EgammaTriggerCSCPlots
Caption:
\lone\ rate for single e/$\gamma$ triggers for a luminosity of
\lum \begL. The open correspond to non-isolated triggers. Errors are
statistical only.
Caption:
\lone\ rate for double e/$\gamma$ triggers for a luminosity of
\lum \begL. The open correspond to non-isolated triggers. Errors are
statistical only
Caption:
Ratio of trigger efficiencies for single electrons reconstruction in
misaligned and ideal detector geometry
as a function of true electron $|\eta|$ for the e10 menu item.
Events in the $|\eta|$ plot are required to verify \et\ $>15$ \gev.
Errors are statistical only.
Caption:
Ratio of trigger efficiencies for single electrons reconstruction in
misaligned and ideal detector geometry
as a function of true electron \et\ for the e10 menu item.
Errors are statistical only.
Caption:
Trigger efficiencies at \lone\ (solid circles),
\ltwo\ (open squares) and EF (solid triangles) as a function of true electron $|\eta|$ e10 menu item. The efficiency is obtained
from the following \MC\ simulated sample:
single electrons simulated with ideal detector geometry for e10.
Trigger efficiencies
are normalized
with respect to the medium set of offline electron cuts for e10
For trigger efficiency versus $|\eta|$ plots, an \et\ cut according to the corresponding menu item has been applied:
for e10 \et\ $>15$ \gev,
Errors are statistical only.
Caption:
Trigger robustness against inactive material.] {Effect of
additional inactive material in the detector on the electron trigger
efficiency. The trigger efficiency is compared for the nominal
material distribution (at $\phi<0$) and for increased inactive
material (at $\phi>0$) for the electron triggers e15i.
The efficiency is plotted as a function of
$\abseta$
of the electron candidate reconstructed offline. The left histograms
correspond to the e15i trigger only.
Errors are statistical only.
Caption:
Trigger efficiencies at \lone\ (solid circles),
\ltwo\ (open squares) and EF (solid triangles) as a function of true electron
$|\eta|$ for e20 menu item. The efficiencies are obtained
from the following \MC\ simulated samples:
single electrons simulated with ideal detector geometry for e20.
Trigger efficiencies
are normalized with respect
to the loose set of offline electron cuts for e20.
For trigger efficiency versus $|\eta|$ plots, an \et\ cut according to the corresponding menu item has been applied:
for e20 \et\ $>30$ \gev
Errors are statistical only.}
Caption:
Trigger efficiencies at \lone\ (solid circles),
\ltwo\ (open squares) and EF (solid triangles) as a function of true electron
|\et| for e20 menu item. The efficiencies are obtained
from the following \MC\ simulated samples:
single electrons simulated with ideal detector geometry for e20.
Trigger efficiencies
are normalized with respect
to the loose set of offline electron cuts for e20.
Errors are statistical only.}
Caption:
{Trigger efficiencies at \lone\/, \ltwo\ and EF as a function of true electron \etfor the e22i menu item. The efficiencies are obtained for
single electrons using ideal detector geometry
and are normalized with respect to loose set of offline electron cuts.
Errors are statistical only.
Caption:
Selection variables for cluster-track match.]
{ \ef\ electron selection variables based on the combined calorimeter and inner detector information.
the difference in $\eta$ between the cluster and track (extrapolated to calorimeter) position.
Distributions are shown for signal (solid line, hatched histogram) and background (dashed line, hollow histogram). The reconstructed electrons come from a
$7<E_{T}<80$~GeV sample.
The background candidates come
from a filtered
dijet
simulated sample, only candidates with no match to a truth
electron within a \deltar\ cone of 0.1 rad are selected.
Caption:
Selection variables for cluster-track match.
\ef\ electron selection variables based on the combined calorimeter and inner detector information.
the difference in $\phi$ between the cluster and track (extrapolated to calorimeter) position.
Distributions are shown for signal (solid line, hatched histogram) and background (dashed line, hollow histogram). The reconstructed electrons come from a
$7<E_{T}<80$~GeV sample.
The background candidates come
from a filtered
dijet
simulated sample, only candidates with no match to a truth
electron within a \deltar\ cone of 0.1 rad are selected.
