Single Muon Efficiencies in 2012 Data CMS Collaboration

Single Muon Efficiencies in 2012 Data CMS Collaboration 1

Muon ID and Isolation Efficiencies in 2012 Run ABCD 2

Outline • Muon ID efficiencies: – Tight • • global muon PF muon global. Track. normalized. Chi 2< 10 global. Track. number. Of. Valid. Muon. Hits > 0 number. Of. Matched. Stations > 1 |dxy| < 0. 2 cm, |dz| < 0. 5 cm number. Of. Valid. Pixel. Hits > 0 tracker. Layers. With. Measurement > 5 – Loose • PF muon • global or tracker muon • Isolation efficiencies for tight muons: – tracker relative isolation ((∑p. T(TRK))/p. T) < 0. 1 (cone ΔR=0. 3) – combined relative PF isolation (∑ET(ch. Had from PV)+∑ET(neut. Had)+∑ET(photons))/p. T < 0. 12 and < 0. 20 with d. Beta correction for pile up (cone ΔR =0. 4). Delta. Beta: Correction to the neutral component of the combined isolation, taking into account the charged particles in the cone of interest but with particles not originating from the primary vertex, and the average of neutral to charged particles as measured in jets • Plot efficiencies for Data, MC and scale factors vs eta, pt (barrel, overlap, endcap), number of vertices 3

Method – Method: Tag and Probe Selection on Z->μ+μ • Tag muon: – Tight Muon – p. T > 15 Ge. V – matched to a single muon trigger • Probe muon: – General Track (for ID efficiencies) – Tight Muon (for Isolation efficiencies) • Z mass window: 70 -130 Ge. V • PDF shape: – signal = sum of 2 Voigtians – background = exponential 4

ID efficiency • Loose Selection Efficiency (Data and MC) and scale factors vs eta • Tn. P method used on Zs • Probes general tracks 5

ID efficiency • Loose Selection Efficiency (Data and MC) and scale factors vs pt in the barrel • Tn. P method used on Zs • Probes general tracks 6

ID efficiency • Loose Selection Efficiency (Data and MC) and scale factors vs pt in the overlap • Tn. P method used on Zs • Probes general tracks 7

ID efficiency • Loose Selection Efficiency (Data and MC) and scale factors vs pt in the endcap • Tn. P method used on Zs • Probes general tracks 8

ID efficiency • Loose Selection Efficiency (Data and MC) and scale factors vs Number of Vertices • Tn. P method used on Zs • Probes general tracks 9

ID efficiency • Tight Selection Efficiency (Data and MC) and scale factors vs eta • Tn. P method used on Zs • Probes general tracks 10

ID efficiency • Tight Selection Efficiency (Data and MC) and scale factors vs pt in the barrel • Tn. P method used on Zs • Probes general tracks 11

ID efficiency • Tight Selection Efficiency (Data and MC) and scale factors vs pt in the overlap • Tn. P method used on Zs • Probes general tracks 12

ID efficiency • Tight Selection Efficiency (Data and MC) and scale factors vs pt in the endcap • Tn. P method used on Zs • Probes general tracks 13

ID efficiency • Tight Selection Efficiency (Data and MC) and scale factors vs Number of Vertices • Tn. P method used on Zs • Probes general tracks 14

Isolation efficiency • • • Efficiency (Data and MC) and scale factors for a cut at < 0. 12 for PF Combined Relative Isolation with Delta. Beta correction for pile up vs eta Tn. P method used on Zs Probes Tight Muons 15

Isolation efficiency • • • Efficiency (Data and MC) and scale factors for a cut at < 0. 12 for PF Combined Relative Isolation with Delta. Beta correction for pile up vs pt in the barrel Tn. P method used on Zs Probes Tight Muons 16

Isolation efficiency • • • Efficiency (Data and MC) and scale factors for a cut at < 0. 12 for PF Combined Relative Isolation with Delta. Beta correction for pile up vs pt in the overlap Tn. P method used on Zs Probes Tight Muons 17

Isolation efficiency • • • Efficiency (Data and MC) and scale factors for a cut at < 0. 12 for PF Combined Relative Isolation with Delta. Beta correction for pile up vs pt in the endcap Tn. P method used on Zs Probes Tight Muons 18

Isolation efficiency • • • Efficiency (Data and MC) and scale factors for a cut at < 0. 12 for PF Combined Relative Isolation with Delta. Beta correction for pile up vs Number of Vertices Tn. P method used on Zs Probes Tight Muons 19

Isolation efficiency • • • Efficiency (Data and MC) and scale factors for a cut at < 0. 20 for PF Combined Relative Isolation with Delta. Beta correction for pile up vs Eta Tn. P method used on Zs Probes Tight Muons 20

Isolation efficiency • • • Efficiency (Data and MC) and scale factors for a cut at < 0. 20 for PF Combined Relative Isolation with Delta. Beta correction for pile up vs pt in the barrel Tn. P method used on Zs Probes Tight Muons 21

Isolation efficiency • • • Efficiency (Data and MC) and scale factors for a cut at < 0. 12 for PF Combined Relative Isolation with Delta. Beta correction for pile up vs pt in the overlap Tn. P method used on Zs Probes Tight Muons 22

Isolation efficiency • • • Efficiency (Data and MC) and scale factors for a cut at < 0. 20 for PF Combined Relative Isolation with Delta. Beta correction for pile up vs pt in the endcap Tn. P method used on Zs Probes Tight Muons 23

Isolation efficiency • • • Efficiency (Data and MC) and scale factors for a cut at < 0. 20 for PF Combined Relative Isolation with Delta. Beta correction for pile up vs Number of Vertices Tn. P method used on Zs Probes Tight Muons 24

Isolation efficiency • Efficiency (Data and MC) and scale factors for a cut at < 0. 1 for Tracker Relative Isolation vs eta • Tn. P method used on Zs • Probes Tight Muons 25

Isolation efficiency • Efficiency (Data and MC) and scale factors for a cut at < 0. 1 for Tracker Relative Isolation vs pt in the barrel • Tn. P method used on Zs • Probes Tight Muons 26

Isolation efficiency • Efficiency (Data and MC) and scale factors for a cut at < 0. 1 for Tracker Relative Isolation vs pt in the overlap • Tn. P method used on Zs • Probes Tight Muons 27

Isolation efficiency • Efficiency (Data and MC) and scale factors for a cut at < 0. 1 for Tracker Relative Isolation vs pt in the endcap • Tn. P method used on Zs • Probes Tight Muons 28

Isolation efficiency • Efficiency (Data and MC) and scale factors for a cut at < 0. 1 for Tracker Relative Isolation vs number vertices • Tn. P method used on Zs • Probes Tight Muons 29

Single Muon Trigger Efficiencies in 2012 Run D

Method Efficiency of triggers HLT_Mu 40, HLT_Iso. Mu 24 vs p. T, η, vertex multiplicity w. r. t. tight muon ID: Particle Flow (PF) && Global Muon ID Global track's χ2 GLB / dof < 10 # valid muon hits > 0, # matched muon stations > 1 Impact parameters of tracker track w. r. t. primary vertex: |dxy| < 0. 2 cm, |dz| < 0. 5 cm # valid pixel hits > 0, # tracker layers with measurements > 5 Method: tag-and-probe with Z resonance tag: probe: – tight muon ID, p. T > 15 Ge. V/c – matched with HLT_Iso. Mu 24(_eta 2 p 1) – (only for Iso. Mu 24 efficiency) Loose combined-relative PF isolation: [Σ ET(ch-hadr from PV) + Σ ET(neutr-hadr) + Σ ET(phot)] / p. Tμ < 0. 2 (ΔR = 0. 4) “Δβ correction” on neutral component, estimated using the charged particles in the isolation cone originating from non-primary vertexes, and the neutral-to-charged ratio MC: Z → μμ, with pileup reweighting to observed number of reconstructed vertices

HLT_Iso. Mu 24: Efficiency VS p. T (|η| < 0. 9) HLT_Iso. Mu 24 efficiency vs muon p. T data (2012 D) MC data/MC scale factors Probe: tight muon combined relative PF isolation p. T > 25 Ge. V/c |η| < 0. 9 (muon barrel, DT only)

HLT_Iso. Mu 24: Efficiency VS p. T (|η| = 0. 9 -1. 2) HLT_Iso. Mu 24 efficiency vs muon p. T data (2012 D) MC data/MC scale factors Probe: tight muon combined relative PF isolation p. T > 25 Ge. V/c 0. 9 < |η| < 1. 2 (DT-CSC overlap)

HLT_Iso. Mu 24: Efficiency VS p. T (|η| = 1. 2 -2. 1) HLT_Iso. Mu 24 efficiency vs muon p. T data (2012 D) MC data/MC scale factors Probe: tight muon combined relative PF isolation p. T > 25 Ge. V/c 1. 2 < |η| < 2. 1 (muon endcaps, CSC only)

HLT_Mu 40: Efficiency VS p. T (|η| < 0. 9) HLT_Mu 40 efficiency vs muon p. T data (2012 D) MC data/MC scale factors Probe: tight muon p. T > 45 Ge. V/c |η| < 0. 9 (muon barrel, DT only)

HLT_Mu 40: Efficiency VS p. T (|η| = 0. 9 -1. 2) HLT_Mu 40 efficiency vs muon p. T data (2012 D) MC data/MC scale factors Probe: tight muon p. T > 45 Ge. V/c 0. 9 < |η| < 1. 2 (DT-CSC overlap)

HLT_Mu 40: Efficiency VS p. T (|η| = 1. 2 -2. 1) HLT_Mu 40 efficiency vs muon p. T data (2012 D) MC data/MC scale factors Probe: tight muon p. T > 45 Ge. V/c 1. 2 < |η| < 2. 1 (muon endcaps, CSC only)

HLT_Iso. Mu 24: Efficiency VS η (p. T > 25 Ge. V/c) HLT_Iso. Mu 24 efficiency vs muon η data (2012 D) MC data/MC scale factors Probe: tight muon combined relative PF isolation p. T > 25 Ge. V/c |η| = 0. 2 -0. 3: dips due to cracks b/w DT wheels 0 and ± 1 |η| > 1. 2: asymmetry due to CSC bad (non-operational) chambers

HLT_Mu 40: Efficiency VS η (p. T > 45 Ge. V/c) HLT_Mu 40 efficiency vs muon η data (2012 D) MC data/MC scale factors Probe: tight muon p. T > 45 Ge. V/c |η| = 0. 2 -0. 3: dips due to cracks b/w DT wheels 0 and ± 1 |η| > 1. 2: asymmetry due to CSC bad (non-operational) chambers

HLT_Mu 40: Efficiency vs N. Vertices (p. T > 45 Ge. V/c, |η| < 2. 1) HLT_Mu 40 efficiency vs number of reconstructed primary vertices data (2012 D) MC data/MC scale factors Probe: tight muon p. T > 45 Ge. V/c |η| < 2. 1