1. MuID LL1 Study (update) 09/02/2003 Muon Trigger Upgrade Meeting

2. Remaining issues from last meeting How much is the scale factor of the simulated minimum-bias events. What’s the efficiency after a certain symset boundary cut? Why MuIDLL1 Rejection Factor is so much lower in the latter runs ? Compare with MuID Blue Logic trigger, who’s rejection factor is higher ?

3. Efficiency and Rejection From Simulation Signal: p-p event contains muon decay from W. Pt(muon)>=1GeV Background: p-p minimum-bias event. Pt(muon)>1GeV. Scale factor = 68, i.e. 1 out of every 68 event are selected Eff no-cut +/-10 symset +/-20 symset +/-30 symset Deep 96.5% 96.2% 82.1% 55.5% shallow 99.6% 86.3%60.3% 29.1% RF no-cut +/-10 symset +/-20 symset +/-30 symset Deep 564  646+/-61 2332+/-435 4855+/-1285 Shallow 231+/-14 265+/-14 639+/-61 1698+/-272 Note: RF should be scale up by the scale factor.

4. Problems From Last Presentation Rejection factor in later run is significantly smaller than the early run. We checked runcontrol log and find the rejection factor of MuID Blue Logic is much more stable. The reason: The filtered files I used has some problem in trigger decision.

5. Introduction on MuID Blue Logic Trigger (from Hiroki) Each MuID plane is divided into 4 quadrants. Each quadrants is divided into 4 segment, i.e. 2 horizontal x 2 vertical. If the combination of hits in 4 gaps match certain pattern, i.e. online/monitoring/phnxmonitor/muid/pseudo_trig/pseudo_trig_const.h 7 out of 8 gap x orientation is required to have hits, i.e. 2-D cut.

6. Comparison of Rejection Factor of MuID Blue Logic Trigger Simulation and Real data MuID Blue Logic trigger simulator use run3-pp DST dMuiRaw as input to make thing easier to handle. The output is compared with Hiroki ‘s “offline/packages/mMuiPseudoTrigger.*” to make sure they give the same result. Rejection factor from real data is calculated according to runcontrol log. Run number 86188 86229 87236 87598 87705 87843 88117 88396 88578 Real South 560 206 683 395 836 683 617 537 758 North 126 229 ---- 98 153 87 117 ---- 169 Sim South 403±104 263±33 729±258 692±25 1140±261 789±104 790±238 557±66 863 ±216 North 140 ±21 153 ±14 --- 147 ±2 157 ±13 94 ±4 115 ±13 --- 142 ±14 Run number 89299 89449 89626 91126 91447 91681 91844 92040 92444 Real South 332 157 480 130 482 184 695 738 522 North 80 ---- 139 120 154 ---- 177 155 154 Sim South 394±55 174±11 542±85 116±7 740±223 292±67 462±106 1149±363 605±142 North 76±5 ----- 116±8 48±2 203 ±32 ---- 195 ±29 141 ±16 149 ±18

7. Rejection vs. Run Number For Deep Trigger

8. Why MuIDLL1 Rejection Factor is Smaller than MuID Blue Logic MuID Blue Logic Trigger requires 2-D cut. MuID LL1 trigger symset is 1-D. The following figure shows rejection factor after require 4 out of 8 gapXdirection instead of 7 out of 8 in MuID Blue Logic trigger, i.e. similar to 1-D cut.