Caption:
Selection variables for cluster-track match.
\ef\ electron selection variables based on the combined calorimeter and inner detector information.
Ratio of the \et\ of the EM cluster and the \pt\ of the reconstructed tracks
Distributions are shown for signal (solid line, hatched histogram) and background (dashed line, hollow histogram). The reconstructed electrons come from a
$7<E_{T}<80$~GeV sample.
The background candidates come
from a filtered
dijet
simulated sample, only candidates with no match to a truth
electron within a \deltar\ cone of 0.1 rad are selected.
Caption:
\lone\ isolation variables for single electrons with an \et\ between 7 and 80 GeV
with a flat distribution
(solid line, hatched histogram). In comparison, background
candidates from the \et $ > 17$~GeV dijet sample
are shown (dashed line, hollow histogram).
For the background, only clusters that do not match to a true electron within a \deltarcone of 0.1 are considered.
The distributions for electromagnetic isolation is shown.
Caption:
\lone\ isolation variables for single electrons with an \et\ between 7 and 80 GeV
with a flat distribution
(solid line, hatched histogram). In comparison, background
candidates from the \et $ > 17$~GeV dijet sample
are shown (dashed line, hollow histogram).
For the background, only clusters that do not match to a true electron within a \deltarcone of 0.1 are considered.
The distributions for hadronic core energy is shown.
Caption:
\lone\ isolation variables for single electrons with an \et\ between 7 and 80 GeV
with a flat distribution
(solid line, hatched histogram). In comparison, background
candidates from the \et $ > 17$~GeV dijet sample
are shown (dashed line, hollow histogram).
For the background, only clusters that do not match to a true electron within a \deltarcone of 0.1 are considered.
Distributions for hadronic isolation.
Caption:
[Selection variables for \ltwo\ cluster-track match.]
\ltwo\ electron selection variables based on the combined calorimeter and inner detector information.
Ratio of the \et\ of the EM cluster and the \pt\ of the reconstructed tracks.
Distributions are shown for signal (solid line, hatched histogram) and background (dashed line, hollow histogram). The reconstructed electrons come from a
$7<E_{T}<80$~GeV sample.
The background candidates come
from a filtered
dijet
simulated sample, only candidates with no match to a truth
electron within a \deltar\ cone of 0.1 rad are selected.
Caption:
[Selection variables for \ltwo\ cluster-track match.]
\ltwo\ electron selection variables based on the combined calorimeter and inner detector information.
The difference in $\eta$ (left) between the cluster and track (extrapolated to calorimeter) position.
Distributions are shown for signal (solid line, hatched histogram) and background (dashed line, hollow histogram). The reconstructed electrons come from a
$7<E_{T}<80$~GeV sample.
The background candidates come
from a filtered
dijet
simulated sample, only candidates with no match to a truth
electron within a \deltar\ cone of 0.1 rad are selected.
Caption:
[Selection variables for \ltwo\ cluster-track match.]
\ltwo\ electron selection variables based on the combined calorimeter and inner detector information.
The difference in $\phi$ between the cluster and track (extrapolated to calorimeter) position.
Distributions are shown for signal (solid line, hatched histogram) and background (dashed line, hollow histogram). The reconstructed electrons come from a
$7<E_{T}<80$~GeV sample.
The background candidates come
from a filtered
dijet
simulated sample, only candidates with no match to a truth
electron within a \deltar\ cone of 0.1 rad are selected.
Caption:
Trigger efficiencies at \lone\/, \ltwo\ and EF as a function of
the generated photon $|\eta|$ for
the $\gamma 20$ trigger. The efficiencies are obtained for
single photons simulated with ideal detector geometry and are normalized
with respect to the loose set of offline photon cuts.
Note, the $|\eta|$ plot includes an additional cut of $\et\ > 23$ \gev.
Errors are statistical only.
Caption:
Trigger efficiencies at \lone\/, \ltwo\ and EF as a function of
the generated photon Et for
the $\gamma 20$ trigger. The efficiencies are obtained for
single photons simulated with ideal detector geometry and are normalized
with respect to the loose set of offline photon cuts.
Errors are statistical only.
