trigger workshop material cern anton osika
TRANSCRIPT
L1 Trigger selections for Fat JetsContribution to the Hadronic Calibration 2013 Workshop
(Jet Substructure and tagging)
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall
CERN
September 16, 2013
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 1 / 51
Overview
1 L1 Trigger selections for Fat JetsIntroductionResultsSummary
2 Detailed MaterialIntroduction - more detailsOnline/Offline CorrelationsTrigger EfficienciesEvent properties per sampleSummary
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 2 / 51
Table of Contents
1 L1 Trigger selections for Fat JetsIntroductionResultsSummary
2 Detailed Material
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 3 / 51
Introduction & Motivation
Events with fat jets and no leptons are typically triggered using fat jettriggers.
These require a fat jet at the HLTi.e. significant energy deposits in cones of ∆R = 1.0.They are seeded at L1 by a ‘standard’ (narrow) single jet item, as L1uses exclusively cones of 0.8× 0.8 in the η − φ space.
We are seeking answers in the two following questions:
How is the L1 seed affecting the fat jet trigger efficiencies?What is the best alternative to a single jet L1 seed?
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 4 / 51
Trigger Selections
Investigated variables to cut at:Selection Threshold example AcronymET of leading single jet - Default L1 selection 100 [ GeV ] J1004 jets w/ ET above theshold - L1 multijet selection 20 [ GeV ] 4J202/3 jets w/ ET > 20, all closer than ∆R 1.0 2J20DR12Sum of ET for jets w/ ET > 20 200 [ GeV ] HT200As HT, for jets w/ |η| < 2.5 200 [ GeV ] HTC200Sum of ET for (up to) 2 jets closer than ∆R = 1.0 100 [ GeV ]
PET(2)100
Sum of ET for (up to) 3 jets closer than ∆R = 1.0 100 [ GeV ]P
ET(3)100
We have also considered additional variables, proven not that interesting inthe end: Invariant mass of two closeby jets and requirements close-by taus,in combination to single jet, multijet or HT selections.These will not be shown in the following slides.
Reminders:
run1 lowest unprescaled single jet L1 item: L1 J75
lowest unprescaled single jet L1 item planned for run2: L1 J100
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 5 / 51
Results 1 - efficiency(fat jet pT)
The baseline L1 J100 is compared to L1 HTC200 and two other selections thatinclude close-by jet requirements; OR-ing this selection to the baseline recoversinefficiencies of the individual selections.
jet pT (GeV)0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 close jet AND HT selection ORed with J100, zprime1000 (20000)
Efficiency for close jet selection
Signal distribution
J100
HT200
2 close & HT200
2 close & HT200 OR J100 > 100
T E∑2 close jets
L1 close jet AND HT selection ORed with J100, zprime1000 (20000)
jet pT (GeV)0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 close jet AND HT selection ORed with J100, Ttbar (50000)
Efficiency for close jet selection
Signal distribution
J100
HT200
2 close & HT200
2 close & HT200 OR J100 > 100
T E∑2 close jets
L1 close jet AND HT selection ORed with J100, Ttbar (50000)
jet pT (GeV)100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 close jet AND HT selection ORed with J100, GttL900 (10000)
Efficiency for close jet selection
Signal distribution
J100
HT200
2 close & HT200
2 close & HT200 OR J100 > 100
T E∑2 close jets
L1 close jet AND HT selection ORed with J100, GttL900 (10000)
jet pT (GeV)100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 close jet AND HT selection ORed with J100, GttL1 (49999)
Efficiency for close jet selection
Signal distribution
J100
HT200
2 close & HT200
2 close & HT200 OR J100 > 100
T E∑2 close jets
L1 close jet AND HT selection ORed with J100, GttL1 (49999)
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 6 / 51
Results 2 - efficiency(fat jet pT)
The baseline L1 J100 is compared to L1 4J20, HT200, HTC200 and the ET sumof up to two close-by jets. The 4-jet selection leads to large inefficiencies inevents without a large jet multiplicity.
jet pT (GeV)0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 Summarizing Selections , zprime1000 (20000)
Efficency for L1 multijet selection
Signal distribution
J100
4J20
HT200
HTC200 > 100
T E∑2 close jets
L1 Summarizing Selections , zprime1000 (20000)
jet pT (GeV)0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 Summarizing Selections , Ttbar (50000)
Efficency for L1 multijet selection
Signal distribution
J100
4J20
HT200
HTC200 > 100
T E∑2 close jets
L1 Summarizing Selections , Ttbar (50000)
jet pT (GeV)100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 Summarizing Selections , GttL900 (10000)
Efficency for L1 multijet selection
Signal distribution
J100
4J20
HT200
HTC200 > 100
T E∑2 close jets
L1 Summarizing Selections , GttL900 (10000)
jet pT (GeV)100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 Summarizing Selections , GttL1 (49999)
Efficency for L1 multijet selection
Signal distribution
J100
4J20
HT200
HTC200 > 100
T E∑2 close jets
L1 Summarizing Selections , GttL1 (49999)
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 7 / 51
Summary
Summary:
We have looked at L1 seeds for fat jet triggers; more specifically, atalternatives to the baseline L1 single jet trigger items:
a selection of L1 jet close-by pairs with high∑
ET , ORed to thebaseline selection;HT constructed from 20GeV L1 jets with |η| < 3.2 or < 2.5,multijet triggers,the two above, including requirements on the distance between jets.
HT(C)200 seems to have the best overall performance in the models wehave considered and for the assumed threshold of 360GeV for the EFselection.
Other selections can recover inefficiencies if lower EF thresholds can beallowed; e.g. if EF fat jet selections are made more robust to pile-up.
Further possible steps:
Investigate the pile-up robustness for the various selections;
Investigate L1 processing limitations when searching for combinations ofclose-by jets.
