1 / 7

Enhancements in LVL1/LVL2 Jet Trigger Thresholds and FTK Meeting Insights

During an FTK meeting, significant improvements were discussed regarding LVL1/LVL2 jet triggers and their impact on signal efficiency. Trigger thresholds were outlined in accordance with the TDR scheme, with examples provided. The interaction of FTK with the Hidden Valley process was explored, highlighting enhanced signal event accumulation and challenges in managing background noise. The meeting's agenda included optimizing trigger requirements for various model points and establishing better calibration methods, focusing on b-tagger efficiency. The collaborative efforts aimed for significant advancements in the analysis and event selection processes.

liuz
Download Presentation

Enhancements in LVL1/LVL2 Jet Trigger Thresholds and FTK Meeting Insights

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Update Apr 24, 2007 Erik Brubaker FTK meeting

  2. LVL1/LVL2 jet triggers • Set trigger thresholds according to TDR scheme. • E.g., 65 GeV(TDR) 40 GeV(LVL1) 60 GeV(LVL2). • LVL2 now has significant effect on signal efficiency. No FTK scenario: With FTK, LVL2 can have loose energycuts; tagging requirement makes upx2 factor easily. FTK Meeting

  3. Hidden Valley process • Representative scenario: • mH=100 GeV; mA=40 GeV; tA=333 ps; BR=0.1. FTK Meeting

  4. Hidden Valley signal survival • With FTK, x8 more signal events accumulate in this scenario. • Background very hard—resolutions, accidentals, not present in ATLFAST… FTK Meeting

  5. H->hh->4b process • Default cuts too tight and/or miscalibrated. Getting back to my original process: FTK Meeting

  6. Background @ LVL1/LVL2 • Using sherpa samples, 2->2+3+4 with yt=25 GeV. • LVL1 rates slightly low compared to TDR, but OK. • Can reproduce TDR x2 rate reduction at LVL2! Need real FTK efficiency/fake rate here! FTK Meeting

  7. To do • Hidden Valley • Plot or table for different model points showing • # of events expected/yr • Factor improvement with FTK • Try to understand b-enriched background as discussed in earlier meetings • Setting up sherpa on UC tier3 cluster • H->hh->4b • Store results for different trigger cuts in one pass • Develop looser set of cuts • Use FTK b-tagging efficiency/fake estimates • For 8 model points, optimize trigger requirements for S/sqrt(S+B) assuming FTK & no FTK FTK Meeting

More Related