| 13 |
|
of the muons. We believe that this model is adequate for |
| 14 |
|
the trigger efficiency precision needed for this analysis. |
| 15 |
|
|
| 16 |
< |
The model assumptions are the following |
| 16 |
> |
The model assumptions are the following {\color{red} (The |
| 17 |
> |
xx below need to be fixed using the final JSON. For the 11 pb |
| 18 |
> |
iteration the trigger efficiency was taken as 100\%)} |
| 19 |
|
|
| 20 |
|
\begin{itemize} |
| 21 |
|
|
| 52 |
|
|
| 53 |
|
\begin{itemize} |
| 54 |
|
|
| 55 |
< |
\item $\epsilon_{\mu}$=xx, the single muon trigger efficiency plateau. |
| 55 |
> |
\item $\epsilon_{\mu}$={\color{red}xx}, the single muon trigger efficiency plateau. |
| 56 |
|
|
| 57 |
< |
\item $f9$=xx: fraction of data with the Mu9 trigger unprescaled. |
| 57 |
> |
\item $f9$={\color{red}xx}: fraction of data with the Mu9 trigger unprescaled. |
| 58 |
|
(run$\le 147116$). |
| 59 |
|
|
| 60 |
< |
\item $f11$=xx fraction of data with the Mu9 trigger prescaled and |
| 60 |
> |
\item $f11$={\color{red}xx} fraction of data with the Mu9 trigger prescaled and |
| 61 |
|
the Mu11 trigger unprescaled. |
| 62 |
|
(147196 $\leq$ run $\leq$ 148058). |
| 63 |
|
|
| 64 |
< |
\item $e10$=xx: fraction of data with the 10 GeV unprescaled electron triggers. |
| 64 |
> |
\item $e10$={\color{red}xx}: fraction of data with the 10 GeV unprescaled electron triggers. |
| 65 |
|
(run$\le 139980$). |
| 66 |
|
|
| 67 |
< |
\item $e15$=xx: fraction of data with the 15 GeV unprescaled electron triggers. |
| 67 |
> |
\item $e15$={\color{red}xx}: fraction of data with the 15 GeV unprescaled electron triggers. |
| 68 |
|
(139980 $<$ run $\leq$ 144114). |
| 69 |
|
|
| 70 |
< |
\item $e17$=xx: fraction of data with the 100\% efficient 17 GeV unprescaled electron triggers. |
| 70 |
> |
\item $e17$={\color{red}xx}: fraction of data with the 100\% efficient 17 GeV unprescaled electron triggers. |
| 71 |
|
(144114 $<$ run $\leq$ 147116). |
| 72 |
|
|
| 73 |
< |
\item $e17b$=xx: fraction of data with 17 GeV unprescaled electron triggers |
| 73 |
> |
\item $e17b$={\color{red}xx}: fraction of data with 17 GeV unprescaled electron triggers |
| 74 |
|
with efficiency $\epsilon_e^b=90\%$ (as measured by tag-and-probe). |
| 75 |
|
(147116 $<$ run $\leq$ 148058). |
| 76 |
|
|
| 77 |
< |
\item $emess$=xx: the remainder of the run with several different electron |
| 77 |
> |
\item $emess$={\color{red}xx}: the remainder of the run with several different electron |
| 78 |
|
triggers, all of $P_T>17$ GeV. For this period we measure the |
| 79 |
|
luminosity-weighted |
| 80 |
|
trigger efficiency $\epsilon(P_T)$ via tag and probe to be 99\% |
| 237 |
|
|
| 238 |
|
\begin{center} |
| 239 |
|
$\epsilon = \Delta_1$ |
| 240 |
< |
\end{center} |
| 240 |
> |
\end{center} |
| 241 |
> |
|
| 242 |
> |
\subsection{Summary of the trigger efficiency model} |
| 243 |
> |
\label{sec:trgeffsum} |
| 244 |
> |
|
| 245 |
> |
We take the trigger efficiency for $ee$ as 100\%. The trigger efficiency |
| 246 |
> |
for the $e\mu$ and $\mu\mu$ final states is summarized in Figures xx. |
| 247 |
> |
We estimate the systematic uncertainties on the trigger modeling |
| 248 |
> |
to be at the few percent level. |
| 249 |
> |
|
| 250 |
> |
\noindent {\color{red}Figure xx will be a two dimensional table of the |
| 251 |
> |
trigger efficiency as a function of the pt of the two leptons. |
| 252 |
> |
We need to wait for the xx in the previous section to be completes before we can |
| 253 |
> |
fill out this table.} |
