# Public Egamma Trigger Plots for Collision Data

## Introduction

Approved plots that can be shown by ATLAS speakers at conferences and similar events. Please do not add figures on your own. Contact the responsible project leader in case of questions and/or suggestions. Follow the guidelines on the trigger public results page.

## 2018 Data @ 13 TeV

### Single electron trigger efficiencies for 2018 (with scale-factors) and full Run 2 ATL-COM-DAQ-2019-049

* ATL-COM-DAQ-2019-049

 Efficiency of the lowest unprescaled single electron trigger combination (logical OR of HLT_e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose, HLT_e60_lhmedium_nod0 and HLT_e140_lhloose_nod0) in 2018 data, compared to Z→ ee Powheg Pythia Monte Carlo. A total of 47.8 fb-1 of proton-proton collision data at a center-of-mass energy of √ s = 13 TeV is used. The efficiency is given as a function of the offline electron transverse energy, ET , where the offline electron fulfills a tight offline identification requirement as well as a tight offline isolation requirement (FCTight isolation working point). The η dependency is integrated between |η| < 2.47, for μ the integration is done over its full range. The efficiency is determined using a Z tag-and-probe method. The vertical error bars show statistical and systematic uncertainties on the efficiency, obtained as described in ATLAS Collaboration, arxiv: 1902.04655. The horizontal error bars reflect the bin width. No background subtraction is applied. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of the lowest unprescaled single electron trigger combination (logical OR of HLT_e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose, HLT_e60_lhmedium_nod0 and HLT_e140_lhloose_nod0) in 2018 data, compared to Z→ ee Powheg Pythia Monte Carlo. A total of 47.8 fb-1 of proton-proton collision data at a center-of-mass energy of √ s = 13 TeV is used. The efficiency is given as a function of the offline electron pseudorapidity, η, where the offline electron fulfills a tight offline identification requirement as well as a tight offline isolation requirement (FCTight isolation working point). The ET dependency is integrated above 27 GeV, for μ the integration is done over its full range. The efficiency is determined using a Z tag-and-probe method. The vertical error bars show statistical and systematic uncertainties on the efficiency, obtained as described in ATLAS Collaboration, arxiv: 1902.04655. The horizontal error bars reflect the bin width. No background subtraction is applied. [png] [eps] [pdf] Trigger efficiency in 2018 data over the corresponding Z→ ee Powheg Pythia Monte Carlo value of the lowest unprescaled single electron trigger combination (logical OR of HLT_e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose, HLT_e60_lhmedium_nod0 and HLT_e140_lhloose_nod0). The ratio is shown in dependency of the offline electron transverse energy ET and pseudorapidity η. The electron is required to fulfill the tight offline identification working point as well as a tight offline isolation requirement (FCTight offline isolation working point). The value shown is the central value of the ratio, which is gained in an average over all systematic variations. No uncertainty on the value is given here. Background subtraction is applied to calculate the ratio. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of the lowest unprescaled single electron trigger combination in 2015 (logical OR of HLT_e24_lhmedium_L1EM20VH, HLT_e60_lhmedium and HLT_e120_lhloose) and 2016-2018 (logical OR of HLT_e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose, HLT_e60_lhmedium_nod0 and HLT_e140_lhloose_nod0) data, compared to Z→ ee Powheg Pythia Monte Carlo. A total of 47.8 fb-1 of proton-proton collision data at a center-of-mass energy of √ s = 13 TeV is used for 2018 data, whereas for 2015, 2016 and 2017 3.2 fb-1, 32.9 fb-1 and 43.9fb-1 are used, respectively. The efficiency is given as a function of the offline electron transverse energy, ET, where the offline electron fulfills a tight offline identification requirement as well as a tight offline isolation requirement (FCTight isolation working point). The η dependency is integrated between |η| < 2.47, for μ the integration is done over its full range. The efficiency is determined using a Z tag-and-probe method. The vertical error bars show statistical and systematic uncertainties on the efficiency, obtained as described in ATLAS Collaboration, arxiv: 1902.04655. No background subtraction is applied. The horizontal error bars reflect the bin width. The trigger efficiency in 2015 is highest because no online isolation requirement and a looser online identification requirement was applied. The inefficiency observed in 2016 is due to too stringent online identification optimisation with respect to the previous offline selection criteria. The efficiency improvements in 2017-2018 are due to usage of more effective online algorithms (introduction of neural network based ringer selection) which allowed better alignment of the online selection (looser track-calorimeter matching, removal of likelihood-only calorimeter selection) with the final offline selection for Run 2. [png] [eps] [pdf]

### Electron and photon trigger efficiencies measured on early 2018 data for LHCC ATL-COM-DAQ-2018-049

* ATL-COM-DAQ-2018-049

 Efficiency of the tight, isolated electron trigger, ET > 28 GeV (HLT_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose) as a function of the offline electron candidate’s transverse energy (ET) in 534 pb-1 of data taken in an early run in 2018 with 2544 colliding bunches and <μ> = 35.1 (black circles) and in 688 pb-1 of data taken in a late 2017 run with 1866 colliding bunches and <μ> = 39.9 (red triangles) as a reference. At the Level-1 an isolated electromagnetic cluster with ET > 24 GeV is required. At the HLT, the trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 28 GeV satisfying the likelihood-based tight identification without applying transverse impact parameter requirements but applying variable-size cone isolation. The offline reconstructed electron is required to pass a likelihood-based tight identification and a loose track and calorimeter isolation. The efficiencies were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z→ ee decays in data. No background subtraction is applied. The error bars show statistical uncertainties. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of the tight, isolated electron trigger, ET > 28 GeV (HLT_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose) as a function of the offline electron candidate’s pseudo-rapidity (η) in 534 pb-1 of data taken in an early run in 2018 with 2544 colliding bunches and <μ> = 35.1 (black circles) and in 688 pb-1 of data taken in a late 2017 run with 1866 colliding bunches and <μ> = 39.9 (red triangles) as a reference. At the Level-1 an isolated electromagnetic cluster with ET > 24 GeV is required. At the HLT, the trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 28 GeV satisfying the likelihood-based tight identification without applying transverse impact parameter requirements but applying variable-size cone isolation. The offline reconstructed electron is required to pass a likelihood-based tight identification and a loose track and calorimeter isolation. Only offline candidates with ET > 29 GeV are considered. The efficiencies were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z→ ee decays in data. No background subtraction is applied. The error bars show statistical uncertainties. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of the tight, isolated electron trigger, ET > 28 GeV (HLT_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose) as a function of the average interactions per bunch crossing (<μ>) in 534 pb-1 of data taken in an early run in 2018 with 2544 colliding bunches and <μ> = 35.1 (black circles) and in 688 pb-1 of data taken in a late 2017 run with 1866 colliding bunches and <μ> = 39.9 (red triangles) as a reference. At the Level-1 an isolated electromagnetic cluster with ET > 24 GeV is required. At the HLT, the trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 28 GeV satisfying the likelihood-based tight identification without applying transverse impact parameter requirements but applying variable-size cone isolation. The offline reconstructed electron is required to pass a likelihood-based tight identification and a loose track and calorimeter isolation. Only offline candidates with ET > 29 GeV are considered. The efficiencies were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z→ ee decays in data. No background subtraction is applied. The error bars show statistical uncertainties. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of the Medium photon trigger, ET > 25 GeV (HLT_g25_medium_L1EM20VH) as a function of the offline photon candidate’s transverse energy (ET) in 534 pb-1 of data taken in an early run in 2018 with 2544 colliding bunches and <μ> = 35.1 (black circles) and in 688 pb-1 of data taken in a late 2017 run with 1866 colliding bunches and <μ> = 39.9 (red triangles) as a reference. At the Level-1 a veto on the hadronic energy and a cluster with ET > 20 GeV is required. At the HLT, the trigger requires a photon candidate with ET > 25 GeV satisfying the cut-based medium photon identification. The offline reconstructed photon is required to pass a tight identification, to be isolated and outside the transition region between the barrel and endcap electromagnetic calorimeters at 1.37 < |η| < 1.52. The efficiencies were measured on events triggered by either a loose and lower ET HLT trigger or by a L1-only trigger. No background subtraction is applied. The error bars show statistical uncertainties [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of the Medium photon trigger, ET > 25 GeV (HLT_g25_medium_L1EM20VH) as a function of the offline photon candidate’s pseudo-rapidity (η) in 534 pb-1 of data taken in an early run in 2018 with 2544 colliding bunches and <μ> = 35.1 (black circles) and in 688 pb-1 of data taken in a late 2017 run with 1866 colliding bunches and <μ> = 39.9 (red triangles) as a reference. At the Level-1 a veto on the hadronic energy and a cluster with ET > 20 GeV is required. At the HLT, the trigger requires a photon candidate with ET > 25 GeV satisfying the cut-based medium photon identification. The offline reconstructed photon is required to pass a tight identification, to be isolated and outside the transition region between the barrel and endcap electromagnetic calorimeters at 1.37 < |η| < 1.52. Only offline candidates with ET > 30 GeV are considered. The efficiencies were measured on events triggered by either a loose and lower ET HLT trigger or by a L1-only trigger. No background subtraction is applied. The error bars show statistical uncertainties [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of the Medium photon trigger, ET > 25 GeV (HLT_g25_medium_L1EM20VH) as a function of the average interactions per bunch crossing (<μ>) in 534 pb-1 of data taken in an early run in 2018 with 2544 colliding bunches and <μ> = 35.1 (black circles) and in 688 pb-1 of data taken in a late 2017 run with 1866 colliding bunches and <μ> = 39.9 (red triangles) as a reference. At the Level-1 a veto on the hadronic energy and a cluster with ET > 20 GeV is required. At the HLT, the trigger requires a photon candidate with ET > 25 GeV satisfying the cut-based medium photon identification. The offline reconstructed photon is required to pass a tight identification, to be isolated and outside the transition region between the barrel and endcap electromagnetic calorimeters at 1.37 < |μ| < 1.52. Only offline candidates with ET > 30 GeV are considered. The efficiencies were measured on events triggered by either a loose and lower ET HLT trigger or by a L1-only trigger. No background subtraction is applied. The error bars show statistical uncertainties [png] [eps] [pdf]

## 2017 Data @ 13 TeV

### Sources of inefficiency for single electron triggers with 2017 data ATL-COM-DAQ-2018-007

* ATL-COM-DAQ-2018-007

 Sources of inefficiency for the e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose trigger at each selection step in the High Level Trigger (HLT) with respect to the offline reconstruction and the corresponding Level-1 (L1) requirements in a data run taken in October 2017. Electron reconstruction at the HLT is performed in the Region of Interest provided by the L1 and proceeds via a series of sequential steps. First, a Fast Reconstruction and Selection is performed; this constitutes a fast calorimeter reconstruction and neural-network-based selection using shower shape information, followed by a fast track reconstruction and electron pre-selection in which, in addition to track quality requirements, the calorimeter-tracking position matching quantities are used. In the Precision Calo step, HLT clusters are reconstructed and then calibrated using a multivariate technique, mirroring the offline identification. Subsequently, Precision Tracks are reconstructed and extrapolated to the second layer of the EM calorimeter. Electron candidates are then constructed by matching clusters to these tracks. The Precision Electron identification primarily utilises a Likelihood Discriminant based on calorimeter cluster shower shape, tracking and track-cluster matching variables, in addition to a required minimum number of hits in the (first layer of the) Pixel detector, nPixel (nIBL ). The inset plot provides supplementary information on these contributions to the Precision Electron requirement, which are mutually non-exclusive. Additionally, isolation requirements on the Precision Electron candidate may be applied; if the candidate fails the Precision Electron selection but passes isolation, Precision Electron only is filled; if the candidate passes Precision Electron buts fails isolation, Isolation only is filled; if both fail, Combined Precision Electron & Isolation is filled. The L1 requirement for this trigger, EM22VHI, requires an isolated electromagnetic cluster with ET > 22 GeV. The offline reconstructed electron is required to have a transverse energy of ET > 27 GeV and pass the likelihood-based tight identification (ID). The e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 26 GeV satisfying the likelihood-based tight ID, without applying transverse impact parameter requirements, but applying variable-size cone isolation, pTvarcone0.2/ET < 0.1. The inefficiencies are determined by the percentage of candidates that pass the offline ID, but fail the online ID at the indicated step, measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z → ee decays providing approximately 2.5 105 suitable probe electrons. The sizes of the contributions of the individual selection steps to the overall inefficiency depend on the pT of the electron, and therefore, in this plot, depend on the p T spectrum of the probe-electron of the Z →ee test sample. [png] [eps] [pdf] Sources of inefficiency for the e60_lhmedium_nod0 trigger at each selection step in the High Level Trigger (HLT) with respect to the offline reconstruction and the corresponding Level-1 (L1) requirements in a data run taken in October 2017. Electron reconstruction at the HLT is performed in the Region of Interest provided by the L1 and proceeds via a series of sequential steps. First, a Fast Reconstruction and Selection is performed; this constitutes a fast calorimeter reconstruction and neural-network-based selection using shower shape information, followed by a fast track reconstruction and electron pre-selection in which, in addition to track quality requirements, the calorimeter-tracking position matching quantities are used. In the Precision Calo step, HLT clusters are reconstructed and then calibrated using a multivariate technique, mirroring the offline identification. Subsequently, Precision Tracks are reconstructed and extrapolated to the second layer of the EM calorimeter. Electron candidates are then constructed by matching clusters to these tracks. The Precision Electron identification primarily utilises a Likelihood Discriminant based on calorimeter cluster shower shape, tracking and track-cluster matching variables, in addition to a required minimum number of hits in the (first layer of the) Pixel detector, nPixe(nIBL). The inset plot provides supplementary information on these contributions to the Precision Electron requirement, which are mutually non-exclusive. Additionally, isolation requirements on the Precision Electron candidate may be applied; if the candidate fails the Precision Electron selection but passes isolation, Precision Electron only is filled; if the candidate passes Precision Electron buts fails isolation, Isolation only is filled; if both fail, Combined Precision Electron \& Isolation is filled. The L1 requirement for this trigger, EM22VHI, requires an isolated electromagnetic cluster with ET > 22 GeV. The offline reconstructed electron is required to have a transverse energy of ET > 61 GeV and pass the likelihood-based tight identification (ID). The e60_lhmedium_nod0 trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 60 GeV satisfying the likelihood-based tight ID, without applying transverse impact parameter requirements or isolation (the associated categories are retained here for consistency with other plots). The inefficiencies are determined by the percentage of candidates that pass the offline ID, but fail the online ID at the indicated step, measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z → ee decays providing approximately 1.5 104 suitable probe electrons. The sizes of the contributions of the individual selection steps to the overall inefficiency depend on the pT of the electron, and therefore, in this plot, depend on the pT spectrum of the probe-electron of the Z → ee test sample. [png] [eps] [pdf]

### Performance of Ringer in Trigger egamma for WCCI2018 ATL-COM-DAQ-2018-005

 Electron trigger efficiency, measured with data recorded Jun 05 -- Oct 08 2017, as a function of the offline reconstructed electron candidate's transverse energy (ET). The trigger efficiency was measured on electrons or positrons from Z boson decay using the data-driven tag-and-probe method. The offline reconstructed electron is required to be within the ATLAS precision region (|η|<2.47) and to pass the strictest offline selection. The efficiency is computed for two electron triggers requiring their most restrictive operating point and transverse energy above 28~GeV. The only difference between the two triggers is in the initial HLT selection, restricted to calorimeter information. The blue circles represent the efficiencies for the electron triggers operating with an ensemble of neural networks fed by ring-shaped energy description (Ringer), while the black triangles show the efficiencies for the electron triggers without Ringer, based on a previously used cut-based selection. Statistical uncertainties are too small to be visible. [png] [eps] [pdf] Top: Experimental observations for the offline reconstructed Eratio quantity measured with data recorded Jun 05 -- Aug 24 2017. Eratio is the difference in energy between the highest and second highest energy deposit in the cells of the first calorimeter sampling divided by the sum. The histograms are filled using probe electrons or positrons from Z boson decays acquired by employing the data-driven tag-and-probe method and requiring the least strict offline selection. For comparing the shapes of the two distributions with reasonable statistics in each bin, bins are merged in both histograms simultaneously to have at least 30 entries and entries are removed at random from the histogram with more statistics until their total matches. The black line shows entries collected by a trigger with a selection based on the ensemble of neural networks fed by ring-shaped energy description (Ringer), while the blue area represents the data collected by the electron triggers without Ringer, based on a previously used cut-based selection. Bottom: the experimental observations of the residuals (black circles) computed by the ratio of the difference of the histogram entries and the corresponding baseline uncertainty (σref per sample. σref is computed as the squared root of the number of entries per sample. The residuals are small (σref<0.3) and oscillate freely along the positive and negative axis, which suggests that there is no significant impact when replacing cut-based selection with the Ringer approach. [png] [eps] [pdf]

### Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2017 data for LHCC ATL-COM-DAQ-2017-117

 Efficiency of the HLT_e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose trigger as a function of the offline electron candidate's transverse energy (ET). The Level-1 trigger requires an isolated electromagnetic cluster with ET > 22 GeV. The HLT_e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 26 GeV satisfying the likelihood-based tight identification without applying transverse impact parameter requirements but applying variable-size cone isolation. For physics analysis the trigger is ORed with higher ET-threshold triggers applying looser identification criteria. The offline reconstructed electron is required to pass a likelihood-based tight identification and be isolated. The efficiencies were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z → ee decays in data and Monte Carlo. No background subtraction is applied. The error bars show the statistical uncertainties. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of the HLT_e24_lhvloose_nod0_L1EM20VH trigger as a function of the offline electron candidate's transverse energy (ET). The Level-1 trigger requires an electromagnetic cluster with ET > 20 GeV. The HLT_e24_lhvloose_nod0_L1EM20VH trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 24 GeV satisfying the likelihood-based very loose identification without applying transverse impact parameter requirements. The offline reconstructed electron is required to pass a likelihood-based loose identification. The efficiencies were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z → ee decays in data and Monte Carlo. No background subtraction is applied. The error bars show the statistical uncertainties. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of photon triggers as a function of the transverse energy (ET) of the photon candidates reconstructed offline satisfying the tight identification and calorimeter isolation criteria with |η| < 2.37, excluding the transition region between the barrel and endcap electromagnetic calorimeters at 1.37 < |η| < 1.52. The photon triggers are required to pass medium identification and ET > 25 GeV (filled circles), medium identification and ET > 35 GeV (empty circles), tight identification and ET > 140 GeV (filled squares), and loose identification and ET > 200 GeV (empty squares). The efficiencies were measured with the bootstrap method using events recorded with lower-ET triggers applying looser selection requirements. No background subtraction is applied. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainty. [png] [eps] [pdf]

### Electron and photon trigger efficiency plots with early 2017 data for EPS ATL-COM-DAQ-2017-066

 Efficiency of the HLT_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose trigger as a function of the offline electron candidate's transverse energy (ET). The Level-1 trigger requires an isolated electromagnetic cluster with ET > 24 GeV. The HLT_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 28 GeV satisfying the likelihood-based tight identification without applying transverse impact parameter requirements but applying variable-size cone isolation. For physics analysis the trigger is ORed with higher ET-threshold triggers applying looser identification criteria. The offline reconstructed electron is required to pass a likelihood-based tight identification and be isolated. The efficiencies were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z → ee decays in data and Monte Carlo. No background subtraction is applied. The error bars show the statistical uncertainties. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of the HLT_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose trigger as a function of the offline electron candidate's pseudorapidity (η). The Level-1 trigger requires an isolated electromagnetic cluster with ET > 24 GeV. The HLT_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 28 GeV satisfying the likelihood-based tight identification without applying transverse impact parameter requirements but applying variable-size cone isolation. For physics analysis the trigger is ORed with higher ET-threshold triggers applying looser identification criteria. The offline reconstructed electron is required to pass a likelihood-based tight identification, have ET at least 1 GeV above the trigger threshold and be isolated. The efficiencies were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z → ee decays in data and Monte Carlo. No background subtraction is applied. The error bars show the statistical uncertainties. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of the HLT_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose trigger as a function of the average number of interactions per bunch-crossing (<μ>). The Level-1 trigger requires an isolated electromagnetic cluster with ET > 24 GeV. The HLT_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 28 GeV satisfying the likelihood-based tight identification without applying transverse impact parameter requirements but applying variable-size cone isolation. For physics analysis the trigger is ORed with higher ET-threshold triggers applying looser identification criteria. The offline reconstructed electron is required to pass a likelihood-based tight identification, have ET at least 1 GeV above the trigger threshold and be isolated. The efficiencies were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z → ee decays in data and Monte Carlo. No background subtraction is applied. The error bars show the statistical uncertainties. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of the HLT_e24_lhvloose_nod0_L1EM20VH trigger as a function of the offline electron candidate's transverse energy (ET). The Level-1 trigger requires an electromagnetic cluster with ET > 20 GeV. The HLT_e24_lhvloose_nod0_L1EM20VH trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 24 GeV satisfying the likelihood-based very loose identification without applying transverse impact parameter requirements. The offline reconstructed electron is required to pass a likelihood-based loose identification. The efficiencies were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z → ee decays in data and Monte Carlo. No background subtraction is applied. The error bars show the statistical uncertainties. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of the HLT_e24_lhvloose_nod0_L1EM20VH trigger as a function of the offline electron candidate's pseudorapidity (η). The Level-1 trigger requires an electromagnetic cluster with ET > 20 GeV. The HLT_e24_lhvloose_nod0_L1EM20VH trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 24 GeV satisfying the likelihood-based very loose identification without applying transverse impact parameter requirements. The offline reconstructed electron is required to pass a likelihood-based loose identification and have ET at least 1 GeV above the trigger threshold. The efficiencies were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z → ee decays in data and Monte Carlo. No background subtraction is applied. The error bars show the statistical uncertainties. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of the HLT_e24_lhvloose_nod0_L1EM20VH trigger as a function of the average number of interactions per bunch-crossing (<μ>). The Level-1 trigger requires an electromagnetic cluster with ET > 20 GeV. The HLT_e24_lhvloose_nod0_L1EM20VH trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 24 GeV satisfying the likelihood-based very loose identification without applying transverse impact parameter requirements. The offline reconstructed electron is required to pass a likelihood-based loose identification and have ET at least 1 GeV above the trigger threshold. The efficiencies were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z → ee decays in data and Monte Carlo. No background subtraction is applied. The error bars show the statistical uncertainties. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of the HLT_g25_medium_L1EM20VH trigger as a function of the offline photon candidate's transverse energy (ET) passing the tight identification selection and isolation requirements, with |η| < 2.37, excluding the transition region between the barrel and endcap electromagnetic calorimeters at 1.37 < |η| < 1.52 in data (black circles) and in Higgs MC simulated events (red squares). This trigger requires an η-dependent ET threshold around 20 GeV and a veto on hadronic energy at Level-1, and medium identification and ET > 25 GeV at the HLT. The efficiencies were measured with the bootstrap method on events recorded using a Level-1 trigger requiring an electromagnetic cluster with ET > 15 GeV which is fully efficient selecting offline photons with ET = 22 GeV. No background subtraction is applied. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainty. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of the HLT_g25_medium_L1EM20VH trigger as a function of the offline photon candidate's pseudo-rapidity (η) passing the tight identification selection and isolation requirements, with ET > 30 GeV in data (black circles) and in Higgs MC simulated events (red squares). This trigger requires an η-dependent ET threshold around 20 GeV and a veto on hadronic energy at Level-1, and medium identification and ET > 25 GeV at the HLT. The efficiencies were measured with the bootstrap method on events recorded using a Level-1 trigger requiring an electromagnetic cluster with ET > 15 GeV which is fully efficient selecting offline photons with ET = 22 GeV. No background subtraction is applied. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainty. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of the HLT_g25_medium_L1EM20VH trigger as a function of the average number of interactions per bunch-crossing (<μ>). The photon candidates reconstructed offline are required to satisfy the tight identification selection and isolation requirements, with ET > 30 GeV and |η| < 2.37, excluding the transition region between the barrel and endcap electromagnetic calorimeters at 1.37 < |η| < 1.52 in data (black circles) and in Higgs MC simulated events (red squares). This trigger requires an η-dependent ET threshold around 20 GeV and a veto on hadronic energy at Level-1, and medium identification and ET > 25 GeV at the HLT. The efficiencies were measured with the bootstrap method on events recorded using a Level-1 trigger requiring an electromagnetic cluster with ET > 15 GeV which is fully efficient selecting offline photons with ET = 22 GeV. No background subtraction is applied. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainty. [png] [eps] [pdf]

## 2016 Data @ 13 TeV

### Rate of the lowest unprescaled single electron trigger as a function of the ET threshold in √s = 13 TeV p-p data collected in 2016 ATL-COM-DAQ-2017-039

 Rate (in Hz) of the isolated single electron trigger as a function of the ET threshold at the high-level trigger (HLT) in the [26,72] GeV range, for the same likelihood-based tight identification and Level-1 selections. The rate is measured in a dataset collected at a constant instantaneous luminosity of 8x1033 cm-2s-1 at √s = 13 TeV, while the contribution from W, Z and multi-jet production is estimated with Monte Carlo. The dominant uncertainty on the multi-jet rate is evaluated with a data-driven technique: the rate vs ET plot is obtained in a multi-jet enriched region by inverting the HLT track-based electron isolation, and the bin-by-bin disagreement between data and Monte Carlo is applied as a systematic uncertainty on the multi-jet process. The total expected rate is in agreement with the measured value for all the thresholds considered. A major fraction of the rate comes from physics processes of interest such as W and Z production, while a relevant but not dominant background comes from jets mis-identified as electrons. [png] [eps] [pdf]

### Level-1 EM isolation optimization for 2017 data taking ATL-COM-DAQ-2017-033

 Efficiency of the Level-1 triggers, L1_EM24VHI and new L1_EM24VHIM, as a function of the offline electron candidate's transverse energy (ET). The Level-1 triggers require an isolated electromagnetic (EM) cluster with ET > 24 GeV. "V" indicates that η-dependent trigger thresholds are applied. "H" indicates that the transverse energy in the hadronic calorimeter behind the core of the EM cluster relative to the EM cluster transverse energy is less than a certain value. Triggers including "I" ("IM") in their name have isolation applied for EM clusters with ET < 50 GeV, where the transverse energy in an annulus of calorimeter towers around the EM candidate relative to the EM cluster ET is required to be less than max{2 GeV, ET/8 - 1.8 GeV} (max{1 GeV, ET/8 - 2.0 GeV}). The efficiency is measured with respect to the offline reconstructed electron candidates satisfying a likelihood-based tight identification. The efficiencies are measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z → ee decays in data using trigger reprocessings. New Level-1 EM medium isolation cuts have been implemented to reduce the rate of the lowest unprescaled Level-1 triggers while keeping the efficiency loss as low as possible, to cope with the increasing luminosity in 2017, and are compared with the default isolation cuts used for 2016 data taking. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of the Level-1 triggers, L1_EM24VHI and new L1_EM24VHIM, as a function of the offline electron candidate's pseudorapidity (η). The Level-1 triggers require an isolated electromagnetic (EM) cluster with ET > 24 GeV. "V" indicates that η-dependent trigger thresholds are applied. "H" indicates that the transverse energy in the hadronic calorimeter behind the core of the EM cluster relative to the EM cluster transverse energy is less than a certain value. Triggers including "I" ("IM") in their name have isolation applied for EM clusters with ET < 50 GeV, where the transverse energy in an annulus of calorimeter towers around the EM candidate relative to the EM cluster ET is required to be less than max{2 GeV, ET/8 - 1.8 GeV} (max{1 GeV, ET/8 - 2.0 GeV}). The efficiency is measured with respect to the offline reconstructed electron candidates satisfying a likelihood-based tight identification and with ET at least 5 GeV above the Level-1 trigger threshold. The efficiencies are measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z → ee decays in data using trigger reprocessings. New Level-1 EM medium isolation cuts have been implemented to reduce the rate of the lowest unprescaled Level-1 triggers while keeping the efficiency loss as low as possible, to cope with the increasing luminosity in 2017, and are compared with the default isolation cuts used for 2016 data taking. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of the Level-1 triggers, L1_EM24VHI and new L1_EM24VHIM, as a function of the average number of interactions per bunch crossing (<μ>). The Level-1 triggers require an isolated electromagnetic (EM) cluster with ET > 24 GeV. "V" indicates that η-dependent trigger thresholds are applied. "H" indicates that the transverse energy in the hadronic calorimeter behind the core of the EM cluster relative to the EM cluster transverse energy is less than a certain value. Triggers including "I" ("IM") in their name have isolation applied for EM clusters with ET < 50 GeV, where the transverse energy in an annulus of calorimeter towers around the EM candidate relative to the EM cluster ET is required to be less than max{2 GeV, ET/8 - 1.8 GeV} (max{1 GeV, ET/8 - 2.0 GeV}). The efficiency is measured with respect to the offline reconstructed electron candidates satisfying a likelihood-based tight identification and with ET at least 5 GeV above the Level-1 trigger threshold. The efficiencies are measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z → ee decays in data using trigger reprocessings. New Level-1 EM medium isolation cuts have been implemented to reduce the rate of the lowest unprescaled Level-1 triggers while keeping the efficiency loss as low as possible, to cope with the increasing luminosity in 2017, and are compared with the default isolation cuts used for 2016 data taking. [png] [eps] [pdf] Level-1 trigger efficiency loss and rate reduction applying the new medium isolation on the electromagnetic (EM) clusters with ET > 22 GeV and ET > 24 GeV with respect to the default isolation used in 2016 data taking. Medium (default) isolation is applied for EM clusters with ET < 50 GeV, where the transverse energy in an annulus of calorimeter towers around the EM candidate relative to the EM cluster ET is required to be less than max{2 GeV, ET/8 - 1.8 GeV} (max{1 GeV, ET/8 - 2.0 GeV}). The efficiency is measured with respect to the offline reconstructed electron candidates satisfying a likelihood-based tight identification and with ET at least 5 GeV above the Level-1 trigger threshold. The efficiencies are measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z → ee decays in data using trigger reprocessings. The rate predictions are obtained with a trigger reprocessing of enhanced bias data extrapolated to a luminosity of 2×1034 cm-2s-1. New Level-1 EM medium isolation cuts have been implemented to reduce the rate of the lowest unprescaled Level-1 triggers while keeping the efficiency loss as low as possible, to cope with the increasing luminosity in 2017, and are compared with the default isolation cuts used for 2016 data taking. [png] [eps] [pdf]

### L1 EM trigger rates using the full 2016 dataset ATL-COM-DAQ-2017-021

 Output rates of Level-1 EM triggers as a function of the uncalibrated instantaneous luminosity measured online during the 2016 proton-proton data taking at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. An |η| dependent requirement on the energy deposited in the electromagnetic calorimeter is applied in addition to a veto on energy deposited in the hadronic calorimeter. Single triggers have an additional EM isolation requirement on the energy deposited in the 12 EM Trigger Towers surrounding the central 2x2 EM Trigger Towers. Rates are shown only for unprescaled triggers. All trigger rates show a linear dependency with instantaneous luminosity. [png] [eps] [pdf]

### Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using the full 2016 ATLAS data ATL-COM-DAQ-2017-015

