60 likes | 134 Views
http://d0.epe.phys.washington.edu/~gwatts/research/d0/Higgs/wenu_trigger_studies/. Samples. Data Trigger list 8.0 Data Trigger bit 9: CEM(1,5) At 10E30 this trigger bit was running 80 Hz At 30E30 about 240 Hz. Reprocessed with p11 Data extracted (not trig-simmed) MC HW, W->e n
E N D
http://d0.epe.phys.washington.edu/~gwatts/research/d0/Higgs/wenu_trigger_studies/http://d0.epe.phys.washington.edu/~gwatts/research/d0/Higgs/wenu_trigger_studies/
Samples • Data • Trigger list 8.0 Data • Trigger bit 9: CEM(1,5) • At 10E30 this trigger bit was running 80 Hz • At 30E30 about 240 Hz. • Reprocessed with p11 • Data extracted (not trig-simmed) • MC • HW, W->en • Simulated and recoed with p11.08
At Level 1 CEM(1,10) CJT(2,5) CJT(3,3) Not useful until calorimeter is fixed L1 MET Would have been fantastic Almost doubles rejection at L1, eff goes down 6%. At Level 2 1 Jet above 20 GeV 2 Jets above 10 GeV Was not able to get electrons to work The EMF in data was peaked strongly at one Still investigating this issue Summary
Pass % as a function of cut Data CEM(1,10) L2J(1,20) L2J(2,10) CJT(3,3) CJT(2,5) No Cuts MC
Rates If we don’t join other groups this will get prescaled at lumi Within Reason (but requires L3!) w/MET: Rejection 8.8