AtlasPublicTopicHeader.png

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

Electron trigger performance in 2012 ATLAS data ATL-COM-DAQ-2015-091 (July 16, 2015)

Resolution of the electron transverse energy (ET) in the high-level trigger at the level-2 (L2) and event filter (EF) reconstruction with respect to the offline reconstruction. The offline reconstructed electron is required to have a transverse energy of ET > 25 GeV, a pseudorapidity of |eta|<1.37 or 1.52<|eta|<2.37 and pass medium identification. The resolutions were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z -> ee decays. They are compared to expectation from Monte Carlo simulation.
[png] [eps] [pdf]
Resolution of the shower-shape variable Eratio used for electron identification in the high-level trigger at the level-2 (L2) and event filter (EF) reconstruction with respect to the offline reconstruction. The variables are described in ATLAS-CONF-2012-048. The offline reconstructed electron is required to have a transverse energy of ET > 25 GeV, a pseudorapidity of |eta|<1.37 or 1.52<|eta|<2.37 and pass medium identification. The resolutions were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z -> ee decays. They are compared to expectation from Monte Carlo simulation.
[png] [eps] [pdf]
Resolution of the shower-shape variable Reta used for electron identification in the high-level trigger at the level-2 (L2) and event filter (EF) reconstruction with respect to the offline reconstruction. The variables are described in ATLAS-CONF-2012-048. The offline reconstructed electron is required to have a transverse energy of ET > 25 GeV, a pseudorapidity of |eta|<1.37 or 1.52<|eta|<2.37 and pass medium identification. The resolutions were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z -> ee decays. They are compared to expectation from Monte Carlo simulation.
[png] [eps] [pdf]
Resolution of the shower-shape variable EThad1 used for electron identification in the high-level trigger at the level-2 (L2) and event filter (EF) reconstruction with respect to the offline reconstruction. The variables are described in ATLAS-CONF-2012-048. The offline reconstructed electron is required to have a transverse energy of ET > 25 GeV, a pseudorapidity of |eta|<1.37 or 1.52<|eta|<2.37 and pass medium identification. The resolutions were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z -> ee decays. They are compared to expectation from Monte Carlo simulation.
[png] [eps] [pdf]
Efficiencies of the e24vhi_medium1 OR e60_medium1 trigger requirement after the hardware-based Level-1 (L1), the software-based level-2 (L2) and event filter (EF) selections as a function of the offline electron candidate's pseudorapidy eta for offline ET > 25 GeV. The offline reconstructed electron is required to pass medium identification. The trigger efficiency for the e24vhi_medium1 is also shown after the event filter level.

The e24vhi_medium1 trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 24 GeV satisfying the medium identification and a requirement pTiso/ET < 0.1 on the relative track isolation calculated within a cone of R = 0.2. It is seeded by a level-1 trigger L1_EM18VH that allows at most 1 GeV energy deposited in the hadronic calorimeter behind the electron candidate's electromagnetic cluster. The e60_medium1 trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 60 GeV satisfying the medium identification with no isolation requirement. The efficiencies were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z -> ee decays. The error bars show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.


[png] [eps] [pdf]
Efficiencies of the e24vhi_medium1 OR e60_medium1 trigger requirement after the hardware-based Level-1 (L1), the software-based level-2 (L2) and event filter (EF) selections as a function of the offline transverse energy ET for offline pseudorapidity of |eta|<1.37 or 1.52<|eta|<2.37. The offline reconstructed electron is required to pass medium identification. The trigger efficiency for the e24vhi_medium1 is also shown after the event filter level.

The e24vhi_medium1 trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 24 GeV satisfying the medium identification and a requirement pTiso/ET < 0.1 on the relative track isolation calculated within a cone of R = 0.2. It is seeded by a level-1 trigger L1_EM18VH that allows at most 1 GeV energy deposited in the hadronic calorimeter behind the electron candidate's electromagnetic cluster. The e60_medium1 trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 60 GeV satisfying the medium identification with no isolation requirement. The efficiencies were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z -> ee decays. The error bars show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.


[png] [eps] [pdf]
Efficiencies of the e24vhi_medium1 OR e60_medium1 trigger requirement for various offline selection criteria used in the analyses as a function of the offline electron candidate's pseudorapidy eta for offline ET > 25 GeV.

The e24vhi_medium1 trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 24 GeV satisfying the medium identification and a requirement pTiso/ET < 0.1 on the relative track isolation calculated within a cone of R = 0.2. It is seeded by a level-1 trigger L1_EM18VH that allows at most 1 GeV energy deposited in the hadronic calorimeter behind the electron candidate's electromagnetic cluster. The e60_medium1 trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 60 GeV satisfying the medium identification with no isolation requirement. The efficiencies were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z -> ee decays. The error bars show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.


[png] [eps] [pdf]
Efficiencies of the e24vhi_medium1 OR e60_medium1 trigger requirement for various offline selection criteria used in the analyses as a function of the offline transverse energy ET for offline pseudorapidity of |eta|<1.37 or 1.52<|eta|<2.37.

The e24vhi_medium1 trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 24 GeV satisfying the medium identification and a requirement pTiso/ET < 0.1 on the relative track isolation calculated within a cone of R = 0.2. It is seeded by a level-1 trigger L1_EM18VH that allows at most 1 GeV energy deposited in the hadronic calorimeter behind the electron candidate's electromagnetic cluster. The e60_medium1 trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 60 GeV satisfying the medium identification with no isolation requirement. The efficiencies were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z -> ee decays. The error bars show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.


[png] [eps] [pdf]
Efficiencies of the e24vhi_medium1 OR e60_medium1 trigger requirement as a function of the offline electron candidate's pseudorapidy eta for offline ET > 25 GeV. The offline reconstructed electron is required to pass medium identification. The figure illustrates how the initial trigger looses were reduced with improved selection during the year. The shower-shape variables (f3 and weta2) were first relaxed in period B4, then reoptimised in period B9. In period C1 a new tune of the level-2 tracking algorithm was deployed, which was then reverted in period C6. Further optimisation of the variable f3 was applied in period D4.

The e24vhi_medium1 trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 24 GeV satisfying the medium identification and a requirement pTiso/ET < 0.1 on the relative track isolation calculated within a cone of R = 0.2. It is seeded by a level-1 trigger L1_EM18VH that allows at most 1 GeV energy deposited in the hadronic calorimeter behind the electron candidate's electromagnetic cluster. The e60_medium1 trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 60 GeV satisfying the medium identification with no isolation requirement. The efficiencies were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z -> ee decays. The error bars show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.


[png] [eps] [pdf]
Efficiencies of the e24vhi_medium1 OR e60_medium1 trigger requirement as a function of the offline transverse energy ET for offline pseudorapidity of |eta|<1.37 or 1.52<|eta|<2.37 for different run periods in which the trigger selections did not change. The offline reconstructed electron is required to pass medium identification. The figure illustrates how the initial trigger looses were reduced with improved selection during the year. The shower-shape variables (f3 and weta2) were first relaxed in period B4, then reoptimised in period B9. In period C1 a new tune of the level-2 tracking algorithm was deployed, which was then reverted in period C6. Further optimisation of the variable f3 was applied in period D4.

The e24vhi_medium1 trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 24 GeV satisfying the medium identification and a requirement pTiso/ET < 0.1 on the relative track isolation calculated within a cone of R = 0.2. It is seeded by a level-1 trigger L1_EM18VH that allows at most 1 GeV energy deposited in the hadronic calorimeter behind the electron candidate's electromagnetic cluster. The e60_medium1 trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 60 GeV satisfying the medium identification with no isolation requirement. The efficiencies were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z -> ee decays. The error bars show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.


[png] [eps] [pdf]
Efficiencies of the e24vhi_medium1 OR e60_medium1 trigger requirement after the hardware-based Level-1 (L1), the software-based level-2 (L2) and event filter (EF) selections as a function of the number of mean interactions per bunch crossing . The offline reconstructed electron is required to pass medium identification.

The e24vhi_medium1 trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 24 GeV satisfying the medium identification and a requirement pTiso/ET < 0.1 on the relative track isolation calculated within a cone of R = 0.2. It is seeded by a level-1 trigger L1_EM18VH that allows at most 1 GeV energy deposited in the hadronic calorimeter behind the electron candidate's electromagnetic cluster. The e60_medium1 trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 60 GeV satisfying the medium identification with no isolation requirement. The efficiencies were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z -> ee decays. The error bars show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.


