| 1 |
\section{Trigger efficiency}
|
| 2 |
\label{sec:trgEff}
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
As described in Section~\ref{sec:trigSel} we rely on a
|
| 5 |
mixture of single and double lepton triggers. The trigger
|
| 6 |
efficiency is very high because for most of the phase space
|
| 7 |
we have two leptons each of which can fire a single lepton
|
| 8 |
trigger -- and the single lepton triggers are very efficient.
|
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
We apply to MC events a simplified model of the trigger efficiency
|
| 11 |
as a function of dilepton species ($ee$, $e\mu$, $\mu\mu$), the $P_T$
|
| 12 |
of the individual leptons, and, in the case of muons, the $|\eta|$
|
| 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
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
\begin{itemize}
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
\item Muon and electron trigger turn-ons as a function of $P_T$
|
| 21 |
are infinitely sharp. {\color{red} Can we add references?}
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
\item All electron triggers with no ID have 100\%
|
| 24 |
efficiency for electrons passing our analysis cuts. {\color{red}
|
| 25 |
Can we add a reference? Pehaps the top documentation?}
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
\item Electron triggers with (Tight(er))CaloEleId have 100\%
|
| 28 |
efficiency with respect to our offline selection. This we
|
| 29 |
verified via tag-and-probe on $Z\to ee$.
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
\item Electron triggers with EleId have somewhat lower
|
| 32 |
efficiency. This was also measured by tag-and-probe.
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
\item The single muon trigger has zero efficiency for $|\eta|>2.1$.
|
| 35 |
This is conservative, the trigger efficiency here is of order
|
| 36 |
$\approx 40\%$.
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
\item If a muon in $|\eta|>2.1$ fails the single muon trigger, it
|
| 39 |
will also fail the double muon trigger.
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
\item The double muon trigger has efficiency
|
| 42 |
equal to the square of the single muon efficiency.
|
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
\item The $e\mu$ triggers have no efficiency if the muon has $|\eta|>2.1$.
|
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
\end{itemize}
|
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
The model also uses some luminosity fractions and some trigger
|
| 49 |
efficiencies.
|
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
\begin{itemize}
|
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
\item $\epsilon_{\mu}$=xx, the single muon trigger efficiency plateau.
|
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
\item $f9$=xx: fraction of data with the Mu9 trigger unprescaled.
|
| 56 |
(run$\le 147116$).
|
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
\item $f11$=xx fraction of data with the Mu9 trigger prescaled and
|
| 59 |
the Mu11 trigger unprescaled.
|
| 60 |
(147196 $\leq$ run $\leq$ 148058).
|
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
\item $e10$=xx: fraction of data with the 10 GeV unprescaled electron triggers.
|
| 63 |
(run$\le 139980$).
|
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
\item $e15$=xx: fraction of data with the 15 GeV unprescaled electron triggers.
|
| 66 |
(139980 $<$ run $\leq$ 144114).
|
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
\item $e17$=xx: fraction of data with the 100\% efficient 17 GeV unprescaled electron triggers.
|
| 69 |
(144114 $<$ run $\leq$ 147116).
|
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
\item $e17b$=xx: fraction of data with 17 GeV unprescaled electron triggers
|
| 72 |
with efficiency $\epsilon_e^b=90\%$ (as measured by tag-and-probe).
|
| 73 |
(147116 $<$ run $\leq$ 148058).
|
| 74 |
|
| 75 |
\item $emess$=xx: the remainder of the run with several different electron
|
| 76 |
triggers, all of $P_T>17$ GeV. For this period we measure the
|
| 77 |
luminosity-weighted
|
| 78 |
trigger efficiency $\epsilon(P_T)$ via tag and probe to be 99\%
|
| 79 |
($17<P_T<22$, 97\% ($22<P_T<27$), 98\% ($27<P_T<32$) and
|
| 80 |
100\% ($P_T>32$).
|
| 81 |
|
| 82 |
\end{itemize}
|
| 83 |
|
| 84 |
The full trigger efficiency model is described separately for
|
| 85 |
$ee$, $e\mu$, and $\mu\mu$.
|
| 86 |
|
| 87 |
\subsection{$ee$ efficiency model}
|
| 88 |
\label{sec:eemodel}
|
| 89 |
|
| 90 |
This is the easiest. Throughout the 2010 run we have always
|
| 91 |
had dielectron triggers with thresholds lower than our (20,10)
|
| 92 |
analysis thresholds. Since electron triggers are 100\% efficient,
|
| 93 |
the trigger efficiency for $ee$ is 100\%. We have verified that
|
| 94 |
the efficiency of the dielectron trigger is 100\% with respect
|
| 95 |
to the single electron trigger using $Z \to ee$ data.