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 8 / 51
Table of Contents
1 L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets
2 Detailed MaterialIntroduction - more detailsOnline/Offline CorrelationsTrigger EfficienciesEvent properties per sampleSummary
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 9 / 51
Introduction - more details
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 10 / 51
L1(Topo) after LS1
After LS1, at L1 there will be provided new topological selection capability;
Selections will be possible on angles and kinematic compbinations ofobjects found in L1Calo, and with limited information from L1Muon.
This will be critical for physics channels with multiple objects in final statethat so far relied on inclusive (high rate) L1 triggers.
Proposed (hadronic) selections include HT, MHT, ∆η, ∆φ, ∆R (e.g.between jets or jets and MET), dijet invariant mass, ...
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 11 / 51
Processes
For the studies presented in these slides we used the following three samplecategories (resulting in four samples)
tt̄ production;
Z ′ → tt̄, with the Z ′ massed fixed at 1TeV;
g̃ → tt̄χ01, pair produced. Two samples are used from this model; both have
the g̃ mass fixed at 1.4TeV; one has the χ01 mass fixed at 1GeV and the
other has the χ01 mass fixed at 900GeV.
These four samples give a variety of fat jet multiplicity and pT spectrum in thefinal state, thus ensuring a good coverage.
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 12 / 51
Rates
The threshold for a possible variable is primarily decided by its estimatedrate;
The efficiency decides if the trigger is desirable or not;
The table below shows rates for various triggers at 14TeV, pile-up 54 for25ns and the 12 first BCIDs vetoes. Lumi considered here: 2e34. Source:
https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/viewauth/Atlas/RateEstimator
Trigger Rate Unique rate w.r.t. J100
J100 5.8 ± 0.7 0HT200 4.8 ± 0.7 1.2 ± 0.3HTC200 3.8 ± 1.0 1.0 ± 0.4HT250 2.1 ± 0.4 0.7 ± 0.34J20 4.5 ±0.7 4.0 ± 0.7∆R < 1.0
PET (2) > 120 0.5 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.1
∆R < 1.0P
ET (2) > 100 0.8 ± 0.3 0.3 ± 0.3∆R < 1.2
PET (2) > 120 0.5 ± 0.2 0.2 ± 0.2
∆R < 1.2P
ET (2) > 100 1.1 ± 0.4 0.5 ± 0.3
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 13 / 51
Event Filter and Offline selection
“EF selection” always imposes a fat jet requirement (R = 1.0) of ET > 360GeV and |η| < 3.2; EF jets are ‘AntiKt10 lctopo’;
“Offline fat jet selection” pre-requires pT> 50 GeV and |η| < 2.0
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 14 / 51
Online/Offline Correlations
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 15 / 51
L1 Jet ET vs Fat Jet pT
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Offline fat jet pT0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Onl
ine
lead
ing
jet E
T
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Leading online ET vs Offline leading pT, a10, zprime1000 (20000)
Correlation Factor: 0.86
Leading online ET vs Offline leading pT, a10, zprime1000 (20000)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Offline fat jet pT0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Onl
ine
lead
ing
jet E
T
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Leading online ET vs Offline leading pT, a10, Ttbar (50000)
Correlation Factor: 0.9
Leading online ET vs Offline leading pT, a10, Ttbar (50000)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Offline fat jet pT0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Onl
ine
lead
ing
jet E
T
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Leading online ET vs Offline leading pT, a10, GttL900 (10000)
Correlation Factor: 0.77
Leading online ET vs Offline leading pT, a10, GttL900 (10000)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Offline fat jet pT0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Onl
ine
lead
ing
jet E
T
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Leading online ET vs Offline leading pT, a10, GttL1 (49999)
Correlation Factor: 0.73
Leading online ET vs Offline leading pT, a10, GttL1 (49999)
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 16 / 51
L1∑
ET (2) vs Fat Jet pT
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Offline fat jet pT0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
sum
clo
se je
tsT
Onl
ine
E
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Online sum of ET for, up to 3, close jets vs Offline leading pT, a10, zprime1000 (20000)
Correlation Factor: 0.92
Online sum of ET for, up to 3, close jets vs Offline leading pT, a10, zprime1000 (20000)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Offline fat jet pT0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
sum
clo
se je
tsT
Onl
ine
E
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Online sum of ET for, up to 3, close jets vs Offline leading pT, a10, Ttbar (50000)
Correlation Factor: 0.94
Online sum of ET for, up to 3, close jets vs Offline leading pT, a10, Ttbar (50000)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Offline fat jet pT0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
sum
clo
se je
tsT
Onl
ine
E
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Online sum of ET for, up to 3, close jets vs Offline leading pT, a10, GttL900 (10000)
Correlation Factor: 0.87
Online sum of ET for, up to 3, close jets vs Offline leading pT, a10, GttL900 (10000)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Offline fat jet pT0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
sum
clo
se je
tsT
Onl
ine
E
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Online sum of ET for, up to 3, close jets vs Offline leading pT, a10, GttL1 (49999)