[png] [eps] [pdf]
Efficiencies of the e24vhi_medium1 OR e60_medium1 trigger requirement as a function of the offline electron candidate's pseudorapidy eta and transverse energy ET. The offline reconstructed electron is required to pass medium identification.

The e24vhi_medium1 trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 24 GeV satisfying the medium identification and a requirement pTiso/ET < 0.1 on the relative track isolation calculated within a cone of R = 0.2. It is seeded by a level-1 trigger L1_EM18VH that allows at most 1 GeV energy deposited in the hadronic calorimeter behind the electron candidate's electromagnetic cluster. The e60_medium1 trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 60 GeV satisfying the medium identification with no isolation requirement. The efficiencies were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z -> ee decays. The error bars show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.


[png] [eps] [pdf]
Efficiency uncertainties of the e24vhi_medium1 OR e60_medium1 trigger requirement as a function of the offline electron candidate's pseudorapidy eta and transverse energy ET. The uncertainties are on the per mil level in the central region (|eta|<1.37) for ET < 100 GeV. They increase to 0.5% in the endcap regions and up to 1% for some eta - ET bins for ET > 100 GeV or for |eta|>2.4 due to a lack of statistics. The offline reconstructed electron is required to pass medium identification.

The e24vhi_medium1 trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 24 GeV satisfying the medium identification and a requirement pTiso/ET < 0.1 on the relative track isolation calculated within a cone of R = 0.2. It is seeded by a level-1 trigger L1_EM18VH that allows at most 1 GeV energy deposited in the hadronic calorimeter behind the electron candidate's electromagnetic cluster. The e60_medium1 trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 60 GeV satisfying the medium identification with no isolation requirement. The efficiencies were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z -> ee decays. The error bars show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.


[png] [eps] [pdf]
Sources of inefficiencies for the e24vhi_medium1 trigger at the level-2 trigger with respect to the offline reconstruction in run period L. The offline reconstructed electron is required to have a transverse energy of ET > 25 GeV and pass medium identification. The inefficiencies were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z -> ee decays.

The e24vhi_medium1 trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 24 GeV satisfying the medium identification and a requirement pTiso/ET < 0.1 on the relative track isolation calculated within a cone of R = 0.2. It is seeded by a level-1 trigger L1_EM18VH that allows at most 1 GeV energy deposited in the hadronic calorimeter behind the electron candidate's electromagnetic cluster.


[png] [eps] [pdf]
Sources of inefficiencies for the e24vhi_medium1 trigger at event filter with respect to the offline reconstruction in run period L. The offline reconstructed electron is required to have a transverse energy of ET > 25 GeV and pass medium identification. The inefficiencies were measured with a tag-and-probe method using Z -> ee decays.

The e24vhi_medium1 trigger requires an electron candidate with ET > 24 GeV satisfying the medium identification and a requirement pTiso/ET < 0.1 on the relative track isolation calculated within a cone of R = 0.2. It is seeded by a level-1 trigger L1_EM18VH that allows at most 1 GeV energy deposited in the hadronic calorimeter behind the electron candidate's electromagnetic cluster.


[png] [eps] [pdf]

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 performance measurements using 2012 ATLAS data ATL-COM-DAQ-2014-058 (June 27, 2014)

Figure 1a: Output rates of the primary electron triggers of the ATLAS experiment as a function of the instantaneous luminosity during the 2012 proton-proton data taking at a center-of-mass energy of 8 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. Different trigger transverse energy (ET) thresholds (denoted in GeV by the numbers that follow the leading “e” and “g” in the trigger names for electron and photon triggers respectively) and identification criteria (loose or medium requirements) are considered which result in different levels of purity (i.e. fraction of real electrons or photons) in the selected sample. For the single electron triggers, the hardware-based first-level trigger ET threshold varies slightly (≦2 GeV) as a function of pseudorapidity to compensate for passive material in front of the calorimeter (denoted by “v” in the trigger name), and an upper cut on the energy deposited in the hadronic calorimeter behind the electron candidate’s electromagnetic cluster is applied at the hardware level (denoted by “h” in the trigger name). For the the lowest-threshold unprescaled single electron trigger (e24vhi_medium1), a requirement on the relative track isolation within a cone of R=0.2 is applied, pT^iso / ET < 0.1 (denoted by “i” in the trigger name). For the dielectron trigger (2e12Tvh_loose1), the high-level trigger ET threshold lies in the region affected by the first-level ET cut turn-on (denoted by “T” in the trigger name). The curves show a linear increase of the rates as a function of the instantaneous luminosity, as expected. Lower thresholds and looser identification requirements accumulate higher rates from real and fake electrons or photons in the detector. A small non-linear effect is present at the highest luminosities which is related to the saturation of the Data Acquisition System and the subdetector readouts. For details on electron and photon identification in ATLAS see ATLAS-CONF-2014-032 and ATLAS-CONF-2012-123 respectively. The plotted points represent the mean rate at a given instantaneous luminosity, while the uncertainties are calculated as the RMS of the rate values in a given luminosity bin.
[png] [eps] [pdf] [jpg]
Figure 1b: Output rates of the primary photon triggers of the ATLAS experiment as a function of the instantaneous luminosity during the 2012 proton-proton data taking at a center-of-mass energy of 8 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. Different trigger transverse energy (ET) thresholds (denoted in GeV by the numbers that follow the leading “e” and “g” in the trigger names for electron and photon triggers respectively) and identification criteria (loose or medium requirements) are considered which result in different levels of purity (i.e. fraction of real electrons or photons) in the selected sample. For the single electron triggers, the hardware-based first-level trigger ET threshold varies slightly (≦2 GeV) as a function of pseudorapidity to compensate for passive material in front of the calorimeter (denoted by “v” in the trigger name), and an upper cut on the energy deposited in the hadronic calorimeter behind the electron candidate’s electromagnetic cluster is applied at the hardware level (denoted by “h” in the trigger name). For the the lowest-threshold unprescaled single electron trigger (e24vhi_medium1), a requirement on the relative track isolation within a cone of R=0.2 is applied, pT^iso / ET < 0.1 (denoted by “i” in the trigger name). For the dielectron trigger (2e12Tvh_loose1), the high-level trigger ET threshold lies in the region affected by the first-level ET cut turn-on (denoted by “T” in the trigger name). The curves show a linear increase of the rates as a function of the instantaneous luminosity, as expected. Lower thresholds and looser identification requirements accumulate higher rates from real and fake electrons or photons in the detector. A small non-linear effect is present at the highest luminosities which is related to the saturation of the Data Acquisition System and the subdetector readouts. For details on electron and photon identification in ATLAS see ATLAS-CONF-2014-032 and ATLAS-CONF-2012-123 respectively. The plotted points represent the mean rate at a given instantaneous luminosity, while the uncertainties are calculated as the RMS of the rate values in a given luminosity bin.
[png] [eps] [pdf] [jpg]
Figure 2a: The output rate as a function of the electron transverse energy threshold at an instantaneous luminosity of 7∙10^33 cm^-2 s^-1 during the 2012 proton-proton data taking at a center-of-mass energy of 8 TeV by the ATLAS detector with an LHC bunch-crossing interval of 50 ns. The rate is measured starting from the lowest-threshold unprescaled electron trigger with a transverse energy threshold of 24 GeV that requires medium criteria for electron identification and a relative track isolation within a cone of R=0.2, pT^iso / ET < 0.1 (e24vhi_medium1). The expected rate of electrons originating from W-->eν and Z-->ee production, scaled to the data luminosity, is shown as stacked histograms. This allows to estimate the contribution of prompt electrons originating from W and Z production at about 40-50% of the collected sample after the trigger selection. The medium identification selection in the trigger places requirements on the calorimeter shower shapes, the reconstructed track quality as well as matching requirements between the energy deposit in the calorimeter and the measured track and electron identification information provided by the Transition Radiation Tracker. These requirements are somewhat looser than the corresponding offline analysis selections that are discussed in ATLAS-CONF-2014-032.
[png] [eps] [pdf] [jpg]
Figure 2b: The contribution of electrons originating from W-->eν and Z-->ee production to the triggered sample as a function of the electron transverse energy threshold at an instantaneous luminosity of 7∙10^33 cm^-2 s^-1 during the 2012 proton-proton data taking at a center-of-mass energy of 8 TeV by the ATLAS detector with an LHC bunch-crossing interval of 50 ns. The prompt electron contribution is estimated starting from the lowest-threshold unprescaled electron trigger with a transverse energy threshold of 24 GeV that requires medium criteria for electron identification and a relative track isolation within a cone of R=0.2, pT^iso / ET < 0.1 (e24vhi_medium1). The contribution is calculated as the stacked ratios of the expected number of prompt electrons from vector boson production predicted by MC simulation scaled to the data luminosity and the observed number of electron candidates in data, both after the trigger selection. This allows to estimate the contribution of prompt electrons originating from W and Z production at about 40-50% of the collected sample after the trigger selection. The medium identification selection in the trigger places requirements on the calorimeter shower shapes, the reconstructed track quality as well as matching requirements between the energy deposit in the calorimeter and the measured track and electron identification information provided by the Transition Radiation Tracker. These requirements are somewhat looser than the corresponding offline analysis selections that are discussed in ATLAS-CONF-2014-032.
[png] [eps] [pdf] [jpg]
Figure 3a : Efficiency of photon triggers requiring a transverse energy (ET) greater than 25 GeV (open circles) and 35 GeV (open triangles) and loose photon identification criteria with respect to photons reconstructed offline passing the tight identification selection 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|<1.56 for the g25_loose (g35_loose) trigger. The loose and tight identification selections (for details see ATLAS-CONF-2012-123) apply requirements on the calorimeter shower shape variables to increase the photon purity of the selected sample. The efficiency is measured using a clean sample of radiative Z decays (Z --> ll𝛾) in the proton-proton collision data collected by the ATLAS experiment at a center-of-mass energy of 8 TeV with an LHC bunch-crossing interval of 50 ns in 2012. The sharpness of the efficiency turn-on above the trigger threshold is demonstrated on the left, while the losses as a function of the pseudorapidity are visible on the right. For offline tight photons with ET greater than the trigger threshold by at least 5 GeV, the trigger efficiency is above 99.5% for both triggers. The shown error bars are dominated by the statistical uncertainty which is calculated using a Bayesian estimate with Jeffrey’s prior.
[png] [eps] [pdf] [jpg]
Figure 3b : Efficiency of photon triggers requiring a transverse energy (ET) greater than 25 GeV (open circles) and 35 GeV (open triangles) and loose photon identification criteria with respect to photons reconstructed offline passing the tight identification selection as a function of pseudorapidity for ET at least 5 GeV above the trigger threshold, i.e. for ET>30 (40) GeV for the g25_loose (g35_loose) trigger. The loose and tight identification selections (for details see ATLAS-CONF-2012-123) apply requirements on the calorimeter shower shape variables to increase the photon purity of the selected sample. The efficiency is measured using a clean sample of radiative Z decays (Z --> ll𝛾) in the proton-proton collision data collected by the ATLAS experiment at a center-of-mass energy of 8 TeV with an LHC bunch-crossing interval of 50 ns in 2012. The sharpness of the efficiency turn-on above the trigger threshold is demonstrated on the left, while the losses as a function of the pseudorapidity are visible on the right. For offline tight photons with ET greater than the trigger threshold by at least 5 GeV, the trigger efficiency is above 99.5% for both triggers. The shown error bars are dominated by the statistical uncertainty which is calculated using a Bayesian estimate with Jeffrey’s prior.
[png] [eps] [pdf] [jpg]

