Here are the final soft muon efficiency / fake rate plots. I am not comparing these numbers to the ones found by the B group, since I’m using different definitions than they did: I’m counting muon candidates by tracks instead of by muon objects. The B group was finding a muon object, checking whether its track could be identified as a muon or hadron, and then applying the likelihood. I’m checking all tracks to identify them as a muon or hadron. If a track is identifiable by a secondary vertex fit, but it doesn’t have a muon object, I give it a likelihood of -2. Since most hadrons don’t leave a muon object in the detector, I get much better numbers than the B-group did.
There are bad statistics in some regions, leading to spikiness of the plots. Also, there are negative fake rates in certain regions; those come from inconsistencies in the background subtraction. I may need slightly different background subtractions in different Eta/Pt ranges.
Notice the vertical scale in these plots:Â simply requiring that the track have a muon object associated with it is already a powerful discriminant.
CMU:
CMP:
CMUP:
CMX:
BMU:
-Scott