1 / 20

Looking into e & g for high energy e/ g

Looking into e & g for high energy e/ g. Triggers. Dr Tracey Berry Royal Holloway. Trigger Investigations. Using the Gee 500 GeV k/m Pl =0.010 dataset 12.0.6 Pythia 5620 Looking at the trigger efficiency. Run over 5000 G  ee M G =500 GeV events. G  ee events: 12.0.6 Trigger.

africa
Download Presentation

Looking into e & g for high energy e/ g

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Looking into e & gfor high energy e/g Triggers Dr Tracey Berry Royal Holloway

  2. Trigger Investigations • Using the Gee 500 GeV k/mPl=0.010 dataset 12.0.6 Pythia 5620 • Looking at the trigger efficiency. • Run over 5000 Gee MG=500 GeV events

  3. Gee events: 12.0.6 Trigger • Final trigger decision for 5000 events   L1 Dec, L2Dec, EFDece25i trigger    4447 , 4179 , 3868 , 0.8894 , 0.8358 , 0.7736e60 trigger    4974 , 4789 , 4478 , 0.9948 , 0.9578 , 0.89562e15i trigger  2450 , 1841 , 1397 , 0.49 , 0.3682 , 0.2794g60 trigger    4974 , 4872 , 4803 , 0.9948 , 0.9744 , 0.9606 2g20i trigger  2450 , 0 , 0 , 0.49 , 0 , 0 j160 trigger   4997 , 4792 , 4620 , 0.9994 , 0.9584 , 0.9242j120 trigger  4952 , 4763 , 4516 , 0.9904 , 0.9526 , 0.90323j65 trigger   4952 , 1891 , 1503 , 0.9904 , 0.3782 , 0.30064j50 trigger   4952 , 699 , 461 , 0.9904 , 0.1398 , 0.0922bjet35 trigger 5000 , 4997 , 4997 , 1 , 0.9994 , 0.9994tau10i trigger 4939 , 4606 , 4573 , 0.9878 , 0.9212 , 0.9146tau15i trigger 4921 , 4596 , 4513 , 0.9842 , 0.9192 , 0.9026tau25i trigger 4959 , 4663 , 4598 , 0.9918 , 0.9326 , 0.9196tau35i trigger 4948 , 4641 , 4583 , 0.9896 , 0.9282 , 0.9166mu6 trigger 105 , 52 , 36 , 0.021 , 0.0104 , 0.0072mu20i trigger  20 , 13 , 8 , 0.004 , 0.0026 , 0.0016 g60 trigger most efficient Jet and Tau triggers more efficient for signal than the e60 trigger!! But jet triggers have a large prescale Investigate what makes e60 trigger inefficient ….!

  4. Aside….. • My discoveries (mistakes!!) in rerunning the trigger! • Correct Method!

  5. Trigger Steering • You can only tighten the triggers, not loosen them • (even when you re-run the trigger hypo) • Can not loosen triggers: because of the way the trigger steering works L1 L2 EF e.g. if in original trigger the event failed the EF cuts after passing L3 – then if you loosen the EF cuts then the object is just not in the record to be counted – so the trigger print out says it passed, but the trigger decision maker final count will not count this event  very odd results! • 9 / 10 pass EF trigger print out, but final trigger decision print out gives 8 / 10 etc…. !

  6. Triggers • You can only tighten the triggers, not loosen them • (even when you re-run the trigger hypo) • So for high Pt analysis want to loosen the e60 triggers • To do this have to use e10 trigger (dummy trigger) • Which has L1: EM > 7 GeV L2: Pass All L3: Pass All • So make the e10 trigger become the e60 trigger by applying the e60 cuts to the e10 trigger – since I can tighten the e10 cuts to the e60 values • However, e10 L1 trigger called EM01 and name suppressed since does not begin L1 ! So have used L1_EM5 which requires EM ET>3 GeV! correct method!

  7. Mimicking the e60 trigger Success! • in mimicking the e60 trigger using the e10 path For 5000 events Events Efficiency Trigger L1 L2 EF L1 L2 EF e60 trigger     4974 , 4789 , 4478 , 0.9948 , 0.9578 , 0.8956“e10” trigger    4998 , 4790 , 4479 , 0.9996 , 0.958 , 0.8958 Note L1 different – but can’t change L1 Efficiencies same  Now to change/optimise e60 trigger cuts….