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 Zee 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 Zee 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 Zee 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 80<Mee<100 GeV are used for the Z->ee 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 80<Mee<100 GeV are used for the Z->ee 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<Mγγ<95 GeV. Efficiencies are measured as a function of the offline photon ET for candidates satisfying the tight identification criteria and the isolation requirement. The offline photons must also be in the region |η|<2.37 and not coming from the transition region between the barrel and endcap part of the electromagnetic calorimeter. The same selection criteria is used for both the tagged and probed photon and the invariant mass of the photon pairs are required to be 87<Mγγ<95. Data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 209 pb-1 were used. (Only statistical uncertainties are shown in the plot).
[png] [eps]


Major updates:
-- TetianaHrynova - 2019-05-08

Responsible: TetianaHrynova FernandoMonticelli
Subject: public

Topic attachments
I Attachment History Action Size Date Who Comment
PDFpdf 20150707_TrigEgamma_Plots.pdf r1 manage 150.6 K 2015-07-16 - 23:34 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
PDFpdf 2015HLTElectron_Plots.pdf r1 manage 183.6 K 2015-08-05 - 23:39 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
Unknown file formateps 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
PDFpdf 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
PNGpng 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
Unknown file formateps 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
PDFpdf 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
PNGpng 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
Unknown file formateps 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
PDFpdf 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
PNGpng 2016_eff_et_L1_EM20VHI_HLT_e24_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose.png r1 manage 91.7 K 2016-05-30 - 18:16 MoritzBackes  
Unknown file formateps 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
PDFpdf 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
PNGpng 2016_eff_et_L1_EM20VH_L1_EM20VHI.png r1 manage 88.3 K 2016-05-30 - 18:16 MoritzBackes  
Unknown file formateps 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
PDFpdf 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
PNGpng 2016_eff_et_L1_EM22VHI_HLT_e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose.png r1 manage 91.1 K 2016-05-30 - 18:16 MoritzBackes  
Unknown file formateps 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
PDFpdf 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
PNGpng 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
Unknown file formateps 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
PDFpdf 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
PNGpng 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
Unknown file formateps Diff_Eratio_mediumPP.eps r1 manage 13.6 K 2015-07-16 - 23:29 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron performance
PDFpdf Diff_Eratio_mediumPP.pdf r1 manage 28.7 K 2015-07-16 - 23:29 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron performance
PNGpng Diff_Eratio_mediumPP.png r1 manage 94.0 K 2015-07-16 - 23:29 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron performance
Unknown file formateps Diff_Et_mediumPP.eps r1 manage 13.8 K 2015-07-16 - 23:29 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron performance
PDFpdf Diff_Et_mediumPP.pdf r1 manage 28.9 K 2015-07-16 - 23:29 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron performance
PNGpng Diff_Et_mediumPP.png r1 manage 92.0 K 2015-07-16 - 23:29 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron performance
Unknown file formateps Diff_Ethad1_mediumPP.eps r1 manage 13.2 K 2015-07-16 - 23:29 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron performance
PDFpdf Diff_Ethad1_mediumPP.pdf r1 manage 28.6 K 2015-07-16 - 23:29 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron performance
PNGpng Diff_Ethad1_mediumPP.png r1 manage 97.1 K 2015-07-16 - 23:29 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron performance
Unknown file formateps Diff_reta_mediumPP.eps r1 manage 12.7 K 2015-07-16 - 23:30 GabriellaPasztor 2012 elctron trigger performance
PDFpdf Diff_reta_mediumPP.pdf r1 manage 28.5 K 2015-07-16 - 23:30 GabriellaPasztor 2012 elctron trigger performance
PNGpng Diff_reta_mediumPP.png r1 manage 91.0 K 2015-07-16 - 23:30 GabriellaPasztor 2012 elctron trigger performance
Unknown file formateps EF.eps r1 manage 13.1 K 2015-07-16 - 23:34 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
PDFpdf EF.pdf r1 manage 14.4 K 2015-07-16 - 23:34 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
PNGpng EF.png r1 manage 19.3 K 2015-07-16 - 23:34 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
Unknown file formateps Eff_Et_e17_lhvloose_nod0_full2016.eps r1 manage 11.7 K 2017-03-21 - 14:43 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
PDFpdf Eff_Et_e17_lhvloose_nod0_full2016.pdf r1 manage 15.7 K 2017-03-21 - 10:41 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
PNGpng Eff_Et_e17_lhvloose_nod0_full2016.png r1 manage 22.1 K 2017-03-21 - 14:43 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
Unknown file formateps 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
PDFpdf 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
PNGpng 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
Unknown file formateps 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
PDFpdf 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
PNGpng 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
Unknown file formateps 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
PDFpdf 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
PNGpng 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
Unknown file formateps Eff_Et_singleOR_full2016.eps r1 manage 12.0 K 2017-03-21 - 14:43 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
PDFpdf Eff_Et_singleOR_full2016.pdf r1 manage 15.3 K 2017-03-21 - 10:41 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
PNGpng Eff_Et_singleOR_full2016.png r1 manage 25.8 K 2017-03-21 - 14:43 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
Unknown file formateps 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
PDFpdf 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
PNGpng 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
Unknown file formateps 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
PDFpdf 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
PNGpng 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
Unknown file formateps 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
PDFpdf 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
PNGpng 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
Unknown file formateps Eff_eta_e17_lhvloose_nod0_full2016.eps r1 manage 13.1 K 2017-03-21 - 14:44 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
PDFpdf Eff_eta_e17_lhvloose_nod0_full2016.pdf r1 manage 16.1 K 2017-03-21 - 10:41 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