|
| 96 |
|
| 97 |
\subsection{$\mu\mu$ efficiency model}
|
| 98 |
\label{sec:mmmodel}
|
| 99 |
|
| 100 |
We consider different cases.
|
| 101 |
|
| 102 |
\subsubsection{Both muons in $|\eta|<2.1$ and with $P_T>15$ GeV}
|
| 103 |
This is the bulk of the $\mu\mu$.
|
| 104 |
|
| 105 |
\begin{center}
|
| 106 |
$\epsilon = 1 - (1-\epsilon_{\mu})^2$
|
| 107 |
\end{center}
|
| 108 |
|
| 109 |
\subsubsection{Both muons in $|\eta|<2.1$, one muon with $11<P_T<15$ GeV}
|
| 110 |
In this case there must be a muon with $P_T>20$ GeV. The single muon
|
| 111 |
trigger is operative for the full dataset on this muon. Some loss
|
| 112 |
of efficiency can be recovered when the 2nd muon fires the trigger.
|
| 113 |
But this can happen only for a fraction of the run. The dimuon trigger
|
| 114 |
cannot fire in our model to recover any of the efficiency lost by
|
| 115 |
the single muon trigger on the high $P_T$ muon.
|
| 116 |
|
| 117 |
\begin{center}
|
| 118 |
$\epsilon = \epsilon_{\mu} + (1-\epsilon_{\mu})\epsilon_{\mu}(f9+f11)$
|
| 119 |
\end{center}
|
| 120 |
|
| 121 |
\subsubsection{Both muons in $|\eta|<2.1$, one muon with $10<P_T<11$ GeV}
|
| 122 |
Same basic idea as above.
|
| 123 |
|
| 124 |
\begin{center}
|
| 125 |
$\epsilon = \epsilon_{\mu} + (1-\epsilon_{\mu})\epsilon_{\mu}f9$
|
| 126 |
\end{center}
|
| 127 |
|
| 128 |
\subsubsection{Both muons with $|\eta|>2.1$}
|
| 129 |
This is a very small fraction of events. In our model they can only be
|
| 130 |
triggered by the dimuon trigger.
|
| 131 |
|
| 132 |
\begin{center}
|
| 133 |
$\epsilon = \epsilon_{\mu}^2$
|
| 134 |
\end{center}
|
| 135 |
|
| 136 |
\subsubsection{First muon with $P_T>15$ and $|\eta|<2.1$; second muon
|
| 137 |
with $|\eta|>2.1$}
|
| 138 |
The single muon trigger is always operative. If it fails the double muon
|
| 139 |
trigger also fails.
|
| 140 |
|
| 141 |
\begin{center}
|
| 142 |
$\epsilon = \epsilon_{\mu}$
|
| 143 |
\end{center}
|
| 144 |
|
| 145 |
\subsubsection{First muon with $11<P_T<15$ and $|\eta|<2.1$; second muon
|
| 146 |
with $|\eta|>2.1$}
|
| 147 |
The single muon trigger is operative only for a fraction of the run.
|
| 148 |
For the remaining fraction, we must rely on the double muon trigger.
|
| 149 |
|
| 150 |
\begin{center}
|
| 151 |
$\epsilon = (f9+f11)\epsilon_{\mu} + (1-f9-f11)\epsilon_{\mu}^2$
|
| 152 |
\end{center}
|
| 153 |
|
| 154 |
\subsubsection{First muon with $10<P_T<11$ and $|\eta|<2.1$; second muon
|
| 155 |
with $|\eta|>2.1$}
|
| 156 |
Same basic idea as above.
|
| 157 |
|
| 158 |
\begin{center}
|
| 159 |
$\epsilon = f9~\epsilon_{\mu} + (1-f9)\epsilon_{\mu}^2$
|
| 160 |
\end{center}
|
| 161 |
|
| 162 |
\subsection{$e\mu$ efficiency model}
|
| 163 |
\label{sec:emumodel}
|
| 164 |
|
| 165 |
This is the most complicated case. The idea is that the muon trigger
|
| 166 |
is used to get the bulk of the efficiency. Then the single electron
|
| 167 |
trigger(s) and the $e\mu$ triggers are used to get back dome of the
|
| 168 |
efficiency loss. The various cases are listed below.