  8. L1 Decision • Final trigger decision for 5000 events   L1 Dec, L2Dec, EFDece25i trigger    4447 , 4179 , 3868 , 0.8894 , 0.8358 , 0.7736e60 trigger    4974 , 4789 , 4478 , 0.9948 , 0.9578 , 0.8956e10 trigger    4998 , 4790 , 4479 , 0.9996 , 0.958 , 0.89582e15i trigger  2450 , 1841 , 1397 , 0.49 , 0.3682 , 0.2794g60 trigger    4974 , 4872 , 4803 , 0.9948 , 0.9744 , 0.9606 2g20i trigger  2450 , 0 , 0 , 0.49 , 0 , 0 j160 trigger   4997 , 4792 , 4620 , 0.9994 , 0.9584 , 0.9242j120 trigger  4952 , 4763 , 4516 , 0.9904 , 0.9526 , 0.90323j65 trigger   4952 , 1891 , 1503 , 0.9904 , 0.3782 , 0.30064j50 trigger   4952 , 699 , 461 , 0.9904 , 0.1398 , 0.0922bjet35 trigger 5000 , 4997 , 4997 , 1 , 0.9994 , 0.9994tau10i trigger 4939 , 4606 , 4573 , 0.9878 , 0.9212 , 0.9146tau15i trigger 4921 , 4596 , 4513 , 0.9842 , 0.9192 , 0.9026tau25i trigger 4959 , 4663 , 4598 , 0.9918 , 0.9326 , 0.9196tau35i trigger 4948 , 4641 , 4583 , 0.9896 , 0.9282 , 0.9166mu6 trigge   r 105 , 52 , 36 , 0.021 , 0.0104 , 0.0072mu20i trigger  20 , 13 , 8 , 0.004 , 0.0026 , 0.0016 Looking at the L1 Decision, Note that the j160 trigger is more efficient than the L1 e60 and g60 L1 e60 and g60 are identical : em Et>50 GeV Can’t change the L1 decisions

  9. L2 Decision Note that the L2 g60 trigger is more efficient than the L2 e60 (83/4974=1.7%) Final trigger decision for 5000 events   L1 Dec, L2Dec, EFDece25i trigger    4447 , 4179 , 3868 , 0.8894 , 0.8358 , 0.7736e60 trigger   4974 , 4789 , 4478 , 0.9948 , 0.9578 , 0.8956e10 trigger    4998 , 4790 , 4479 , 0.9996 , 0.958 , 0.89582e15i trigger  2450 , 1841 , 1397 , 0.49 , 0.3682 , 0.2794g60 trigger   4974 , 4872 , 4803 , 0.9948 , 0.9744 , 0.9606 2g20i trigger  2450 , 0 , 0 , 0.49 , 0 , 0 j160 trigger   4997 , 4792 , 4620 , 0.9994 , 0.9584 , 0.9242j120 trigger  4952 , 4763 , 4516 , 0.9904 , 0.9526 , 0.90323j65 trigger   4952 , 1891 , 1503 , 0.9904 , 0.3782 , 0.30064j50 trigger   4952 , 699 , 461 , 0.9904 , 0.1398 , 0.0922bjet35 trigger 5000 , 4997 , 4997 , 1 , 0.9994 , 0.9994tau10i trigger 4939 , 4606 , 4573 , 0.9878 , 0.9212 , 0.9146tau15i trigger 4921 , 4596 , 4513 , 0.9842 , 0.9192 , 0.9026tau25i trigger 4959 , 4663 , 4598 , 0.9918 , 0.9326 , 0.9196tau35i trigger 4948 , 4641 , 4583 , 0.9896 , 0.9282 , 0.9166mu6 trigge   r 105 , 52 , 36 , 0.021 , 0.0104 , 0.0072mu20i trigger  20 , 13 , 8 , 0.004 , 0.0026 , 0.0016 So what’s different in the g60 and e60 L2 trigger cuts? e60 has track-matching which g60 does not have It’s the E/P in the cuts which make it inefficient – since the e have tracks - so shouldn’t be in!

  10. L2 decisions e60: L2 CAL cuts are optimised in the following eta bins: |eta| ≤ 0.75, 0.75 < |eta| ≤ 1.5, 1.5 < |eta| ≤ 1.8, 1.8 < |eta| ≤ 2.0, 2.0 < |eta| ≤ 2.5. ET(cluster) threshold = 53 GeV ET of leakage into hadronic calo < [999.0 GeV,999.0 GeV,999.0 GeV,999.0 GeV,999.0 GeV,], no leakage cut applied if ET(cluster)>90GeV Rcore threshold > [0.93, 0.92, 0.92, 0.93, 0.92] Eratio > [0.85, 0.75, 0.80, 0.85, 0.85] As above except: g60: ET of leakage into hadronic calo < [4.5 GeV,4.5 GeV,4.5 GeV,4.5 GeV,4.5 GeV,], no leakage cut applied if ET(cluster)>90GeV e60: L2 IDCAL – g60 has no such cuts optimised in 4 eta bins: |eta| ≤ 0.75, 0.75 < |eta| ≤ 1.5, 1.5 < |eta| ≤ 2.0, 2.0 < |eta| ≤ 2.5. As track algorithms IDScan is used. track pT > 5 GeV E/p > [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0] & E/p < [3.5, 3.5, 4.5, 5.5] DEta(cluster-track) < [0.015, 0.010, 0.015, 0.02] DPhi(cluster-track) < [0.07, 0.07, 0.07, 0.07] e60 has track-matching which g60 does not have since the e have tracks-so shouldn’t be inefficient! But e60 also has E/P cut I looked at a few events and found that the E/P cut was causing an inefficiency…

