Missing B-tracks in L1 trigger

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
27 th June 2008Johannes Albrecht, BEACH 2008 Johannes Albrecht Physikalisches Institut Universität Heidelberg on behalf of the LHCb Collaboration The LHCb.
Advertisements

Validation of DC3 fully simulated W→eν samples (NLO, reconstructed in ) Laura Gilbert 01/08/06.
S. Martí i García Liverpool December 02 1 Selection of events in the all-hadronic channel S. Martí i García CDF End Of Year Review Liverpool / December.
Increasing Field Integral between Velo and TT S. Blusk Sept 02, 2009 SU Group Meeting.
1 Andrea Bangert, ATLAS SCT Meeting, Monte Carlo Studies Of Top Quark Pair Production Andrea Bangert, Max Planck Institute of Physics, CSC T6.
1 EMCal design MICE collaboration meeting Fermilab Rikard Sandström.
L3 Muon Trigger at D0 Status Report Thomas Hebbeker for Martin Wegner, RWTH Aachen, April 2002 The D0 muon system Functionality of the L3 muon trigger.
Tau Jet Identification in Charged Higgs Search Monoranjan Guchait TIFR, Mumbai India-CMS collaboration meeting th March,2009 University of Delhi.
1 T1-T3 in L1 algorithm  Idea (F. Teubert) Use extra tracking information to measure the large Pt that triggers the event (L1, HLT). Based in the fact.
Tracking at LHCb Introduction: Tracking Performance at LHCb Kalman Filter Technique Speed Optimization Status & Plans.
C.ClémentTile commissioning meeting – From susy group talk of last Wednesday  Simulation and digitization is done in version (8) 
1 T1-T3 in L1 algorithm  Outlook: I) Summary of L1-confirmation II) About the TrgForwardTracking package III) Confirming (preliminary)  L1-confirmation.
1 Performance of a Magnetised Scintillating Detector for a Neutrino Factory Scoping Study Meeting Rutherford Appleton Lab Tuesday 25 th April 2006 M. Ellis.
FIMCMS, 26 May, 2008 S. Lehti HIP Charged Higgs Project Preparative Analysis for Background Measurements with Data R.Kinnunen, M. Kortelainen, S. Lehti,
PID simulations Rikard Sandström University of Geneva MICE collaboration meeting RAL.
W/Z Plan For Winter Conferences Tom Diehl Saclay 12/2001.
Cellular Automaton Method for Track Finding (HERA-B, LHCb, CBM) Ivan Kisel Kirchhoff-Institut für Physik, Uni-Heidelberg Second FutureDAQ Workshop, GSI.
CALOR April Algorithms for the DØ Calorimeter Sophie Trincaz-Duvoid LPNHE – PARIS VI for the DØ collaboration  Calorimeter short description.
CPPM (IN2P3-CNRS et Université de la Méditerranée), Marseille, France Olivier Leroy, for the Marseille group Trigger meeting, CERN19 April 2004 b-tagging.
Fast Simulation and the Higgs: Parameterisations of photon reconstruction efficiency in H  events Fast Simulation and the Higgs: Parameterisations of.
HG 5: Trigger Study for ttH, H→bb Catrin Bernius (UCL) CPPM, Genova, Glasgow, RAL, RHUL, UCL some outline.
1 HLT (confirmation, generic)  Idea Reconstruct only a fraction tracks In hand:  better PT estimation  signal (secondary) vertices  Data TDR DaVinci.
Trigger study on photon slice Yuan Li Feb 27 th, 2009 LPNHE ATLAS group meeting.
LHCb Trigger Meeting – Februaryr 9, 2004, CERNMassimiliano Ferro-Luzzi 1 Tagging and Offline selection versus multiplicities What are the “best” multiplicity.