 Efficiency of the logical OR between HLT_e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose, HLT_e60_lhmedium_nod0 and HLT_e140_lhloose_nod0 triggers as a function of the offline electron candidate's transverse energy (ET). The Level-1 trigger requires an isolated electromagnetic cluster with ET > 22 GeV. The HLT_e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 26 GeV satisfying the likelihood-based tight identification without applying transverse impact parameter requirements but applying variable-size cone isolation, the HLT_e60_lhmedium_nod0 trigger requires ET > 60 GeV and likelihood-based medium identification, and the HLT_e140_lhloose_nod0 trigger requires ET > 140 GeV and likelihood-based loose identification. The offline reconstructed electron is required to pass a likelihood-based tight identification and be isolated. The efficiencies were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z → ee decays in data and Monte Carlo. The error bars show the statistical uncertainties. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of the logical OR between HLT_e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose, HLT_e60_lhmedium_nod0 and HLT_e140_lhloose_nod0 triggers as a function of the offline electron candidate's pseudorapidity (η). The Level-1 trigger requires an isolated electromagnetic cluster with ET > 22 GeV. The HLT_e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 26 GeV satisfying the likelihood-based tight identification without applying transverse impact parameter requirements but applying variable-size cone isolation, the HLT_e60_lhmedium_nod0 trigger requires ET > 60 GeV and likelihood-based medium identification, and the HLT_e140_lhloose_nod0 trigger requires ET > 140 GeV and likelihood-based loose identification. The offline reconstructed electron is required to pass a likelihood-based tight identification, have ET at least 1 GeV above the trigger threshold and be isolated. The efficiencies were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z → ee decays in data and Monte Carlo. The error bars show the statistical uncertainties. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of the HLT_e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose trigger as a function of the offline electron candidate's transverse energy (ET). The Level-1 trigger requires an isolated electromagnetic cluster with ET > 22 GeV. The HLT_e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 26 GeV satisfying the likelihood-based tight identification without applying transverse impact parameter requirements but applying variable-size cone isolation. For physics analysis the trigger is ORed with higher ET-threshold triggers applying looser identification criteria. The offline reconstructed electron is required to pass a likelihood-based tight identification and be isolated. The efficiencies were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z → ee decays in data and Monte Carlo. The error bars show the statistical uncertainties. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of the HLT_e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose trigger as a function of the offline electron candidate's pseudorapidity (η). The Level-1 trigger requires an isolated electromagnetic cluster with ET > 22 GeV. The HLT_e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 26 GeV satisfying the likelihood-based tight identification without applying transverse impact parameter requirements but applying variable-size cone isolation. For physics analysis the trigger is ORed with higher ET-threshold triggers applying looser identification criteria. The offline reconstructed electron is required to pass a likelihood-based tight identification, have ET at least 1 GeV above the trigger threshold and be isolated. The efficiencies were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z → ee decays in data and Monte Carlo. The error bars show the statistical uncertainties. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of the HLT_e17_lhvloose_nod0 trigger as a function of the offline electron candidate's transverse energy (ET). The Level-1 trigger requires an electromagnetic cluster with ET > 15 GeV. The HLT_e17_lhvloose_nod0 trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 17 GeV satisfying the likelihood-based very loose identification without applying transverse impact parameter requirements. The offline reconstructed electron is required to pass a likelihood-based loose identification. The efficiencies were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z → ee decays in data and Monte Carlo. The error bars show the statistical uncertainties. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of the HLT_e17_lhvloose_nod0 trigger as a function of the offline electron candidate's pseudorapidity (η). The Level-1 trigger requires an electromagnetic cluster with ET > 15 GeV. The HLT_e17_lhvloose_nod0 trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 17 GeV satisfying the likelihood-based very loose identification without applying transverse impact parameter requirements. The offline reconstructed electron is required to pass a likelihood-based loose identification and have ET at least 1 GeV above the trigger threshold. The efficiencies were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z → ee decays in data and Monte Carlo. The error bars show the statistical uncertainties. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of photon triggers requiring loose identification and a transverse energy (ET) greater than 25 GeV (squares), 35 GeV (triangles) and 140 GeV (inverted triangles) and the efficiency of photon trigger requiring tight identification and ET greater than 22 GeV (circles) for data (filled markers) and MC simulated samples (empty markers) as a function of the transverse energy of the photon candidates reconstructed offline passing the tight identification selection with |η| < 2.37, excluding the transition region between the barrel and endcap electromagnetic calorimeters at 1.37 < |η| < 1.52. The efficiencies were measured with the bootstrap method using events recorded with a Level-1 trigger requiring an electromagnetic cluster with ET > 15 GeV. This Level-1 requirement is fully efficient selecting offline photons with ET > 22 GeV. No background subtraction is applied. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainty. Small drop in efficiency of 22 GeV tight trigger at high ET has no effect in trigger performance, since 35 GeV loose trigger should be used above 50 GeV. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of photon triggers requiring loose identification and a transverse energy (ET) greater than 25 GeV (squares), 35 GeV (triangles) and 140 GeV (inverted triangles) and the efficiency of photon trigger requiring tight identification and ET greater than 22 GeV (circles) for data (filled markers) and MC simulated samples (empty markers) as a function of the pseudorapidity (η) of the photon candidates reconstructed offline passing the tight identification selection with ET at least 5 GeV and 10 GeV above the trigger threshold. The efficiencies were measured with the bootstrap method using events recorded with a Level-1 trigger requiring an electromagnetic cluster with ET > 15 GeV. This Level-1 requirement is fully efficient selecting offline photons with ET > 22 GeV. No background subtraction is applied. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainty. [png] [eps] [pdf]

### Electron and photon trigger rates using the full 2016 ATLAS data ATL-COM-DAQ-2017-016

 Output rates of single electron triggers as a function of the un-calibrated instantaneous luminosity measured online during the 2016 proton-proton data taking at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. These triggers comprise of hardware-based first-level and software-based high-level trigger selections. A requirement on the energy deposited in the electromagnetic calorimeter in a ring around the electron cluster candidate is also added. In the high-level trigger, an ET threshold of 24 GeV or 26 GeV is required in addition to a likelihood (medium or tight) identification without applying transverse impact parameter of the electron candidate. An isolation requirement calculated as the sum of the pT of the tracks within a variable-size cone around the electron, excluding its own track, divided by the cluster ET, ΣpT/ET < 0.1, is also applied. [png] [eps] [pdf] Output rates of the single-electron and di-electron primary triggers as a function of the un-calibrated instantaneous luminosity measured online during the 2016 proton-proton data taking at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. These triggers comprise hardware-based first-level and software-based high-level trigger selections. In the high-level trigger, a transverse energy (ET) threshold is required in addition to a likelihood (very loose, loose, medium or tight) identification without applying transverse impact parameter of the electron candidate. An isolation requirement calculated as the sum of the pT of the tracks within a variable-size cone around the electron, excluding its own track, divided by the cluster ET, ΣpT/ET < 0.1, is also applied to the lowest-ET primary trigger. [png] [eps] [pdf] Output rates of the photon primary triggers as a function of the un-calibrated instantaneous luminosity measured online during the 2016 proton-proton data taking at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. These triggers comprise hardware-based first-level and software-based high-level trigger selections. In the high-level trigger, the triggers require a transverse energy (ET) threshold and either cut-based loose or tight identification. [png] [eps] [pdf]

### Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2016 ATLAS data ATL-COM-DAQ-2016-086 (plots for ICHEP 2016)

 Efficiency of the HLT_e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose trigger as a function of the offline electron candidate's transverse energy (ET). The Level-1 trigger requires an isolated electromagnetic cluster with ET > 22 GeV. The HLT_e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 26 GeV satisfying the likelihood-based tight identification without applying transverse impact parameter requirements but applying variable-size cone isolation. For physics analysis the trigger is ORed with higher ET-threshold triggers applying looser identification criteria. The offline reconstructed electron is required to pass a likelihood-based tight identification and be isolated. The efficiencies were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z → ee decays in data and Monte Carlo. The error bars show the binomial statistical uncertainties. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of the HLT_e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose trigger as a function of the offline electron candidate's pseudorapidity (η). The Level-1 trigger requires an isolated electromagnetic cluster with ET > 22 GeV. The HLT_e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 26 GeV satisfying the likelihood-based tight identification without applying transverse impact parameter requirements but applying variable-size cone isolation. For physics analysis the trigger is ORed with higher ET-threshold triggers applying looser identification criteria. The offline reconstructed electron is required to pass a likelihood-based tight identification, have ET at least 1 GeV above the trigger threshold and be isolated. The efficiencies were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z → ee decays in data and Monte Carlo. The error bars show the binomial statistical uncertainties. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of the HLT_e17_lhvloose_nod0 trigger as a function of the offline electron candidate's transverse energy (ET). The Level-1 trigger requires an electromagnetic cluster with ET > 15 GeV. The HLT_e17_lhvloose_nod0 trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 17 GeV satisfying the likelihood-based very loose identification without applying transverse impact parameter requirements. The offline reconstructed electron is required to pass a likelihood-based loose identification. The efficiencies were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z → ee decays in data and Monte Carlo. The error bars show the binomial statistical uncertainties. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of the HLT_e17_lhvloose_nod0 trigger as a function of the offline electron candidate's pseudorapidity (η). The Level-1 trigger requires an electromagnetic cluster with ET > 15 GeV. The HLT_e17_lhvloose_nod0 trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 17 GeV satisfying the likelihood-based very loose identification without applying transverse impact parameter requirements. The offline reconstructed electron is required to pass a likelihood-based loose identification and have ET at least 1 GeV above the trigger threshold. The efficiencies were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z → ee decays in data and Monte Carlo. The error bars show the binomial statistical uncertainties. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of photon triggers requiring a transverse energy (ET) greater than 25 GeV (blue squares), 35 GeV (red circles), 120 GeV (green triangles) and 140 GeV (yellow triangles) and loose photon identification criteria as a function of the transverse energy of the photon candidates reconstructed offline passing the tight identification selection with |η| < 2.37, excluding the transition region between the barrel and endcap electromagnetic calorimeters at 1.37 < |η| < 1.52. The efficiencies were measured with the bootstrap method using events recorded with a Level-1 trigger requiring an electromagnetic cluster with ET > 15 GeV. No background subtraction is applied. The shown error bars represent the Bayesian statistical uncertainty. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of single photon triggers requiring a transverse energy (ET) greater than 120 GeV (blue squares) and 140 GeV (red circles) and loose photon identification criteria as a function of the pseudorapidity (η) of the photon candidates reconstructed offline passing the tight identification selection with ET at least 5 GeV above the trigger threshold. The efficiencies were measured with the bootstrap method using events recorded with a Level-1 trigger requiring an electromagnetic cluster with ET > 15 GeV. No background subtraction is applied. The shown error bars represent the Bayesian statistical uncertainty. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of single photon triggers requiring a transverse energy (ET) greater than 25 GeV (blue squares) and 35 GeV (red circles) and loose photon identification criteria as a function of the pseudorapidity (η) of the photon candidates reconstructed offline passing the tight identification selection with ET at least 5 GeV above the trigger threshold. The efficiencies were measured with the bootstrap method using events recorded with a Level-1 trigger requiring an electromagnetic cluster with ET > 15 GeV. No background subtraction is applied. The shown error bars represent the Bayesian statistical uncertainty. [png] [eps] [pdf]

### Electron and photon trigger rates using 2016 ATLAS data ATL-COM-DAQ-2016-074 (plots for ICHEP 2016)

 Output rates of single electron triggers as a function of the instantaneous luminosity during the 2016 proton-proton data taking at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. These triggers comprise of hardware-based first-level and software-based high-level trigger selections. A requirement on the energy deposited in the electromagnetic calorimeter in a ring around the electron cluster candidate is also added. In the high-level trigger, an ET threshold of 24 GeV or 26 GeV is required in addition to a likelihood (lhmedium or lhtight) identification of the electron candidate. A requirement on the relative track isolation within a cone of R = 0.2 is also applied, pTiso/ ET < 0.1. [png] [eps] [pdf] Output rates of photon triggers as a function of the instantaneous luminosity during the 2016 proton-proton data taking at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. These triggers comprise of hardware-based first-level and software-based high-level trigger selections. The triggers require a transverse energy (ET) threshold and either cut-based loose or tight identification. They also apply at the level-1 an ET dependent veto on the energy deposited in the hadronic calorimeter behind the electromagnetic energy cluster. [png] [eps] [pdf]

### Electron and photon trigger performance measurements using 2016 ATLAS data ATL-COM-DAQ-2016-050 (plots for LHCC)

 Efficiency of the Level-1 trigger requiring an electromagnetic cluster with ET > 20 GeV, where V indicates the application of η-dependent trigger thresholds, H the application of an ET-dependent veto against energy deposited in the hadronic calorimeter behind the electron candidate's electromagnetic cluster, and I the application of an ET-dependent electromagnetic isolation, where the effect of the latter is compared as a function of the offline electron candidate's transverse energy (ET). The offline reconstructed electron is required to pass a likelihood-based tight identification. The efficiencies were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z → ee decays in data. The error bars show the statistical uncertainties. [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of the L1_EM20VHI trigger (black circles) as well as the combined L1_EM20VHI and HLT_e24_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose trigger (blue triangles) as a function of the offline electron candidate's transverse energy (ET). The Level-1 trigger requires an isolated electromagnetic cluster with ET > 20 GeV. The e24_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 24 GeV satisfying the likelihood-based tight identification without applying transverse impact parameter requirements and variable-size cone isolation. The offline reconstructed electron is required to pass a likelihood-based tight identification. The efficiencies were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z → ee decays in data. The error bars show the statistical uncertainties. [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of the L1_EM22VHI trigger (black circles) as well as the combined L1_EM22VHI and HLT_e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose trigger (blue triangles) as a function of the offline electron candidate's transverse energy (ET). The Level-1 trigger requires an isolated electromagnetic cluster with ET > 22 GeV. The e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 26 GeV satisfying the likelihood-based tight identification without applying transverse impact parameter requirements and variable-size cone isolation. The offline reconstructed electron is required to pass a likelihood-based tight identification. The efficiencies were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z → ee decays in data. The error bars show the statistical uncertainties. [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of single photon triggers as a function of the transverse energy (ET) of the photon candidates reconstructed offline passing the tight identification selection with |η| < 2.37, excluding the transition region between the barrel and endcap electromagnetic calorimeters at 1.37 < |η| < 1.52. The efficiencies were measured with the bootstrap method using events recorded with a Level-1 trigger requiring an electromagnetic cluster with ET > 15 GeV. No background subtraction is applied. The shown error bars represent the statistical uncertainty which is calculated using a Bayesian estimate with Jeffrey's prior. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of single photon triggers requiring a transverse energy (ET) greater than 120 GeV (black circles) and 140 GeV (red squares) and loose photon identification criteria as a function of the ET of the photon candidates reconstructed offline passing the tight identification selection with |η| < 2.37, excluding the transition region between the barrel and endcap electromagnetic calorimeters at 1.37 < |η| < 1.52. The efficiencies were measured with the bootstrap method using events recorded with a loose photon high level trigger with ET > 60 GeV. No background subtraction is applied. The shown error bars represent the statistical uncertainty which is calculated using a Bayesian estimate with Jeffrey's prior. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of single photon triggers requiring a transverse energy (ET) greater than 25 GeV (black circles) and 35 GeV (red squares) and loose photon identification criteria as a function of the pseudorapidity (η) of the photon candidates reconstructed offline passing the tight identification selection with ET at least 5 GeV above the trigger threshold. The efficiencies were measured with the bootstrap method using events recorded with a Level-1 trigger requiring an electromagnetic cluster with ET > 15 GeV. No background subtraction is applied. The shown error bars represent the statistical uncertainty which is calculated using a Bayesian estimate with Jeffrey's prior. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of single photon triggers requiring a transverse energy (ET) greater than 25 GeV (black circles) and 35 GeV (red squares) and medium photon identification criteria as a function of the pseudorapidity (η) of the photon candidates reconstructed offline passing the tight identification selection with ET at least 5 GeV above the trigger threshold. The efficiencies were measured with the bootstrap method using events recorded with a Level-1 trigger requiring an electromagnetic cluster with ET > 15 GeV. No background subtraction is applied. The shown error bars represent the statistical uncertainty which is calculated using a Bayesian estimate with Jeffrey's prior. [png] [eps] [pdf]

## 2015 Data @ 13 TeV

### Photon trigger performance in 2015 ATLAS data

 Efficiency of single photon triggers with respect to offline photons as a function of the offline photon transverse energy for |η| < 2.37, excluding the transition region between the barrel and endcap electromagnetic calorimeters at 1.37 < |η| < 1.52. The efficiency is measured using events recorded with a Level-1 trigger requiring an electromagnetic cluster with ET > 7 GeV. No background subtraction is applied. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of single photon triggers with respect to offline photons as a function of the offline photon transverse energy for |η| < 2.37, excluding the transition region between the barrel and endcap electromagnetic calorimeters at 1.37 < |η| < 1.52. The efficiency is measured using events recorded with a Level-1 trigger requiring an electromagnetic cluster with ET > 7 GeV. No background subtraction is applied. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. [png] [eps] [pdf]