PNGpng Eff_eta_e17_lhvloose_nod0_full2016.png r1 manage 21.9 K 2017-03-21 - 14:44 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
Unknown file formateps 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
PDFpdf 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
PNGpng 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
Unknown file formateps 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
PDFpdf 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
PNGpng 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
Unknown file formateps Eff_eta_singleOR_full2016.eps r1 manage 13.0 K 2017-03-21 - 14:44 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
PDFpdf Eff_eta_singleOR_full2016.pdf r1 manage 16.2 K 2017-03-21 - 10:41 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
PNGpng Eff_eta_singleOR_full2016.png r1 manage 24.4 K 2017-03-21 - 14:44 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
Unknown file formateps EleETRes.eps r1 manage 48.2 K 2015-07-27 - 23:42 GabriellaPasztor 2015 Rates and energy resolution
PDFpdf EleETRes.pdf r1 manage 21.8 K 2015-07-27 - 23:42 GabriellaPasztor 2015 Rates and energy resolution
PNGpng EleETRes.png r1 manage 25.2 K 2015-07-27 - 23:42 GabriellaPasztor 2015 Rates and energy resolution
Unknown file formateps EleETResVsEta.eps r1 manage 51.3 K 2015-08-05 - 23:39 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
PDFpdf EleETResVsEta.pdf r1 manage 22.4 K 2015-08-05 - 23:39 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
PNGpng EleETResVsEta.png r1 manage 26.8 K 2015-08-05 - 23:39 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
Unknown file formateps EleRes_includeCrack.eps r1 manage 24.6 K 2015-08-05 - 23:39 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
PDFpdf EleRes_includeCrack.pdf r1 manage 24.4 K 2015-08-05 - 23:39 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
PNGpng EleRes_includeCrack.png r1 manage 19.6 K 2015-08-05 - 23:39 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
Unknown file formateps ElectronEfficiency.eps r1 manage 22.7 K 2015-07-28 - 00:04 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
PDFpdf ElectronEfficiency.pdf r1 manage 23.3 K 2015-07-28 - 00:04 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
PNGpng ElectronEfficiency.png r1 manage 28.8 K 2015-07-28 - 00:04 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
Unknown file formateps ElectronEfficiency_cut.eps r1 manage 15.4 K 2015-07-28 - 00:03 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
PDFpdf ElectronEfficiency_cut.pdf r1 manage 18.8 K 2015-07-28 - 00:03 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
PNGpng ElectronEfficiency_cut.png r1 manage 20.0 K 2015-07-28 - 00:03 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
Unknown file formateps ElectronEfficiency_data.eps r1 manage 16.6 K 2015-07-28 - 00:11 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
PDFpdf ElectronEfficiency_data.pdf r1 manage 19.4 K 2015-07-28 - 00:11 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
PNGpng ElectronEfficiency_data.png r1 manage 20.9 K 2015-07-28 - 00:11 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
Unknown file formateps ElectronEfficiency_eta.eps r1 manage 25.9 K 2015-07-28 - 00:04 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
PDFpdf ElectronEfficiency_eta.pdf r1 manage 26.3 K 2015-07-28 - 00:04 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
PNGpng ElectronEfficiency_eta.png r1 manage 28.2 K 2015-07-28 - 00:04 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
Unknown file formateps ElectronEfficiency_eta_cut.eps r1 manage 16.8 K 2015-07-28 - 00:03 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
PDFpdf ElectronEfficiency_eta_cut.pdf r1 manage 20.3 K 2015-07-28 - 00:03 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
PNGpng ElectronEfficiency_eta_cut.png r1 manage 18.8 K 2015-07-28 - 00:03 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
Unknown file formateps ElectronEfficiency_eta_data.eps r1 manage 18.9 K 2015-07-28 - 00:03 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
PDFpdf ElectronEfficiency_eta_data.pdf r1 manage 21.5 K 2015-07-28 - 00:03 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
PNGpng ElectronEfficiency_eta_data.png r1 manage 19.9 K 2015-07-28 - 00:03 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
Unknown file formateps ElectronEfficiency_eta_lh.eps r1 manage 18.1 K 2015-07-28 - 00:04 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
PDFpdf ElectronEfficiency_eta_lh.pdf r1 manage 20.4 K 2015-07-28 - 00:04 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
PNGpng ElectronEfficiency_eta_lh.png r1 manage 19.0 K 2015-07-28 - 00:04 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
Unknown file formateps ElectronEfficiency_eta_mc.eps r1 manage 15.4 K 2015-07-28 - 00:04 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
PDFpdf ElectronEfficiency_eta_mc.pdf r1 manage 19.1 K 2015-07-28 - 00:04 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
PNGpng ElectronEfficiency_eta_mc.png r1 manage 18.4 K 2015-07-28 - 00:04 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
Unknown file formateps ElectronEfficiency_lh.eps r1 manage 16.5 K 2015-07-28 - 00:04 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
PDFpdf ElectronEfficiency_lh.pdf r1 manage 19.0 K 2015-07-28 - 00:04 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
PNGpng ElectronEfficiency_lh.png r1 manage 20.0 K 2015-07-28 - 00:04 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
Unknown file formateps ElectronEfficiency_mc.eps r1 manage 14.8 K 2015-07-28 - 00:04 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
PDFpdf ElectronEfficiency_mc.pdf r1 manage 18.3 K 2015-07-28 - 00:04 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
PNGpng ElectronEfficiency_mc.png r1 manage 19.3 K 2015-07-28 - 00:04 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
Unknown file formateps Et_e12_lhloose_L1EM10VH.eps r1 manage 11.1 K 2015-12-06 - 22:41 MoritzBackes 2015 25 ns electron trigger performance
PDFpdf Et_e12_lhloose_L1EM10VH.pdf r1 manage 15.7 K 2015-12-06 - 22:41 MoritzBackes 2015 25 ns electron trigger performance
PNGpng Et_e12_lhloose_L1EM10VH.png r1 manage 17.4 K 2015-12-06 - 22:41 MoritzBackes 2015 25 ns electron trigger performance
Unknown file formateps Et_e17_Aug2016.eps r1 manage 3977.6 K 2016-08-02 - 12:43 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
PDFpdf Et_e17_Aug2016.pdf r1 manage 23.4 K 2016-08-02 - 12:43 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
PNGpng Et_e17_Aug2016.png r1 manage 21.9 K 2016-08-02 - 12:43 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
Unknown file formateps Et_e24_lhmedium_L1EM20VH.eps r1 manage 10.5 K 2015-12-06 - 22:41 MoritzBackes 2015 25 ns electron trigger performance
PDFpdf Et_e24_lhmedium_L1EM20VH.pdf r1 manage 15.3 K 2015-12-06 - 22:41 MoritzBackes 2015 25 ns electron trigger performance
PNGpng Et_e24_lhmedium_L1EM20VH.png r1 manage 18.3 K 2015-12-06 - 22:41 MoritzBackes 2015 25 ns electron trigger performance
Unknown file formateps Et_e26_Aug2016.eps r1 manage 3977.6 K 2016-08-02 - 12:43 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
PDFpdf Et_e26_Aug2016.pdf r1 manage 24.5 K 2016-08-02 - 12:43 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
PNGpng Et_e26_Aug2016.png r1 manage 22.7 K 2016-08-02 - 12:43 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
