the combined L1+HLT trigger chain HLT_xe110_pufit_xe65_L1XE50 in data recorded in the year 2018...","name":"Figure 11d"}],"identifier":[{"@type":"PropertyValue","propertyID":"HEPDataRecord","value":"https://www.hepdata.net/record/ins1796953?version=1"},{"@type":"PropertyValue","propertyID":"HEPDataRecordAlt","value":"https://www.hepdata.net/record/95967"}],"inLanguage":"en","name":"Performance of the missing transverse momentum triggers for the ATLAS detector during Run-2 data taking","provider":{"@type":"Organization","name":"HEPData"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"HEPData"},"url":"https://www.hepdata.net/record/ins1796953?version=1","version":1}