| 1 |
|
|
| 2 |
+ |
This analysis uses several different control regions in addition to the signal regions. |
| 3 |
+ |
All of these different regions are defined in this section. |
| 4 |
+ |
%Figure~\ref{fig:venndiagram} illustrates the relationship between these regions. |
| 5 |
|
|
| 6 |
< |
The preselection sample is based on the following criteria |
| 6 |
> |
\subsection{Single Lepton Selection} |
| 7 |
> |
|
| 8 |
> |
[UPDATE SELECTION] |
| 9 |
> |
|
| 10 |
> |
The single lepton preselection sample is based on the following criteria, starting from the requirements described |
| 11 |
> |
on \url{https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/viewauth/CMS/SUSYstop#SINGLE_LEPTON_CHANNEL} |
| 12 |
|
\begin{itemize} |
| 13 |
|
\item satisfy the trigger requirement (see |
| 14 |
< |
Table.~\ref{tab:DatasetsData}) |
| 14 |
> |
Table.~\ref{tab:DatasetsData}). |
| 15 |
> |
Note that the analysis triggers are inclusive single lepton triggers. |
| 16 |
> |
Dilepton triggers are used only for the dilepton control region. |
| 17 |
|
\item select events with one high \pt\ electron or muon, requiring |
| 18 |
|
\begin{itemize} |
| 19 |
< |
\item $\pt>30~\GeVc$ and $|\eta|<2.5(2.1)$ for \E(\M) |
| 20 |
< |
\item satisfy the identification and isolation requirements detailed |
| 21 |
< |
in the same-sign SUSY analysis (SUS-11-010) for electrons and the opposite-sign |
| 22 |
< |
SUSY analysis (SUS-11-011) for muons |
| 19 |
> |
\item $\pt>30~\GeVc$ and $|\eta|<1.4442 (2.4)$ for electrons (muons) |
| 20 |
> |
\item muon ID criteria is based on the 2012 POG recommended tight working point |
| 21 |
> |
\item electron ID critera is based on the 2012 POG recommended medium working point |
| 22 |
> |
\item PF-based isolation ($\Delta R < 0.3$, $\Delta\beta$ corrected) relative $<$ 0.15 and absolute $<$ 5~GeV |
| 23 |
> |
\item $|\pt(\rm{PF}_{lep}) - \pt(\rm{RECO}_{lep})| < 10~\GeV$ |
| 24 |
> |
\item $E/p_{in} < 4$ (electrons only) |
| 25 |
|
\end{itemize} |
| 26 |
|
\item require at least 4 PF jets in the event with $\pt>30~\GeV$ |
| 27 |
< |
within $|\eta|<2.5$, out of which at least 1 is b-tagged based on |
| 28 |
< |
the SSV medium working point. |
| 27 |
> |
within $|\eta|<2.5$ out of which at least 1 satisfies the CSV |
| 28 |
> |
medium working point b-tagging requirement |
| 29 |
|
\item require moderate $\met>50~\GeV$ |
| 30 |
|
\end{itemize} |
| 31 |
|
|
| 32 |
< |
Currently, we focus on the muon channel because it is cleaner (the QCD contribution is negligible) |
| 21 |
< |
and the triggers are simpler (we use single muon triggers, as opposed to electron + 3-jet triggers). |
| 22 |
< |
We will add the electron channel, time permitting. However, since this is a systematics-dominated |
| 23 |
< |
analysis, increasing the statistics by adding the electrons is not expected to significantly improve |
| 24 |
< |
the sensitivity, especialy because the electron selection efficiency is smaller and the systematic |
| 25 |
< |
uncertainty associated with the QCD background is larger. |
| 32 |
> |
%Table~\ref{tab:preselectionyield} shows the yields in data and MC without any corrections for this preselection region. |
| 33 |
|
|
| 34 |
< |
A benchmark signal region is selected by tightening the \met\ and |
| 35 |
< |
adding an \mt\ requirement |
| 36 |
< |
\begin{itemize} |
| 37 |
< |
\item $\met>100~\GeV$ |
| 38 |
< |
\item $\mt>150~\GeV$ |
| 39 |
< |
\end{itemize} |
| 34 |
> |
%\begin{table}[!h] |
| 35 |
> |
%\begin{center} |
| 36 |
> |
%\begin{tabular}{c|c} |
| 37 |
> |
%\hline |
| 38 |
> |
%\hline |
| 39 |
> |
%\end{tabular} |
| 40 |
> |
%\caption{ Raw Data and MC predictions without any corrections are shown after preselection. \label{tab:preselectionyield}} |
| 41 |
> |
%\end{center} |
| 42 |
> |
%\end{table} |
| 43 |
> |
|
| 44 |
> |
\subsection{Signal Region Selection} |
| 45 |
> |
|
| 46 |
> |
[MOTIVATIONAL BLURB ON MET AND MT, \\ |
| 47 |
> |
CAN ADD SIGNAL VS. TTBAR MC PLOT \\ |
| 48 |
> |
ADD SIGNAL YIELDS FOR AVAILABLE POINTS, \\ |
| 49 |
> |
DISCUSS CHOICE SIG REGIONS] |
| 50 |
> |
|
| 51 |
> |
The signal regions (SRs) are selected to improve the sensitivity for the |
| 52 |
> |
single lepton requirements and cover a range of scalar top |
| 53 |
> |
scenarios. The \mt\ and \met\ variables are used to define the signal |
| 54 |
> |
regions and the requirements are listed in Table~\ref{tab:srdef}. |
| 55 |
> |
|
| 56 |
> |
\begin{table}[!h] |
| 57 |
> |
\begin{center} |
| 58 |
> |
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c} |
| 59 |
> |
\hline |
| 60 |
> |
Signal Region & Minimum \mt\ [GeV] & Minimum \met\ [GeV] \\ |
| 61 |
> |
\hline |
| 62 |
> |
\hline |
| 63 |
> |
SRA & 150 & 100 \\ |
| 64 |
> |
SRB & 120 & 150 \\ |
| 65 |
> |
SRC & 120 & 200 \\ |
| 66 |
> |
SRD & 120 & 250 \\ |
| 67 |
> |
SRE & 120 & 300 \\ |
| 68 |
> |
\hline |
| 69 |
> |
\end{tabular} |
| 70 |
> |
\caption{ Signal region definitions based on \mt\ and \met\ |
| 71 |
> |
requirements. These requirements are applied in addition to the |
| 72 |
> |
baseline single lepton selection. |
| 73 |
> |
\label{tab:srdef}} |
| 74 |
> |
\end{center} |
| 75 |
> |
\end{table} |
| 76 |
> |
|
| 77 |
> |
Table~\ref{tab:srrawmcyields} shows the expected number of SM |
| 78 |
> |
background yields for the SRs. A few stop signal yields for four |
| 79 |
> |
values of the parameters are also shown for comparison. The signal |
| 80 |
> |
regions with looser requirements are sensitive to lower stop masses |
| 81 |
> |
M(\sctop), while those with tighter requirements are more sensitive to |
| 82 |
> |
higher M(\sctop). |
| 83 |
> |
|
| 84 |
> |
\begin{table}[!h] |
| 85 |
> |
\begin{center} |
| 86 |
> |
\begin{tabular}{l||c|c|c|c|c} |
| 87 |
> |
\hline |
| 88 |
> |
Sample & SRA & SRB & SRC & SRD & SRE\\ |
| 89 |
> |
\hline |
| 90 |
> |
\hline |
| 91 |
> |
\ttdl\ & $619 \pm 9$& $366 \pm 7$& $127 \pm 4$& $44 \pm 2$& $17 \pm 1$ \\ |
| 92 |
> |
\ttsl\ \& single top (1\Lep) & $95 \pm 3$& $67 \pm 3$& $15 \pm 1$& $6 \pm 1$& $2 \pm 1$ \\ |
| 93 |
> |
\wjets\ & $29 \pm 2$& $15 \pm 2$& $6 \pm 1$& $3 \pm 1$& $1 \pm 0$ \\ |
| 94 |
> |
Rare & $59 \pm 3$& $38 \pm 3$& $16 \pm 2$& $8 \pm 1$& $4 \pm 1$ \\ |
| 95 |
> |
\hline |
| 96 |
> |
Total & $802 \pm 10$& $486 \pm 8$& $164 \pm 5$& $62 \pm 3$& $23 \pm 2$ \\ |
| 97 |
> |
\hline |
| 98 |
> |
\end{tabular} |
| 99 |
> |
\caption{ Expected SM background contributions, including both muon |
| 100 |
> |
and electron channels. This is ``dead reckoning'' MC with no |
| 101 |
> |
correction. |
| 102 |
> |
It is meant only as a general guide. The uncertainties are statistical only. ADD |
| 103 |
> |
SIGNAL POINTS. |
| 104 |
> |
\label{tab:srrawmcyields}} |
| 105 |
> |
\end{center} |
| 106 |
> |
\end{table} |
| 107 |
|
|
| 108 |
< |
{\bf We have not looked at the data in the signal region after the first 1 fb$^{-1}$ of data.} |
| 108 |
> |
\subsection{Control Region Selection} |
| 109 |
|
|
| 110 |
< |
\subsection{Corrections to Jets and \met} |
| 110 |
> |
[1 PARAGRAPH BLURB RELATING BACKGROUNDS (IN TABLE FROM PREVIOUS SECTION) |
| 111 |
> |
TO INTRODUCE CONTROL REGIONS] |
| 112 |
> |
|
| 113 |
> |
Control regions (CRs) are used to validate the background estimation |
| 114 |
> |
procedure and derive systematic uncertainties for some |
| 115 |
> |
contributions. The CRs are selected to have similar |
| 116 |
> |
kinematics to the SRs, but have a different requirement in terms of |
| 117 |
> |
number of b-tags and number of leptons, thus enhancing them in |
| 118 |
> |
different SM contributions. The four CRs used in this analysis are |
| 119 |
> |
summarized in Table~\ref{tab:crdef}. |
| 120 |
> |
|
| 121 |
> |
\begin{table} |
| 122 |
> |
\begin{center} |
| 123 |
> |
{\small |
| 124 |
> |
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c} |
| 125 |
> |
\hline |
| 126 |
> |
Selection & \multirow{2}{*}{exactly 1 lepton} & \multirow{2}{*}{exactly 2 |
| 127 |
> |
leptons} & \multirow{2}{*}{1 lepton + isolated |
| 128 |
> |
track}\\ |
| 129 |
> |
Criteria & & & \\ |
| 130 |
> |
\hline |
| 131 |
> |
\hline |
| 132 |
> |
\multirow{4}{*}{0 b-tags} |
| 133 |
> |
& CR1) W+Jets dominated: |
| 134 |
> |
& CR2) apply \Z-mass constraint |
| 135 |
> |
& CR3) not used \\ |
| 136 |
> |
& |
| 137 |
> |
& $\rightarrow$ Z+Jets dominated: Validate |
| 138 |
> |
& \\ |
| 139 |
> |
& Validate W+Jets \mt\ tail |
| 140 |
> |
& \ttsl\ \mt\ tail comparing |
| 141 |
> |
& \\ |
| 142 |
> |
& |
| 143 |
> |
& data vs. MC ``pseudo-\mt '' |
| 144 |
> |
& \\ |
| 145 |
> |
\hline |
| 146 |
> |
\multirow{4}{*}{$\ge$ 1 b-tags} |
| 147 |
> |
& |
| 148 |
> |
& CR4) Apply \Z-mass veto |
| 149 |
> |
& CR5) \ttdl, \ttlt\ and \\ |
| 150 |
> |
& SIGNAL |
| 151 |
> |
& $\rightarrow$ \ttdl\ dominated: Validate |
| 152 |
> |
& \ttlf\ dominated: Validate \\ |
| 153 |
> |
& REGION |
| 154 |
> |
& ``physics'' modelling of \ttdl\ |
| 155 |
> |
& \Tau\ and fake lepton modeling/\\ |
| 156 |
> |
& |
| 157 |
> |
& |
| 158 |
> |
& detector effects in \ttdl\ \\ |
| 159 |
> |
\hline |
| 160 |
> |
\end{tabular} |
| 161 |
> |
} |
| 162 |
> |
\caption{Summary of signal and control regions. |
| 163 |
> |
\label{tab:crdef}%\protect |
| 164 |
> |
} |
| 165 |
> |
\end{center} |
| 166 |
> |
\end{table} |
| 167 |
> |
|
| 168 |
> |
|
| 169 |
> |
\subsection{MC Corrections} |
| 170 |
> |
|
| 171 |
> |
[UPDATE SECTION] |
| 172 |
> |
|
| 173 |
> |
\subsubsection{Corrections to Jets and \met} |
| 174 |
> |
|
| 175 |
> |
[UPDATE, ADD FEW MORE DETAILS ON WHAT IS DONE HERE] |
| 176 |
|
|
| 177 |
|
The official recommendations from the Jet/MET group are used for |
| 178 |
|