Unknown file formateps Eta_e12_lhloose_L1EM10VH.eps r1 manage 12.3 K 2015-12-06 - 22:41 MoritzBackes 2015 25 ns electron trigger performance
PDFpdf Eta_e12_lhloose_L1EM10VH.pdf r1 manage 16.2 K 2015-12-06 - 22:41 MoritzBackes 2015 25 ns electron trigger performance
PNGpng Eta_e12_lhloose_L1EM10VH.png r1 manage 16.8 K 2015-12-06 - 22:41 MoritzBackes 2015 25 ns electron trigger performance
Unknown file formateps Eta_e17_Aug2016.eps r1 manage 3977.6 K 2016-08-02 - 12:44 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
PDFpdf Eta_e17_Aug2016.pdf r1 manage 23.9 K 2016-08-02 - 12:44 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
PNGpng Eta_e17_Aug2016.png r1 manage 22.0 K 2016-08-02 - 12:44 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
Unknown file formateps Eta_e24_lhmedium_L1EM20VH.eps r1 manage 12.2 K 2015-12-06 - 22:41 MoritzBackes 2015 25 ns electron trigger performance
PDFpdf Eta_e24_lhmedium_L1EM20VH.pdf r1 manage 16.2 K 2015-12-06 - 22:43 MoritzBackes 2015 25 ns electron trigger performance
PNGpng Eta_e24_lhmedium_L1EM20VH.png r1 manage 18.2 K 2015-12-06 - 22:43 MoritzBackes 2015 25 ns electron trigger performance
Unknown file formateps Eta_e26_Aug2016.eps r1 manage 3977.6 K 2016-08-02 - 12:44 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
PDFpdf Eta_e26_Aug2016.pdf r1 manage 25.3 K 2016-08-02 - 12:44 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
PNGpng Eta_e26_Aug2016.png r1 manage 23.4 K 2016-08-02 - 12:44 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
Unknown file formateps Fraction_HTTRT_Trigger_ATLASStyle_correct_Rebin3.eps r1 manage 11.0 K 2015-07-20 - 14:04 AkshayKatre Highly ionising trigger plots
PDFpdf Fraction_HTTRT_Trigger_ATLASStyle_correct_Rebin3.pdf r1 manage 424.0 K 2015-07-20 - 14:13 AkshayKatre Highly ionising trigger plots
PNGpng Fraction_HTTRT_Trigger_ATLASStyle_correct_Rebin3.png r1 manage 56.2 K 2015-07-20 - 14:13 AkshayKatre Highly ionising trigger plots
Unknown file formateps HLT_Electron1.eps r1 manage 18.3 K 2015-07-27 - 23:42 GabriellaPasztor 2015 Rates and energy resolution
PDFpdf HLT_Electron1.pdf r1 manage 23.8 K 2015-07-27 - 23:42 GabriellaPasztor 2015 Rates and energy resolution
PNGpng HLT_Electron1.png r1 manage 30.0 K 2015-07-27 - 23:42 GabriellaPasztor 2015 Rates and energy resolution
Unknown file formateps HLT_Photon.eps r1 manage 15.6 K 2015-07-27 - 23:42 GabriellaPasztor 2015 Rates and energy resolution
PDFpdf HLT_Photon.pdf r1 manage 21.6 K 2015-07-27 - 23:42 GabriellaPasztor 2015 Rates and energy resolution
PNGpng HLT_Photon.png r1 manage 27.0 K 2015-07-27 - 23:42 GabriellaPasztor 2015 Rates and energy resolution
Unknown file formateps HLT_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose_L1EM24VHIM_et.eps r1 manage 14.3 K 2018-05-14 - 20:18 FernandoMonticelli  
PNGpng HLT_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose_L1EM24VHIM_et.png r1 manage 49.1 K 2018-05-14 - 20:18 FernandoMonticelli  
PDFpdf HLT_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose_L1EM24VHIM_et_2.pdf r1 manage 16.7 K 2018-05-14 - 20:18 FernandoMonticelli  
Unknown file formateps HLT_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose__et.eps r1 manage 14.9 K 2018-05-28 - 15:05 FernandoMonticelli  
PDFpdf HLT_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose__et.pdf r1 manage 13.3 K 2018-05-28 - 15:05 FernandoMonticelli  
PNGpng HLT_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose__et.png r1 manage 14.1 K 2018-05-28 - 15:05 FernandoMonticelli  
Unknown file formateps HLT_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose__eta.eps r1 manage 16.6 K 2018-05-28 - 15:05 FernandoMonticelli  
PDFpdf HLT_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose__eta.pdf r1 manage 14.8 K 2018-05-28 - 15:05 FernandoMonticelli  
PNGpng HLT_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose__eta.png r1 manage 14.8 K 2018-05-28 - 15:05 FernandoMonticelli  
Unknown file formateps HLT_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose__mu.eps r1 manage 15.1 K 2018-05-28 - 15:05 FernandoMonticelli  
PDFpdf HLT_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose__mu.pdf r1 manage 13.5 K 2018-05-28 - 15:05 FernandoMonticelli  
PNGpng HLT_e28_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose__mu.png r1 manage 14.2 K 2018-05-28 - 15:05 FernandoMonticelli  
Unknown file formateps HLT_electron_ICHEP2016.eps r1 manage 20.6 K 2016-08-01 - 19:32 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
PDFpdf HLT_electron_ICHEP2016.pdf r1 manage 15.9 K 2016-08-01 - 19:32 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
PNGpng HLT_electron_ICHEP2016.png r1 manage 19.9 K 2016-08-01 - 19:32 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
Unknown file formateps HLT_g25_medium_L1EM20VH__et.eps r1 manage 15.0 K 2018-05-28 - 15:05 FernandoMonticelli  
PDFpdf HLT_g25_medium_L1EM20VH__et.pdf r1 manage 13.4 K 2018-05-28 - 15:08 FernandoMonticelli  
PNGpng HLT_g25_medium_L1EM20VH__et.png r1 manage 13.9 K 2018-05-28 - 15:08 FernandoMonticelli  
Unknown file formateps HLT_g25_medium_L1EM20VH__eta.eps r1 manage 16.4 K 2018-05-28 - 15:08 FernandoMonticelli  
PDFpdf HLT_g25_medium_L1EM20VH__eta.pdf r1 manage 14.5 K 2018-05-28 - 15:08 FernandoMonticelli  
PNGpng HLT_g25_medium_L1EM20VH__eta.png r1 manage 14.1 K 2018-05-28 - 15:08 FernandoMonticelli  
Unknown file formateps HLT_g25_medium_L1EM20VH__mu.eps r1 manage 14.9 K 2018-05-28 - 15:08 FernandoMonticelli  
PDFpdf HLT_g25_medium_L1EM20VH__mu.pdf r1 manage 13.5 K 2018-05-28 - 15:08 FernandoMonticelli  
PNGpng HLT_g25_medium_L1EM20VH__mu.png r1 manage 13.6 K 2018-05-28 - 15:08 FernandoMonticelli  
Unknown file formateps HLT_photon_ICHEP2016.eps r1 manage 25.5 K 2016-08-01 - 19:32 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
PDFpdf HLT_photon_ICHEP2016.pdf r1 manage 20.2 K 2016-08-01 - 19:32 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
PNGpng HLT_photon_ICHEP2016.png r1 manage 18.2 K 2016-08-01 - 19:32 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
Unknown file formateps L1_EM_Full2016.eps r1 manage 24.4 K 2017-05-19 - 21:40 FernandoMonticelli ATL-COM-DAQ-2017-021
PDFpdf L1_EM_Full2016.pdf r1 manage 22.6 K 2017-05-19 - 21:40 FernandoMonticelli ATL-COM-DAQ-2017-021
PNGpng L1_EM_Full2016.png r1 manage 17.9 K 2017-05-19 - 21:40 FernandoMonticelli ATL-COM-DAQ-2017-021
Unknown file formateps L2.eps r1 manage 7.8 K 2015-07-16 - 23:34 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
PDFpdf L2.pdf r1 manage 13.6 K 2015-07-16 - 23:34 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
PNGpng L2.png r1 manage 16.4 K 2015-07-16 - 23:34 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
Unknown file formateps PhotonEfficiency.eps r1 manage 10.2 K 2015-07-27 - 23:27 GabriellaPasztor 2015 photon trigger efficiency
PDFpdf PhotonEfficiency.pdf r1 manage 17.9 K 2015-07-27 - 23:27 GabriellaPasztor 2015 photon trigger efficiency
PNGpng PhotonEfficiency.png r1 manage 17.1 K 2015-07-27 - 23:27 GabriellaPasztor 2015 photon trigger efficiency
Unknown file formateps PhotonEfficiencyHigh.eps r1 manage 13.4 K 2015-07-27 - 23:28 GabriellaPasztor 2015 photon trigger perfromance
PDFpdf PhotonEfficiencyHigh.pdf r1 manage 18.2 K 2015-07-27 - 23:28 GabriellaPasztor 2015 photon trigger perfromance
PNGpng PhotonEfficiencyHigh.png r1 manage 19.5 K 2015-07-27 - 23:28 GabriellaPasztor 2015 photon trigger perfromance
