E/gamma Trigger Efficiencies

1. E/gamma Trigger Efficiencies Sam Harper RAL Trigger Performance Meeting 17/05/10

2. E/g HLT 101: Basic Trigger L1 Trigger Accept HLT Starts • core e/gamma triggers are a supercluster with ET > X matched to a L1 Seed • L1 is a trigger tower with ET > X • electron triggers additionally require a PM match • note most “electron” triggers are not electrons at HLT, they are SC + PM • only EleId + TrackIsol triggers run electron tracking (which is different to RECO…) • Currently L1 trigger almost completely drives the eff curve for |η| < 2.1 Match SuperClus to L1 seed note: that L1 η/φ is fairly coarse ET filter (SC ET, w.r.t 0,0,0) Spike Filter (E1/E9<X) not currently enabled Hcal Isolation Filter end of pho triggers Pixel Matching Step additional ele trig step

3. Analysis Details • data: /MinimumBias/Commissioning10-GOODCOLL-v9/RAW-RECO • runs: 133874, 133877, 133881,133885, 133928 • good lumi sec in backups • spike cleaning: E1/E3x3 <0.9, bx = 1 or 1786 • MC: /MinBias/Spring10-START3X_V25B_v1/GEN-SIM-RAW • RECOd in CMSSW_3_5_7, START3X_V26A • HLT: • /cdaq/physics/firstCollisions10/v5.1/HLT_7TeV_HR/V1 • using CMSSW_ 3_5_7_p2 , GR10_H_V5 • https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/viewauth/CMS/HowToInstallONLINErelease • not the menu/release that the data were taken with but the menu the next data are being taken with • MC: HLT_GRun in 3_5_7, START3X_V27 • FYI: all menus can be found at: • http://cms-project-confdb-hltdev.web.cern.ch/cms-project-confdb-hltdev/browser/ • online is under ORCOFF, development on HLT Development

4. Previous Work • HLT Eff. to be shown to be 100% for |η| <2.1 • therefore L1 completely dominates turn on curve • S. Harper: http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=93821 • Large amount of work done on understanding L1 Efficiency and turn on curves by LLR and Wisconsin groups in L1 DPG • J. Efrons: http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=94122 • C. Broutin: http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=92206

5. Efficiency Method • simply take efficiency as number of SC passing HLT (or filter) / total number of SC • after applying spike rejection and correct bx of course • cross-checked biasness of sample by selecting only those events which pass HLT_MinBiasBSC or HLT_MinBiasHcal • looks okay…

6. L1+HLT Eff Barrel: Pho10 • L1 efficiency drives the curve… • bad MC agreement for all data, good agreement with H/E<0.05 cut is applied all SC H/E<0.05

7. L1+HLT Eff Endcap: Pho10 • again better MC/data agreement once H/E cut on • different turn on curves for data/MC • LLR group shown that L1 not efficient for SC where energy is spread over multiple trigger towers • typical of jets, less typical of electrons all SC H/E<0.05

8. L1+HLT Eff Endcap: Pho10 • Shown by LLR that L1 trigger efficiency drop is due to SC being spread out over multiple trigger towers • sigmaIEtaIEta < 0.0275 cut improves turn on but clus = 1 is better • H/E does nothing to turn on • likewise EM isolation

9. Eff vs η/φ • all plots have a SCET>10 GeV and H/E<0.05 cut applied • no real surprises here barrel endcap 9/14

10. HLT Clustering • my last talk implied this was ~100% • this is not quite true as was starting from L1 Match filter • sometimes the HLT fails to reconstruct a SC, this is almost the only way to fail the L1 match (the matching is generous…) • In EB HLT requires seed ET > 1.5 GeV, RECO ET > 1 GeV • results in small inefficiency for jets Eff to get HLT SC L1 Match given RECO SC L1 Match

11. Ele Trigger Eff • Efficiency for ecal driven GsfEle electrons to pass Ele10_LW, having passed Pho10 • 100% for |η|<2.1 • disagreement in MC

12. Ele10LW Eff vs φ • φ dependence of MC points to overly pessimistic startup conditions • I used START3X_V27 tag, is this correct?

13. Ele10LW Eff vs η • hard to tell with stat. but don’t see a clear ET dependence on PM efficiency • need more stat to check but likely eff as a function of ET should suffice • note real ele efficiency will be different…

14. Conclusions Pho10 Eff • measured L1+HLT efficiency for Photon and Electron triggers • rate is completely driven by L1 • shower shape cuts help improve turn-on • new RCT calibrations are being tested that will help this • some differences with MC observed • currently main sources of inefficiency in data are understood |η|<1.442 H/E<0.05 Pho10 Eff 1.56<|η|<2.5 H/E<0.05 14/14

15. Backups good lumisec used: • '133874:166-133874:814', '133874:817-133874:875', '133875:1-133875:20', '133875:22-133875:49', '133877:1-133877:1640', '133877:1643-133877:1997', '133881:1-133881:71', '133881:74-133881:223', '133881:225-133881:562', '133885:1-133885:132', '133885:134-133885:728', '133927:1-133927:57', '133928:1-133928:645',

16. E/g HLT 101: Glossary • ET: super cluster ET w.r.t to 0,0,0 • LW PM: large window pixel matching • concerns about beamspot stability in very early running so very loose pixel matching windows initially • currently whats running for electron triggers • SW PM: startup window pixel matching • slightly tighter pixel matching requirements which will be introduced around 1E31 once we have shown that it doesn’t impact electron efficiency • Electron Tracking: • only done for EleId + Track Isolation Trigger • CTF tracking algo not GSF • less forgiving on missing hits, not as efficient as RECO CTF tracking • HCAL isolation: • actually more H/E, sum of rec-hits in cone of 0.15 • not currently used

17. SW vs LW • first look at startup pixel match windows in data

18. L1+HLT Pho10 Eff: ID Cuts σiηiη < 0.0275 H/E < 0.05 Isol EM < 3 GeV σiηiη < 0.0275 σiηiη < 0.0275 H/E < 0.05 Isol EM < 3 GeV Isol Had < 1 GeV σiηiη < 0.0275 H/E < 0.05

19. Ele Trigger Eff with EleID • applied HEEP ID to electrons to see if MC efficiencies are changed

20. C. Broutin: L1 DPG 22/04/10

21. C. Broutin: L1 DPG 22/04/10

22. J. Efron: L1 DPG 06/05/10

23. HLT ET Turn vs RECO SC ET • Eff of ET filter w.r.t L1 Match • this should be close to a step function • for SC with ET > 10 GeV endcap barrel