1 / 9

Z ee trigger & e/ framework

Z ee trigger & e/ framework. Validation of the framework First look at a trigger menu combining several signatures. Framework validation – Mark . Compared new framework with old version from Monika Tested 1000 single electron Rome events 5 events selected by old framework and not by new

solstice-rhoda
Télécharger la présentation

Z ee trigger & e/ framework

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. Zee trigger & e/ framework Validation of the framework First look at a trigger menu combining several signatures

  2. Framework validation – Mark • Compared new framework with old version from Monika • Tested 1000 single electron Rome events • 5 events selected by old framework and not by new • Problem traced down to different cuts in EF sequence • 100% agreement after that • Another difference found: • New framework “reconstructs” tracks only within geometrical RoIs (using track perigee parameters) • Is this the right thing to do?

  3. Zee - Ricardo • As part of framework validation: • Combined e25i, 2e15i and e60 in the new framework • All cuts from Monika’s Wiki page except for EF track isolation in EFID sequence • Found L2 delta eta and phi cuts should be swapped • No tracking cuts at level 2 for 2e15i or e60, following recipe in wiki • 4468 Zee events from an old production, no pileup • 234634 “di-jet” events with pileup from sample 4814 (ET>17GeV)

  4. A few plots Z->ee Jets LVL1 LVL2

  5. L2ID e25i: Z->ee Jets

  6. LVL2: e60 jets LVL2: e60 Z->ee EF: e25i jets EF: e25i Z->ee

  7. Performance & comparison with old • These numbers disagree with those obtained with old framework (verification ongoing) • Likely that the difference is explained by preselection cuts that Monika applies (2 electrons within |eta|<2.5 with pT>XXX) • Tests with a few (200) single electrons still don’t show better than ~10% agreement (but see previous point) • Absolute efficiencies shown in table

  8. Interesting to note correlations between different signatures: much larger in signal than in background (makes sense) Overlaps: Z->ee: 4468 events Jets: 234634 events

  9. Conclusions: • Agreement between old and new frameworks to ~10% or worse for these events • But found out in the meantime that should be applying preselection cuts • Much better agreement was found comparing single electrons using Monika’s version of the old framework 100% agreement • Looked at overlap between signatures in menu with three signatures: much to do here! • Validation work ongoing: look at jet events!

More Related