Unknown file formateps PhotonEfficiencyHigh_eta.eps r1 manage 13.1 K 2015-07-27 - 23:27 GabriellaPasztor 2015 photon trigger efficiency
PDFpdf PhotonEfficiencyHigh_eta.pdf r1 manage 16.5 K 2015-07-27 - 23:27 GabriellaPasztor 2015 photon trigger efficiency
PNGpng PhotonEfficiencyHigh_eta.png r1 manage 17.6 K 2015-07-27 - 23:27 GabriellaPasztor 2015 photon trigger efficiency
Unknown file formateps PhotonEfficiencyLoose.eps r1 manage 10.2 K 2015-07-27 - 23:28 GabriellaPasztor 2015 photon trigger perfromance
PDFpdf PhotonEfficiencyLoose.pdf r1 manage 17.9 K 2015-07-27 - 23:28 GabriellaPasztor 2015 photon trigger perfromance
PNGpng PhotonEfficiencyLoose.png r1 manage 17.2 K 2015-07-27 - 23:28 GabriellaPasztor 2015 photon trigger perfromance
Unknown file formateps PhotonEfficiencyLoose_eta.eps r1 manage 12.6 K 2015-07-27 - 23:28 GabriellaPasztor 2015 photon trigger perfromance
PDFpdf PhotonEfficiencyLoose_eta.pdf r1 manage 16.4 K 2015-07-27 - 23:28 GabriellaPasztor 2015 photon trigger perfromance
PNGpng PhotonEfficiencyLoose_eta.png r1 manage 17.2 K 2015-07-27 - 23:28 GabriellaPasztor 2015 photon trigger perfromance
Unknown file formateps PhotonEfficiency_eta.eps r1 manage 12.8 K 2015-07-27 - 23:27 GabriellaPasztor 2015 photon trigger efficiency
PDFpdf PhotonEfficiency_eta.pdf r1 manage 16.4 K 2015-07-27 - 23:27 GabriellaPasztor 2015 photon trigger efficiency
PNGpng PhotonEfficiency_eta.png r1 manage 17.1 K 2015-07-27 - 23:27 GabriellaPasztor 2015 photon trigger efficiency
Unknown file formateps PhotonEfficiency_highEt.eps r1 manage 19.7 K 2016-03-11 - 17:01 ArantxaRuizMartinez 2015 photon trigger performance
PDFpdf PhotonEfficiency_highEt.pdf r2 r1 manage 27.7 K 2016-03-11 - 21:49 ArantxaRuizMartinez 2015 photon trigger efficiency
PNGpng PhotonEfficiency_highEt.png r1 manage 61.9 K 2016-03-11 - 21:49 ArantxaRuizMartinez 2015 photon trigger efficiency
Unknown file formateps PhotonEfficiency_lowEt.eps r1 manage 20.0 K 2016-03-11 - 17:01 ArantxaRuizMartinez 2015 photon trigger performance
PDFpdf PhotonEfficiency_lowEt.pdf r2 r1 manage 30.8 K 2016-03-11 - 21:49 ArantxaRuizMartinez 2015 photon trigger efficiency
PNGpng PhotonEfficiency_lowEt.png r1 manage 69.7 K 2016-03-11 - 21:49 ArantxaRuizMartinez 2015 photon trigger efficiency
Unknown file formateps PhotonTriggerPerformance_vsFCal_Prelim.eps r1 manage 97.1 K 2016-03-10 - 11:26 MoritzBackes  
PDFpdf PhotonTriggerPerformance_vsFCal_Prelim.pdf r1 manage 15.2 K 2016-03-10 - 11:26 MoritzBackes  
PNGpng PhotonTriggerPerformance_vsFCal_Prelim.png r1 manage 84.3 K 2016-03-10 - 11:26 MoritzBackes  
Unknown file formateps Plots2014ICHEP_Fig1a.eps r1 manage 17.4 K 2014-06-27 - 17:17 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
JPEGjpg Plots2014ICHEP_Fig1a.jpg r1 manage 23.0 K 2014-06-27 - 17:17 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
PDFpdf Plots2014ICHEP_Fig1a.pdf r1 manage 19.8 K 2014-06-27 - 17:17 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
PNGpng Plots2014ICHEP_Fig1a.png r1 manage 19.0 K 2014-06-27 - 17:17 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
Unknown file formateps Plots2014ICHEP_Fig1b.eps r1 manage 18.3 K 2014-06-27 - 17:16 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
JPEGjpg Plots2014ICHEP_Fig1b.jpg r1 manage 25.4 K 2014-06-27 - 17:16 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
PDFpdf Plots2014ICHEP_Fig1b.pdf r1 manage 20.2 K 2014-06-27 - 17:16 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
PNGpng Plots2014ICHEP_Fig1b.png r1 manage 21.3 K 2014-06-27 - 17:16 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
Unknown file formateps Plots2014ICHEP_Fig2a.eps r1 manage 19.1 K 2014-06-27 - 17:16 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
JPEGjpg Plots2014ICHEP_Fig2a.jpg r1 manage 23.6 K 2014-06-27 - 17:16 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
PDFpdf Plots2014ICHEP_Fig2a.pdf r1 manage 17.6 K 2014-06-27 - 17:16 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
PNGpng Plots2014ICHEP_Fig2a.png r1 manage 18.6 K 2014-06-27 - 17:16 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
Unknown file formateps Plots2014ICHEP_Fig2b.eps r1 manage 17.2 K 2014-06-27 - 15:14 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
JPEGjpg Plots2014ICHEP_Fig2b.jpg r1 manage 22.9 K 2014-06-27 - 15:14 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
PDFpdf Plots2014ICHEP_Fig2b.pdf r1 manage 15.2 K 2014-06-27 - 17:16 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
PNGpng Plots2014ICHEP_Fig2b.png r1 manage 16.1 K 2014-06-27 - 17:16 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
Unknown file formateps Plots2014ICHEP_Fig3a.eps r1 manage 13.3 K 2014-06-27 - 15:14 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
JPEGjpg Plots2014ICHEP_Fig3a.jpg r1 manage 21.1 K 2014-06-27 - 15:14 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
PDFpdf Plots2014ICHEP_Fig3a.pdf r1 manage 17.4 K 2014-06-27 - 15:14 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
PNGpng Plots2014ICHEP_Fig3a.png r1 manage 17.1 K 2014-06-27 - 15:14 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
Unknown file formateps Plots2014ICHEP_Fig3b.eps r1 manage 15.7 K 2014-06-27 - 15:14 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
JPEGjpg Plots2014ICHEP_Fig3b.jpg r1 manage 23.5 K 2014-06-27 - 15:14 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
PDFpdf Plots2014ICHEP_Fig3b.pdf r1 manage 16.8 K 2014-06-27 - 15:14 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
PNGpng Plots2014ICHEP_Fig3b.png r1 manage 15.8 K 2014-06-27 - 15:14 GabriellaPasztor plots for ICHEP 2014
Unknown file formateps Rate_electron_full2016.eps r1 manage 12.4 K 2017-03-21 - 10:43 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
PDFpdf Rate_electron_full2016.pdf r1 manage 19.9 K 2017-03-21 - 10:43 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
PNGpng Rate_electron_full2016.png r1 manage 90.3 K 2017-03-21 - 14:44 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
Unknown file formateps Rate_photon_full2016.eps r1 manage 12.2 K 2017-03-21 - 10:43 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
PDFpdf Rate_photon_full2016.pdf r1 manage 16.9 K 2017-03-21 - 10:43 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
PNGpng Rate_photon_full2016.png r1 manage 80.5 K 2017-03-21 - 14:44 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
Unknown file formateps Rate_single_electron_full2016.eps r1 manage 11.0 K 2017-03-21 - 10:43 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
PDFpdf Rate_single_electron_full2016.pdf r1 manage 13.5 K 2017-03-21 - 10:43 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
PNGpng Rate_single_electron_full2016.png r1 manage 34.8 K 2017-03-21 - 14:44 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots using the full 2016 dataset
Unknown file formateps 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
PNGpng 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
Unknown file formateps 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
PNGpng 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
Unknown file formateps 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
PNGpng 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
Unknown file formateps 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
PNGpng 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