Correlation Factor: 0.82
Online sum of ET for, up to 3, close jets vs Offline leading pT, a10, GttL1 (49999)
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 17 / 51
L1 HT vs Fat Jet pT
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Offline fat jet pT0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Onl
ine
HT
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Online HT vs Offline leading pT, a10, zprime1000 (20000)
Correlation Factor: 0.86
Online HT vs Offline leading pT, a10, zprime1000 (20000)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Offline fat jet pT0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Onl
ine
HT
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Online HT vs Offline leading pT, a10, Ttbar (50000)
Correlation Factor: 0.89
Online HT vs Offline leading pT, a10, Ttbar (50000)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Offline fat jet pT0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Onl
ine
HT
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Online HT vs Offline leading pT, a10, GttL900 (10000)
Correlation Factor: 0.72
Online HT vs Offline leading pT, a10, GttL900 (10000)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Offline fat jet pT0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Onl
ine
HT
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Online HT vs Offline leading pT, a10, GttL1 (49999)
Correlation Factor: 0.54
Online HT vs Offline leading pT, a10, GttL1 (49999)
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 18 / 51
Trigger Efficiencies
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 19 / 51
L1 HT triggers
jet pT (GeV)0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
HTC200 HT250 J100 comparison, zprime1000 (20000)
Efficency for L1 multijet selection
Signal distribution
J100
HT250
HTC200
HT200
HTC200 HT250 J100 comparison, zprime1000 (20000)
jet pT (GeV)0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
HTC200 HT250 J100 comparison, Ttbar (50000)
Efficency for L1 multijet selection
Signal distribution
J100
HT250
HTC200
HT200
HTC200 HT250 J100 comparison, Ttbar (50000)
jet pT (GeV)100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
HTC200 HT250 J100 comparison, GttL900 (10000)
Efficency for L1 multijet selection
Signal distribution
J100
HT250
HTC200
HT200
HTC200 HT250 J100 comparison, GttL900 (10000)
jet pT (GeV)100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
HTC200 HT250 J100 comparison, GttL1 (49999)
Efficency for L1 multijet selection
Signal distribution
J100
HT250
HTC200
HT200
HTC200 HT250 J100 comparison, GttL1 (49999)
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 20 / 51
L1 HT triggers & EF Fat Jet selection
jet pT (GeV)0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
HTC200 HT250 J100 comparison, zprime1000 (20000)
Efficency for L1 multijet selection
Applying EF
J100 + EF
HT250 + EF
HTC200 + EF
HT200 + EF
HTC200 HT250 J100 comparison, zprime1000 (20000)
jet pT (GeV)0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
HTC200 HT250 J100 comparison, Ttbar (50000)
Efficency for L1 multijet selection
Applying EF
J100 + EF
HT250 + EF
HTC200 + EF
HT200 + EF
HTC200 HT250 J100 comparison, Ttbar (50000)
jet pT (GeV)100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
HTC200 HT250 J100 comparison, GttL900 (10000)
Efficency for L1 multijet selection
Applying EF
J100 + EF
HT250 + EF
HTC200 + EF
HT200 + EF
HTC200 HT250 J100 comparison, GttL900 (10000)
jet pT (GeV)100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
HTC200 HT250 J100 comparison, GttL1 (49999)
Efficency for L1 multijet selection
Applying EF
J100 + EF
HT250 + EF
HTC200 + EF
HT200 + EF
HTC200 HT250 J100 comparison, GttL1 (49999)
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 21 / 51
L1∑
ET > 100, J100
jet pT (GeV)0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
sum ET 2 close jets DR < 1.0, zprime1000 (20000)
Efficiency for ET sum cut for close jets
Signal distribution
HTC200
J100
> 100T
E∑2 close jets
> 100T
E∑3 close jets
sum ET 2 close jets DR < 1.0, zprime1000 (20000)
jet pT (GeV)0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
sum ET 2 close jets DR < 1.0, Ttbar (50000)
Efficiency for ET sum cut for close jets
Signal distribution
HTC200
J100
> 100T
E∑2 close jets
> 100T
E∑3 close jets
sum ET 2 close jets DR < 1.0, Ttbar (50000)
jet pT (GeV)100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
sum ET 2 close jets DR < 1.0, GttL900 (10000)
Efficiency for ET sum cut for close jets
Signal distribution
HTC200
J100
> 100T
E∑2 close jets
> 100T
E∑3 close jets
sum ET 2 close jets DR < 1.0, GttL900 (10000)
jet pT (GeV)100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
sum ET 2 close jets DR < 1.0, GttL1 (49999)
Efficiency for ET sum cut for close jets
Signal distribution
HTC200
J100
> 100T
E∑2 close jets
> 100T
E∑3 close jets
sum ET 2 close jets DR < 1.0, GttL1 (49999)
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 22 / 51
L1∑
ET > 100, J100 & EF Fat Jet selection
jet pT (GeV)0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
sum E_T 2 close jets DR < 1.0, zprime1000 (20000)
Efficiency for ET sum cut for close jets + EF
(EF only)
HTC200
J100
> 100T
E∑2 close jets
> 100T
E∑3 close jets
sum E_T 2 close jets DR < 1.0, zprime1000 (20000)
jet pT (GeV)0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
sum E_T 2 close jets DR < 1.0, Ttbar (50000)
Efficiency for ET sum cut for close jets + EF
(EF only)
HTC200
J100
> 100T
E∑2 close jets
> 100T
E∑3 close jets
sum E_T 2 close jets DR < 1.0, Ttbar (50000)
jet pT (GeV)100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