|
| 169 |
|
| 170 |
\subsubsection{Muon with $|\eta|<2.1$ and $P_T>15$}
|
| 171 |
This is the bulk of the acceptance.
|
| 172 |
|
| 173 |
\begin{center}
|
| 174 |
$\epsilon = \epsilon_{\mu} + (1-\epsilon_{\mu})\Delta_1$
|
| 175 |
\end{center}
|
| 176 |
|
| 177 |
where $\Delta_1$ is the efficiency from the electron trigger:
|
| 178 |
\begin{itemize}
|
| 179 |
\item $P_T(ele)<15 \to \Delta_1=e10$
|
| 180 |
\item $15<P_T(ele)<17 \to \Delta_1=e10+e15$
|
| 181 |
\item $P_T(ele)>15 \to \Delta_1=e10+e15+e17+\epsilon_e^b~e17b+\epsilon(P_T)~emess$
|
| 182 |
\end{itemize}
|
| 183 |
|
| 184 |
|
| 185 |
\subsubsection{Muon with $|\eta|<2.1$ and $11<P_T>15$}
|
| 186 |
|
| 187 |
This is the similar to the previous case, except that the muon
|
| 188 |
trigger is operative only for a subset of the data taking period.
|
| 189 |
|
| 190 |
\begin{center}
|
| 191 |
$\epsilon = (f11+f9)\epsilon_{\mu} + \Delta_2 + \Delta_3$
|
| 192 |
\end{center}
|
| 193 |
|
| 194 |
Here $\Delta_2$ is associated with the period where the muon
|
| 195 |
trigger was at 15 GeV, in which case we use electron triggers or
|
| 196 |
$e\mu$ triggers. Note that the electron in this case must be
|
| 197 |
above 20 GeV. This can happen only in the latter part of the run,
|
| 198 |
thus we write
|
| 199 |
\begin{center}
|
| 200 |
$\Delta_2 = (1-f11-f9)~(\epsilon_{\mu}~+~
|
| 201 |
(1-\epsilon_{\mu})\epsilon(P_T))$
|
| 202 |
\end{center}
|
| 203 |
\noindent where the first term is for the $e\mu$ trigger and the
|
| 204 |
second term corresponds to $e\mu$ trigger failures, in which case we have
|
| 205 |
to rely on the electron trigger.
|
| 206 |
|
| 207 |
Then, $\Delta_3$ is associated with muon trigger failures in early runs,
|
| 208 |
{\em i.e.}, run $<148819$. In this case the electron trigger picks it
|
| 209 |
up and the $e\mu$ trigger does not help.
|
| 210 |
|
| 211 |
\begin{center}
|
| 212 |
$\Delta_3 = (f11+f9)(1-\epsilon_{\mu}) \cdot \epsilon_e$
|
| 213 |
\end{center}
|
| 214 |
|
| 215 |
\noindent where $\epsilon_e$ is the efficiency of the electron
|
| 216 |
trigger for $P_T>20$. This is 100\% up to run 147716 (fraction
|
| 217 |
$(e10_e15+e17)/(f11+f9)$; then it is somewhat lower up to
|
| 218 |
run 148058, then it becomes very close to 100\% again.
|
| 219 |
For this latter part of the run we approximate it as $\epsilon_e^b$.
|
| 220 |
Thus:
|
| 221 |
|
| 222 |
\begin{center}
|
| 223 |
$\epsilon_e = (e10_e15+e17)/(f11+f9) +
|
| 224 |
\epsilon_e^b(f11+f9-e10-e15-e17)/(f11+f9)$
|
| 225 |
\end{center}
|
| 226 |
|
| 227 |
\subsubsection{Muon with $|\eta|<2.1$ and $9<P_T>11$}
|
| 228 |
|
| 229 |
Identical to the previous case, but replace $(f11+f9)$ with $f9$ everywhere.
|
| 230 |
|
| 231 |
\subsubsection{Muon with $|\eta|>2.1$}
|
| 232 |
|
| 233 |
This is a 10\% effect to start with. We assume no single muon efficiency,
|
| 234 |
no $e\mu$ efficiency. Then we can only ise the single electron trigger.
|
| 235 |
|
| 236 |
\begin{center}
|
| 237 |
$\epsilon = \Delta_1$
|
| 238 |
\end{center} |