Unknown file formateps SingleMonopole_M_1000Q_2_0_loweta_eff_SP.eps r1 manage 20.0 K 2015-07-20 - 14:04 AkshayKatre Highly ionising trigger plots
PDFpdf SingleMonopole_M_1000Q_2_0_loweta_eff_SP.pdf r1 manage 576.1 K 2015-07-20 - 14:13 AkshayKatre Highly ionising trigger plots
PNGpng SingleMonopole_M_1000Q_2_0_loweta_eff_SP.png r1 manage 114.5 K 2015-07-20 - 14:13 AkshayKatre Highly ionising trigger plots
Unknown file formateps TRT_hits_MC_Mon_DY_vs_mu__prelim.eps r1 manage 12.8 K 2015-07-20 - 14:04 AkshayKatre Highly ionising trigger plots
PDFpdf TRT_hits_MC_Mon_DY_vs_mu__prelim.pdf r1 manage 516.3 K 2015-07-20 - 14:13 AkshayKatre Highly ionising trigger plots
PNGpng TRT_hits_MC_Mon_DY_vs_mu__prelim.png r1 manage 60.3 K 2015-07-20 - 14:13 AkshayKatre Highly ionising trigger plots
Unknown file formateps e24_lhmedium_iloose_L1EM18VH_periodC2_C5_Zee_MC15.eps r1 manage 11.6 K 2015-08-13 - 14:09 RyanWhite  
PDFpdf e24_lhmedium_iloose_L1EM18VH_periodC2_C5_Zee_MC15.pdf r1 manage 16.1 K 2015-08-13 - 14:09 RyanWhite  
PNGpng e24_lhmedium_iloose_L1EM18VH_periodC2_C5_Zee_MC15.png r1 manage 18.1 K 2015-08-13 - 14:09 RyanWhite  
Unknown file formateps e24_medium_LH_vs_cutbased_relabel.eps r1 manage 10.5 K 2015-07-28 - 00:06 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
PDFpdf e24_medium_LH_vs_cutbased_relabel.pdf r1 manage 14.7 K 2015-07-28 - 00:06 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
PNGpng e24_medium_LH_vs_cutbased_relabel.png r1 manage 16.0 K 2015-07-28 - 00:06 GabriellaPasztor 2015 electron trigger performance
C source code filec e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose_IneffisEMLHTight_2017.C r1 manage 15.9 K 2018-05-18 - 14:58 FernandoMonticelli  
Unknown file formateps e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose_IneffisEMLHTight_2017.eps r1 manage 24.9 K 2018-05-18 - 14:58 FernandoMonticelli  
PDFpdf e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose_IneffisEMLHTight_2017.pdf r1 manage 17.2 K 2018-05-18 - 14:58 FernandoMonticelli  
PNGpng e26_lhtight_nod0_ivarloose_IneffisEMLHTight_2017.png r1 manage 17.1 K 2018-05-18 - 15:03 FernandoMonticelli  
C source code filec e60_lhmedium_nod0_IneffisEMLHMedium_2017.C r1 manage 14.4 K 2018-05-18 - 14:58 FernandoMonticelli  
Unknown file formateps e60_lhmedium_nod0_IneffisEMLHMedium_2017.eps r1 manage 26.9 K 2018-05-18 - 14:58 FernandoMonticelli  
PDFpdf e60_lhmedium_nod0_IneffisEMLHMedium_2017.pdf r1 manage 17.9 K 2018-05-18 - 14:58 FernandoMonticelli  
PNGpng e60_lhmedium_nod0_IneffisEMLHMedium_2017.png r1 manage 31.6 K 2018-05-18 - 15:03 FernandoMonticelli  
Unknown file formateps eff_e20_medium_Et_May2011.eps r1 manage 16.6 K 2011-06-01 - 16:09 TakanoriKono  
PNGpng eff_e20_medium_Et_May2011.png r1 manage 19.6 K 2011-06-01 - 16:08 TakanoriKono  
Unknown file formateps eff_e20_medium_eta_May2011.eps r1 manage 12.9 K 2011-06-01 - 16:10 TakanoriKono  
PNGpng eff_e20_medium_eta_May2011.png r1 manage 20.5 K 2011-06-01 - 16:09 TakanoriKono  
Unknown file formateps eff_g20_loose_Et_May2011.eps r1 manage 8.8 K 2011-06-01 - 16:10 TakanoriKono  
PNGpng eff_g20_loose_Et_May2011.png r1 manage 6.6 K 2011-06-01 - 16:10 TakanoriKono  
Unknown file formateps effi2donly_medium_AM.eps r1 manage 24.3 K 2015-07-16 - 23:33 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
PDFpdf effi2donly_medium_AM.pdf r1 manage 49.6 K 2015-07-16 - 23:33 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
PNGpng effi2donly_medium_AM.png r1 manage 104.6 K 2015-07-16 - 23:33 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
Unknown file formateps effi_alltrig_et_AM.eps r1 manage 18.4 K 2015-07-16 - 23:30 GabriellaPasztor 2012 elctron trigger performance
PDFpdf effi_alltrig_et_AM.pdf r1 manage 55.4 K 2015-07-16 - 23:30 GabriellaPasztor 2012 elctron trigger performance
PNGpng effi_alltrig_et_AM.png r1 manage 126.3 K 2015-07-16 - 23:30 GabriellaPasztor 2012 elctron trigger performance
Unknown file formateps effi_alltrig_eta_AM.eps r1 manage 16.3 K 2015-07-16 - 23:30 GabriellaPasztor 2012 elctron trigger performance
PDFpdf effi_alltrig_eta_AM.pdf r1 manage 49.1 K 2015-07-16 - 23:30 GabriellaPasztor 2012 elctron trigger performance
PNGpng effi_alltrig_eta_AM.png r1 manage 120.5 K 2015-07-16 - 23:30 GabriellaPasztor 2012 elctron trigger performance
Unknown file formateps effi_et_AM.eps r1 manage 23.2 K 2015-07-16 - 23:31 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
PDFpdf effi_et_AM.pdf r1 manage 60.1 K 2015-07-16 - 23:31 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
PNGpng effi_et_AM.png r1 manage 129.8 K 2015-07-16 - 23:31 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
Unknown file formateps effi_et_periods.eps r1 manage 18.3 K 2015-07-16 - 23:31 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
PDFpdf effi_et_periods.pdf r1 manage 54.8 K 2015-07-16 - 23:31 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
PNGpng effi_et_periods.png r1 manage 106.7 K 2015-07-16 - 23:31 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
Unknown file formateps effi_eta_AM.eps r1 manage 19.0 K 2015-07-16 - 23:31 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
PDFpdf effi_eta_AM.pdf r1 manage 52.4 K 2015-07-16 - 23:31 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
PNGpng effi_eta_AM.png r1 manage 120.2 K 2015-07-16 - 23:31 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
Unknown file formateps effi_eta_periods.eps r1 manage 16.2 K 2015-07-16 - 23:32 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
PDFpdf effi_eta_periods.pdf r1 manage 48.9 K 2015-07-16 - 23:32 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
PNGpng effi_eta_periods.png r1 manage 106.0 K 2015-07-16 - 23:32 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
Unknown file formateps effi_eta_projections.eps r1 manage 17.2 K 2015-07-16 - 23:32 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
PDFpdf effi_eta_projections.pdf r1 manage 48.2 K 2015-07-16 - 23:32 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
PNGpng effi_eta_projections.png r1 manage 118.2 K 2015-07-16 - 23:32 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
Unknown file formateps effi_mu_AM.eps r1 manage 16.6 K 2015-07-16 - 23:32 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
PDFpdf effi_mu_AM.pdf r1 manage 30.8 K 2015-07-16 - 23:32 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
PNGpng effi_mu_AM.png r1 manage 104.6 K 2015-07-16 - 23:32 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
Unknown file formateps effi_vtx_AM.eps r1 manage 15.3 K 2015-07-16 - 23:33 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
PDFpdf effi_vtx_AM.pdf r1 manage 29.1 K 2015-07-16 - 23:33 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
PNGpng effi_vtx_AM.png r1 manage 96.3 K 2015-07-16 - 23:33 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
Unknown file formateps el_eratio_et40eta0_00_sigma_base_new.eps r1 manage 41.4 K 2018-05-14 - 20:18 FernandoMonticelli  
PDFpdf el_eratio_et40eta0_00_sigma_base_new.pdf r1 manage 39.8 K 2018-05-14 - 20:18 FernandoMonticelli  
PNGpng el_eratio_et40eta0_00_sigma_base_new.png r1 manage 493.7 K 2018-05-14 - 20:18 FernandoMonticelli  
Unknown file formateps 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
PDFpdf 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
PNGpng 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
Texttxt fig1.txt r1 manage 2.8 K 2018-05-18 - 14:58 FernandoMonticelli  
