Update Apr 24, 2007 Erik Brubaker FTK meeting
April 24, 2007FTK Meeting2 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. With FTK, LVL2 can have loose energy cuts; tagging requirement makes up x2 factor easily. No FTK scenario:
April 24, 2007FTK Meeting3 Hidden Valley process Representative scenario: –m H =100 GeV; m A =40 GeV; A =333 ps; BR=0.1. No FTKWith FTK GeV GeV Jets 2 jets: | | 15, m jj >20 GeV. Vertexing2 verts: r 1 cm
April 24, 2007FTK Meeting4 Hidden Valley signal survival With FTK, x8 more signal events accumulate in this scenario. Background very hard— resolutions, accidentals, not present in ATLFAST…
April 24, 2007FTK Meeting5 H->hh->4b process Default cuts too tight and/or miscalibrated. With FTK (LVL1 25 GeV cut) StartLVL14 btagsM_h cutM_H cut # Events1e Cut eff No FTK (LVL1 40 GeV cut) StartLVL14 btagsM_h cutM_H cut # Events1e Cut eff Getting back to my original process:
April 24, 2007FTK Meeting6 LVL1/LVL2 Using sherpa samples, 2->2+3+4 with y t =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!
April 24, 2007FTK Meeting7 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