### Performance of photon triggers for Pb+Pb collisions at ­5.02 TeV

 The comparison of the trigger efficiencies of the inclusive loose photon in the barrel region of the electromagnetic calorimeter measured as a function of the total transverse energy in the forward calorimeter, FCal ΣET for the primary trigger implementing online underlying event (UE) subtraction specifically developed for HI data taking (red circles) and the one used normally in pp data taking which does not use UE subtraction (black squares). Both triggers require loose online photon with transverse momentum greater than 20 GeV. Efficiency is evaluated w.r.t. offline loose photon requiring matching to the trigger. The error bars indicate statistical uncertainties only. [png] [eps] [pdf]

### Expected performance of the ringer algorithm ATL-COM-DAQ-2015-215 (plots for the ACAT 2016 conference)

 Electron detection efficiency over Z → ee simulation data for the trigger fast calorimeter sub-step as a function of the offline reconstructed electron candidate’s pseudorapidity (η). The efficiency was measured with a tag-and-probe method for Z → ee decays. The offline reconstructed electron matched to the trigger candidate is required to be within the precision region of the calorimeter and to have at least 25 GeV. Efficiency for the candidates satisfying the medium criteria on two chains are shown. On black lies the standard hard-cut based approach (benchmark) upon the fast calorimeter sub-step, whereas on blue this sub-step is replaced by the ringer approach, set to operate with the same overall detection rate as the benchmark. Neither approaches have pile-up dependency correction. The ringer approach uses ring-shaped calorimeter information and a multivariate discriminator (neural based) for e/γ identification, which can improve background rejection for a given signal efficiency level. The error bars show statistical uncertainties. [png] [eps] [pdf] Electron detection efficiency over Z → ee simulation data for the trigger fast calorimeter sub-step as a function of the event measured number of collisions (μ) by the offline reconstruction. The offline reconstructed electron matched to the trigger candidate is required to be within the precision region of the calorimeter and to have at least 25 GeV. The efficiency was measured with a tag-and-probe method for Z → ee decays. Efficiency for the candidates satisfying the medium criteria on two chains are shown. On black lies the standard hard-cut based approach (benchmark) upon the fast calorimeter sub-step, whereas on blue this sub-step is replaced by the ringer approach, set to operate with the same overall detection rate as the benchmark. Neither approaches have pile-up dependency correction. The standard hard-cut based approach has no pile-up correction dependence. The ringer approach uses ring-shaped calorimeter information and a multivariate discriminator (neural based) for e/γ identification, which can improve background rejection for a given signal efficiency level. The error bars show statistical uncertainties. [png] [eps] [pdf]

### Electron trigger performance in 2015 ATLAS data (December 6, 2015)

 Efficiency of the combined L1 and HLT e12_lhloose_L1EM10VH trigger as a function of the offline electron candidate’s ET . The offline reconstructed electron is required to pass likelihood-based lhloose identification. The e12 lhloose_L1EM10VH trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 12 GeV satisfying the likelihood-based lhloose identification. The trigger is seeded by the level-1 trigger L1_EM10VH that applies an ET dependent veto against energy deposited in the hadronic calorimeter behind the electron candidate’s electromagnetic cluster. The efficiency was measured with a tag-and- probe method using Z → ee decays. They are compared to expectation from Z → ee simulation. The error bars show the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of the combined L1 and HLT e12_lhloose_L1EM10VH trigger as a function of the offline electron candidate’s pseudorapidity (η). The offline reconstructed electron is required to have a transverse energy of ET > 13 GeV and must pass likelihood-based lhloose identification. The e12_lhloose_L1EM10VH trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 12 GeV satisfying the likelihood-based lhloose identification. The trigger is seeded by the level-1 trigger L1_EM10VH that applies an ET dependent veto against energy deposited in the hadronic calorimeter behind the electron candidate’s electromagnetic cluster. The efficiency was measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z → ee decays. They are compared to expectation from Z → ee simulation. The error bars show the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of the combined L1 and HLT e24_lhmedium_L1EM20VH trigger as a function of the offline electron candidate’s ET . The offline reconstructed electron is required to pass likelihood- based lhmedium identification. The e24_lhmedium_L1EM20VH trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 24 GeV satisfying the likelihood-based lhmedium identification. The trigger is seeded by the level-1 trigger L1_EM20VH that applies an ET dependent veto against energy deposited in the hadronic calorimeter behind the electron candidate’s electromagnetic cluster. The efficiency was measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z → ee decays. They are compared to expectation from Z → ee simulation where a trigger with a lower L1 energy threshold of ET > 18 GeV is simulated. The ratio of the efficiencies in data and simulation is used to correct the simulated samples. The error bars show the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of the combined L1 and HLT e24_lhmedium_L1EM20VH trigger as a function of the offline electron candidate’s pseudorapidity (η). The offline reconstructed electron is required to have a transverse energy of ET > 25 GeV and must pass likelihood-based lhmedium identification. The e24_lhmedium_L1EM20VH trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 24 GeV satisfying the likelihood-based lhmedium identification. The trigger is seeded by the level-1 trigger L1_EM20VH. The efficiency was measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z → ee decays. They are compared to expectation from Z → ee simulation where a trigger with a lower L1 energy threshold of ET > 18 GeV is simulated. The ratio of the efficiencies in data and simulation is used to correct the the simulated samples. The error bars show the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties. [png] [eps] [pdf]

### Photon trigger performance in 2015 ATLAS data ATL-COM-DAQ-2015-101 (July 23, 2015)

 Efficiency of single photon triggers requiring a transverse energy (ET) greater than 25 GeV (black circles) and 35 GeV (red circles) and medium photon identification criteria with respect to photon candidates reconstructed offline passing the tight identification selection as a function of the offline photon transverse energy for |eta|<2.37 excluding the transition region between the barrel and endcap electromagnetic calorimeters at 1.37 < |eta| < 1.52. The efficiency is measured using events recorded with a level-1 trigger requiring an electromagnetic cluster with ET > 7 GeV. No background subtraction is applied. The shown error bars represent the statistical uncertainty which is calculated using a Bayesian estimate with Jeffrey's prior. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of single photon triggers requiring a transverse energy (ET) greater than 25 GeV (black circles) and 35 GeV (red circles) and medium photon identification criteria with respect to photon candidates reconstructed offline passing the tight identification selection as a function of the offline photon pseudo-rapidity with ET at least 5 GeV above the trigger threshold. The efficiency is measured using events recorded with a level-1 trigger requiring an electromagnetic cluster with ET > 7 GeV. No background subtraction is applied. The shown error bars represent the statistical uncertainty which is calculated using a Bayesian estimate with Jeffrey's prior. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of single photon triggers requiring a transverse energy (ET) greater than 25 GeV (black circles) and 35 GeV (red circles) and loose photon identification criteria with respect to photon candidates reconstructed offline passing the tight identification selection as a function of the offline photon transverse energy for |eta|<2.37 excluding the transition region between the barrel and endcap electromagnetic calorimeters at 1.37 < |eta| < 1.52. The efficiency is measured using events recorded with a level-1 trigger requiring an electromagnetic cluster with ET > 7 GeV. No background subtraction is applied. The shown error bars represent the statistical uncertainty which is calculated using a Bayesian estimate with Jeffrey's prior. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of single photon triggers requiring a transverse energy (ET) greater than 25 GeV (black circles) and 35 GeV (red circles) and loose photon identification criteria with respect to photon candidates reconstructed offline passing the tight identification selection as a function of the offline photon pseudo-rapidity with ET at least 5 GeV above the trigger threshold. The efficiency is measured using events recorded with a level-1 trigger requiring an electromagnetic cluster with ET > 7 GeV. No background subtraction is applied. The shown error bars represent the statistical uncertainty which is calculated using a Bayesian estimate with Jeffrey's prior. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of single photon triggers requiring a transverse energy (ET) greater than 120 GeV (black circles) and 140 GeV (red circles) and loose photon identification criteria with respect to photon candidates reconstructed offline passing the tight identification selection as a function of the offline photon transverse energy for |eta|<2.37 excluding the transition region between the barrel and endcap electromagnetic calorimeters at 1.37<|eta|<1.52. The efficiency is measured using events recorded with a level-1 trigger requiring an electromagnetic cluster with ET > 7 GeV. No background subtraction is applied. The shown error bars represent the statistical uncertainty which is calculated using a Bayesian estimate with Jeffrey's prior. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiency of single photon triggers requiring a transverse energy (ET) greater than 120 GeV (black circles) and 140 GeV (red circles) and loose photon identification criteria with respect to photon candidates reconstructed offline passing the tight identification selection as a function of the offline photon pseudo-rapidity with ET at least 5 GeV above the trigger threshold. The efficiency is measured using events recorded with a level-1 trigger requiring an electromagnetic cluster with ET > 7 GeV. No background subtraction is applied. The shown error bars represent the statistical uncertainty which is calculated using a Bayesian estimate with Jeffrey's prior. [png] [eps] [pdf]

### Electron trigger performance in 2015 ATLAS data ATL-COM-DAQ-2015-102 (July 23, 2015)

 Resolution of the electron candidate energy in the high-level trigger reconstruction with respect to the offline reconstruction without any data-driven corrections applied. The trigger electron is required to have a transverse energy of ET > 24 GeV and pass medium identification. The resolutions were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z -> ee decays with no background subtraction applied. The resolutions are shown as a function of pseudorapidity. [png] [eps] [pdf] Resolution of the electron candidate energy in the high-level trigger reconstruction with respect to the offline reconstruction without any data-driven corrections applied. The trigger electron is required to have a transverse energy of ET > 24 GeV and pass medium identification. The resolutions were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z -> ee decays with no background subtraction applied. The resolutions are compared to expectation from Monte Carlo simulation integrated over pseudorapidity. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiencies of the HLT_e24_(lh)medium_iloose_L1EM18VH} triggers as a function of the offline electron candidate's pseudorapidy eta. The offline reconstructed electron is required to pass cut-based medium or likelihood-based lhmedium identification. \etrig The inefficiency in data primarily arises at the last step of the High Level Trigger selection that requires tracking related and track - cluster matching criteria. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiencies of the HLT_e24_(lh)medium_iloose_L1EM18VH triggers as a function of the offline electron candidate's ET. The offline reconstructed electron is required to pass cut-based medium or likelihood-based lhmedium identification. The HLT_e24_(lh)medium_iloose_L1EM18VH trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 24 GeV satisfying the cut-based medium or likelihood-based lhmedium identification and a requirement pTiso/ET < 0.1 on the relative track isolation calculated within a cone of R = 0.2. Both are seeded by a level-1 trigger L1_EM18VH that applies an E_T dependent veto againt energy deposited in the hadronic calorimeter behind the electron candidate's electromagnetic cluster. The efficiencies were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z -> ee decays with no background subtraction applied. They are compared to expectation from Z -> ee\$simulation. The error bars show the statistical uncertainties only. The inefficiency in data primarily arises at the last step of the High Level Trigger selection that requires tracking related and track - cluster matching criteria. [png] [eps] [pdf] See previous figure. [png] [eps] [pdf] See previous figure. [png] [eps] [pdf] See previous figure. [png] [eps] [pdf] See previous figure. [png] [eps] [pdf] See previous figure. [png] [eps] [pdf] See previous figure. [png] [eps] [pdf] See previous figure. [png] [eps] [pdf] See previous figure. [png] [eps] [pdf] Efficiencies of the HLT_e24_(lh)medium_iloose_L1EM18VH triggers as a function of the offline electron candidate's transverse energy ET with respect to true reconstructed electrons in Z -> ee simulation. The HLT_e24_(lh)medium_iloose_L1EM18VH trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 24 GeV satisfying the cut-based medium or likelihood-based lhmedium identification and a requirement pTiso/ET < 0.1 on the relative track isolation calculated within a cone of R = 0.2. Both are seeded by a level-1 trigger L1_EM18VH that applies an ET dependent veto againt energy deposited in the hadronic calorimeter behind the electron candidate's electromagnetic cluster. The error bars show the statistical uncertainties only. [png] [eps] [pdf] [png] [eps] [pdf]

### Electron trigger performance in 2015 ATLAS data ATL-COM-DAQ-2015-124 (August 6, 2015)

 Efficiency of the combined L1 and HLT HLT_e24_(lh)medium_iloose_L1EM18VH trigger as a function of the offline electron candidate's ET. The offline reconstructed electron is required to pass likelihood-based lhmedium identification. The HLT_e24_lhmedium_iloose_L1EM18VH trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 24 GeV satisfying the likelihood-based lhmedium identification and a requirement pTiso/ET < 0.1 on the relative track isolation calculated within a cone of R = 0.2. Both are seeded by a level-1 trigger L1_EM18VH that applies an E_T dependent veto against energy deposited in the hadronic calorimeter behind the electron candidate's electromagnetic cluster. The efficiencies were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z -> ee decays with no background subtraction applied. They are compared to expectation from Z -> ee\$simulation. The error bars show the statistical uncertainties only. [png] [eps] [pdf]

### Electron and photon trigger rates in 2015 ATLAS data ATL-COM-DAQ-2015-103 (July 23, 2015)

 Output rates of single electron triggers as a function of the instantaneous luminosity during the 2015 proton-proton data taking at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV and an LHC bunch-crossing interval of 50 ns. These triggers comprise of hardware-based first-level and software-based high-level trigger selections, for details see ATLAS-CONF-2012-048. In the first-level trigger, on top of a minimum pseudorapidity dependent transverse energy requirement of about 18 GeV (20 GeV) for the (lh)medium ((lh)tight) triggers, a transverse energy (ET) dependent veto on the energy deposited in the hadronic calorimeter behind the electromagnetic energy cluster is applied. For the (lh)tight triggers, a requirement on the energy deposited in the electromagnetic calorimeter in a ring around the electron cluster candidate is also added. In the high-level trigger, an ET threshold of 24 GeV is required in addition to either a cut-based (medium or tight) or a likelihood (lhmedium or lhtight) identification of the electron candidate. A requirement on the relative track isolation within a cone of R=0.2 is also applied, pTiso / ET < 0.1. [png] [eps] [pdf] Output rates of single photon triggers as a function of the instantaneous luminosity during the 2015 proton-proton data taking at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV and an LHC bunch-crossing interval of 50 ns. These triggers comprise of hardware-based first-level and software-based high-level trigger selections, for details see ATLAS-CONF-2012-048. The triggers require a transverse energy (ET) threshold of 25 GeV or 35 GeV and either cut-based loose or medium identification. They also apply at the level-1 an ET dependent veto on the energy deposited in the hadronic calorimeter behind the electromagnetic energy cluster. [png] [eps] [pdf]

## 2012 Data @ 8 TeV

### Highly ionising particle trigger performance measurements using 2012 ATLAS data ATL-COM-DAQ-2015-089 (July 08, 2015)

 The highly ionising particle (HIP) trigger is seeded by a Level-1 electromagnetic trigger with an ET threshold of 18 GeV and a veto on candidates that deposit more than 1 GeV in the hadronic calorimeter. A wedge in phi of 20 bins of 0.01 radians is built around the TRT hits associated with the Region of Interest (RoI). The bin with the maximum number of high threshold (HT) TRT hits along with its adjacent bins is used to compute the number and fraction of HT TRT hits with respect to the total number of TRT hits. The number of TRT hits is shown in a typical Drell-Yan monopole signal sample as a function of pile-up (mu), where mu is the average number of interactions per bunch crossing. At higher mu there are more low pT candidates in the event that produce a larger number of low threshold (LT) TRT hits. The number of HT hits originate primarily from the monopole traversing through the detector and it remains approximately constant. [png] [eps] [pdf] The fraction of high threshold TRT hits computed in a wedge in phi of size +/-0.015 centered around the bin with the highest number of HT hits in the TRT. A cut is placed on this variable at 0.37 to optimise for high signal efficiency and low rate. In data, the HIP trigger fires on dijet events that rarely produce large number of HT hits in the TRT but have large cross-sections. A typical Drell-Yan monopole signal sample produces high fraction values. The histograms are normalised to an integral of 1. [png] [eps] [pdf] The rate of the HIP trigger during a typical run in 2012. The plot shows the rate of the HIP trigger as a function of instantaneous luminosity of the run. At higher luminosities (corresponding to the beginning of the run) the pile-up (mu) is high and a large number of low pT candidates contaminate the wedge with low threshold hits, thereby reducing the fraction variable of the trigger. As the run progresses and the luminosity decreases, the number of low threshold hits in the wedge also decreases, hence raising the value of the fraction variable and increasing the rate. The overall rate of the trigger during all runs was less than 1 Hz. [png] [eps] [pdf] The trigger efficiency for a single particle monopole of mass 1000 GeV, charge 2 gD for the HIP trigger and a standard photon trigger in the barrel of the ATLAS detector. The HIP trigger is capable of firing on lower energy candidates compared to standard triggers, thereby increasing the acceptance for high charge monopoles considerably. The gain in acceptance is due to the low energy threshold of the HIP trigger and its ability to trigger on candidates that stop in the presampler and first layer of the electromagnetic calorimeter. [png] [eps] [pdf]