Unknown file formateps 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
PDFpdf 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
PNGpng 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
Unknown file formateps plot_Combined_highPt_Eta_120l_140l.eps r1 manage 46.8 K 2016-08-02 - 19:01 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
PDFpdf plot_Combined_highPt_Eta_120l_140l.pdf r1 manage 15.6 K 2016-08-02 - 19:01 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
PNGpng plot_Combined_highPt_Eta_120l_140l.png r1 manage 42.5 K 2016-08-02 - 19:01 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
Unknown file formateps plot_Combined_lowPt_Eta_25l_35l.eps r1 manage 46.8 K 2016-08-02 - 19:01 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
PDFpdf plot_Combined_lowPt_Eta_25l_35l.pdf r1 manage 15.6 K 2016-08-02 - 19:01 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
PNGpng plot_Combined_lowPt_Eta_25l_35l.png r1 manage 42.5 K 2016-08-02 - 19:01 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ICHEP 2016
Unknown file formateps 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
PDFpdf 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
PNGpng 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
Unknown file formateps 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
PDFpdf 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
PNGpng 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
Unknown file formateps 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
PDFpdf 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
PNGpng 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
Unknown file formateps 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
PDFpdf 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
PNGpng 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
Unknown file formateps 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
PDFpdf 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
PNGpng 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
Unknown file formateps 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
PDFpdf 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
PNGpng 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
Unknown file formateps 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
PDFpdf 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
PNGpng 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
Unknown file formateps 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
PDFpdf 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
PNGpng 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
Unknown file formateps plot_eff_et_L1_EM24VHI.eps r1 manage 14.4 K 2017-05-20 - 10:04 ArantxaRuizMartinez Level-1 EM isolation for TIPP17
PDFpdf plot_eff_et_L1_EM24VHI.pdf r1 manage 15.9 K 2017-05-20 - 10:04 ArantxaRuizMartinez Level-1 EM isolation for TIPP17
PNGpng plot_eff_et_L1_EM24VHI.png r1 manage 158.7 K 2017-05-20 - 10:04 ArantxaRuizMartinez Level-1 EM isolation for TIPP17
Unknown file formateps plot_eff_eta_L1_EM24VHI.eps r1 manage 14.3 K 2017-05-20 - 10:04 ArantxaRuizMartinez Level-1 EM isolation for TIPP17
PDFpdf plot_eff_eta_L1_EM24VHI.pdf r1 manage 16.0 K 2017-05-20 - 10:04 ArantxaRuizMartinez Level-1 EM isolation for TIPP17
PNGpng plot_eff_eta_L1_EM24VHI.png r1 manage 150.7 K 2017-05-20 - 10:04 ArantxaRuizMartinez Level-1 EM isolation for TIPP17
Unknown file formateps plot_eff_mu_L1_EM24VHI.eps r1 manage 11.0 K 2017-05-20 - 10:04 ArantxaRuizMartinez Level-1 EM isolation for TIPP17
PDFpdf plot_eff_mu_L1_EM24VHI.pdf r1 manage 14.2 K 2017-05-20 - 10:04 ArantxaRuizMartinez Level-1 EM isolation for TIPP17
PNGpng plot_eff_mu_L1_EM24VHI.png r1 manage 132.7 K 2017-05-20 - 10:04 ArantxaRuizMartinez Level-1 EM isolation for TIPP17
Unknown file formateps plot_l2calo_eff_eta_tap.eps r1 manage 14.2 K 2016-02-29 - 14:56 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ACAT 2016
PDFpdf plot_l2calo_eff_eta_tap.pdf r1 manage 16.6 K 2016-02-29 - 14:56 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ACAT 2016
PNGpng plot_l2calo_eff_eta_tap.png r1 manage 68.1 K 2016-02-29 - 14:56 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ACAT 2016
Unknown file formateps plot_l2calo_eff_mu_tap.eps r1 manage 14.9 K 2016-02-29 - 14:56 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ACAT 2016
PDFpdf plot_l2calo_eff_mu_tap.pdf r1 manage 16.8 K 2016-02-29 - 14:56 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ACAT 2016
PNGpng plot_l2calo_eff_mu_tap.png r1 manage 73.0 K 2016-02-29 - 14:56 ArantxaRuizMartinez plots for ACAT 2016
Unknown file formateps rate_vs_lumi_rebinned_new_prelim.eps r1 manage 11.4 K 2015-07-20 - 14:04 AkshayKatre Highly ionising trigger plots
PDFpdf rate_vs_lumi_rebinned_new_prelim.pdf r1 manage 228.7 K 2015-07-20 - 14:13 AkshayKatre Highly ionising trigger plots
PNGpng rate_vs_lumi_rebinned_new_prelim.png r1 manage 60.7 K 2015-07-20 - 14:13 AkshayKatre Highly ionising trigger plots
Unknown file formateps se2018_eff_et.eps r1 manage 199.6 K 2019-05-08 - 07:38 TetianaHrynova Files for ATL-COM-DAQ-2019-049 part 1
PDFpdf se2018_eff_et.pdf r1 manage 85.2 K 2019-05-08 - 07:38 TetianaHrynova Files for ATL-COM-DAQ-2019-049 part 1
PNGpng se2018_eff_et.png r1 manage 52.7 K 2019-05-08 - 07:38 TetianaHrynova Files for ATL-COM-DAQ-2019-049 part 1
Unknown file formateps se2018_eff_eta.eps r1 manage 204.7 K 2019-05-08 - 07:38 TetianaHrynova Files for ATL-COM-DAQ-2019-049 part 1
PDFpdf se2018_eff_eta.pdf r1 manage 93.2 K 2019-05-08 - 07:38 TetianaHrynova Files for ATL-COM-DAQ-2019-049 part 1
PNGpng se2018_eff_eta.png r1 manage 53.7 K 2019-05-08 - 07:38 TetianaHrynova Files for ATL-COM-DAQ-2019-049 part 1
Unknown file formateps se2018_sf.eps r1 manage 1107.2 K 2019-05-08 - 07:40 TetianaHrynova files in ATL-COM-DAQ-2019-049 part 2
PDFpdf se2018_sf.pdf r1 manage 905.3 K 2019-05-08 - 07:40 TetianaHrynova files in ATL-COM-DAQ-2019-049 part 2
PNGpng se2018_sf.png r1 manage 119.8 K 2019-05-08 - 07:40 TetianaHrynova files in ATL-COM-DAQ-2019-049 part 2
Unknown file formateps 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
PDFpdf 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
PNGpng 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
Unknown file formateps syst2d_medium_AM.eps r1 manage 26.5 K 2015-07-16 - 23:33 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
PDFpdf syst2d_medium_AM.pdf r1 manage 51.9 K 2015-07-16 - 23:33 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
PNGpng syst2d_medium_AM.png r1 manage 106.0 K 2015-07-16 - 23:33 GabriellaPasztor 2012 electron trigger performance
Unknown file formateps table_L1_EM_iso.eps r1 manage 7.3 K 2017-05-20 - 10:05 ArantxaRuizMartinez Level-1 EM isolation for TIPP17
PDFpdf table_L1_EM_iso.pdf r1 manage 38.9 K 2017-05-20 - 10:05 ArantxaRuizMartinez Level-1 EM isolation for TIPP17
PNGpng table_L1_EM_iso.png r1 manage 26.1 K 2017-05-20 - 10:05 ArantxaRuizMartinez Level-1 EM isolation for TIPP17
Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r38 < r37 < r36 < r35 < r34 | Backlinks | Raw View | WYSIWYG | More topic actions
Topic revision: r38 - 2019-05-11 - TetianaHrynova
 
    • Cern Search Icon Cern Search
    • TWiki Search Icon TWiki Search
    • Google Search Icon Google Search

    Atlas All webs login

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