sum E_T 2 close jets DR < 1.0, GttL900 (10000)
Efficiency for ET sum cut for close jets + EF
(EF only)
HTC200
J100
> 100T
E∑2 close jets
> 100T
E∑3 close jets
sum E_T 2 close jets DR < 1.0, GttL900 (10000)
jet pT (GeV)100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
sum E_T 2 close jets DR < 1.0, GttL1 (49999)
Efficiency for ET sum cut for close jets + EF
(EF only)
HTC200
J100
> 100T
E∑2 close jets
> 100T
E∑3 close jets
sum E_T 2 close jets DR < 1.0, GttL1 (49999)
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 23 / 51
L1∑
ET > 100,∑
ET > 120
jet pT (GeV)0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 cuts on max ET sum of 1, 2 DR<1.0 and 3 DR<1.0 jets, ET > 20, a10, zprime1000 (20000)
Efficiency for selecting close jets, cutting on summed ET + EF
Signal distribution > 120
T E∑3 close jets
> 100T
E∑3 close jets
> 120T
E∑2 close jets
> 100T
E∑2 close jets
HTC200
L1 cuts on max ET sum of 1, 2 DR<1.0 and 3 DR<1.0 jets, ET > 20, a10, zprime1000 (20000)
jet pT (GeV)0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 cuts on max ET sum of 1, 2 DR<1.0 and 3 DR<1.0 jets, ET > 20, a10, Ttbar (50000)
Efficiency for selecting close jets, cutting on summed ET + EF
Signal distribution > 120
T E∑3 close jets
> 100T
E∑3 close jets
> 120T
E∑2 close jets
> 100T
E∑2 close jets
HTC200
L1 cuts on max ET sum of 1, 2 DR<1.0 and 3 DR<1.0 jets, ET > 20, a10, Ttbar (50000)
jet pT (GeV)100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 cuts on max ET sum of 1, 2 DR<1.0 and 3 DR<1.0 jets, ET > 20, a10, GttL900 (10000)
Efficiency for selecting close jets, cutting on summed ET + EF
Signal distribution > 120
T E∑3 close jets
> 100T
E∑3 close jets
> 120T
E∑2 close jets
> 100T
E∑2 close jets
HTC200
L1 cuts on max ET sum of 1, 2 DR<1.0 and 3 DR<1.0 jets, ET > 20, a10, GttL900 (10000)
jet pT (GeV)100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 cuts on max ET sum of 1, 2 DR<1.0 and 3 DR<1.0 jets, ET > 20, a10, GttL1 (49999)
Efficiency for selecting close jets, cutting on summed ET + EF
Signal distribution > 120
T E∑3 close jets
> 100T
E∑3 close jets
> 120T
E∑2 close jets
> 100T
E∑2 close jets
HTC200
L1 cuts on max ET sum of 1, 2 DR<1.0 and 3 DR<1.0 jets, ET > 20, a10, GttL1 (49999)
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 24 / 51
L1∑
ET > 100,∑
ET > 120 & EF Fat Jet selection
jet pT (GeV)0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 cuts on max ET sum of 1, 2 DR<1.0 and 3 DR<1.0 jets, ET > 20, a10, zprime1000 (20000)
Efficiency for selecting close jets, cutting on summed ET + EF
(EF only) > 120
T E∑3 close jets
> 100T
E∑3 close jets
> 120T
E∑2 close jets
> 100T
E∑2 close jets
HTC200
L1 cuts on max ET sum of 1, 2 DR<1.0 and 3 DR<1.0 jets, ET > 20, a10, zprime1000 (20000)
jet pT (GeV)0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 cuts on max ET sum of 1, 2 DR<1.0 and 3 DR<1.0 jets, ET > 20, a10, Ttbar (50000)
Efficiency for selecting close jets, cutting on summed ET + EF
(EF only) > 120
T E∑3 close jets
> 100T
E∑3 close jets
> 120T
E∑2 close jets
> 100T
E∑2 close jets
HTC200
L1 cuts on max ET sum of 1, 2 DR<1.0 and 3 DR<1.0 jets, ET > 20, a10, Ttbar (50000)
jet pT (GeV)100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 cuts on max ET sum of 1, 2 DR<1.0 and 3 DR<1.0 jets, ET > 20, a10, GttL900 (10000)
Efficiency for selecting close jets, cutting on summed ET + EF
(EF only) > 120
T E∑3 close jets
> 100T
E∑3 close jets
> 120T
E∑2 close jets
> 100T
E∑2 close jets
HTC200
L1 cuts on max ET sum of 1, 2 DR<1.0 and 3 DR<1.0 jets, ET > 20, a10, GttL900 (10000)
jet pT (GeV)100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 cuts on max ET sum of 1, 2 DR<1.0 and 3 DR<1.0 jets, ET > 20, a10, GttL1 (49999)
Efficiency for selecting close jets, cutting on summed ET + EF
(EF only) > 120
T E∑3 close jets
> 100T
E∑3 close jets
> 120T
E∑2 close jets
> 100T
E∑2 close jets
HTC200
L1 cuts on max ET sum of 1, 2 DR<1.0 and 3 DR<1.0 jets, ET > 20, a10, GttL1 (49999)
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 25 / 51
Summary 1 - efficiency(fat jet pT)
The baseline L1 J100 is compared to L1 HTC200 and two other selections thatinclude close-by jet requirements; OR-ing this selection to the baseline recoversinefficiencies of the individual selections.
jet pT (GeV)0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 close jet AND HT selection ORed with J100, zprime1000 (20000)
Efficiency for close jet selection
Signal distribution
J100
HT200
2 close & HT200
2 close & HT200 OR J100 > 100
T E∑2 close jets
L1 close jet AND HT selection ORed with J100, zprime1000 (20000)
jet pT (GeV)0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 close jet AND HT selection ORed with J100, Ttbar (50000)
Efficiency for close jet selection
Signal distribution
J100
HT200
2 close & HT200
2 close & HT200 OR J100 > 100
T E∑2 close jets
L1 close jet AND HT selection ORed with J100, Ttbar (50000)
jet pT (GeV)100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 close jet AND HT selection ORed with J100, GttL900 (10000)
Efficiency for close jet selection
Signal distribution
J100
HT200
2 close & HT200
2 close & HT200 OR J100 > 100
T E∑2 close jets
L1 close jet AND HT selection ORed with J100, GttL900 (10000)
jet pT (GeV)100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 close jet AND HT selection ORed with J100, GttL1 (49999)
Efficiency for close jet selection
Signal distribution
J100
HT200
2 close & HT200
2 close & HT200 OR J100 > 100
T E∑2 close jets
L1 close jet AND HT selection ORed with J100, GttL1 (49999)
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 26 / 51
Summary 1 - including EF Fat Jet selection
“Dominant” inefficiencies after a EF j360 a10tclcw selection.