10 January 2008Neil Collins - University of Birmingham 1 Tau Trigger Performance Neil Collins ATLAS UK Physics Meeting Thursday 10 th January 2008.
Processing large data sets Brad Abbott. Now J/Psi Starting with root-tuples Add 4-momentum to look for candidates Pick events (raw) -> reconstruct event.
July 22, 2002Brainstorming Meeting, F.Teubert L1/L2 Trigger Algorithms L1-DAQ Trigger Farms, July 22, 2002 F.Teubert on behalf of the Trigger Software.
Z  BF using  hadronic events Silke Duensing Aug 8th, 2003.
3 May 2003, LHC2003 Symposium, FermiLab Tracking Performance in LHCb, Jeroen van Tilburg 1 Tracking performance in LHCb Tracking Performance Jeroen van.
Trigger Strategy and Performance of the LHCb Detector Mitesh Patel (CERN) (on behalf of the LHCb Collaboration) Thursday 7 th July 2005.
Electron and Photon HLT alley M. Witek K. Senderowska, A. Żurański.
1 HLT GENERIC SIGNAL LOSSES ANALYSIS summer internship 2004 Philippe Kobel EPFL, Lausanne, summer internship 2004.
 reconstruction and identification in CMS A.Nikitenko, Imperial College. LHC Days in Split 1.
1 HLT (generic)  Data TDR DaVinci v9r3 DC04 DaVici v12r0 DC04 DaVici v12r1  Outlook! # of track candidates!!! Comparation DC04 & TDR data  L1 does a.
H->WW->lνlν Analysis - Improvements and results - - Data and MC - Higgs Working group meeting, 6 January 2011 Magda Chełstowska & Rosemarie Aben.
Reconstruction of converted photons E. Tournefier LAPP meeting Feb. 2,2012 Algorithm for the reconstruction of converted photons Performances studies:
January 2009 offline detector review - 2 nd go 1 ● Offline – Geometry – Material budget – Simulation – Raw data – OCDB parameters – Reconstruction ● Calibration.
L0 Bandwidth Division for the TDR Eduardo Rodrigues, CERN
Susanna Costanza - Pavia Group PANDA C.M., Stockholm – June 14, 2010
2nd lepton veto, in the one-lepton SUSY analysis
Full Sim Status Estel Perez 27 July 2017.
Benchmark analysis of tau-pairs
analisys: Systematics checks
Salvatore Fiore Università di Roma “La Sapienza”
Converted photons efficiency
ITS “parallel” tracking
Converted photons efficiency
Higgs → t+t- in Vector Boson Fusion
The LHC collider in Geneva
Flavour Tagging performance in LHCb Marc Grabalosa Gándara (14/12/08)
The Silicon Track Trigger (STT) at DØ
The role of PS/SPD in the LHCb trigger
The Level-0 Calorimeter Trigger and the software triggers
DGWG session, Caltech general Meeting,
Reddy Pratap Gandrajula (University of Iowa) on behalf of CMS
Update on LHCb Level-1 trigger
LHCb Particle Identification and Performance
Bs  μ+μ- in LHCb Diego Martínez Santos
Julie Kirk Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
The LHCb Level 1 trigger LHC Symposium, October 27, 2001
Search for Narrow Resonance Decaying to Muon Pairs in 2.3 fb-1
J/Y Simulations for Trigger
Summary of validation studies of the simplified geometry
Samples and MC Selection
Contents First section: pion and proton misidentification probabilities as Loose or Tight Muons. Measurements using Jet-triggered data (from run).
Status of CEPC HCAL Optimization Study in Simulation LIU Bing On behalf the CEPC Calorimeter working group.
LHCb Trigger LHCb Trigger Outlook:
Rare and Forbidden Decays in the Standard Model
Susan Burke, University of Arizona
Problems in π0 Reconstruction
Presentation transcript:

Missing B-tracks in L1 trigger 13 April 2019 Federica Legger

Summary Motivations Method used L1 flow and main failures Breakdown for some representative channels Results A case study: Bd  p+ p- L1 failures correlation Origin of the decision tracks Status and plans 13 April 2019

Motivations Post-TDR study to better understand L1 behaviour LHCb trigger TDR (September 2003) TDR L1 efficiencies… or inefficiencies: why do we lose 37.3% of the events for Bd  p+ p- (easy channel)?? Some bugs corrected after TDR Post-TDR study to better understand L1 behaviour 13 April 2019

What I did…(I) Take some representative channels, and select events which pass L0 and the offline selection ( reconstructible), but that are rejected by L1 Hadronic Muon Electro magnetic 13 April 2019

…what I did… (II) Look for signal decay tree (MC Truth); Consider B daughter which is more likely to trigger: In the cases where there are more than one particle with the same probability to trigger (Bd  p+ p-), I consider the one with the highest Pt; Bd  p+ p- Bs  Ds k Bd  F Ks Bs  J/ (m+ m-) F Bs  J/ (e+ e-) F Bd  K* g 13 April 2019

…what I did (III) Associate MC particle to L1 2D and 3D tracks; Look what happened to signal track and see why it didn’t trigger; Classify events according to trigger failures; Study of L1 failures correlations in Bd  p+ p- (both pions taken in account). 13 April 2019

L1 flow (I) r z (r,z) plane Match L0 m to 2D tracks (2<16) VELO hits (r,z) plane z r NO 2D Reco YES 2D PV, IP2D Match L0 m to 2D tracks (2<16) IP2D cut .15 <IP2D< 3 mm NO NO Muon YES YES 3D Reco NO YES Track rejected 3D PV, IP3D 13 April 2019

L1 flow (II) m match to retrieve tracks for dimuon mass bonus (out of scope) Backward, Weird IP (-2<IP3D<5mm), IP3D cut (.15<IP3D<2mm) NO YES Match to TT or m (Pt) If not assign default 400 MeV/c PT, IPS One of the two highest Pt track (PT1 and PT2) Decision track NO YES Track rejected L1 Plane cut D > L1 equivalent 4% min. bias ret. D YES NO L1 YES L1 NO 13 April 2019

L1 code TDR baseline version + some bugs fixed (PVZ @ 100mm) No bonus system (dimuon mass, electron and g transverse energies) No multiple PV treatment (implemented in new L1 code) TDR now PVZ PVZ 13 April 2019

L1 flow (I) Main failures Lost@2D Lost@3D 1 2 VELO hits 2D Reco 2D PV, NO 2D Reco YES 2D PV, IP2D Lost@2D 1 IP2D cut .15 <IP2D< 3 mm NO NO Muon YES YES 3D Reco NO YES Lost@3D 2 Track rejected 3D PV, IP3D 13 April 2019

L1 flow (II) Main failures Lost@3D Low PT Small D 3 4 Backward, Weird IP (-2<IP3D<5mm), IP3D cut (.15<IP3D<2mm) NO YES Main failures PT, IPS Low PT 3 Decision track NO YES Track rejected L1 Plane cut D > L1 equivalent 4% min. bias ret. Small D 4 YES NO L1 YES L1 NO 13 April 2019

Main failures To be treated separately Main loss (~60%) ~10% ~10% ~15% Bd  p+ p- Bs  Ds K Bd  F Ks Bs  J/ (e+e-) F Bd  K* g 13 April 2019

2. Tracks lost at 2D B daughter MC truth Lost@2D IP2D cut Or Muon 2D track Correct Wrong 2. Tracks lost at 2D 13 April 2019

Tracks lost at 2D Absolute Relative Main loss ~20% OK Bd  p+ p- Bs  Ds K Bd  F Ks Bs  J/ (e+e-) F Bd  K* g 13 April 2019

3. Tracks lost at 3D B daughter MC truth Lost@2D IP2D cut Or Muon 2D track Correct Wrong Lost@3D IP3D cut 3D track 3. Tracks lost at 3D Correct Wrong 13 April 2019

Tracks lost at 3D Absolute Relative Main loss ~2% Bd  p+ p- Bs  Ds K Bd  F Ks Bs  J/ (e+e-) F Bd  K* g 13 April 2019