Caption:
Trigger efficiencies at \lone\/, \ltwo\ and EF as a function of
the generated photon $|\eta|$ for the $\gamma 55$ trigger.
The efficiencies
are normalized with respect to photons with $\et\ >55$ \gev passing the
loose set of offline photon cuts.
Errors are statistical only.
Caption:
Trigger efficiencies at \lone\/, \ltwo\ and EF as a function of
the generated photon Et for the $\gamma 55$ trigger.
The efficiencies
are normalized with respect to photons with $\et\ >55$ \gev passing the
loose set of offline photon cuts.
Errors are statistical only.
Caption:
Trigger efficiencies at \lone\/, \ltwo\ and EF as a function of
the generated photon $|\eta|$ for
the $\gamma 20$ trigger. The efficiencies are obtained for
single photons simulated with ideal detector geometry and are normalized
with respect to the loose set of offline photon cuts.
Note, the $|\eta|$ plot includes an additional cut of $\et\ > 23$ \gev.
Errors are statistical only.
Caption:
Trigger efficiencies at \lone\/, \ltwo\ and EF as a function of
the generated photon Et for
the $\gamma 20$ trigger. The efficiencies are obtained for
single photons simulated with ideal detector geometry and are normalized
with respect to the loose set of offline photon cuts.
Note, the $|\eta|$ plot includes an additional cut of $\et\ > 23$ \gev.
Errors are statistical only.
Caption:
Trigger efficiencies at \lone\ (solid circles),
\ltwo\ (open squares) and EF (solid triangles) as a function of true electron Et for e10 menu item. The efficiencies are obtained
from the following \MC\ simulated samples:
single electrons simulated with ideal detector geometry.
Trigger efficiencies
are normalized
with respect to the medium set of offline electron cuts for e10.
Errors are statistical only.
Caption:
\lone\ calorimeter trigger schema, showing how
trigger towers (each spanning a $0.1 \times 0.1$ $\eta \times \phi$ region)
are used to determine the energy
for the electromagnetic cluster as well as for the electromagnetic isolation,
hadronic core and hadronic isolation.
Caption:
\lone\ calorimeter trigger schema, showing how
trigger towers (each spanning a $0.1 \times 0.1$ $\eta \times \phi$ region)
are used to determine the energy
for the electromagnetic cluster as well as for the electromagnetic isolation,
hadronic core and hadronic isolation.
Caption:
Trigger efficiency dependency on the offline electron identification.
Trigger efficiency for the e15i signature is determined with respect to loose, medium and tight
offline electron identification selection (described in \protect\cite{CSC-EG-01}).
Errors are statistical only.
Caption:
Trigger efficiencies at \lone\ (solid circles),
\ltwo\ (open squares) and EF (solid triangles) as a function of true electron $|\eta|$ for the e5 menu item. The efficiencies are obtained
from the following \MC\ simulated samples:
$J/\psi\rightarrow ee$ decays simulated with misaligned detector geometry for e5 trigger item.
Trigger efficiencies
are normalized with respect to the medium set of offline soft-electron cuts for e5.
For trigger efficiency versus $|\eta|$ plots, an \et\ cut according to the corresponding menu item has been applied:
for e5 \et\ $>10$ \gev.
For e5 trigger item no data is shown for electrons for $|\eta|>2$ as this is beyond
the coverage of the transition radiation tracker whose information is used for the offline electron
selection.
Errors are statistical only.
*Caption:*Trigger efficiencies at \lone\ (solid circles),
\ltwo\ (open squares) and EF (solid triangles) as a function of true electron Et for the e5 menu item. The efficiencies are obtained
from the following \MC\ simulated samples:
$J/\psi\rightarrow ee$ decays simulated with misaligned detector geometry for e5 trigger item.
Trigger efficiencies
are normalized with respect to the medium set of offline soft-electron cuts for e5.
For e5 trigger item no data is shown for electrons for $|\eta|>2$ as this is beyond
the coverage of the transition radiation tracker whose information is used for the offline electron
selection.
Errors are statistical only.
Caption:
[Trigger robustness against inactive material.] {Effect of
additional inactive material in the detector on the electron trigger
efficiency. The trigger efficiency is compared for the nominal
material distribution (at $\phi<0$) and for increased inactive
material (at $\phi>0$) for the electron triggers e10 and e15i.