jet pT (GeV)0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 close jet AND HT selection ORed with J100, zprime1000 (20000)
Efficiency for close jet selection + EF
(EF Only)
J100
HT200
2 close & HT200
2 close & HT200 OR J100 > 100
T E∑2 close jets
L1 close jet AND HT selection ORed with J100, zprime1000 (20000)
jet pT (GeV)0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 close jet AND HT selection ORed with J100, Ttbar (50000)
Efficiency for close jet selection + EF
(EF Only)
J100
HT200
2 close & HT200
2 close & HT200 OR J100 > 100
T E∑2 close jets
L1 close jet AND HT selection ORed with J100, Ttbar (50000)
jet pT (GeV)100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 close jet AND HT selection ORed with J100, GttL900 (10000)
Efficiency for close jet selection + EF
(EF Only)
J100
HT200
2 close & HT200
2 close & HT200 OR J100 > 100
T E∑2 close jets
L1 close jet AND HT selection ORed with J100, GttL900 (10000)
jet pT (GeV)100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 close jet AND HT selection ORed with J100, GttL1 (49999)
Efficiency for close jet selection + EF
(EF Only)
J100
HT200
2 close & HT200
2 close & HT200 OR J100 > 100
T E∑2 close jets
L1 close jet AND HT selection ORed with J100, GttL1 (49999)
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 27 / 51
Summary 2 - efficiency(fat jet pT)
The baseline L1 J100 is compared to L1 4J20, HT200, HTC200 and the ET sumof up to two close-by jets. The 4-jet selection leads to large inefficiencies inevents without a large jet multiplicity.
jet pT (GeV)0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 Summarizing Selections , zprime1000 (20000)
Efficency for L1 multijet selection
Signal distribution
J100
4J20
HT200
HTC200 > 100
T E∑2 close jets
L1 Summarizing Selections , zprime1000 (20000)
jet pT (GeV)0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 Summarizing Selections , Ttbar (50000)
Efficency for L1 multijet selection
Signal distribution
J100
4J20
HT200
HTC200 > 100
T E∑2 close jets
L1 Summarizing Selections , Ttbar (50000)
jet pT (GeV)100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 Summarizing Selections , GttL900 (10000)
Efficency for L1 multijet selection
Signal distribution
J100
4J20
HT200
HTC200 > 100
T E∑2 close jets
L1 Summarizing Selections , GttL900 (10000)
jet pT (GeV)100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 Summarizing Selections , GttL1 (49999)
Efficency for L1 multijet selection
Signal distribution
J100
4J20
HT200
HTC200 > 100
T E∑2 close jets
L1 Summarizing Selections , GttL1 (49999)
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 28 / 51
Summary 2 - including EF Fat Jet selection
“Dominant” inefficiencies after a EF j360 a10tclcw selection.
jet pT (GeV)0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 Summarizing Selections , zprime1000 (20000)
Efficency for L1 multijet selection
(EF only)
J100 + EF
4J20 + EF
HT200 + EF
HTC200 + EF > 100
T E∑2 close jets
L1 Summarizing Selections , zprime1000 (20000)
jet pT (GeV)0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 Summarizing Selections , Ttbar (50000)
Efficency for L1 multijet selection
(EF only)
J100 + EF
4J20 + EF
HT200 + EF
HTC200 + EF > 100
T E∑2 close jets
L1 Summarizing Selections , Ttbar (50000)
jet pT (GeV)100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 Summarizing Selections , GttL900 (10000)
Efficency for L1 multijet selection
(EF only)
J100 + EF
4J20 + EF
HT200 + EF
HTC200 + EF > 100
T E∑2 close jets
L1 Summarizing Selections , GttL900 (10000)
jet pT (GeV)100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 Summarizing Selections , GttL1 (49999)
Efficency for L1 multijet selection
(EF only)
J100 + EF
4J20 + EF
HT200 + EF
HTC200 + EF > 100
T E∑2 close jets
L1 Summarizing Selections , GttL1 (49999)
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 29 / 51
Event properties per sample
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 30 / 51
Total Offline HT histogram
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 20000
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
distribution of Offline HT, zprime1000distribution of Offline HT, zprime1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 20000
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
distribution of Offline HT, Ttbardistribution of Offline HT, Ttbar
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 20000
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
distribution of Offline HT, GttL900distribution of Offline HT, GttL900
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 20000
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
distribution of Offline HT, GttL1distribution of Offline HT, GttL1
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 31 / 51
offline number of jets
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 200
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Number of jets on Offline, zprime1000Number of jets on Offline, zprime1000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 200
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Number of jets on Offline, TtbarNumber of jets on Offline, Ttbar
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 200
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Number of jets on Offline, GttL900Number of jets on Offline, GttL900
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 200
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
Number of jets on Offline, GttL1Number of jets on Offline, GttL1
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 32 / 51
offline number of fat jets
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 200