### Electron and photon trigger efficiencies for the early 2012 data with 4.1 fb-1 of data ATL-COM-DAQ-2012-146 (June 27, 2012)

 L1, L2 and EF trigger efficiencies as a function of the offline-reconstructed electron transverse energy ET for the single electron triggers used to select medium and high ET electrons for ATLAS physics analyses: e24vhi_medium1 OR e60_medium1. These triggers apply an EF threshold on the cluster ET at 24 and 60 GeV, respectively. The identification selection of e24vhi_medium1 is more stringent than for e60_medium1, as the first applies a relative track isolation at EF, an additional selection on the longitudinal shower shape in the electro-magnetic calorimeter at EF, and an absolute hadronic leakage requirement at L1. These two triggers are combined with a logical ‘OR’ to improve the high ET efficiency, as visible in the plot in the abrupt increase in efficiency at 60 GeV. The events were collected by ATLAS in p-p collisions at the LHC, at the centre of mass energy of 8 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 4.1 fb-1, since May 2012, after a re-optimization of the L2 and EF shower selection at high . The efficiencies are measured by applying the Zee tag-and-probe method, and are with respect to mediumPP offline electron identification, which is equivalent to the medium1 used at trigger level. The offline electron is required to have ET > 25 GeV and |η| < 2.47, excluding the crack regions |η| = 1.37-1.52. No isolation requirement is applied to the offline electron. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic. [png] [eps] [Linear Scael png] [Linear Scale eps] L1, L2 and EF trigger efficiencies as a function of the offline-reconstructed electron pseudo-rapidity  for the single electron triggers used to select medium and high ET electrons for ATLAS physics analyses: e24vhi_medium1 OR e60_medium1. These triggers apply an EF threshold on the cluster ET at 24 and 60 GeV, respectively. The identification selection of e24vhi_medium1 is more stringent than for e60_medium1, as the first applies a relative track isolation at EF, an additional selection on the longitudinal shower shape in the electro-magnetic calorimeter at EF, and an absolute hadronic leakage requirement at L1. These two triggers are combined with a logical ‘OR’ to improve the high ET efficiency, as visible in the plot in the abrupt increase in efficiency at 60 GeV. The events were collected by ATLAS in p-p collisions at the LHC, at the centre of mass energy of 8 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 4.1 fb-1, since May 2012, after a re-optimization of the L2 and EF shower selection at high . The efficiencies are measured by applying the Zee tag-and-probe method, and are with respect to mediumPP offline electron identification, which is equivalent to the medium1 used at trigger level. The offline electron is required to have ET > 25 GeV and |η| < 2.47. No isolation requirement is applied to the offline electron. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic. [png] [eps] L1, L2 and EF trigger efficiencies as a function of the offline-reconstructed number of primary vertices for the single electron triggers used to select medium and high ET electrons for ATLAS physics analyses: e24vhi_medium1 OR e60_medium1. These triggers apply an EF threshold on the cluster ET at 24 and 60 GeV, respectively. The identification selection of e24vhi_medium1 is more stringent than for e60_medium1, as the first applies a relative track isolation at EF, an additional selection on the longitudinal shower shape in the electro-magnetic calorimeter at EF, and an absolute hadronic leakage requirement at L1. These two triggers are combined with a logical ‘OR’ to improve the high ET efficiency, as visible in the plot in the abrupt increase in efficiency at 60 GeV. The events were collected by ATLAS in p-p collisions at the LHC, at the centre of mass energy of 8 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 4.1 fb-1, since May 2012, after a re-optimization of the L2 and EF shower selection at high . The efficiencies are measured by applying the Zee tag-and-probe method, and are with respect to mediumPP offline electron identification, which is equivalent to the medium1 used at trigger level. The offline electron is required to have ET > 25 GeV and |η| < 2.47, excluding the crack regions |η| = 1.37-1.52. No isolation requirement is applied to the offline electron. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic. [png] [eps]

## 2011 Data @ 7 TeV

### Electron and photon trigger efficiencies for the early 2011 data ATLAS-COM-DAQ-2011-032 (May 27, 2011)

 Efficiencies for e20_medium at each trigger level (L1, L2 and EF) measured with Z->ee events using the tag-and-probe method. Efficiencies are measured as a function of the offline electron ET for candidates satisfying the tight identification requirements. The offline electrons must also be in the region |η|<2.47 and not coming from the transition region between the barrel and endcap part of the electromagnetic calorimeter. Opposite sign electron pairs with 80ee selection. Data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 206 pb-1 were used. (only statistical uncertainties are shown) [png] [eps] Efficiencies for e20_medium at each trigger level (L1, L2 and EF) measured with Z->ee events using the tag-and-probe method. Efficiencies are measured as a function of the offline electron η for candidates with ET>20 GeV satisfying the tight identification requirements. Opposite sign electron pairs with 80ee selection. Efficiencies are low in the transition region between the barrel and endcap calorimeters at |η|~1.4. Data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 206 pb-1 were used. (only statistical uncertainties are shown) [png] [eps] Efficiencies for g20_loose trigger selection at EF measured with two reconstructed photons satisfying 87

