PU veto and Multiplicity Cuts: plots for TDR

1. PU veto and Multiplicity Cuts: plots for TDR • L1 proc time vs L1L0 channel efficiencies for varying multiplicity cut • Distributions of L1 clusters and Proc time for various robustness test (vs nominal settings) • Channel efficiencies vs PU Peak2 threshold • BsDK “efficiency gain thanks to PU” vs Lumi

2. Note on timing • I rerun L1 and time it again (on lxplus) • Compiled L1Decision package (only) with –O2 • I do first L1LoadInMemory (t1), then Level1 (t2) • Store both USER and ELAPSED times • Finally, t = f(t1) + f(t2), where f(x) looks if ELAP deviates more than 5 ms from USER. If yes, then use a shuffled USER time (within the 10 ms bin). If not, use ELAPSED time. • Time shown below are normalized to a calibration loop that typically takes 0.6 s on lxplus (sometimes ~1 s, depending on whether you end up in a new or old node) • I do not understand yet why I get average times of order 20 ms…

3. Motovation for Multiplicity cuts Picture with PU<100 (=no PU Peak2 cut) looks better for TDR. Now… why does L1L0 look less sensitive to multiplicity cuts with (PU<3) ? • Statistics ? Start from • ~150k MBIA • ~50k signal (few 100s pass L1) • Because L0L1 have been retuned ?

4. Nominal vs Robustness “Aggressive” Note: • Global test: mean time recovered only with “aggressive” cuts (~10% signal loss in Bs->DK) • Velo test: #clusters goes down (noise increased by “reducing loosing clusters”), but mean time goes up !

5. Bs->DK in global test “aggressive” cuts

6. PU motivation • Signal efficiency vs PU peak2 cut without multiplicty cuts

7. PU motivation (vs Lumi) • For one channel: gain at PU<3 versus luminosity