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Number of fat jets on Offline, zprime1000Number of fat jets on Offline, zprime1000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 200
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Number of fat jets on Offline, TtbarNumber of fat jets on Offline, Ttbar
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 200
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Number of fat jets on Offline, GttL900Number of fat jets on Offline, GttL900
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 200
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Number of fat jets on Offline, GttL1Number of fat jets on Offline, GttL1
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 33 / 51
Eta histograms
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 50
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
jet eta, zprime1000jet eta, zprime1000
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 50
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
jet eta, Ttbarjet eta, Ttbar
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 50
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
jet eta, GttL900jet eta, GttL900
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 50
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
jet eta, GttL1jet eta, GttL1
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 34 / 51
Jet orientations on different trigger levels, Gtt;L900
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
eta-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
phi
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
eta vs phi for an event, 3R10: 0, 2R06: 0eta-phi1.pdf
Entries 8Mean x -0.1Mean y -0.1473RMS x 0.5916RMS y 2.047
eta phi for jets in 1 event
L1
Offline jets
Offline Fat jets
eta vs phi for an event, 3R10: 0, 2R06: 0
Triggerbit for 2/3 close jets in title
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 35 / 51
Jet orientations on different trigger levels, Gtt;L900
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
eta-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
phi
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
eta vs phi for an event, 3R10: 0, 2R06: 0eta-phi2.pdf
Entries 5Mean x -0.48Mean y -0.4712RMS x 0.6765RMS y 1.65
eta phi for jets in 1 event
L1
Offline jets
Offline Fat jets
eta vs phi for an event, 3R10: 0, 2R06: 0
Triggerbit for 2/3 close jets in title
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 36 / 51
Jet orientations on different trigger levels, Gtt;L900
eta-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
phi
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3eta-phi3.pdf
Entries 7Mean x -0.6571Mean y 0.3085RMS x 0.798RMS y 1.886
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1eta-phi3.pdfEntries 7Mean x -0.6571Mean y 0.3085RMS x 0.798RMS y 1.886
eta vs phi for an event, 3R10: 0, 2R06: 1
eta phi for jets in 1 event
L1
Offline jets
Offline Fat jets
Triggerbit for 2/3 close jets in title
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 37 / 51
Jet orientations on different trigger levels, Gtt;L900
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
eta-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
phi
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
eta vs phi for an event, 3R10: 1, 2R06: 0eta-phi4.pdf
Entries 6Mean x -0.12Mean y 0.1571RMS x 0.5154RMS y 2.216
eta phi for jets in 1 event
L1
Offline jets
Offline Fat jets
eta vs phi for an event, 3R10: 1, 2R06: 0
Triggerbit for 2/3 close jets in title
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 38 / 51
Jet orientations on different trigger levels, Gtt;L900
eta-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
phi
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3eta-phi5.pdf
Entries 6Mean x 0.6333Mean y -0.589RMS x 0.725RMS y 2.109
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1eta-phi5.pdfEntries 6Mean x 0.6333Mean y -0.589RMS x 0.725RMS y 2.109
eta vs phi for an event, 3R10: 0, 2R06: 0
eta phi for jets in 1 event
L1
Offline jets
Offline Fat jets
Triggerbit for 2/3 close jets in title
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 39 / 51
Summary
Summary:
We have looked at L1 seeds for fat jet triggers; more specifically, atalternatives to the baseline L1 single jet trigger items:
a selection of L1 jet close-by pairs with high∑
ET , ORed to thebaseline selection;HT constructed from 20GeV L1 jets with |η| < 3.2 or < 2.5,multijet triggers,the two above, including requirements on the distance between jets.
HT(C)200 seems to have the best overall performance in the models wehave considered and for the assumed threshold of 360GeV for the EFselection.
Other selections can recover inefficiencies if lower EF thresholds can beallowed; e.g. if EF fat jet selections are made more robust to pile-up.
Further possible steps:
Investigate the pile-up robustness for the various selections;
Investigate L1 processing limitations when searching for combinations ofclose-by jets.
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 40 / 51
Backup
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 41 / 51
L1∑
ET > 100,∑
ET > 120∆R = 1.0
Comparison of cutting 1.2 or 1.0
jet pT (GeV)0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 cuts on max ET sum of 1, 2 DR<1.0 and 3 DR<1.0 jets, ET > 20, a10, zprime1000 (20000)
Efficiency for selecting close jets, cutting on summed ET + EF
Signal distribution > 120
T E∑3 close jets
> 100T
E∑3 close jets
> 120T
E∑2 close jets
> 100T
E∑2 close jets
HTC200
L1 cuts on max ET sum of 1, 2 DR<1.0 and 3 DR<1.0 jets, ET > 20, a10, zprime1000 (20000)
jet pT (GeV)0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 cuts on max ET sum of 1, 2 DR<1.0 and 3 DR<1.0 jets, ET > 20, a10, Ttbar (50000)
Efficiency for selecting close jets, cutting on summed ET + EF