  11. Now “e10” trigger is more efficient than the g60 at L2 Removing E/P cut gains 97/4998=1.9% Remove E/P cut at L2 and EF • With E/P cut: L1 L2 EFe60 trigger    4974 , 4789 , 4478 , 0.9948 , 0.9578 , 0.8956e10 trigger    4998 , 4790 , 4479 , 0.9996 , 0.958 , 0.8958g60 trigger    4974 , 4872 , 4803 , 0.9948 , 0.9744 , 0.9606 • With E/P cut removed from L2 but not EF e60 trigger    4974 , 4789, 4478 , 0.9948 , 0.9578 , 0.8956e10 trigger    4998 , 4887, 4522, 0.9996 , 0.9774,0.9044                             g60 trigger    4974 , 4872, 4803 , 0.9948 , 0.9744 , 0.9606 • With E/P cut removed from L2 and EF e60 trigger    4974 , 4789 , 4478 , 0.9948 , 0.9578 , 0.8956e10 trigger    4998 , 4887 , 4727 , 0.9996 , 0.9774 ,0.9454 g60 trigger    4974 , 4872 , 4803 , 0.9948 , 0.9744 , 0.9606 Conclusion: The E/P cut at L2 makes the e60 trigger less efficient than the g60 at L2 for Gee MG=500 GeV

  12. Remove E/P cut at L2 and EF • With E/P cut: L1 L2 EFe60 trigger    4974 , 4789 , 4478 , 0.9948 , 0.9578 , 0.8956e10 trigger    4998 , 4790 , 4479 , 0.9996 , 0.958 , 0.8958g60 trigger    4974 , 4872 , 4803 , 0.9948 , 0.9744 , 0.9606 • With E/P cut removed from L2 but not EF e60 trigger    4974 , 4789, 4478 , 0.9948 , 0.9578 , 0.8956e10 trigger    4998 , 4887, 4522, 0.9996 , 0.9774,0.9044                             g60 trigger    4974 , 4872, 4803 , 0.9948 , 0.9744 , 0.9606 • With E/P cut removed from L2 and EF e60 trigger    4974 , 4789 , 4478 , 0.9948 , 0.9578 , 0.8956e10 trigger    4998 , 4887 , 4727 , 0.9996 , 0.9774 ,0.9454 g60 trigger    4974 , 4872 , 4803 , 0.9948 , 0.9744 , 0.9606 Removing E/P requirement at L2 and EF makes the e60 trigger eff increase from 90 to 95 %

  13. E/P Future Plans….investigate further… Antonella: This effect on E/p that you see could be due to some worsening of momentum resolution at high energy. (The inner detector momentum resolution is something like 30-40% up at 1 TeV.  The electron resolution from the calorimeter is very good at these energies.) Plan to investigate what makes E/p such a bad variable for electrons from gravitons -- is it p or E that messes things up? What happens to sigma(p)/p as the energy increases? Taking misalignments into account, which are unavoidable, especially with early data, things can only go from bad to worse... Plan to compare sigma(p)/p and sigma(E)/E for G->ee and Z->ee (and maybe also single electrons -- 25 GeV ones should be available)  Kevin: Another possibility is that the electron is radiating a photon early on which is in the direction of the electron so contributing to the E but not the track momentum. Though this should happen at the Z as well and probably accounted for in the default cuts.

  14. e60 EF cuts • e60: L2 • Track matching: • Delta Eta(cluster-track) < [0.015, 0.010, 0.015, 0.02] • Delta Phi(cluster-track) < [0.07, 0.07, 0.07, 0.07] • e60: EF • cluster ET > 57.5 GeV • 0.8 < E/p < 2.2 in |eta| < 1.37, 0.7 < E/p < 3.5 in |eta| > 1.37 • Delta Eta(cluster-track) < 0.002 • Delta Phi(cluster-track) < 0.025 • fraction of TR hits: disabled At EF level the track matching is tightened:

  15. Still need to investigate what is making EF cuts for e60 less efficient than the EF cut for g60 trigger e60 EF inefficiency investigations • With E/P cut removed from L2 and EF L1 L2 EF e60 trigger    4974 , 4789 , 4478 , 0.9948 , 0.9578 , 0.8956e10 trigger    4998 , 4887 , 4727 , 0.9996 , 0.9774 ,0.9454 g60 trigger    4974 , 4872 , 4803 , 0.9948 , 0.9744 , 0.9606 • loosen track matching of EF to L2 values with no E/P cut at L2 and also EF:e60 trigger    4974 , 4789 , 4478 , 0.9948 , 0.9578 , 0.8956e10 trigger    4998 , 4887 , 4771 , 0.9996 , 0.9774 , 0.9542 g60 trigger    4974 , 4872 , 4803 , 0.9948 , 0.9744 , 0.9606

  16. Future Plans • Study E/P • Investigate what is making EF cuts for e60 less efficient than the EF cut for g60 trigger • Look at 1 TeV Zee sample • Investigate more into electron identification for high energy electrons • Longer term: is 96 % using the g60 trigger efficient enough?! Or decide if we want to propose a e120 trigger? (Look at different mass G samples (if/when available))

  17. BACK UP SLIDES!

  18. EF cuts • e60 • cluster ET > 57.5 GeV • 0.8 < E/p < 2.2 in |eta| < 1.37, 0.7 < E/p < 3.5 in |eta| > 1.37 • Delta Eta(cluster-track) < 0.002 • Delta Phi(cluster-track) < 0.025 • fraction of TR hits: disabled • g60 • cuts are optimised in the following eta bins: |eta| ≤ 0.75, 0.75 < |eta| ≤ 1.5, 1.5 < |eta| ≤ 1.8, 1.8 < |eta| ≤ 2.0, 2.0 < |eta| ≤ 2.5. The default cut values are • ET (EM) > [55.*GeV, 55.*GeV, 55.*GeV, 55.*GeV, 55.*GeV] • f1 > [0.005,0.005,0.005,0.005,0.005] • EThad < [0.051825,0.340496, 0.203263, 0.393187, 0.051825] • e237/e277 > [0.944226, 0.846195, 0.929666, 0.927025 ,0.929666] • weta2 < [0.017513, 0.012334, 0.012813, 0.011028, 0.012000] • e233/e277 > [0.420467, 0.756967, 0.393126, 0.002148, 0.750000] • e2tsts1/emisn1 < [0.150000, 0.156049, 0.262334, 0.278327, 0.150000] • wtots1 < [3.000000, 3.111197, 3.000000, 1.770738, 3.000000] • fracs1 < [0.400000, 0.412531, 0.400000, 0.4, 0.4] • weta1 < [0.8, 0.871925, 0.8, 0.8, 0.8]

  19. L2 EM Definitions • TrigL2PhotonHypo • In this hypothesis the selection is based on the ET of the EM cluster and on various shower shape quantities. • The transverse energy ET calculated using the energies of all the electromagnetic-calorimeter layers in a Delta Eta x Delta Phi =3 x 7 standard cell area within the LVL1 RoI (standard cells cover an area of Delta Eta x Delta Phi ~ 0.025 x 0.025). Note, currently the ET is not corrected for leakage outside the cluster. • The hadronic transverse energy EThad within Delta Eta x Delta Phi =0.2 x 0.2. • The ratio Rcore = E37/E77, of energy contained in a Delta Eta x Delta Phi =3 x 7 window to that in a 7 x 7 window in the second sampling of the EM Calorimeter. • The fractional difference in energy between the strip with the maximum energy E1, and the second maximum E2, in the first sampling of the EM Calorimeter. The fraction is calculated as Eratio = (E1 - E2)/(E1 + E2). As there are no strips in 1.4<|eta|<1.5 nore beyond |eta|>2.4 the cuts are ot applied if the shower centre is in 1.37<|eta|<1.52 and |eta|>2.37. • The above shower shape variables are eta dependent and in the actual selection different cut values are chosen for different eta regions.

  20. EF EM Definitions • TrigEFPhotonHypo • At the Event Filter the selection is based on cluster quantities. The following selection is applied. • The transverse energy ET calculated using the energies of all the electromagnetic-calorimeter layers in a Delta Eta x Delta Phi =3 x 7 • fraction of energy found in em Sampling 1: f1 • ET leakage into had calo: EtHad? • uncorrected energy in 3x7 cells /3x7 cells in em sampling 2: e237/e277 • corrected width in 3x5 cells in the 2nd sampling: weta2 • uncorrected energy in 3x3 cells /3x7 cells in em sampling 2: e233/e277 • 2nd maximum in strips/energy of strip with min between max 1 & 2 : e2tsts1/emisn1 • total width in em sampling 1 in 20 strips: wtots1 • energy in strips outside core (E(+-7)-E(+-3))/E(+-7): fracs1 • corrected width in 3 strips in the 1st sampling: weta1 • The above shower shape variables are eta dependent and in the actual selection different cut values are chosen for different eta regions.

More Related