The efficiency is plotted as a function of Et
of the electron candidate reconstructed offline.
Errors are statistical only.
Caption:
[Selection variables for \ltwo\ cluster.]
Selection variables for a \ltwo\ calorimeter energy cluster. The distributions are shown
for signal candidates from a simulated $H \rightarrow \gamma \gamma$ sample (dashed line) and
for dijet background candidates that do not have a photon or electron
matched within a \deltar\ cone of 0.1 and that have at least 1 jet
with \et $ > 17$ \GeV\ (black solid line). Both distributions have
been normalized to unity. The plot shows the transverse energy of
the EM cluster.
Caption:
[Selection variables for \ltwo\ cluster.]
Selection variables for a \ltwo\ calorimeter energy cluster. The distributions are shown
for signal candidates from a simulated $H \rightarrow \gamma \gamma$ sample (dashed line) and
for dijet background candidates that do not have a photon or electron
matched within a \deltar\ cone of 0.1 and that have at least 1 jet
with \et $ > 17$ \GeV\ (black solid line). Both distributions have
been normalized to unity.
The plot shows the
transverse energy deposited in the first
layer of the hadronic calorimeter.
Caption:
[Selection variables for \ltwo\ cluster.]
Selection variables for a \ltwo\ calorimeter energy cluster. The distributions are shown
for signal candidates from a simulated $H \rightarrow \gamma \gamma$ sample (dashed line) and
for dijet background candidates that do not have a photon or electron
matched within a \deltar\ cone of 0.1 and that have at least 1 jet
with \et $ > 17$ \GeV\ (black solid line). Both distributions have
been normalized to unity.
The plot shows the shower shape in the
$\eta$ direction in the second EM sampling ($R_{core}$)
Caption:
[Selection variables for \ltwo\ cluster.]
Selection variables for a \ltwo\ calorimeter energy cluster. The distributions are shown
for signal candidates from a simulated $H \rightarrow \gamma \gamma$ sample (dashed line) and
for dijet background candidates that do not have a photon or electron
matched within a \deltar\ cone of 0.1 and that have at least 1 jet
with \et $ > 17$ \GeV\ (black solid line). Both distributions have
been normalized to unity.
The plot shows the ratio between the difference of the first and second energy maximum and their addition
($R_{strips}$).
Caption:
[Trigger efficiency from the \tandp\ method with $Z \to ee$ for the item e20.]
{Trigger efficiency from the \tandp\ method with $Z \to ee$ for the e20 trigger signature.
The efficiencies are shown \wrt\ a tight offline electron
selection as described in \protect\cite{CSC-EG-01}, as a function
of the reconstructed $\eta$.
The \tandp\ method (points) is compared with the \mctruth method (solid line) for all three trigger levels, \lone\ (solid
circles), \ltwo\ (open triangles),
and the EF (solid squares).
The number of
$Z \to ee$ events used corresponds to 100\pb.
Caption:
[Trigger efficiency from the \tandp\ method with $Z \to ee$ for the item e20.]
{Trigger efficiency from the \tandp\ method with $Z \to ee$ for the e20 trigger signature.
The efficiencies are shown \wrt\ a tight offline electron
selection as described in \protect\cite{CSC-EG-01}, as a function
of the reconstructed Et.
The \tandp\ method (points) is compared with the \mctruth method (solid line) for all three trigger levels, \lone\ (solid
circles), \ltwo\ (open triangles),
and the EF (solid squares).
The number of
$Z \to ee$ events used corresponds to 100\pb.
Caption:
[Trigger efficiency from the \tandp\ method with $Z \to ee$ for the item e20.]
{Trigger efficiency from the \tandp\ method with $Z \to ee$ for the e20 trigger signature.
The efficiencies are shown \wrt\ a tight offline electron
selection as described in \protect\cite{CSC-EG-01}.
The fractional efficiency difference (see
Eq.~\ref{eq::TagAndProbe:FracEffDiff}) between the \tandp\ and
\mctruth\ as a function of reconstructed eta is shown. The number of
$Z \to ee$ events used corresponds to 100\pb.
Caption:
[Trigger efficiency from the \tandp\ method with $Z \to ee$ for the item e20.]
{Trigger efficiency from the \tandp\ method with $Z \to ee$ for the e20 trigger signature.
The efficiencies are shown \wrt\ a tight offline electron
selection as described in \protect\cite{CSC-EG-01}.
The fractional efficiency difference (see
Eq.~\ref{eq::TagAndProbe:FracEffDiff}) between the \tandp\ and
\mctruth\ as a function of reconstructed Et is shown. The number of
$Z \to ee$ events used corresponds to 100\pb.
Caption:
Single object tag and probe efficiencies for the e10 selection of the 2e10
trigger signature. The efficiencies shown are relative to a tight offline electron identification
selection as described in \protect\cite{CSC-EG-01}, as a function
of the reconstructed $\eta$. The plot shows the fractional efficiency difference (see
Equation~\ref{eq::TagAndProbe:FracEffDiff}) between the two. The
number of events used corresponds to 50~\ipb. For this figure,
the invariant mass cut is $70<\mass{\mathrm{e}}<100~\gev$.
Errors are statistical only.
A signal sample of \zee\ \MC\ simulation without background was used to obtain these results.
Caption:
Single object tag and probe efficiencies for the e10 selection of the 2e10
trigger signature. The efficiencies shown are relative to a tight offline electron identification
selection as described in \protect\cite{CSC-EG-01}, as a function
of the reconstructed Et. The plot shows the fractional efficiency difference (see
Equation~\ref{eq::TagAndProbe:FracEffDiff}) between the two. The
number of events used corresponds to 50~\ipb. For this figure,
the invariant mass cut is $70<\mass{\mathrm{e}}<100~\gev$.
Errors are statistical only.
A signal sample of \zee\ \MC\ simulation without background was used to obtain these results.
Caption:
Single object tag and probe efficiencies for the e10 selection of the 2e10
trigger signature. The efficiencies shown are relative to a tight offline electron identification
selection as described in \protect\cite{CSC-EG-01}, as a function
of the reconstructed $\eta$. The tag and
probe method (points) is compared to MC truth (lines). The
number of events used corresponds to 50~\ipb. For this figure,
the invariant mass cut is $70<\mass{\mathrm{e}}<100~\gev$.
Errors are statistical only.
A signal sample of \zee\ \MC\ simulation without background was used to obtain these results.
Caption:
Single object tag and probe efficiencies for the e10 selection of the 2e10
trigger signature. The efficiencies shown are relative to a tight offline electron identification
selection as described in \protect\cite{CSC-EG-01}, as a function
of the reconstructed Et. The tag and
probe method (points) is compared to MC truth (lines). The
number of events used corresponds to 50~\ipb. For this figure,
the invariant mass cut is $70<\mass{\mathrm{e}}<100~\gev$.
Errors are statistical only.
A signal sample of \zee\ \MC\ simulation without background was used to obtain these results.
Caption:
Trigger efficiencies at \lone\ (solid circles),
\ltwo\ (open squares) and EF (solid triangles) as a function of true electron $|\eta|$ for the e105 menu item. The efficiencies are obtained
from the following \MC\ simulated samples:
\zprimeee\ (1\TeV ) for e105.
Trigger efficiencies
are normalized with respect to the loose set of offline electron cuts.
For trigger efficiency versus $|\eta|$ plots, an \et\ cut according to the corresponding menu item has been applied:
for e105 \et\ $>130$ \gev.
Errors are statistical only.
Caption:
Trigger efficiencies at \lone\ (solid circles),
\ltwo\ (open squares) and EF (solid triangles) as a function of true electron Et for the e105 menu item. The efficiencies are obtained
from the following \MC\ simulated samples:
\zprimeee\ (1\TeV ) for e105.
Trigger efficiencies
are normalized with respect to the loose set of offline electron cuts.
Errors are statistical only.
Major updates:
-- TeresaFonsecaMartin - 11 Jun 2009 Responsible: TeresaFonsecaMartin
Last reviewed by: Never reviewed
Topic revision: r6 - 2010-12-06 - ElmarRitsch
ATLAS 
Internal TWiki
Changes
Notifications
RSS Feed
Account 
Copyright &© 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