Signal distribution > 120
T E∑3 close jets
> 100T
E∑3 close jets
> 120T
E∑2 close jets
> 100T
E∑2 close jets
HTC200
L1 cuts on max ET sum of 1, 2 DR<1.0 and 3 DR<1.0 jets, ET > 20, a10, Ttbar (50000)
jet pT (GeV)100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 cuts on max ET sum of 1, 2 DR<1.0 and 3 DR<1.0 jets, ET > 20, a10, GttL900 (10000)
Efficiency for selecting close jets, cutting on summed ET + EF
Signal distribution > 120
T E∑3 close jets
> 100T
E∑3 close jets
> 120T
E∑2 close jets
> 100T
E∑2 close jets
HTC200
L1 cuts on max ET sum of 1, 2 DR<1.0 and 3 DR<1.0 jets, ET > 20, a10, GttL900 (10000)
jet pT (GeV)100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 cuts on max ET sum of 1, 2 DR<1.0 and 3 DR<1.0 jets, ET > 20, a10, GttL1 (49999)
Efficiency for selecting close jets, cutting on summed ET + EF
Signal distribution > 120
T E∑3 close jets
> 100T
E∑3 close jets
> 120T
E∑2 close jets
> 100T
E∑2 close jets
HTC200
L1 cuts on max ET sum of 1, 2 DR<1.0 and 3 DR<1.0 jets, ET > 20, a10, GttL1 (49999)
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 42 / 51
L1∑
ET > 100,∑
ET > 120∆R = 1.2
Comparison of cutting 1.2 or 1.0
jet pT (GeV)0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 cuts on max ET sum of 1, 2 DR<1.2 and 3 DR<1.2 jets, ET > 20, a10, zprime1000 (20000)
Efficiency for selecting close jets, cutting on summed ET + EF
Signal distribution > 120
T E∑3 close jets
> 100T
E∑3 close jets
> 120T
E∑2 close jets
> 100T
E∑2 close jets
applying HTC200
L1 cuts on max ET sum of 1, 2 DR<1.2 and 3 DR<1.2 jets, ET > 20, a10, zprime1000 (20000)
jet pT (GeV)0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 cuts on max ET sum of 1, 2 DR<1.2 and 3 DR<1.2 jets, ET > 20, a10, Ttbar (50000)
Efficiency for selecting close jets, cutting on summed ET + EF
Signal distribution > 120
T E∑3 close jets
> 100T
E∑3 close jets
> 120T
E∑2 close jets
> 100T
E∑2 close jets
applying HTC200
L1 cuts on max ET sum of 1, 2 DR<1.2 and 3 DR<1.2 jets, ET > 20, a10, Ttbar (50000)
jet pT (GeV)100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 cuts on max ET sum of 1, 2 DR<1.2 and 3 DR<1.2 jets, ET > 20, a10, GttL900 (10000)
Efficiency for selecting close jets, cutting on summed ET + EF
Signal distribution > 120
T E∑3 close jets
> 100T
E∑3 close jets
> 120T
E∑2 close jets
> 100T
E∑2 close jets
applying HTC200
L1 cuts on max ET sum of 1, 2 DR<1.2 and 3 DR<1.2 jets, ET > 20, a10, GttL900 (10000)
jet pT (GeV)100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
L1 cuts on max ET sum of 1, 2 DR<1.2 and 3 DR<1.2 jets, ET > 20, a10, GttL1 (49999)
Efficiency for selecting close jets, cutting on summed ET + EF
Signal distribution > 120
T E∑3 close jets
> 100T
E∑3 close jets
> 120T
E∑2 close jets
> 100T
E∑2 close jets
applying HTC200
L1 cuts on max ET sum of 1, 2 DR<1.2 and 3 DR<1.2 jets, ET > 20, a10, GttL1 (49999)
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 43 / 51
Correlation between L1 L2 EF, GttL900
0
20
40
60
80
100
pT names L20 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
pT n
ames
L1
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Scatter of leading ET no selection for 5000 events, L1 vs L2
0.97523591288
Scatter of leading ET no selection for 5000 events, L1 vs L2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
pT names EF0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
pT n
ames
L2
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Scatter of leading ET no selection for 5000 events, L2 vs EF
0.666858029371
Scatter of leading ET no selection for 5000 events, L2 vs EF
0
10
20
30
40
50
pT names OL0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
pT n
ames
EF
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Scatter of leading ET no selection for 5000 events, EF vs OL
0.983869758058
Scatter of leading ET no selection for 5000 events, EF vs OL
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 44 / 51
Online/Offline Comparison; L1 Inv. mass vs Fat Jet pT
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Offline fat jet pT0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Onl
ine
Inva
riant
Mas
s
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Online invariant mass of 2 close by jets vs Offline leading pT, a10, zprime1000 (20000)
Correlation Factor: 0.58
Online invariant mass of 2 close by jets vs Offline leading pT, a10, zprime1000 (20000)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Offline fat jet pT0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Onl
ine
Inva
riant
Mas
s
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Online invariant mass of 2 close by jets vs Offline leading pT, a10, Ttbar (50000)
Correlation Factor: 0.67
Online invariant mass of 2 close by jets vs Offline leading pT, a10, Ttbar (50000)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Offline fat jet pT0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Onl
ine
Inva
riant
Mas
s
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Online invariant mass of 2 close by jets vs Offline leading pT, a10, GttL900 (10000)
Correlation Factor: 0.6
Online invariant mass of 2 close by jets vs Offline leading pT, a10, GttL900 (10000)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Offline fat jet pT0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Onl
ine
Inva
riant
Mas
s
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Online invariant mass of 2 close by jets vs Offline leading pT, a10, GttL1 (49999)
Correlation Factor: 0.41
Online invariant mass of 2 close by jets vs Offline leading pT, a10, GttL1 (49999)
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 45 / 51
Online/Offline Comparison; L1 HT vs HT