4. Tracks lost because of low Pt MC truth B daughter Lost@2D Low PT IP2D cut Or Muon Default Pt 400 MeV/c Measured low Pt 2D track Correct Wrong Correct Wrong Lost@3D 4. Tracks lost because of low Pt IP3D cut 3D track Correct Wrong 13 April 2019

Tracks lost because of low PT Absolute Relative Main loss (~10%) insignificant Bd  p+ p- Bs  Ds K Bd  F Ks Bs  J/ (e+e-) F Bd  K* g 13 April 2019

5. Tracks lost because of small D MC truth 5. Tracks lost because of small D B daughter Lost@2D Low PT IP2D cut Or Muon Default Pt 400 MeV/c Measured low Pt 2D track Correct Wrong Correct Wrong Lost@3D Small D IP3D cut 3D track PT1 PT2 Correct Wrong Correct Wrong Correct Wrong 13 April 2019

Tracks lost because of small D Correct > Wrong Correct < Wrong Almost 100% no measured Pt 13 April 2019

Tracks lost because of small D B track is more likely to be PT1 Bd  p+ p- Bs  Ds K Bd  F Ks Bs  J/ (e+e-) F Bd  K* g 13 April 2019

Summary for all channels but muons MC truth Summary for all channels but muons 60% B daughter 13% Lost@2D Low PT 12% 3% IP2D cut Or Muon Default Pt 400 MeV/c Measured low Pt 2D track 37% 20% 0% 1% 12% Correct Wrong 15% Correct Wrong Lost@3D Small D 10% IP3D cut 3D track PT1 PT2 1% 1% 10% 2% 2% 1% Correct Wrong Correct Wrong Correct Wrong 13 April 2019

L1 Design vs. Resolution failures (correct boxes) (wrong+failed) Best channel 50%, 50% Enhanced by bonus... Bd  p+ p- Bs  Ds K Bd  F Ks Bs  J/ (m+m-) F Bs  J/ (e+e-) F Bd  K* g 13 April 2019

Results (I) Main failure: Main loss at 3D: IP2D p+ IP2D e+ IP2D cut ~60%, wrong (40%) + correct (~20%) Main loss at 3D: failed 3D reco (~8%), worse than failed 2D reco (~3%), could also be the associator (MCParticle2L1Track) IP cut IP cut IP2D p+ IP2D e+ 13 April 2019

Results (II) IP3D cut not very significative (~2%) No decision track because Pt is too low (~10%): no measured Pt (~100%) failed TT reco Rejected decision tracks (~15%) : if PTMC we would gain ~5% of the evts. IP3D p+ IP3D e+ IP cut 13 April 2019

The muon channel L0 Muons (63%) go to 3D reco even if they do not pass the IP2D cut (73%) 10% evts lost at 2D (3% wrong) Main loss at 3D: IP3D cut (61%) 99% were L0 muons 13% evts wrongly rejected These tracks could be later use for dimuon mass bonus (out of scope) Low Pt tracks: 3% No decision track: 18% Worst design (71% vs. 29%) BONUS system 13 April 2019

A case study: Bd  p+ p- ! L1 failures Consider the two pions to study failures correlation ! L1 failures NO2D No 2D track NO3D No 3D track IP2D doesn’t pass IP2D cut and is not a m PT1 Leading track PT2 2nd leading track LOWPT Not one of the two leading tracks IP3D doesn’t pass IP3D cut 13 April 2019

A case study: Bd  p+ p- IP2D cut  Main loss is Even if other track is PT1!! 13 April 2019

Origin of the decision tracks Bd  p+ p- L0 && !L1 && SEL L0 && L1 && SEL 13 April 2019

PT1 PT2 L0 && !L1 && SEL L0 && L1 && SEL 13 April 2019

Status and plans Study completed; Note with full results almost ready; Write a Tool to automatically flag trigger failures and include it into new L1 code. 13 April 2019