The document discusses different Level 1 trigger selections for fat jets that could be alternatives to the baseline single jet trigger. It analyzes selections based on the sum of energy of closeby jets, HT constructed from low-energy jets, and multijet triggers. HT(C)200, which requires the scalar sum of transverse energies of jets with ET > 20 GeV and |η| < 2.5(3.2) to be above 200 GeV, seems to have the best overall performance compared to the other selections for the models considered. Combining selections could help recover some inefficiencies at lower event filter thresholds.

1. L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets
Contribution to the Hadronic Calibration 2013 Workshop
(Jet Substructure and tagging)
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall
CERN
osika@kth.se
September 16, 2013
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 1 / 51

2. Overview
1 L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets
Introduction
Results
Summary
2 Detailed Material
Introduction - more details
Online/Offline Correlations
Trigger Efficiencies
Event properties per sample
Summary
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 2 / 51

3. Table of Contents
1 L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets
Introduction
Results
Summary
2 Detailed Material
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 3 / 51

4. Introduction & Motivation
Events with fat jets and no leptons are typically triggered using fat jet
triggers.
These require a fat jet at the HLT
i.e. significant energy deposits in cones of ∆R = 1.0.
They are seeded at L1 by a ‘standard’ (narrow) single jet item, as L1
uses 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

5. Trigger Selections
Investigated variables to cut at:
Selection Threshold example Acronym
ET of leading single jet - Default L1 selection 100 [ GeV ] J100
4 jets w/ ET above theshold - L1 multijet selection 20 [ GeV ] 4J20
2/3 jets w/ ET > 20, all closer than ∆R 1.0 2J20DR12
Sum of ET for jets w/ ET > 20 200 [ GeV ] HT200
As HT, for jets w/ |η| < 2.5 200 [ GeV ] HTC200
Sum of ET for (up to) 2 jets closer than ∆R = 1.0 100 [ GeV ]
P
ET(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 in
the 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

6. Results 1 - efficiency(fat jet pT)
The baseline L1 J100 is compared to L1 HTC200 and two other selections that
include close-by jet requirements; OR-ing this selection to the baseline recovers
inefficiencies of the individual selections.
jet pT (GeV)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Efficency
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
Efficency
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
Efficency
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
Efficency
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

7. Results 2 - efficiency(fat jet pT)
The baseline L1 J100 is compared to L1 4J20, HT200, HTC200 and the ET sum
of up to two close-by jets. The 4-jet selection leads to large inefficiencies in
events without a large jet multiplicity.
jet pT (GeV)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Efficency
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
Efficency
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
Efficency
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
Efficency
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

8. Summary
Summary:
We have looked at L1 seeds for fat jet triggers; more specifically, at
alternatives to the baseline L1 single jet trigger items:
a selection of L1 jet close-by pairs with high ET , ORed to the
baseline 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 we
have considered and for the assumed threshold of 360GeV for the EF
selection.
Other selections can recover inefficiencies if lower EF thresholds can be
allowed; 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 of
close-by jets.
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 8 / 51

9. Table of Contents
1 L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets
2 Detailed Material
Introduction - more details
Online/Offline Correlations
Trigger Efficiencies
Event properties per sample
Summary
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 9 / 51

10. Introduction - more details
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 10 / 51

11. 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 of
objects found in L1Calo, and with limited information from L1Muon.
This will be critical for physics channels with multiple objects in final state
that 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

12. Processes
For the studies presented in these slides we used the following three sample
categories (resulting in four samples)
t¯t production;
Z → t¯t, with the Z massed fixed at 1TeV;
˜g → t¯tχ0
1, pair produced. Two samples are used from this model; both have
the ˜g mass fixed at 1.4TeV; one has the χ0
1 mass fixed at 1GeV and the
other has the χ0
1 mass fixed at 900GeV.
These four samples give a variety of fat jet multiplicity and pT spectrum in the
final state, thus ensuring a good coverage.
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 12 / 51

13. Rates
The threshold for a possible variable is primarily decided by its estimated
rate;
The efficiency decides if the trigger is desirable or not;
The table below shows rates for various triggers at 14TeV, pile-up 54 for
25ns 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 0
HT200 4.8 ± 0.7 1.2 ± 0.3
HTC200 3.8 ± 1.0 1.0 ± 0.4
HT250 2.1 ± 0.4 0.7 ± 0.3
4J20 4.5 ±0.7 4.0 ± 0.7
∆R < 1.0
P
ET (2) > 120 0.5 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.1
∆R < 1.0
P
ET (2) > 100 0.8 ± 0.3 0.3 ± 0.3
∆R < 1.2
P
ET (2) > 120 0.5 ± 0.2 0.2 ± 0.2
∆R < 1.2
P
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

14. Event Filter and Offline selection
“EF selection” always imposes a fat jet requirement (R = 1.0) of ET > 360
GeV 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

15. Online/Offline Correlations
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 15 / 51

16. L1 Jet ET vs Fat Jet pT
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Offline fat jet pT
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
OnlineleadingjetET
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 pT
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
OnlineleadingjetET
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 pT
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
OnlineleadingjetET
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 pT
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
OnlineleadingjetET
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

17. L1 ET (2) vs Fat Jet pT
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Offline fat jet pT
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
sumclosejetsT
OnlineE
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 pT
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
sumclosejetsT
OnlineE
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 pT
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
sumclosejetsT
OnlineE
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 pT
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
sumclosejetsT
OnlineE
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

18. L1 HT vs Fat Jet pT
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Offline fat jet pT
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
OnlineHT
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 pT
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
OnlineHT
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 pT
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
OnlineHT
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 pT
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
OnlineHT
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

19. Trigger Efficiencies
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 19 / 51

20. L1 HT triggers
jet pT (GeV)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Efficency
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
Efficency
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
Efficency
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
Efficency
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

21. L1 HT triggers & EF Fat Jet selection
jet pT (GeV)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Efficency
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
Efficency
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
Efficency
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
Efficency
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

22. L1 ET > 100, J100
jet pT (GeV)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Efficency
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
> 100
T
E∑2 close jets
> 100
T
E∑3 close jets
sum ET 2 close jets DR < 1.0, zprime1000 (20000)
jet pT (GeV)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Efficency
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
> 100
T
E∑2 close jets
> 100
T
E∑3 close jets
sum ET 2 close jets DR < 1.0, Ttbar (50000)
jet pT (GeV)
100 200 300 400 500 600
Efficency
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
> 100
T
E∑2 close jets
> 100
T
E∑3 close jets
sum ET 2 close jets DR < 1.0, GttL900 (10000)
jet pT (GeV)
100 200 300 400 500 600
Efficency
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
> 100
T
E∑2 close jets
> 100
T
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

23. L1 ET > 100, J100 & EF Fat Jet selection
jet pT (GeV)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Efficency
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
> 100
T
E∑2 close jets
> 100
T
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
Efficency
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
> 100
T
E∑2 close jets
> 100
T
E∑3 close jets
sum E_T 2 close jets DR < 1.0, Ttbar (50000)
jet pT (GeV)
100 200 300 400 500 600
Efficency
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
> 100
T
E∑2 close jets
> 100
T
E∑3 close jets
sum E_T 2 close jets DR < 1.0, GttL900 (10000)
jet pT (GeV)
100 200 300 400 500 600
Efficency
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
> 100
T
E∑2 close jets
> 100
T
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

24. L1 ET > 100, ET > 120
jet pT (GeV)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Efficency
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
> 100
T
E∑3 close jets
> 120
T
E∑2 close jets
> 100
T
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
Efficency
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 E
Signal distribution
> 120
T
E∑3 close jets
> 100
T
E∑3 close jets
> 120
T
E∑2 close jets
> 100
T
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
Efficency
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
> 100
T
E∑3 close jets
> 120
T
E∑2 close jets
> 100
T
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
Efficency
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 E
Signal distribution
> 120
T
E∑3 close jets
> 100
T
E∑3 close jets
> 120
T
E∑2 close jets
> 100
T
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

25. L1 ET > 100, ET > 120 & EF Fat Jet selection
jet pT (GeV)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Efficency
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
> 100
T
E∑3 close jets
> 120
T
E∑2 close jets
> 100
T
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
Efficency
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 E
(EF only)
> 120
T
E∑3 close jets
> 100
T
E∑3 close jets
> 120
T
E∑2 close jets
> 100
T
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
Efficency
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
> 100
T
E∑3 close jets
> 120
T
E∑2 close jets
> 100
T
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
Efficency
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 E
(EF only)
> 120
T
E∑3 close jets
> 100
T
E∑3 close jets
> 120
T
E∑2 close jets
> 100
T
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

26. Summary 1 - efficiency(fat jet pT)
The baseline L1 J100 is compared to L1 HTC200 and two other selections that
include close-by jet requirements; OR-ing this selection to the baseline recovers
inefficiencies of the individual selections.
jet pT (GeV)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Efficency
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
Efficency
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
Efficency
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
Efficency
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

27. 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
Efficency
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
Efficency
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
Efficency
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
Efficency
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

28. Summary 2 - efficiency(fat jet pT)
The baseline L1 J100 is compared to L1 4J20, HT200, HTC200 and the ET sum
of up to two close-by jets. The 4-jet selection leads to large inefficiencies in
events without a large jet multiplicity.
jet pT (GeV)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Efficency
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
Efficency
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
Efficency
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
Efficency
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

29. 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
Efficency
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
Efficency
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
Efficency
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
Efficency
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

30. Event properties per sample
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 30 / 51

31. Total Offline HT histogram
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
0
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 2000
0
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 2000
0
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 2000
0
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

32. offline number of jets
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0
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 20
0
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 20
0
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 20
0
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

33. offline number of fat jets
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0
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 20
0
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 20
0
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 20
0
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

34. Eta histograms
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
jet eta, zprime1000jet eta, zprime1000
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
jet eta, Ttbarjet eta, Ttbar
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
jet eta, GttL900jet eta, GttL900
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
0
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

35. 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: 0
eta-phi1.pdf
Entries 8
Mean x -0.1
Mean y -0.1473
RMS x 0.5916
RMS 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

36. 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: 0
eta-phi2.pdf
Entries 5
Mean x -0.48
Mean y -0.4712
RMS x 0.6765
RMS 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

37. Jet orientations on different trigger levels, Gtt;L900
eta
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
phi
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
eta-phi3.pdf
Entries 7
Mean x -0.6571
Mean y 0.3085
RMS x 0.798
RMS y 1.886
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
eta-phi3.pdf
Entries 7
Mean x -0.6571
Mean y 0.3085
RMS x 0.798
RMS 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

38. 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: 0
eta-phi4.pdf
Entries 6
Mean x -0.12
Mean y 0.1571
RMS x 0.5154
RMS 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

39. Jet orientations on different trigger levels, Gtt;L900
eta
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
phi
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
eta-phi5.pdf
Entries 6
Mean x 0.6333
Mean y -0.589
RMS x 0.725
RMS y 2.109
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
eta-phi5.pdf
Entries 6
Mean x 0.6333
Mean y -0.589
RMS x 0.725
RMS 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

40. Summary
Summary:
We have looked at L1 seeds for fat jet triggers; more specifically, at
alternatives to the baseline L1 single jet trigger items:
a selection of L1 jet close-by pairs with high ET , ORed to the
baseline 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 we
have considered and for the assumed threshold of 360GeV for the EF
selection.
Other selections can recover inefficiencies if lower EF thresholds can be
allowed; 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 of
close-by jets.
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 40 / 51

41. Backup
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 41 / 51

42. 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
Efficency
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
> 100
T
E∑3 close jets
> 120
T
E∑2 close jets
> 100
T
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
Efficency
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 E
Signal distribution
> 120
T
E∑3 close jets
> 100
T
E∑3 close jets
> 120
T
E∑2 close jets
> 100
T
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
Efficency
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
> 100
T
E∑3 close jets
> 120
T
E∑2 close jets
> 100
T
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
Efficency
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 E
Signal distribution
> 120
T
E∑3 close jets
> 100
T
E∑3 close jets
> 120
T
E∑2 close jets
> 100
T
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

43. 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
Efficency
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
> 100
T
E∑3 close jets
> 120
T
E∑2 close jets
> 100
T
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
Efficency
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 E
Signal distribution
> 120
T
E∑3 close jets
> 100
T
E∑3 close jets
> 120
T
E∑2 close jets
> 100
T
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
Efficency
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
> 100
T
E∑3 close jets
> 120
T
E∑2 close jets
> 100
T
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
Efficency
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 E
Signal distribution
> 120
T
E∑3 close jets
> 100
T
E∑3 close jets
> 120
T
E∑2 close jets
> 100
T
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

44. Correlation between L1 L2 EF, GttL900
0
20
40
60
80
100
pT names L2
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
pTnamesL1
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 EF
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
pTnamesL2
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 OL
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
pTnamesEF
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

45. Online/Offline Comparison; L1 Inv. mass vs Fat Jet pT
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Offline fat jet pT
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
OnlineInvariantMass
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 pT
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
OnlineInvariantMass
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 pT
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
OnlineInvariantMass
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 pT
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
OnlineInvariantMass
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

46. Online/Offline Comparison; L1 HT vs HT
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Offline HT
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
OnlineHT
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 HT
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
OnlineHT
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 HT
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
OnlineHT
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 HT
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
OnlineHT
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

47. L1 ET > 120, J120
jet pT (GeV)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Efficency
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
> 120
T
E∑2 close jets
> 120
T
E∑3 close jets
cluster 2 close jets DR < 1.0, zprime1000 (20000)
jet pT (GeV)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Efficency
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
> 120
T
E∑2 close jets
> 120
T
E∑3 close jets
cluster 2 close jets DR < 1.0, Ttbar (50000)
jet pT (GeV)
100 200 300 400 500 600
Efficency
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
> 120
T
E∑2 close jets
> 120
T
E∑3 close jets
cluster 2 close jets DR < 1.0, GttL900 (10000)
jet pT (GeV)
100 200 300 400 500 600
Efficency
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
> 120
T
E∑2 close jets
> 120
T
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

48. L1 ET > 120, J120 & EF Fat Jet selection
jet pT (GeV)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Efficency
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
> 120
T
E∑2 close jets
> 120
T
E∑3 close jets
2 close jets DR < 1.0, zprime1000 (20000)
jet pT (GeV)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Efficency
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
> 120
T
E∑2 close jets
> 120
T
E∑3 close jets
2 close jets DR < 1.0, Ttbar (50000)
jet pT (GeV)
100 200 300 400 500 600
Efficency
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
> 120
T
E∑2 close jets
> 120
T
E∑3 close jets
2 close jets DR < 1.0, GttL900 (10000)
jet pT (GeV)
100 200 300 400 500 600
Efficency
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
> 120
T
E∑2 close jets
> 120
T
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

49. 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

50. 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

51. The End
Anton Osika, Anna Sfyrla, Zachary Marshall (CERN)L1 Trigger selections for Fat Jets September 16, 2013 51 / 51