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Offline HT0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Onl
ine
HT
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Online HT vs Offline HT, zprime1000 (20000)
Correlation Factor: 0.87
Online HT vs Offline HT, zprime1000 (20000)
0
100
200
300
400
500
Offline HT0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Onl
ine
HT
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Online HT vs Offline HT, Ttbar (50000)
Correlation Factor: 0.88
Online HT vs Offline HT, Ttbar (50000)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Offline HT0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Onl
ine
HT
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Online HT vs Offline HT, GttL900 (10000)
Correlation Factor: 0.67
Online HT vs Offline HT, GttL900 (10000)
0
5
10
15
20
25
Offline HT0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Onl
ine
HT
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Online HT vs Offline HT, GttL1 (49999)
Correlation Factor: 0.67
Online HT vs Offline HT, GttL1 (49999)
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 46 / 51
L1∑
ET > 120, J120
jet pT (GeV)0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
cluster 2 close jets DR < 1.0, zprime1000 (20000)
Efficiency for ET sum cut for close jets
Signal distribution
HTC200
J120
> 120T
E∑2 close jets
> 120T
E∑3 close jets
cluster 2 close jets DR < 1.0, zprime1000 (20000)
jet pT (GeV)0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
cluster 2 close jets DR < 1.0, Ttbar (50000)
Efficiency for ET sum cut for close jets
Signal distribution
HTC200
J120
> 120T
E∑2 close jets
> 120T
E∑3 close jets
cluster 2 close jets DR < 1.0, Ttbar (50000)
jet pT (GeV)100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
cluster 2 close jets DR < 1.0, GttL900 (10000)
Efficiency for ET sum cut for close jets
Signal distribution
HTC200
J120
> 120T
E∑2 close jets
> 120T
E∑3 close jets
cluster 2 close jets DR < 1.0, GttL900 (10000)
jet pT (GeV)100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
cluster 2 close jets DR < 1.0, GttL1 (49999)
Efficiency for ET sum cut for close jets
Signal distribution
HTC200
J120
> 120T
E∑2 close jets
> 120T
E∑3 close jets
cluster 2 close jets DR < 1.0, GttL1 (49999)
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 47 / 51
L1∑
ET > 120, J120 & EF Fat Jet selection
jet pT (GeV)0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
2 close jets DR < 1.0, zprime1000 (20000)
Efficiency for ET sum cut for close jets
(EF only)
HTC200
J120
> 120T
E∑2 close jets
> 120T
E∑3 close jets
2 close jets DR < 1.0, zprime1000 (20000)
jet pT (GeV)0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
2 close jets DR < 1.0, Ttbar (50000)
Efficiency for ET sum cut for close jets
(EF only)
HTC200
J120
> 120T
E∑2 close jets
> 120T
E∑3 close jets
2 close jets DR < 1.0, Ttbar (50000)
jet pT (GeV)100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
2 close jets DR < 1.0, GttL900 (10000)
Efficiency for ET sum cut for close jets
(EF only)
HTC200
J120
> 120T
E∑2 close jets
> 120T
E∑3 close jets
2 close jets DR < 1.0, GttL900 (10000)
jet pT (GeV)100 200 300 400 500 600
Effi
cenc
y
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
2 close jets DR < 1.0, GttL1 (49999)
Efficiency for ET sum cut for close jets
(EF only)
HTC200
J120
> 120T
E∑2 close jets
> 120T
E∑3 close jets
2 close jets DR < 1.0, GttL1 (49999)
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 48 / 51
Multijet Rates
Trigger 8 TeV Data 8 TeV MC 14 TeV MC MC Scaling Data scaled to 14 TeV
4J20 0.8+- 0.0 0.7+- 0.1 4.2+- 0.3 (5.7+-0.9) 4.5+- 0.7
Unique 1.5+- 0.0 0.4+- 0.1 3.0+- 0.3 (7.4+-1.6) 3.8+- 0.8
HTC200 1.2+- 0.0 0.9+- 0.1 2.8+- 0.3 (3.3+-0.5) 3.8+- 0.6
Unique 0.0+- 0.0 0.0+- 0.0 0.0+- 0.0 (0.0+-0.0) 0.0+- 0.0
HT200 1.5+- 0.0 1.2+- 0.1 4.0+- 0.3 (3.3+-0.5) 4.8+- 0.7
Unique 0.2+- 0.0 0.2+- 0.1 1.0+- 0.2 (3.9+-1.2) 0.9+- 0.3
========================================================================================
Total 2.0+- 0.0 1.6+- 0.2 7.1+- 0.4 (4.3+-0.5) 8.6+- 1.0
Trigger 8 TeV Data 8 TeV MC 14 TeV MC MC Scaling Data scaled to 14 TeV
1J100 1.7+- 0.0 1.4+- 0.1 4.6+- 0.3 (3.3+-0.4) 5.8+- 0.7
Unique 0.6+- 0.0 0.4+- 0.1 1.7+- 0.2 (3.9+-0.9) 2.2+- 0.5
4J20 0.8+- 0.0 0.7+- 0.1 4.2+- 0.3 (5.7+-0.9) 4.5+- 0.7
Unique 0.5+- 0.0 0.4+- 0.1 3.0+- 0.3 (7.4+-1.6) 3.7+- 0.8
HT200 1.5+- 0.0 1.2+- 0.1 4.0+- 0.3 (3.3+-0.5) 4.8+- 0.7
Unique 0.2+- 0.0 0.1+- 0.0 0.6+- 0.1 (5.0+-2.1) 0.8+- 0.3
HT300 0.3+- 0.0 0.3+- 0.1 1.1+- 0.2 (3.6+-1.0) 1.0+- 0.3
Unique 0.0+- 0.0 0.0+- 0.0 0.0+- 0.0 (0.0+-0.0) 0.0+- 0.0
=======================================================================================
Total 2.5+- 0.0 2.1+- 0.2 8.8+- 0.5 (4.3+-0.4) 10.7+- 1.1
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 49 / 51
Estimation for∑
ET rate
Trigger 8 TeV Data 8 TeV MC 14 TeV MC MC Scaling Data scaled to 14 TeV
2J55:DR10-J55-J55 0.0+- 0.0 0.0+- 0.0 0.1+- 0.1 (8.7+-9.5) 0.4+- 0.4
Unique 0.0+- 0.0 0.0+- 0.0 0.0+- 0.0 (0.0+-0.0) 0.0+- 0.0
J65_2J45:DR10-J65-J45 0.1+- 0.0 0.0+- 0.0 0.2+- 0.1 (6.1+-4.9) 0.5+- 0.4
Unique 0.0+- 0.0 0.0+- 0.0 0.0+- 0.0 (0.0+-0.0) 0.0+- 0.0
J75_2J35:DR10-J75-J35 0.1+- 0.0 0.1+- 0.0 0.2+- 0.1 (3.1+-1.9) 0.3+- 0.2
Unique 0.0+- 0.0 0.0+- 0.0 0.0+- 0.0 (0.0+-0.0) 0.0+- 0.0
J85_2J25:DR10-J85-J25 0.1+- 0.0 0.1+- 0.0 0.2+- 0.1 (2.6+-1.4) 0.3+- 0.1
Unique 0.0+- 0.0 0.0+- 0.0 0.0+- 0.0 (0.0+-0.0) 0.0+- 0.0
J95_2J20:DR10-J95-J20 0.1+- 0.0 0.1+- 0.0 0.2+- 0.1 (2.8+-1.6) 0.2+- 0.1
Unique 0.0+- 0.0 0.0+- 0.0 0.0+- 0.0 (0.0+-0.0) 0.0+- 0.0
=======================================================================================================
Total 0.2+- 0.0 0.1+- 0.0 0.3+- 0.1 (2.9+-1.5) 0.5+- 0.2
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 50 / 51