Production and commissioning performance tests of the read-out driver boards for the hadronic tile calorimeter of the ATLAS detector at the LHC
The ATLAS hadronic tile calorimeter detector (TileCal) is an iron-scintillating tiles sampling calorimeter designed to operate at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) accelerator at CERN. The central element of the back-end system of the TileCal detector is a 9U VME read-out driver (ROD) board. The operation of the TileCal calorimeter requires a total of 32 ROD boards. We report here on the overall electrical performance of the ROD boards during their production phase and during their first operation at the ATLAS commissioning setup at CERN. We report also on the real time operation and performance of the ROD digital signal processors (DSPs) on the first cosmic data runs taken at the commissioning setup. The DSP operation is based on the use of optimal filtering algorithms for the signal amplitude, pedestal and time online reconstruction and which, in addition, monitor the quality of the reconstructions
The Read-Out Driver for the RPC of the ATLAS Muon Spectrometer
The spectrometer of the ATLAS experiment has been designed to identify muon tracks with transverse momenta up to 1 TeV/c. Its barrel section is made of monitored drift tubes and resistive plate chambers (RPCs) arranged into 32 sectors, to form two wheels surrounding the interaction point. The RPC subsystem provides the level-1 trigger in the barrel and it is read out by a specific DAQ system. On-detector electronics pack the RPC data in frames with an event number assigned by the trigger logic and transmit them to the counting room optically. Data from each sector are then routed together to a read-out driver (ROD) board. This is a custom processor that parses the frames, checks their coherence and builds a data structure for all the RPCs of one of the 32 sectors of the spectrometer. Each ROD sends the event fragments to a read-out buffer for further event building and analysis. The ROD is a VME64x board, designed around two Xilinx Virtex-II FPGAs and an ARM7 microcontroller. In this paper we describe the system architecture, the event binding algorithms and the monitoring features embedded into the design. The board is in production and will be deployed in the first ATLAS runs.
Strategy and Manipulation in Medieval Elections
There are many goals in developing electoral protocols, including a desire for a system which is transparent, in that it is clear what the rule or procedure to follow is; nonmanipulable, in that it is not in a person’s best interest to misrepresent their preferences; honest, in the sense that it elects the ‘right’ candidate; and not open to strategizing, i.e., bribery or collusion. However, these desiderata are in tension with each other: Often, transparent electoral procedures are the least strategy resistant, and many honest procedures encourage manipulation. Thus a balance between these different goals must be sought. In modern times, since the seminal result on vote manipulation, the Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem [5, 6], much attention has been devoted to developing voting rules where manipulation is never in the best interest of the voters [4] or which are computationally too complex for the average bounded agent to be able to manipulate [1]. This focus on computational aspects of electoral methods is one of the hallmarks of modern studies on voting. But pursuit of these goals is not restricted to modern times: Those participating in elections in the Middle Ages also sought transparency, non-manipulability, honesty, and strategyproofness in so far as these properties can be consistently expressed in a single procedure. However, given the lack of computational sophistication in the Middle Ages, alternate approaches were needed in order to promote honesty, discourage strategizing, etc. These approaches can be classified as either external (constraints introduced outside of the electoral procedure, such as incentives for coming to consensus quickly) or internal (constraints introduced within the electoral procedure, such as voting rules which cannot be manipulated without adverse effects, or which are too difficult for the average bounded agent to manipulate). Surveying examples of both approaches in the context of medieval ecclesiastical and secular elections provides an interesting comparison to modern electoral procedures. Elections in the Middle Ages were used for the same reasons that they are today: To select suitable candidate(s) for a particular office, duty, or obligation. However, it is important to note that the term electio was used in the Middle Ages in a broader sense than our modern ‘election’. Its primary sense was ‘selection’ or ‘choice’, and only secondarily ‘election’ in the modern sense. Thus, many records which purportedly discuss elections are not discussing elections of the type which interests us. We can identify four categories of medieval electoral processes: (1) Election by an external authority having no direct interest in the election; (2) Indirect election, where electors name other electors who then select or elect the officials; (3) Election by lot; and (4) Election by ballot. Elections of the first and third types are generally computationally uninteresting; the first type corresponds to dictatorial voting rules, and the third type collapses to probability theory. In general, interesting voting methods are found only in the fourth type, election by ballot, though they can also occur in indirect election.