Difference: DWPhysicsAnalysis (2 vs. 3)

Revision 32008-09-03 - DenverWhittington

Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="DenverWhittington"

DWPhysicsAnalysis

Welcome to my analysis issues page. Here I've posted some of the issues I'm looking at and some of the questions I have. Feel free to leave comments if you have any.
Line: 6 to 6
 
Changed:
<
<

High-pT (or high-Sum-ET) top/anti-top identification and reconstruction

I'm looking to understand various issues of triggering and reconstruction performance in high-pT t-tbar production, working in Athena version 14. I'm focusing right now on the semi-leptonic (electron) decay mode, t t -> b e nu, b q q.
>
>

High-pT top/anti-top identification and reconstruction

I'm looking to understand various issues of triggering and reconstruction performance in high-pT t-tbar production, working in Athena version 14. I'm focusing right now on the semi-leptonic (electron) decay mode, t t -> b e nu, b q q.
 
Changed:
<
<
Right now I've been trying to compare the trigger and reco performance in version 14 with what was reported in the ATLAS CSC NOTE "Top quark physics at ATLAS" (using version 12).
>
>
Most recently I've been trying to compare the trigger and reco performance in version 14 with what was reported in the ATLAS CSC NOTE "Top quark physics at ATLAS" (using version 12).
 

Datasets

I've taken official evgen datasets and re-simulated, re-digitized, and re-reconstructed them in version 14 of Athena. I ended up using a couple of the AtlasTier0-14.2.10.Y releases, since those were collections of tags that I could find in 14.2.10.Y that would actually complete the simulation/digitization/reconstruction tasks, though I'm open to re-running these datasets in the version used for official production (whenever that is up and running).
Line: 18 to 18
 
  • Simulation & Digitization performed with AtlasTier0-14.2.10.2
  • Reconstruction (AOD) performed with AtlasTier0-14.2.10.8
Changed:
<
<

Monte-Carlo-level Event Acceptance Cuts

  • Only t -> b W, W -> q q & t -> b W, W -> e nu events accepted, based on MC truth
  • Detector acceptance cuts applied on b q q b e nu
>
>

Monte Carlo Event Acceptance Cuts

  • Only events with the decays t -> b W, W -> q q and t -> b W, W -> e nu are accepted, based on MC truth
  • Detector acceptance cuts applied on truth b q q b e nu:
 
    • Electron: |η| < 2.5, with 1.37 < |η| < 1.52 excluded (calorimeter crack veto)
    • b-quarks, quarks from W: |η| < 2.5
Line: 46 to 46
 
    • AND ≥ 3 Jets with pT > 40 GeV
  • Trigger: EF_e25i_loose
Added:
>
>

Event Selection Efficiencies

I've duplicated the efficiency calculations for the various event selection criteria listed above. Each column contains the efficiency for events in the tt->benubqq MC subset to pass the indicated event selection criterion. The final column represents a logical AND of the five selection criteria. I'm seeing a marked reduction in the efficiency of the EF_e25i_loose trigger (which I take to be the closest to the CSC note's e25i trigger) which I do not understand. There is no matching done of the object which fires the trigger to either truth objects or objects reconstructed by the offline algorithms; this is simply the efficiency for the event to pass the EF_e25i_loose trigger in whatever way it pleases.

  Number of
Events
Trigger
EF_e25i_loose
Electron MET 4 Jets 20 4 Jets 20
& 3 Jets 40
Combined Efficiency
(logical AND)
CSC Note   52.9% 52.0% 91.0% 70.7% 61.9% 18.2%
SM 5200 4343 28.4% 72.5% 90.1% 60.1% 45.1% 9.8%
 -- DenverWhittington - 03 Sep 2008

\ No newline at end of file

 
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright & 2008-2019 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback