72 |
|
As electrons from $W$ and $Z$ boson decays are isolated, requiring electron isolated from tracking |
73 |
|
activity can significantly suppress em-jets that usually have a large number of soft tracks around the |
74 |
|
leading $\pi^0$. It also can suppress real electrons from semi-leptonic decays of $b$ quarks which |
75 |
< |
tend to be non-isolated as well. We consider several versions of the track isolation requirements: |
75 |
> |
tend to be non-isolated as well. We consider several versions of the track isolation requirements |
76 |
> |
using CTF tracks around the electron candidates. |
77 |
|
|
78 |
|
\begin{equation} |
79 |
|
\label{eq:trkIsoN} |
276 |
|
0.1 (0.2) for barrel(endcap). |
277 |
|
\begin{figure}[!tb] |
278 |
|
\begin{center} |
279 |
< |
\includegraphics[width=16cm]{Figs/trkIso.eps} |
279 |
> |
\includegraphics[width=16cm]{Figs/TrkIso.eps} |
280 |
|
\vspace{-10mm} |
281 |
|
\caption{The $Iso^{trk}_{Norm}$ discriminant for electrons (blue soild line) and misidentified jets (red dashed line) for barrel (top left) and endcap (top right). The signal $v.s.$ background efficiencies |
282 |
|
obtained by varying the threshold are displayed in bottom left (barrel) and bottom right (endcap) plots. |
307 |
|
|
308 |
|
\begin{figure}[!tb] |
309 |
|
\begin{center} |
310 |
< |
\includegraphics[width=16cm]{Figs/Eff_hoE_IsoEmHad.eps} |
310 |
> |
\includegraphics[width=16cm]{Figs/Eff_HoE_IsoEmHad.eps} |
311 |
|
\vspace{-10mm} |
312 |
|
\caption{$H/E$ and $EmHad$ variables for barrel (left) and endcap (right). |
313 |
|
\label{fig:Eff_hoE_IsoEmHad}} |
347 |
|
We summarize the thresholds for barrel and endcap in Table~\ref{tab:OurSelection} |
348 |
|
and proceed with detailed analysis of the performance in the next Section. |
349 |
|
|
349 |
– |
|
350 |
|
\begin{table}[htb] |
351 |
|
\caption{Thresholds and efficinecy of the criteria.} |
352 |
|
\label{tab:OurSelection} |
363 |
|
\end{center} |
364 |
|
\end{table} |
365 |
|
|
366 |
+ |
|