-- TetianaHrynova - 2019-05-08

Responsible: TetianaHrynova FernandoMonticelli
Subject: public

Topic attachments
I Attachment History Action Size Date Who Comment
pdf 20150707_TrigEgamma_Plots.pdf r1 manage 150.6 K 2015-07-16 - 23:34 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
pdf 2015HLTElectron_Plots.pdf r1 manage 183.6 K 2015-08-05 - 23:39 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
eps 2016_eff_et_HLT_g120_loose_HLT_g140_loose.eps r1 manage 15.1 K 2016-05-24 - 11:04 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for LHCC using 2016 data
pdf 2016_eff_et_HLT_g120_loose_HLT_g140_loose.pdf r1 manage 14.7 K 2016-05-24 - 11:04 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for LHCC using 2016 data
png 2016_eff_et_HLT_g120_loose_HLT_g140_loose.png r1 manage 10.4 K 2016-05-24 - 11:04 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for LHCC using 2016 data
eps 2016_eff_et_HLT_g25_g35_g50.eps r1 manage 24.2 K 2016-05-24 - 11:04 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for LHCC using 2016 data
pdf 2016_eff_et_HLT_g25_g35_g50.pdf r1 manage 17.1 K 2016-05-24 - 11:04 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for LHCC using 2016 data
png 2016_eff_et_HLT_g25_g35_g50.png r1 manage 34.1 K 2016-05-24 - 11:04 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for LHCC using 2016 data
eps 2016_eff_et_L1_EM20VHI_HLT_e24_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose.eps r1 manage 15.4 K 2016-05-24 - 11:04 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for LHCC using 2016 data
pdf 2016_eff_et_L1_EM20VHI_HLT_e24_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose.pdf r1 manage 11.5 K 2016-05-24 - 11:04 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for LHCC using 2016 data
png 2016_eff_et_L1_EM20VHI_HLT_e24_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose.png r1 manage 91.7 K 2016-05-30 - 18:16 MoritzBackes
eps 2016_eff_et_L1_EM20VH_L1_EM20VHI.eps r1 manage 15.5 K 2016-05-24 - 11:04 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for LHCC using 2016 data
pdf 2016_eff_et_L1_EM20VH_L1_EM20VHI.pdf r1 manage 11.1 K 2016-05-24 - 11:04 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for LHCC using 2016 data
png 2016_eff_et_L1_EM20VH_L1_EM20VHI.png r1 manage 88.3 K 2016-05-30 - 18:16 MoritzBackes
eps 2016_eff_et_L1_EM22VHI_HLT_e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose.eps r1 manage 15.4 K 2016-05-24 - 11:08 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for LHCC using 2016 data
pdf 2016_eff_et_L1_EM22VHI_HLT_e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose.pdf r1 manage 11.5 K 2016-05-24 - 11:08 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for LHCC using 2016 data
png 2016_eff_et_L1_EM22VHI_HLT_e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose.png r1 manage 91.1 K 2016-05-30 - 18:16 MoritzBackes
eps 2016_eff_eta_HLT_g25_loose_HLT_g35_loose.eps r1 manage 11.8 K 2016-05-24 - 11:08 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for LHCC using 2016 data
pdf 2016_eff_eta_HLT_g25_loose_HLT_g35_loose.pdf r1 manage 12.7 K 2016-05-24 - 11:08 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for LHCC using 2016 data
png 2016_eff_eta_HLT_g25_loose_HLT_g35_loose.png r1 manage 8.6 K 2016-05-24 - 11:08 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for LHCC using 2016 data
eps 2016_eff_eta_HLT_g25_medium_HLT_g35_medium.eps r1 manage 11.9 K 2016-05-24 - 11:08 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for LHCC using 2016 data
pdf 2016_eff_eta_HLT_g25_medium_HLT_g35_medium.pdf r1 manage 12.9 K 2016-05-24 - 11:08 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for LHCC using 2016 data
png 2016_eff_eta_HLT_g25_medium_HLT_g35_medium.png r1 manage 8.7 K 2016-05-24 - 11:08 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for LHCC using 2016 data
eps Diff_Eratio_mediumPP.eps r1 manage 13.6 K 2015-07-16 - 23:29 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron performance
pdf Diff_Eratio_mediumPP.pdf r1 manage 28.7 K 2015-07-16 - 23:29 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron performance
png Diff_Eratio_mediumPP.png r1 manage 94.0 K 2015-07-16 - 23:29 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron performance
eps Diff_Et_mediumPP.eps r1 manage 13.8 K 2015-07-16 - 23:29 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron performance
pdf Diff_Et_mediumPP.pdf r1 manage 28.9 K 2015-07-16 - 23:29 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron performance
png Diff_Et_mediumPP.png r1 manage 92.0 K 2015-07-16 - 23:29 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron performance
eps Diff_Ethad1_mediumPP.eps r1 manage 13.2 K 2015-07-16 - 23:29 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron performance
pdf Diff_Ethad1_mediumPP.pdf r1 manage 28.6 K 2015-07-16 - 23:29 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron performance
png Diff_Ethad1_mediumPP.png r1 manage 97.1 K 2015-07-16 - 23:29 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron performance
eps Diff_reta_mediumPP.eps r1 manage 12.7 K 2015-07-16 - 23:30 GabriellaPasztor 2012 elctron trigger performance
pdf Diff_reta_mediumPP.pdf r1 manage 28.5 K 2015-07-16 - 23:30 GabriellaPasztor 2012 elctron trigger performance
png Diff_reta_mediumPP.png r1 manage 91.0 K 2015-07-16 - 23:30 GabriellaPasztor 2012 elctron trigger performance
eps EF.eps r1 manage 13.1 K 2015-07-16 - 23:34 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
pdf EF.pdf r1 manage 14.4 K 2015-07-16 - 23:34 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
png EF.png r1 manage 19.3 K 2015-07-16 - 23:34 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
eps Eff_Et_e17_lhvloose_nod0_full2016.eps r1 manage 11.7 K 2017-03-21 - 14:43 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
pdf Eff_Et_e17_lhvloose_nod0_full2016.pdf r1 manage 15.7 K 2017-03-21 - 10:41 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
png Eff_Et_e17_lhvloose_nod0_full2016.png r1 manage 22.1 K 2017-03-21 - 14:43 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
eps Eff_Et_e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose_full2016.eps r1 manage 11.1 K 2017-03-21 - 14:43 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
pdf Eff_Et_e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose_full2016.pdf r1 manage 15.2 K 2017-03-21 - 10:41 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
png Eff_Et_e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose_full2016.png r1 manage 23.1 K 2017-03-21 - 14:43 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
eps Eff_Et_photon_22t_25l_35l_140l_full2016.eps r1 manage 64.5 K 2017-03-21 - 10:41 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
pdf Eff_Et_photon_22t_25l_35l_140l_full2016.pdf r1 manage 14.1 K 2017-03-21 - 10:41 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
png Eff_Et_photon_22t_25l_35l_140l_full2016.png r1 manage 64.9 K 2017-03-21 - 14:43 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
eps Eff_Et_photon_25m_35m_140t_200l_LHCC_Sep2017.eps r1 manage 62.6 K 2017-09-12 - 23:14 ArantxaRuizMartinez Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2017 data for LHCC Sep 2017
pdf Eff_Et_photon_25m_35m_140t_200l_LHCC_Sep2017.pdf r1 manage 26.6 K 2017-09-12 - 22:47 ArantxaRuizMartinez Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2017 data for LHCC Sep 2017
png Eff_Et_photon_25m_35m_140t_200l_LHCC_Sep2017.png r1 manage 118.0 K 2017-09-12 - 23:05 ArantxaRuizMartinez Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2017 data for LHCC Sep 2017
eps Eff_Et_singleOR_full2016.eps r1 manage 12.0 K 2017-03-21 - 14:43 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
pdf Eff_Et_singleOR_full2016.pdf r1 manage 15.3 K 2017-03-21 - 10:41 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
png Eff_Et_singleOR_full2016.png r1 manage 25.8 K 2017-03-21 - 14:43 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
eps Eff_HLT_g25_medium_L1EM20VH_et_EPS2017.eps r1 manage 55.5 K 2017-07-04 - 21:31 ArantxaRuizMartinez Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2017 data for EPS-HEP 2017
pdf Eff_HLT_g25_medium_L1EM20VH_et_EPS2017.pdf r1 manage 14.1 K 2017-07-03 - 21:21 ArantxaRuizMartinez Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2017 data for EPS-HEP 2017
png Eff_HLT_g25_medium_L1EM20VH_et_EPS2017.png r1 manage 111.3 K 2017-07-04 - 21:31 ArantxaRuizMartinez Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2017 data for EPS-HEP 2017
eps Eff_HLT_g25_medium_L1EM20VH_eta_EPS2017.eps r1 manage 46.1 K 2017-07-04 - 21:31 ArantxaRuizMartinez Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2017 data for EPS-HEP 2017
pdf Eff_HLT_g25_medium_L1EM20VH_eta_EPS2017.pdf r1 manage 12.0 K 2017-07-03 - 21:21 ArantxaRuizMartinez Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2017 data for EPS-HEP 2017
png Eff_HLT_g25_medium_L1EM20VH_eta_EPS2017.png r1 manage 95.0 K 2017-07-04 - 21:31 ArantxaRuizMartinez Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2017 data for EPS-HEP 2017
eps Eff_HLT_g25_medium_L1EM20VH_mu_EPS2017.eps r1 manage 41.9 K 2017-07-04 - 21:31 ArantxaRuizMartinez Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2017 data for EPS-HEP 2017
pdf Eff_HLT_g25_medium_L1EM20VH_mu_EPS2017.pdf r1 manage 10.7 K 2017-07-03 - 21:21 ArantxaRuizMartinez Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2017 data for EPS-HEP 2017
png Eff_HLT_g25_medium_L1EM20VH_mu_EPS2017.png r1 manage 86.6 K 2017-07-04 - 21:31 ArantxaRuizMartinez Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2017 data for EPS-HEP 2017
eps Eff_eta_e17_lhvloose_nod0_full2016.eps r1 manage 13.1 K 2017-03-21 - 14:44 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
pdf Eff_eta_e17_lhvloose_nod0_full2016.pdf r1 manage 16.1 K 2017-03-21 - 10:41 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
png Eff_eta_e17_lhvloose_nod0_full2016.png r1 manage 21.9 K 2017-03-21 - 14:44 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
eps Eff_eta_e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose_full2016.eps r1 manage 13.0 K 2017-03-21 - 14:44 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
pdf Eff_eta_e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose_full2016.pdf r1 manage 16.2 K 2017-03-21 - 10:41 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
png Eff_eta_e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose_full2016.png r1 manage 23.4 K 2017-03-21 - 14:44 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
eps Eff_eta_photon_22t_25l_35l_140l_full2016.eps r1 manage 77.0 K 2017-03-21 - 10:41 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
pdf Eff_eta_photon_22t_25l_35l_140l_full2016.pdf r1 manage 17.3 K 2017-03-21 - 10:41 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
png Eff_eta_photon_22t_25l_35l_140l_full2016.png r1 manage 67.5 K 2017-03-21 - 14:44 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
eps Eff_eta_singleOR_full2016.eps r1 manage 13.0 K 2017-03-21 - 14:44 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
pdf Eff_eta_singleOR_full2016.pdf r1 manage 16.2 K 2017-03-21 - 10:41 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
png Eff_eta_singleOR_full2016.png r1 manage 24.4 K 2017-03-21 - 14:44 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
eps EleETRes.eps r1 manage 48.2 K 2015-07-27 - 23:42 GabriellaPasztor 2015 Rates and energy resolution
pdf EleETRes.pdf r1 manage 21.8 K 2015-07-27 - 23:42 GabriellaPasztor 2015 Rates and energy resolution
png EleETRes.png r1 manage 25.2 K 2015-07-27 - 23:42 GabriellaPasztor 2015 Rates and energy resolution
eps EleETResVsEta.eps r1 manage 51.3 K 2015-08-05 - 23:39 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
pdf EleETResVsEta.pdf r1 manage 22.4 K 2015-08-05 - 23:39 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
png EleETResVsEta.png r1 manage 26.8 K 2015-08-05 - 23:39 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
eps EleRes_includeCrack.eps r1 manage 24.6 K 2015-08-05 - 23:39 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
pdf EleRes_includeCrack.pdf r1 manage 24.4 K 2015-08-05 - 23:39 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
png EleRes_includeCrack.png r1 manage 19.6 K 2015-08-05 - 23:39 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
eps ElectronEfficiency.eps r1 manage 22.7 K 2015-07-28 - 00:04 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
pdf ElectronEfficiency.pdf r1 manage 23.3 K 2015-07-28 - 00:04 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
png ElectronEfficiency.png r1 manage 28.8 K 2015-07-28 - 00:04 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
eps ElectronEfficiency_cut.eps r1 manage 15.4 K 2015-07-28 - 00:03 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
pdf ElectronEfficiency_cut.pdf r1 manage 18.8 K 2015-07-28 - 00:03 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
png ElectronEfficiency_cut.png r1 manage 20.0 K 2015-07-28 - 00:03 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
eps ElectronEfficiency_data.eps r1 manage 16.6 K 2015-07-28 - 00:11 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
pdf ElectronEfficiency_data.pdf r1 manage 19.4 K 2015-07-28 - 00:11 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
png ElectronEfficiency_data.png r1 manage 20.9 K 2015-07-28 - 00:11 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
eps ElectronEfficiency_eta.eps r1 manage 25.9 K 2015-07-28 - 00:04 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
pdf ElectronEfficiency_eta.pdf r1 manage 26.3 K 2015-07-28 - 00:04 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
png ElectronEfficiency_eta.png r1 manage 28.2 K 2015-07-28 - 00:04 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
eps ElectronEfficiency_eta_cut.eps r1 manage 16.8 K 2015-07-28 - 00:03 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
pdf ElectronEfficiency_eta_cut.pdf r1 manage 20.3 K 2015-07-28 - 00:03 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
png ElectronEfficiency_eta_cut.png r1 manage 18.8 K 2015-07-28 - 00:03 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
eps ElectronEfficiency_eta_data.eps r1 manage 18.9 K 2015-07-28 - 00:03 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
pdf ElectronEfficiency_eta_data.pdf r1 manage 21.5 K 2015-07-28 - 00:03 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
png ElectronEfficiency_eta_data.png r1 manage 19.9 K 2015-07-28 - 00:03 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
eps ElectronEfficiency_eta_lh.eps r1 manage 18.1 K 2015-07-28 - 00:04 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
pdf ElectronEfficiency_eta_lh.pdf r1 manage 20.4 K 2015-07-28 - 00:04 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
png ElectronEfficiency_eta_lh.png r1 manage 19.0 K 2015-07-28 - 00:04 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
eps ElectronEfficiency_eta_mc.eps r1 manage 15.4 K 2015-07-28 - 00:04 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
pdf ElectronEfficiency_eta_mc.pdf r1 manage 19.1 K 2015-07-28 - 00:04 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
png ElectronEfficiency_eta_mc.png r1 manage 18.4 K 2015-07-28 - 00:04 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
eps ElectronEfficiency_lh.eps r1 manage 16.5 K 2015-07-28 - 00:04 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
pdf ElectronEfficiency_lh.pdf r1 manage 19.0 K 2015-07-28 - 00:04 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
png ElectronEfficiency_lh.png r1 manage 20.0 K 2015-07-28 - 00:04 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
eps ElectronEfficiency_mc.eps r1 manage 14.8 K 2015-07-28 - 00:04 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
pdf ElectronEfficiency_mc.pdf r1 manage 18.3 K 2015-07-28 - 00:04 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
png ElectronEfficiency_mc.png r1 manage 19.3 K 2015-07-28 - 00:04 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
eps Et_e12_lhloose_L1EM10VH.eps r1 manage 11.1 K 2015-12-06 - 22:41 MoritzBackes 2015 25 ns electron trigger performance
pdf Et_e12_lhloose_L1EM10VH.pdf r1 manage 15.7 K 2015-12-06 - 22:41 MoritzBackes 2015 25 ns electron trigger performance
png Et_e12_lhloose_L1EM10VH.png r1 manage 17.4 K 2015-12-06 - 22:41 MoritzBackes 2015 25 ns electron trigger performance
eps Et_e17_Aug2016.eps r1 manage 3977.6 K 2016-08-02 - 12:43 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
pdf Et_e17_Aug2016.pdf r1 manage 23.4 K 2016-08-02 - 12:43 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
png Et_e17_Aug2016.png r1 manage 21.9 K 2016-08-02 - 12:43 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
eps Et_e24_lhmedium_L1EM20VH.eps r1 manage 10.5 K 2015-12-06 - 22:41 MoritzBackes 2015 25 ns electron trigger performance
pdf Et_e24_lhmedium_L1EM20VH.pdf r1 manage 15.3 K 2015-12-06 - 22:41 MoritzBackes 2015 25 ns electron trigger performance
png Et_e24_lhmedium_L1EM20VH.png r1 manage 18.3 K 2015-12-06 - 22:41 MoritzBackes 2015 25 ns electron trigger performance
eps Et_e26_Aug2016.eps r1 manage 3977.6 K 2016-08-02 - 12:43 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
pdf Et_e26_Aug2016.pdf r1 manage 24.5 K 2016-08-02 - 12:43 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
png Et_e26_Aug2016.png r1 manage 22.7 K 2016-08-02 - 12:43 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
eps Eta_e12_lhloose_L1EM10VH.eps r1 manage 12.3 K 2015-12-06 - 22:41 MoritzBackes 2015 25 ns electron trigger performance
pdf Eta_e12_lhloose_L1EM10VH.pdf r1 manage 16.2 K 2015-12-06 - 22:41 MoritzBackes 2015 25 ns electron trigger performance
png Eta_e12_lhloose_L1EM10VH.png r1 manage 16.8 K 2015-12-06 - 22:41 MoritzBackes 2015 25 ns electron trigger performance
eps Eta_e17_Aug2016.eps r1 manage 3977.6 K 2016-08-02 - 12:44 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
pdf Eta_e17_Aug2016.pdf r1 manage 23.9 K 2016-08-02 - 12:44 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
png Eta_e17_Aug2016.png r1 manage 22.0 K 2016-08-02 - 12:44 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
eps Eta_e24_lhmedium_L1EM20VH.eps r1 manage 12.2 K 2015-12-06 - 22:41 MoritzBackes 2015 25 ns electron trigger performance
pdf Eta_e24_lhmedium_L1EM20VH.pdf r1 manage 16.2 K 2015-12-06 - 22:43 MoritzBackes 2015 25 ns electron trigger performance
png Eta_e24_lhmedium_L1EM20VH.png r1 manage 18.2 K 2015-12-06 - 22:43 MoritzBackes 2015 25 ns electron trigger performance
eps Eta_e26_Aug2016.eps r1 manage 3977.6 K 2016-08-02 - 12:44 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
pdf Eta_e26_Aug2016.pdf r1 manage 25.3 K 2016-08-02 - 12:44 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
png Eta_e26_Aug2016.png r1 manage 23.4 K 2016-08-02 - 12:44 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
eps Fraction_HTTRT_Trigger_ATLASStyle_correct_Rebin3.eps r1 manage 11.0 K 2015-07-20 - 14:04 AkshayKatre Highly ionising trigger plots
pdf Fraction_HTTRT_Trigger_ATLASStyle_correct_Rebin3.pdf r1 manage 424.0 K 2015-07-20 - 14:13 AkshayKatre Highly ionising trigger plots
png Fraction_HTTRT_Trigger_ATLASStyle_correct_Rebin3.png r1 manage 56.2 K 2015-07-20 - 14:13 AkshayKatre Highly ionising trigger plots
eps HLT_Electron1.eps r1 manage 18.3 K 2015-07-27 - 23:42 GabriellaPasztor 2015 Rates and energy resolution
pdf HLT_Electron1.pdf r1 manage 23.8 K 2015-07-27 - 23:42 GabriellaPasztor 2015 Rates and energy resolution
png HLT_Electron1.png r1 manage 30.0 K 2015-07-27 - 23:42 GabriellaPasztor 2015 Rates and energy resolution
eps HLT_Photon.eps r1 manage 15.6 K 2015-07-27 - 23:42 GabriellaPasztor 2015 Rates and energy resolution
pdf HLT_Photon.pdf r1 manage 21.6 K 2015-07-27 - 23:42 GabriellaPasztor 2015 Rates and energy resolution
png HLT_Photon.png r1 manage 27.0 K 2015-07-27 - 23:42 GabriellaPasztor 2015 Rates and energy resolution
eps HLT_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose_L1EM24VHIM_et.eps r1 manage 14.3 K 2018-05-14 - 20:18 FernandoMonticelli
png HLT_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose_L1EM24VHIM_et.png r1 manage 49.1 K 2018-05-14 - 20:18 FernandoMonticelli
pdf HLT_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose_L1EM24VHIM_et_2.pdf r1 manage 16.7 K 2018-05-14 - 20:18 FernandoMonticelli
eps HLT_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose__et.eps r1 manage 14.9 K 2018-05-28 - 15:05 FernandoMonticelli
pdf HLT_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose__et.pdf r1 manage 13.3 K 2018-05-28 - 15:05 FernandoMonticelli
png HLT_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose__et.png r1 manage 14.1 K 2018-05-28 - 15:05 FernandoMonticelli
eps HLT_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose__eta.eps r1 manage 16.6 K 2018-05-28 - 15:05 FernandoMonticelli
pdf HLT_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose__eta.pdf r1 manage 14.8 K 2018-05-28 - 15:05 FernandoMonticelli
png HLT_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose__eta.png r1 manage 14.8 K 2018-05-28 - 15:05 FernandoMonticelli
eps HLT_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose__mu.eps r1 manage 15.1 K 2018-05-28 - 15:05 FernandoMonticelli
pdf HLT_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose__mu.pdf r1 manage 13.5 K 2018-05-28 - 15:05 FernandoMonticelli
png HLT_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose__mu.png r1 manage 14.2 K 2018-05-28 - 15:05 FernandoMonticelli
eps HLT_electron_ICHEP2016.eps r1 manage 20.6 K 2016-08-01 - 19:32 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
pdf HLT_electron_ICHEP2016.pdf r1 manage 15.9 K 2016-08-01 - 19:32 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
png HLT_electron_ICHEP2016.png r1 manage 19.9 K 2016-08-01 - 19:32 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
eps HLT_g25_medium_L1EM20VH__et.eps r1 manage 15.0 K 2018-05-28 - 15:05 FernandoMonticelli
pdf HLT_g25_medium_L1EM20VH__et.pdf r1 manage 13.4 K 2018-05-28 - 15:08 FernandoMonticelli
png HLT_g25_medium_L1EM20VH__et.png r1 manage 13.9 K 2018-05-28 - 15:08 FernandoMonticelli
eps HLT_g25_medium_L1EM20VH__eta.eps r1 manage 16.4 K 2018-05-28 - 15:08 FernandoMonticelli
pdf HLT_g25_medium_L1EM20VH__eta.pdf r1 manage 14.5 K 2018-05-28 - 15:08 FernandoMonticelli
png HLT_g25_medium_L1EM20VH__eta.png r1 manage 14.1 K 2018-05-28 - 15:08 FernandoMonticelli
eps HLT_g25_medium_L1EM20VH__mu.eps r1 manage 14.9 K 2018-05-28 - 15:08 FernandoMonticelli
pdf HLT_g25_medium_L1EM20VH__mu.pdf r1 manage 13.5 K 2018-05-28 - 15:08 FernandoMonticelli
png HLT_g25_medium_L1EM20VH__mu.png r1 manage 13.6 K 2018-05-28 - 15:08 FernandoMonticelli
eps HLT_photon_ICHEP2016.eps r1 manage 25.5 K 2016-08-01 - 19:32 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
pdf HLT_photon_ICHEP2016.pdf r1 manage 20.2 K 2016-08-01 - 19:32 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
png HLT_photon_ICHEP2016.png r1 manage 18.2 K 2016-08-01 - 19:32 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
eps L1_EM_Full2016.eps r1 manage 24.4 K 2017-05-19 - 21:40 FernandoMonticelli ATL-COM-DAQ-2017-021
pdf L1_EM_Full2016.pdf r1 manage 22.6 K 2017-05-19 - 21:40 FernandoMonticelli ATL-COM-DAQ-2017-021
png L1_EM_Full2016.png r1 manage 17.9 K 2017-05-19 - 21:40 FernandoMonticelli ATL-COM-DAQ-2017-021
eps L2.eps r1 manage 7.8 K 2015-07-16 - 23:34 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
pdf L2.pdf r1 manage 13.6 K 2015-07-16 - 23:34 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
png L2.png r1 manage 16.4 K 2015-07-16 - 23:34 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
eps PhotonEfficiency.eps r1 manage 10.2 K 2015-07-27 - 23:27 GabriellaPasztor 2015 photon trigger efficiency
pdf PhotonEfficiency.pdf r1 manage 17.9 K 2015-07-27 - 23:27 GabriellaPasztor 2015 photon trigger efficiency
png PhotonEfficiency.png r1 manage 17.1 K 2015-07-27 - 23:27 GabriellaPasztor 2015 photon trigger efficiency
eps PhotonEfficiencyHigh.eps r1 manage 13.4 K 2015-07-27 - 23:28 GabriellaPasztor 2015 photon trigger perfromance
pdf PhotonEfficiencyHigh.pdf r1 manage 18.2 K 2015-07-27 - 23:28 GabriellaPasztor 2015 photon trigger perfromance
png PhotonEfficiencyHigh.png r1 manage 19.5 K 2015-07-27 - 23:28 GabriellaPasztor 2015 photon trigger perfromance
eps PhotonEfficiencyHigh_eta.eps r1 manage 13.1 K 2015-07-27 - 23:27 GabriellaPasztor 2015 photon trigger efficiency
pdf PhotonEfficiencyHigh_eta.pdf r1 manage 16.5 K 2015-07-27 - 23:27 GabriellaPasztor 2015 photon trigger efficiency
png PhotonEfficiencyHigh_eta.png r1 manage 17.6 K 2015-07-27 - 23:27 GabriellaPasztor 2015 photon trigger efficiency
eps PhotonEfficiencyLoose.eps r1 manage 10.2 K 2015-07-27 - 23:28 GabriellaPasztor 2015 photon trigger perfromance
pdf PhotonEfficiencyLoose.pdf r1 manage 17.9 K 2015-07-27 - 23:28 GabriellaPasztor 2015 photon trigger perfromance
png PhotonEfficiencyLoose.png r1 manage 17.2 K 2015-07-27 - 23:28 GabriellaPasztor 2015 photon trigger perfromance
eps PhotonEfficiencyLoose_eta.eps r1 manage 12.6 K 2015-07-27 - 23:28 GabriellaPasztor 2015 photon trigger perfromance
pdf PhotonEfficiencyLoose_eta.pdf r1 manage 16.4 K 2015-07-27 - 23:28 GabriellaPasztor 2015 photon trigger perfromance
png PhotonEfficiencyLoose_eta.png r1 manage 17.2 K 2015-07-27 - 23:28 GabriellaPasztor 2015 photon trigger perfromance
eps PhotonEfficiency_eta.eps r1 manage 12.8 K 2015-07-27 - 23:27 GabriellaPasztor 2015 photon trigger efficiency
pdf PhotonEfficiency_eta.pdf r1 manage 16.4 K 2015-07-27 - 23:27 GabriellaPasztor 2015 photon trigger efficiency
png PhotonEfficiency_eta.png r1 manage 17.1 K 2015-07-27 - 23:27 GabriellaPasztor 2015 photon trigger efficiency
eps PhotonEfficiency_highEt.eps r1 manage 19.7 K 2016-03-11 - 17:01 ArantxaRuizMartinez 2015 photon trigger performance
pdf PhotonEfficiency_highEt.pdf r2 r1 manage 27.7 K 2016-03-11 - 21:49 ArantxaRuizMartinez 2015 photon trigger efficiency
png PhotonEfficiency_highEt.png r1 manage 61.9 K 2016-03-11 - 21:49 ArantxaRuizMartinez 2015 photon trigger efficiency
eps PhotonEfficiency_lowEt.eps r1 manage 20.0 K 2016-03-11 - 17:01 ArantxaRuizMartinez 2015 photon trigger performance
pdf PhotonEfficiency_lowEt.pdf r2 r1 manage 30.8 K 2016-03-11 - 21:49 ArantxaRuizMartinez 2015 photon trigger efficiency
png PhotonEfficiency_lowEt.png r1 manage 69.7 K 2016-03-11 - 21:49 ArantxaRuizMartinez 2015 photon trigger efficiency
eps PhotonTriggerPerformance_vsFCal_Prelim.eps r1 manage 97.1 K 2016-03-10 - 11:26 MoritzBackes
pdf PhotonTriggerPerformance_vsFCal_Prelim.pdf r1 manage 15.2 K 2016-03-10 - 11:26 MoritzBackes
png PhotonTriggerPerformance_vsFCal_Prelim.png r1 manage 84.3 K 2016-03-10 - 11:26 MoritzBackes
eps Plots2014ICHEP_Fig1a.eps r1 manage 17.4 K 2014-06-27 - 17:17 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
jpg Plots2014ICHEP_Fig1a.jpg r1 manage 23.0 K 2014-06-27 - 17:17 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
pdf Plots2014ICHEP_Fig1a.pdf r1 manage 19.8 K 2014-06-27 - 17:17 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
png Plots2014ICHEP_Fig1a.png r1 manage 19.0 K 2014-06-27 - 17:17 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
eps Plots2014ICHEP_Fig1b.eps r1 manage 18.3 K 2014-06-27 - 17:16 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
jpg Plots2014ICHEP_Fig1b.jpg r1 manage 25.4 K 2014-06-27 - 17:16 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
pdf Plots2014ICHEP_Fig1b.pdf r1 manage 20.2 K 2014-06-27 - 17:16 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
png Plots2014ICHEP_Fig1b.png r1 manage 21.3 K 2014-06-27 - 17:16 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
eps Plots2014ICHEP_Fig2a.eps r1 manage 19.1 K 2014-06-27 - 17:16 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
jpg Plots2014ICHEP_Fig2a.jpg r1 manage 23.6 K 2014-06-27 - 17:16 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
pdf Plots2014ICHEP_Fig2a.pdf r1 manage 17.6 K 2014-06-27 - 17:16 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
png Plots2014ICHEP_Fig2a.png r1 manage 18.6 K 2014-06-27 - 17:16 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
eps Plots2014ICHEP_Fig2b.eps r1 manage 17.2 K 2014-06-27 - 15:14 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
jpg Plots2014ICHEP_Fig2b.jpg r1 manage 22.9 K 2014-06-27 - 15:14 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
pdf Plots2014ICHEP_Fig2b.pdf r1 manage 15.2 K 2014-06-27 - 17:16 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
png Plots2014ICHEP_Fig2b.png r1 manage 16.1 K 2014-06-27 - 17:16 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
eps Plots2014ICHEP_Fig3a.eps r1 manage 13.3 K 2014-06-27 - 15:14 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
jpg Plots2014ICHEP_Fig3a.jpg r1 manage 21.1 K 2014-06-27 - 15:14 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
pdf Plots2014ICHEP_Fig3a.pdf r1 manage 17.4 K 2014-06-27 - 15:14 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
png Plots2014ICHEP_Fig3a.png r1 manage 17.1 K 2014-06-27 - 15:14 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
eps Plots2014ICHEP_Fig3b.eps r1 manage 15.7 K 2014-06-27 - 15:14 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
jpg Plots2014ICHEP_Fig3b.jpg r1 manage 23.5 K 2014-06-27 - 15:14 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
pdf Plots2014ICHEP_Fig3b.pdf r1 manage 16.8 K 2014-06-27 - 15:14 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
png Plots2014ICHEP_Fig3b.png r1 manage 15.8 K 2014-06-27 - 15:14 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
eps Rate_electron_full2016.eps r1 manage 12.4 K 2017-03-21 - 10:43 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
pdf Rate_electron_full2016.pdf r1 manage 19.9 K 2017-03-21 - 10:43 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
png Rate_electron_full2016.png r1 manage 90.3 K 2017-03-21 - 14:44 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
eps Rate_photon_full2016.eps r1 manage 12.2 K 2017-03-21 - 10:43 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
pdf Rate_photon_full2016.pdf r1 manage 16.9 K 2017-03-21 - 10:43 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
png Rate_photon_full2016.png r1 manage 80.5 K 2017-03-21 - 14:44 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
eps Rate_single_electron_full2016.eps r1 manage 11.0 K 2017-03-21 - 10:43 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
pdf Rate_single_electron_full2016.pdf r1 manage 13.5 K 2017-03-21 - 10:43 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
png Rate_single_electron_full2016.png r1 manage 34.8 K 2017-03-21 - 14:44 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
eps SingleElectronTriggerEfficiency2012_et.eps r1 manage 18.1 K 2012-06-29 - 11:46 AlessandroTricoli Single Electron Trigger Efficiencies in early 2012 with 4.1 fb-1
png SingleElectronTriggerEfficiency2012_et.png r1 manage 17.7 K 2012-06-29 - 11:46 AlessandroTricoli Single Electron Trigger Efficiencies in early 2012 with 4.1 fb-1
eps SingleElectronTriggerEfficiency2012_et_linearScale.eps r1 manage 18.5 K 2012-06-29 - 11:46 AlessandroTricoli Single Electron Trigger Efficiencies in early 2012 with 4.1 fb-1
png SingleElectronTriggerEfficiency2012_et_linearScale.png r1 manage 18.1 K 2012-06-29 - 11:46 AlessandroTricoli Single Electron Trigger Efficiencies in early 2012 with 4.1 fb-1
eps SingleElectronTriggerEfficiency2012_eta.eps r1 manage 14.5 K 2012-06-29 - 11:46 AlessandroTricoli Single Electron Trigger Efficiencies in early 2012 with 4.1 fb-1
png SingleElectronTriggerEfficiency2012_eta.png r1 manage 15.5 K 2012-06-29 - 11:46 AlessandroTricoli Single Electron Trigger Efficiencies in early 2012 with 4.1 fb-1
eps SingleElectronTriggerEfficiency2012_npv.eps r1 manage 14.3 K 2012-06-29 - 11:46 AlessandroTricoli Single Electron Trigger Efficiencies in early 2012 with 4.1 fb-1
png SingleElectronTriggerEfficiency2012_npv.png r1 manage 16.3 K 2012-06-29 - 11:46 AlessandroTricoli Single Electron Trigger Efficiencies in early 2012 with 4.1 fb-1
eps SingleMonopole_M_1000Q_2_0_loweta_eff_SP.eps r1 manage 20.0 K 2015-07-20 - 14:04 AkshayKatre Highly ionising trigger plots
pdf SingleMonopole_M_1000Q_2_0_loweta_eff_SP.pdf r1 manage 576.1 K 2015-07-20 - 14:13 AkshayKatre Highly ionising trigger plots
png SingleMonopole_M_1000Q_2_0_loweta_eff_SP.png r1 manage 114.5 K 2015-07-20 - 14:13 AkshayKatre Highly ionising trigger plots
eps TRT_hits_MC_Mon_DY_vs_mu__prelim.eps r1 manage 12.8 K 2015-07-20 - 14:04 AkshayKatre Highly ionising trigger plots
pdf TRT_hits_MC_Mon_DY_vs_mu__prelim.pdf r1 manage 516.3 K 2015-07-20 - 14:13 AkshayKatre Highly ionising trigger plots
png TRT_hits_MC_Mon_DY_vs_mu__prelim.png r1 manage 60.3 K 2015-07-20 - 14:13 AkshayKatre Highly ionising trigger plots
eps e24_lhmedium_iloose_L1EM18VH_periodC2_C5_Zee_MC15.eps r1 manage 11.6 K 2015-08-13 - 14:09 RyanWhite
pdf e24_lhmedium_iloose_L1EM18VH_periodC2_C5_Zee_MC15.pdf r1 manage 16.1 K 2015-08-13 - 14:09 RyanWhite
png e24_lhmedium_iloose_L1EM18VH_periodC2_C5_Zee_MC15.png r1 manage 18.1 K 2015-08-13 - 14:09 RyanWhite
eps e24_medium_LH_vs_cutbased_relabel.eps r1 manage 10.5 K 2015-07-28 - 00:06 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
pdf e24_medium_LH_vs_cutbased_relabel.pdf r1 manage 14.7 K 2015-07-28 - 00:06 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
png e24_medium_LH_vs_cutbased_relabel.png r1 manage 16.0 K 2015-07-28 - 00:06 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
c e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose_IneffisEMLHTight_2017.C r1 manage 15.9 K 2018-05-18 - 14:58 FernandoMonticelli
eps e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose_IneffisEMLHTight_2017.eps r1 manage 24.9 K 2018-05-18 - 14:58 FernandoMonticelli
pdf e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose_IneffisEMLHTight_2017.pdf r1 manage 17.2 K 2018-05-18 - 14:58 FernandoMonticelli
png e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose_IneffisEMLHTight_2017.png r1 manage 17.1 K 2018-05-18 - 15:03 FernandoMonticelli
c e60_lhmedium_nod0_IneffisEMLHMedium_2017.C r1 manage 14.4 K 2018-05-18 - 14:58 FernandoMonticelli
eps e60_lhmedium_nod0_IneffisEMLHMedium_2017.eps r1 manage 26.9 K 2018-05-18 - 14:58 FernandoMonticelli
pdf e60_lhmedium_nod0_IneffisEMLHMedium_2017.pdf r1 manage 17.9 K 2018-05-18 - 14:58 FernandoMonticelli
png e60_lhmedium_nod0_IneffisEMLHMedium_2017.png r1 manage 31.6 K 2018-05-18 - 15:03 FernandoMonticelli
eps eff_e20_medium_Et_May2011.eps r1 manage 16.6 K 2011-06-01 - 16:09 TakanoriKono
png eff_e20_medium_Et_May2011.png r1 manage 19.6 K 2011-06-01 - 16:08 TakanoriKono
eps eff_e20_medium_eta_May2011.eps r1 manage 12.9 K 2011-06-01 - 16:10 TakanoriKono
png eff_e20_medium_eta_May2011.png r1 manage 20.5 K 2011-06-01 - 16:09 TakanoriKono
eps eff_g20_loose_Et_May2011.eps r1 manage 8.8 K 2011-06-01 - 16:10 TakanoriKono
png eff_g20_loose_Et_May2011.png r1 manage 6.6 K 2011-06-01 - 16:10 TakanoriKono
eps effi2donly_medium_AM.eps r1 manage 24.3 K 2015-07-16 - 23:33 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
pdf effi2donly_medium_AM.pdf r1 manage 49.6 K 2015-07-16 - 23:33 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
png effi2donly_medium_AM.png r1 manage 104.6 K 2015-07-16 - 23:33 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
eps effi_alltrig_et_AM.eps r1 manage 18.4 K 2015-07-16 - 23:30 GabriellaPasztor 2012 elctron trigger performance
pdf effi_alltrig_et_AM.pdf r1 manage 55.4 K 2015-07-16 - 23:30 GabriellaPasztor 2012 elctron trigger performance
png effi_alltrig_et_AM.png r1 manage 126.3 K 2015-07-16 - 23:30 GabriellaPasztor 2012 elctron trigger performance
eps effi_alltrig_eta_AM.eps r1 manage 16.3 K 2015-07-16 - 23:30 GabriellaPasztor 2012 elctron trigger performance
pdf effi_alltrig_eta_AM.pdf r1 manage 49.1 K 2015-07-16 - 23:30 GabriellaPasztor 2012 elctron trigger performance
png effi_alltrig_eta_AM.png r1 manage 120.5 K 2015-07-16 - 23:30 GabriellaPasztor 2012 elctron trigger performance
eps effi_et_AM.eps r1 manage 23.2 K 2015-07-16 - 23:31 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
pdf effi_et_AM.pdf r1 manage 60.1 K 2015-07-16 - 23:31 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
png effi_et_AM.png r1 manage 129.8 K 2015-07-16 - 23:31 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
eps effi_et_periods.eps r1 manage 18.3 K 2015-07-16 - 23:31 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
pdf effi_et_periods.pdf r1 manage 54.8 K 2015-07-16 - 23:31 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
png effi_et_periods.png r1 manage 106.7 K 2015-07-16 - 23:31 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
eps effi_eta_AM.eps r1 manage 19.0 K 2015-07-16 - 23:31 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
pdf effi_eta_AM.pdf r1 manage 52.4 K 2015-07-16 - 23:31 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
png effi_eta_AM.png r1 manage 120.2 K 2015-07-16 - 23:31 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
eps effi_eta_periods.eps r1 manage 16.2 K 2015-07-16 - 23:32 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
pdf effi_eta_periods.pdf r1 manage 48.9 K 2015-07-16 - 23:32 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
png effi_eta_periods.png r1 manage 106.0 K 2015-07-16 - 23:32 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
eps effi_eta_projections.eps r1 manage 17.2 K 2015-07-16 - 23:32 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
pdf effi_eta_projections.pdf r1 manage 48.2 K 2015-07-16 - 23:32 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
png effi_eta_projections.png r1 manage 118.2 K 2015-07-16 - 23:32 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
eps effi_mu_AM.eps r1 manage 16.6 K 2015-07-16 - 23:32 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
pdf effi_mu_AM.pdf r1 manage 30.8 K 2015-07-16 - 23:32 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
png effi_mu_AM.png r1 manage 104.6 K 2015-07-16 - 23:32 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
eps effi_vtx_AM.eps r1 manage 15.3 K 2015-07-16 - 23:33 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
pdf effi_vtx_AM.pdf r1 manage 29.1 K 2015-07-16 - 23:33 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
png effi_vtx_AM.png r1 manage 96.3 K 2015-07-16 - 23:33 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
eps el_eratio_et40eta0_00_sigma_base_new.eps r1 manage 41.4 K 2018-05-14 - 20:18 FernandoMonticelli
pdf el_eratio_et40eta0_00_sigma_base_new.pdf r1 manage 39.8 K 2018-05-14 - 20:18 FernandoMonticelli
png el_eratio_et40eta0_00_sigma_base_new.png r1 manage 493.7 K 2018-05-14 - 20:18 FernandoMonticelli
eps el_trigger_composition_8e33.eps r2 r1 manage 3395.6 K 2017-06-09 - 10:40 ArantxaRuizMartinez Rate of the single electron trigger as a function of the threshold in 2016
pdf el_trigger_composition_8e33.pdf r1 manage 21.0 K 2017-06-09 - 10:02 ArantxaRuizMartinez Rate of the single electron trigger as a function of the threshold in 2016
png el_trigger_composition_8e33.png r2 r1 manage 361.8 K 2017-06-09 - 10:49 ArantxaRuizMartinez Rate of the single electron trigger as a function of the threshold in 2016
txt fig1.txt r1 manage 2.8 K 2018-05-18 - 14:58 FernandoMonticelli
eps plot_Combined_Pt_LOGaxis_Et_log_25l_35l_120l_140l.eps r1 manage 41.0 K 2016-08-02 - 19:01 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
pdf plot_Combined_Pt_LOGaxis_Et_log_25l_35l_120l_140l.pdf r1 manage 12.6 K 2016-08-02 - 19:01 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
png plot_Combined_Pt_LOGaxis_Et_log_25l_35l_120l_140l.png r1 manage 43.9 K 2016-08-02 - 19:01 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
eps plot_Combined_highPt_Eta_120l_140l.eps r1 manage 46.8 K 2016-08-02 - 19:01 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
pdf plot_Combined_highPt_Eta_120l_140l.pdf r1 manage 15.6 K 2016-08-02 - 19:01 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
png plot_Combined_highPt_Eta_120l_140l.png r1 manage 42.5 K 2016-08-02 - 19:01 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
eps plot_Combined_lowPt_Eta_25l_35l.eps r1 manage 46.8 K 2016-08-02 - 19:01 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
pdf plot_Combined_lowPt_Eta_25l_35l.pdf r1 manage 15.6 K 2016-08-02 - 19:01 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
png plot_Combined_lowPt_Eta_25l_35l.png r1 manage 42.5 K 2016-08-02 - 19:01 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
eps plot_Et_e24_lhvloose_nod0_L1EM20VH_ProbeLooseAndBLayerLLH_d0z0_DataDriven_Rel21_Smooth_vTest_LooseAndBLayerLLH_d0z0_DataDriven_Rel21_Smooth_vTest_LHCC_Sep2017.eps r1 manage 54.5 K 2017-09-12 - 23:14 ArantxaRuizMartinez Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2017 data for LHCC Sep 2017
pdf plot_Et_e24_lhvloose_nod0_L1EM20VH_ProbeLooseAndBLayerLLH_d0z0_DataDriven_Rel21_Smooth_vTest_LooseAndBLayerLLH_d0z0_DataDriven_Rel21_Smooth_vTest_LHCC_Sep2017.pdf r1 manage 15.5 K 2017-09-12 - 22:47 ArantxaRuizMartinez Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2017 data for LHCC Sep 2017
png plot_Et_e24_lhvloose_nod0_L1EM20VH_ProbeLooseAndBLayerLLH_d0z0_DataDriven_Rel21_Smooth_vTest_LooseAndBLayerLLH_d0z0_DataDriven_Rel21_Smooth_vTest_LHCC_Sep2017.png r1 manage 162.5 K 2017-09-12 - 23:06 ArantxaRuizMartinez Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2017 data for LHCC Sep 2017
eps plot_Et_e24_lhvloose_nod0_L1EM20VH_ProbeLooseAndBLayerLLH_d0z0_Smooth_v11_LooseAndBLayerLLH_d0z0_Smooth_v11_EPS2017.eps r1 manage 44.1 K 2017-07-04 - 21:33 ArantxaRuizMartinez Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2017 data for EPS-HEP 2017
pdf plot_Et_e24_lhvloose_nod0_L1EM20VH_ProbeLooseAndBLayerLLH_d0z0_Smooth_v11_LooseAndBLayerLLH_d0z0_Smooth_v11_EPS2017.pdf r1 manage 11.3 K 2017-07-03 - 21:21 ArantxaRuizMartinez Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2017 data for EPS-HEP 2017
png plot_Et_e24_lhvloose_nod0_L1EM20VH_ProbeLooseAndBLayerLLH_d0z0_Smooth_v11_LooseAndBLayerLLH_d0z0_Smooth_v11_EPS2017.png r1 manage 94.2 K 2017-07-04 - 21:33 ArantxaRuizMartinez Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2017 data for EPS-HEP 2017
eps plot_Et_e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose_ProbeTightLLH_d0z0_DataDriven_Rel21_Smooth_vTest_isolFixedCutTight_TightLLH_d0z0_DataDriven_Rel21_Smooth_vTest_isolFixedCutTight_LHCC_Sep2017.eps r1 manage 53.2 K 2017-09-12 - 23:14 ArantxaRuizMartinez Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2017 data for LHCC Sep 2017
pdf plot_Et_e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose_ProbeTightLLH_d0z0_DataDriven_Rel21_Smooth_vTest_isolFixedCutTight_TightLLH_d0z0_DataDriven_Rel21_Smooth_vTest_isolFixedCutTight_LHCC_Sep2017.pdf r1 manage 15.2 K 2017-09-12 - 22:47 ArantxaRuizMartinez Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2017 data for LHCC Sep 2017
png plot_Et_e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose_ProbeTightLLH_d0z0_DataDriven_Rel21_Smooth_vTest_isolFixedCutTight_TightLLH_d0z0_DataDriven_Rel21_Smooth_vTest_isolFixedCutTight_LHCC_Sep2017.png r1 manage 164.4 K 2017-09-12 - 23:06 ArantxaRuizMartinez Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2017 data for LHCC Sep 2017
eps plot_Et_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose_ProbeTightLLH_d0z0_Smooth_v11_isolFixedCutTight_TightLLH_d0z0_Smooth_v11_isolFixedCutTight_EPS2017.eps r1 manage 43.5 K 2017-07-04 - 21:33 ArantxaRuizMartinez Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2017 data for EPS-HEP 2017
pdf plot_Et_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose_ProbeTightLLH_d0z0_Smooth_v11_isolFixedCutTight_TightLLH_d0z0_Smooth_v11_isolFixedCutTight_EPS2017.pdf r1 manage 11.1 K 2017-07-03 - 21:21 ArantxaRuizMartinez Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2017 data for EPS-HEP 2017
png plot_Et_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose_ProbeTightLLH_d0z0_Smooth_v11_isolFixedCutTight_TightLLH_d0z0_Smooth_v11_isolFixedCutTight_EPS2017.png r1 manage 97.2 K 2017-07-04 - 21:33 ArantxaRuizMartinez Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2017 data for EPS-HEP 2017
eps plot_Eta_e24_lhvloose_nod0_L1EM20VH_ProbeLooseAndBLayerLLH_d0z0_Smooth_v11_LooseAndBLayerLLH_d0z0_Smooth_v11_EPS2017.eps r1 manage 48.0 K 2017-07-04 - 21:33 ArantxaRuizMartinez Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2017 data for EPS-HEP 2017
pdf plot_Eta_e24_lhvloose_nod0_L1EM20VH_ProbeLooseAndBLayerLLH_d0z0_Smooth_v11_LooseAndBLayerLLH_d0z0_Smooth_v11_EPS2017.pdf r1 manage 12.5 K 2017-07-03 - 21:21 ArantxaRuizMartinez Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2017 data for EPS-HEP 2017
png plot_Eta_e24_lhvloose_nod0_L1EM20VH_ProbeLooseAndBLayerLLH_d0z0_Smooth_v11_LooseAndBLayerLLH_d0z0_Smooth_v11_EPS2017.png r1 manage 95.9 K 2017-07-04 - 21:33 ArantxaRuizMartinez Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2017 data for EPS-HEP 2017
eps plot_Eta_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose_ProbeTightLLH_d0z0_Smooth_v11_isolFixedCutTight_TightLLH_d0z0_Smooth_v11_isolFixedCutTight_EPS2017.eps r1 manage 48.1 K 2017-07-04 - 21:33 ArantxaRuizMartinez Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2017 data for EPS-HEP 2017
pdf plot_Eta_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose_ProbeTightLLH_d0z0_Smooth_v11_isolFixedCutTight_TightLLH_d0z0_Smooth_v11_isolFixedCutTight_EPS2017.pdf r1 manage 12.6 K 2017-07-03 - 21:21 ArantxaRuizMartinez Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2017 data for EPS-HEP 2017
png plot_Eta_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose_ProbeTightLLH_d0z0_Smooth_v11_isolFixedCutTight_TightLLH_d0z0_Smooth_v11_isolFixedCutTight_EPS2017.png r1 manage 99.9 K 2017-07-04 - 21:33 ArantxaRuizMartinez Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2017 data for EPS-HEP 2017
eps plot_Mu_e24_lhvloose_nod0_L1EM20VH_ProbeLooseAndBLayerLLH_d0z0_Smooth_v11_LooseAndBLayerLLH_d0z0_Smooth_v11_EPS2017.eps r1 manage 53.4 K 2017-07-04 - 21:34 ArantxaRuizMartinez Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2017 data for EPS-HEP 2017
pdf plot_Mu_e24_lhvloose_nod0_L1EM20VH_ProbeLooseAndBLayerLLH_d0z0_Smooth_v11_LooseAndBLayerLLH_d0z0_Smooth_v11_EPS2017.pdf r2 r1 manage 15.2 K 2017-07-04 - 09:17 ArantxaRuizMartinez Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2017 data for EPS-HEP 2017
png plot_Mu_e24_lhvloose_nod0_L1EM20VH_ProbeLooseAndBLayerLLH_d0z0_Smooth_v11_LooseAndBLayerLLH_d0z0_Smooth_v11_EPS2017.png r1 manage 152.9 K 2017-07-04 - 21:34 ArantxaRuizMartinez Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2017 data for EPS-HEP 2017
eps plot_Mu_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose_ProbeTightLLH_d0z0_Smooth_v11_isolFixedCutTight_TightLLH_d0z0_Smooth_v11_isolFixedCutTight_EPS2017.eps r1 manage 53.5 K 2017-07-04 - 21:34 ArantxaRuizMartinez Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2017 data for EPS-HEP 2017
pdf plot_Mu_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose_ProbeTightLLH_d0z0_Smooth_v11_isolFixedCutTight_TightLLH_d0z0_Smooth_v11_isolFixedCutTight_EPS2017.pdf r2 r1 manage 15.2 K 2017-07-04 - 09:17 ArantxaRuizMartinez Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2017 data for EPS-HEP 2017
png plot_Mu_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose_ProbeTightLLH_d0z0_Smooth_v11_isolFixedCutTight_TightLLH_d0z0_Smooth_v11_isolFixedCutTight_EPS2017.png r1 manage 154.4 K 2017-07-04 - 21:34 ArantxaRuizMartinez Electron and photon trigger efficiencies using 2017 data for EPS-HEP 2017
eps plot_eff_et_L1_EM24VHI.eps r1 manage 14.4 K 2017-05-20 - 10:04 ArantxaRuizMartinez Level-1 EM isolation for TIPP17
pdf plot_eff_et_L1_EM24VHI.pdf r1 manage 15.9 K 2017-05-20 - 10:04 ArantxaRuizMartinez Level-1 EM isolation for TIPP17
png plot_eff_et_L1_EM24VHI.png r1 manage 158.7 K 2017-05-20 - 10:04 ArantxaRuizMartinez Level-1 EM isolation for TIPP17
eps plot_eff_eta_L1_EM24VHI.eps r1 manage 14.3 K 2017-05-20 - 10:04 ArantxaRuizMartinez Level-1 EM isolation for TIPP17
pdf plot_eff_eta_L1_EM24VHI.pdf r1 manage 16.0 K 2017-05-20 - 10:04 ArantxaRuizMartinez Level-1 EM isolation for TIPP17
png plot_eff_eta_L1_EM24VHI.png r1 manage 150.7 K 2017-05-20 - 10:04 ArantxaRuizMartinez Level-1 EM isolation for TIPP17
eps plot_eff_mu_L1_EM24VHI.eps r1 manage 11.0 K 2017-05-20 - 10:04 ArantxaRuizMartinez Level-1 EM isolation for TIPP17
pdf plot_eff_mu_L1_EM24VHI.pdf r1 manage 14.2 K 2017-05-20 - 10:04 ArantxaRuizMartinez Level-1 EM isolation for TIPP17
png plot_eff_mu_L1_EM24VHI.png r1 manage 132.7 K 2017-05-20 - 10:04 ArantxaRuizMartinez Level-1 EM isolation for TIPP17
eps plot_l2calo_eff_eta_tap.eps r1 manage 14.2 K 2016-02-29 - 14:56 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ACAT 2016
pdf plot_l2calo_eff_eta_tap.pdf r1 manage 16.6 K 2016-02-29 - 14:56 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ACAT 2016
png plot_l2calo_eff_eta_tap.png r1 manage 68.1 K 2016-02-29 - 14:56 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ACAT 2016
eps plot_l2calo_eff_mu_tap.eps r1 manage 14.9 K 2016-02-29 - 14:56 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ACAT 2016
pdf plot_l2calo_eff_mu_tap.pdf r1 manage 16.8 K 2016-02-29 - 14:56 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ACAT 2016
png plot_l2calo_eff_mu_tap.png r1 manage 73.0 K 2016-02-29 - 14:56 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ACAT 2016
eps rate_vs_lumi_rebinned_new_prelim.eps r1 manage 11.4 K 2015-07-20 - 14:04 AkshayKatre Highly ionising trigger plots
pdf rate_vs_lumi_rebinned_new_prelim.pdf r1 manage 228.7 K 2015-07-20 - 14:13 AkshayKatre Highly ionising trigger plots
png rate_vs_lumi_rebinned_new_prelim.png r1 manage 60.7 K 2015-07-20 - 14:13 AkshayKatre Highly ionising trigger plots
eps se2018_eff_et.eps r1 manage 199.6 K 2019-05-08 - 07:38 TetianaHrynova Files for ATL-COM-DAQ-2019-049 part 1
pdf se2018_eff_et.pdf r1 manage 85.2 K 2019-05-08 - 07:38 TetianaHrynova Files for ATL-COM-DAQ-2019-049 part 1
png se2018_eff_et.png r1 manage 52.7 K 2019-05-08 - 07:38 TetianaHrynova Files for ATL-COM-DAQ-2019-049 part 1
eps se2018_eff_eta.eps r1 manage 204.7 K 2019-05-08 - 07:38 TetianaHrynova Files for ATL-COM-DAQ-2019-049 part 1
pdf se2018_eff_eta.pdf r1 manage 93.2 K 2019-05-08 - 07:38 TetianaHrynova Files for ATL-COM-DAQ-2019-049 part 1
png se2018_eff_eta.png r1 manage 53.7 K 2019-05-08 - 07:38 TetianaHrynova Files for ATL-COM-DAQ-2019-049 part 1
eps se2018_sf.eps r1 manage 1107.2 K 2019-05-08 - 07:40 TetianaHrynova files in ATL-COM-DAQ-2019-049 part 2
pdf se2018_sf.pdf r1 manage 905.3 K 2019-05-08 - 07:40 TetianaHrynova files in ATL-COM-DAQ-2019-049 part 2
png se2018_sf.png r1 manage 119.8 K 2019-05-08 - 07:40 TetianaHrynova files in ATL-COM-DAQ-2019-049 part 2
eps se_eff_et_approvalPreliminary.eps r1 manage 15.9 K 2019-05-08 - 07:38 TetianaHrynova Files for ATL-COM-DAQ-2019-049 part 1
pdf se_eff_et_approvalPreliminary.pdf r1 manage 16.1 K 2019-05-08 - 07:38 TetianaHrynova Files for ATL-COM-DAQ-2019-049 part 1
png se_eff_et_approvalPreliminary.png r1 manage 65.5 K 2019-05-08 - 07:38 TetianaHrynova Files for ATL-COM-DAQ-2019-049 part 1
eps syst2d_medium_AM.eps r1 manage 26.5 K 2015-07-16 - 23:33 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
pdf syst2d_medium_AM.pdf r1 manage 51.9 K 2015-07-16 - 23:33 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
png syst2d_medium_AM.png r1 manage 106.0 K 2015-07-16 - 23:33 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
eps table_L1_EM_iso.eps r1 manage 7.3 K 2017-05-20 - 10:05 ArantxaRuizMartinez Level-1 EM isolation for TIPP17
pdf table_L1_EM_iso.pdf r1 manage 38.9 K 2017-05-20 - 10:05 ArantxaRuizMartinez Level-1 EM isolation for TIPP17
png table_L1_EM_iso.png r1 manage 26.1 K 2017-05-20 - 10:05 ArantxaRuizMartinez Level-1 EM isolation for TIPP17
Topic revision: r38 - 2019-05-11 - TetianaHrynova

 Account
 Cern Search TWiki Search Google Search Atlas All webs
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