2026 Erlangen

Monday 15 Dec 2025, 11:00 → 17:00 Europe/Berlin

Link for abstract submission, registration (deadline 11-Feb-2026) and travel grants of Heraeus Stiftung: 

https://erlangen26.dpg-tagungen.de/attend/

 

Programm is available at

www.dpg-verhandlungen.de/year/2026/conference/erlangen

11:00 → 12:00 Pixel detectors

11:00 All-silicon modules

Speaker: Darshil Vagadiya (HEP)

Vagadiya_DPG_Abstract.pdf

11:20 ITk pixel core-column issue investigation

Speaker: Luke Hammer (Universität Siegen)

hammer_dpg2026_abstract_final.pdf

11:40 ITk pixel detector production experience

Speaker: Noah Siegemund (Universität Siegen)

SpringDPG_Siegemund_abstract_v2.pdf

12:00 → 14:20 ATLAS Physics analysis

12:00 ttHcc

Speaker: Nils Benedikt Krengel (Universität Siegen)

krengel_dpg_2026_abstract.pdf

Comments from Elisabeth 08. Dec: No further comments on the text. Is it possible to prevent "ATLAS" to be separated in the title (will this be the format it will show up in the book of abstracts)? Don't forget to enter some key words :) 

 

Comments from Elisabeth on first draft (27. Nov):

• either ttH,H->cc or ttH(cc)
• charm-Yukawa -> charm-quark-Yukawa
• at ATLAS -> with the ATLAS experiment
• "The experimental challenges of ttHcc lie in the large QCD backgrounds" this really is only true for the all had channel. I would suggest to something along the lines of: The experimental challenges of ttHcc lie in the accurate identification of b- and c-jets, as well as the discrimination of signal from background processes. Especially in the all hadronic channel, the efficient rejection of QCD multijet background is necessary to achieve competitive sensitivity... or something similar 

...one more comment:

• Higgs -> Higgs boson (towards the end of the first paragraph)

 

12:20 tHq FCNC

Speaker: Inês Pinto (Universität Siegen)

pinto_dpg2026_abstract_FCNC_v2.pdf

Comments from Elisabeth on first draft (01.12.2025)

• Hmm, I am pondering a bit over the title since the FCNC is that we have a top->charm/up transition; the Higgs is only a "by product"... probably the idea was to keep it short? but maybe "Flavour Changing Neutral Current decays of top quarks in final states with Higgs bosons" or "Flavour Changing Neutral Current decays of the top quark via a Higgs boson" or just classic "Flavour Changing Neutral Current decays of the top quark to a Higgs boson and a charm or up quark"
  • for sure it should be "top quark" instead of "top" and "Higgs boson" instead of "Higgs"
• either "A Flavour Changing Neutral Current (FCNC) is the process" or "Flavour Changing Neutral Current (FCNC) are processes"   
• I would suggest "search for FCNC decays" instead of "measure the branching ratio"... or "set improved limits on the branching ratio of FCNC decays and search for new physics"

 

Inês: Thank you for the comments! Uploaded v2 on 08.12

Elisabeth 08. Dec: thanks, no further comments from my side :)

12:40 Vcb

Speaker: Adam Warnerbring (Uni Siegen)

DPG_abstract_2026_Vcb.pdf

Adam: Updated the list now. I also had to shorten the text very slightly due to going over the DPG maximum length with the updated author list (08.12) 

Elisabeth (08. Dec): thanks! your author list is wrong, please see Markus' email from 03. December

Adam: Thank you for the comments, I have uploaded an updated version (05.12)

Comments from Elisabeth on first draft (27.11.):

• is it clear what is meant by "inclusive or exclusive decays"? 
• it's a bit of a personal opinion but I am not a big fan of saying "ATLAS analysis". I prefer "measurement" over "analysis" (but you write "measure" later in the same sentence) and "ATLAS collaboration/experiment" over just "ATLAS"
• "single-lepton ttbar" is also a bit of ATLAS/CMS slang. it would be better to say a bit more explicitly what the decays are or just remove the "single-lepton" and say "using ttbar production, targeting events where one of the W bosons decays hadronically"
• analysis strategy -> data analysis strategy
• "the treatment of the dominant uncertainties" sounds a bit weird to me. maybe rather "and discusses the dominant sources of systematic uncertainties"?

13:00 Search for tWZ

Speaker: Carolina Costa (University Siegen)

contributionCarolinaCosta.pdf

13:20 ttbar spin correlations

Speaker: Nikolaos Kamaras (University of Siegen)

contribution_Nikos.pdf

13:00 → 14:00 ATLAS Combined Performance

13:00 Fast simulation for flavour tagging

Speaker: Austin Olson (Siegen-HEP)

contribution.pdf

Elisabeth (08. Dec): thanks for the new draft! not an easy task to condense all the information and comments but the new draft you wrote looks very nice to me :) no further comment on the content. if you want you can add also ATLAS experiment and/or fast simulation to your key words but no strong opinion

Comment from Elisabeth on first draft (02.12.):

as briefly discussed I feel there is still a bit of colloquialisms that would be good to clarify for a broader audience. here my suggestions:

• Title: could consider to say "fast detector simulation" (to make it clear that this is the "fast" part)
• Title: I would suggest "Investigating the use of fast detector simulation for jet flavor identification algorithms in ATLAS"
• "used at ATLAS" -> "used in the ATLAS collaboration"
• Do you need one sentence right at the start saying that machine-learning algorithms ("taggers") are used to identify the quark flavour a jet originated from? 
• I suggest "only tracks, ..., were used as jet constituents" -> "only tracks associated to jets were used as input to the algorithm training"
• There are a few other sentences which sound a bit confusing/weird to me:
  
  • I am not sure what you mean to say here "which are modeled similarly in full and fast detector simulation". maybe some additional useful information: the modelling of tracks is untouched by the FastSim algorithm, i.e. in my understanding by design the tracks in fastSim are the same as in FullSim
  • "Particle Flows as jet constituents". Particle Flow is a jet reconstruction algorithm used since quite a while now. this algorithm uses tracks and calorimeter clusters for the reconstruction, i.e. the jet constituents are those since ~10 years. what is new is that this information is now also exploited in the ftag algorithms
  • Maybe I am being nitpicky right now but I feel the second paragraph could be connected more to the first one.
• Sorry for doing that but reading everything I would suggest a rewrite (reusing lots from the original draft)   
  • • Suggested rewrite: The identification of the quark flavor that gave rise to a given jet is a central reconstruction tool utilised in measurements with the ATLAS experiment. Today, transformer-based machine-learning algorithms, "taggers", trained on simulated events are deployed for this purpose. Thus, jet flavor tagging performance relies on accurate simulations of jet constituents and the available amount of simulated events for training. In the jet flavor tagging models used so far, only tracks associated to jets were input to the algorithm training. The next-generation jet flavor tagger, GN3, uses all particle flow constituents, tracks and calorimeter clusters, associated to the jet for training. At the same time, simulated samples with "fast detector simulation" (FastSim with the AtlFast3 software), where calorimeter showers are approximated using generative modelling instead of being fully simulated with Geant4 (FullSim), are being adopted more widely in the ATLAS collaboration. Especially for the production of samples for rare signals, and non-standard background samples used for the estimation of systematic uncertainties, FastSim is increasingly adopted due to the reduced consumption of computing resources compared to FullSim.
      To ensure reliable jet flavor tagging performance of GN3, which is trained with FullSim samples, on FastSim samples detailed studies are necessary. This talk presents comparisons of FastSim and FullSim samples in the context of ATLAS jet flavor tagging models. Furthermore, recent studies indicate a significant scope for improvement in the performance of a GN3-like model solely by increasing training statistics, making FastSim samples a desirable, and in terms of computing resources favourable, option for model training itself. The performance of such models against those trained on FullSim samples is also investigated for this presentation. 
    • ... or something along those lines. I feel more strongly about the first paragraph, which in my opinion, needs a bit more context and less "ATLAS slang". some adjustments to my suggestion may be necessary especially when it comes to British vs American English ;)

 

13:20 AQP: Alternative calibration for c-tagging efficiency

Speaker: Inês Pinto (Universität Siegen)

pinto_dpg2026_abstract_WcCal_v4.pdf

Comments from Elisabeth on first draft (01.12.2025)

• maybe add an "alternative" somewhere to make clear this is not the default ATLAS strategy, e.g. "we present an alternative data-driven calibration of the c-jet tagging efficiency using the W + c method"
• "allows a clean extraction of the c-jet content" -> sounds a bit weird to me. not sure what you mean?
• you could add a sentence highlighting that standard methods use ttbar events and thus that calibration is not suitable for BSM top-quark measurements
• you could add that you will look at c-jet efficiency for c-jet idetificatoon and also c-jet mis-identification efficiency in the case of b-jet identification

 

Inês: Thank you for the comments! Uploaded v2 on 08.12

Elisabeth: thank you! no further comments on the content but it seems your text is now too long :( I see "Futher material exceeds the size limit indicated by the box."

Inês: shorter v3 now uploaded

13:40 Tagging at ATLAS with GN3: Beyond heavy-flavour

Speaker: Diptaparna Biswas (Universität Siegen)

DPG_2026_FTAG_Diptaparna.pdf

14:00 → 15:00 Machine Learning Algorithms

14:00 TrackOpt

Speaker: Diptaparna Biswas (Universität Siegen)

DPG_2026_SV_Diptaparna_v2.pdf

15:00 → 16:00 Auger Radio

15:00 Intelligent Radio Detection

Speaker: Vesselin Dimitrov (Experimentelle Teilchenphysik)

DPG_abstract_v2.pdf

15:20 BOLT-TGF

Speaker: Eric-Teunis de Boone (Universität Siegen)

DPG_2026_BOLT_etdeboone.pdf

16:00 → 17:00 Auger Analyse

16:00 Directional Search for Ultra-High-Energy Photons Using the SD-1500 Array of the Pierre Auger Observatory

Speaker: Mr Tim Fehler (Center for Particle Physics Siegen, Universität Siegen)

2026-03_DPG_tfehler_directional_search.pdf

16:20 Estimating the GZK Photon Flux from Extragalactic Cosmic Rays

Speaker: Chiara Papior (Universität Siegen)

DPG26_abstract_Chiara_GZK_final.pdf

16:40 Classifying photon- and proton-induced air-showers with a transformer-based approach at the Pierre Auger Observatory

Speaker: Alexander Doeker (Experimentelle Astroteilchenphysik)

DPG26_abstract_alex.pdf