the data and MC samples. In particular, the jet |
| 181 |
|
based on the global tags GR\_R\_42\_V23 (DESIGN42\_V17) for |
| 182 |
|
data (MC). In addition, these jet energy corrections are propagated to |
| 183 |
|
the \met\ calculation, following the official prescription for |
| 184 |
< |
deriving the Type I corrections. It may be noted that events with |
| 46 |
< |
anomalous ``rho'' pile-up corrections are excluded from the sample since these |
| 47 |
< |
correspond to events with unphysically large \met\ and \mt\ tail |
| 48 |
< |
signal region (see Figure~\ref{fig:mtrhocomp}). An additional correction to remove |
| 49 |
< |
the $\phi$-modulation observed in the \met\ is included, improving |
| 50 |
< |
the agreement between the data and the MC, as shown in |
| 51 |
< |
Figure~\ref{fig:metphicomp}. This correction has an effect on this analysis, |
| 52 |
< |
since the azimuthal angle enters the \mt\ distribution. |
| 184 |
> |
deriving the Type I corrections. |
| 185 |
|
|
| 186 |
< |
\clearpage |
| 187 |
< |
|
| 188 |
< |
\begin{figure}[!ht] |
| 57 |
< |
\begin{center} |
| 58 |
< |
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/mt_rho_comp.png} |
| 59 |
< |
\caption{ \label{fig:mtrhocomp}%\protect |
| 60 |
< |
Comparison of the \mt\ distribution for events with |
| 61 |
< |
unphysical energy corrections ($\rho <0$ or $ \rho > 40$, where $\rho$ is a |
| 62 |
< |
measure of the average pileup energy density) and the |
| 63 |
< |
nominal sample. Events with large pileup corrections |
| 64 |
< |
correspond to noisy events. Since this correction is applied |
| 65 |
< |
to the jets and propagated to the \met, these events have |
| 66 |
< |
anomalously large \met\ and populate the \mt\ tail. These |
| 67 |
< |
pathological events are excluded from the analysis sample.} |
| 68 |
< |
\end{center} |
| 69 |
< |
\end{figure} |
| 70 |
< |
|
| 71 |
< |
\begin{figure}[!hb] |
| 72 |
< |
\begin{center} |
| 73 |
< |
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/metphi.pdf}% |
| 74 |
< |
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/metphi_phicorr.pdf} |
| 75 |
< |
\caption{ \label{fig:metphicomp}%\protect |
| 76 |
< |
The PF \met\ $\phi$ distribution (left) exhibits a |
| 77 |
< |
modulation. After applying a dedicated correction, the |
| 78 |
< |
azimuthal dependence is reduced (right).} |
| 79 |
< |
\end{center} |
| 80 |
< |
\end{figure} |
| 186 |
> |
Events with anomalous ``rho'' pile-up corrections are excluded from the sample since these |
| 187 |
> |
correspond to events with unphysically large \met\ and \mt\ tail |
| 188 |
> |
signal region. In addition, the recommended MET filters are applied. |
| 189 |
|
|
| 82 |
– |
\clearpage |
| 190 |
|
|
| 191 |
< |
\subsection{Branching Fraction Correction} |
| 191 |
> |
\subsubsection{Branching Fraction Correction} |
| 192 |
|
|
| 193 |
|
The leptonic branching fraction used in some of the \ttbar\ MC samples |
| 194 |
|
differs from the value listed in the PDG $(10.80 \pm 0.09)\%$. |
| 218 |
|
\end{center} |
| 219 |
|
\end{table} |
| 220 |
|
|
| 221 |
+ |
|
| 222 |
+ |
\subsubsection{Lepton Selection Efficiency Measurements} |
| 223 |
+ |
|
| 224 |
+ |
[TO BE UDPATED WITH T\&P STUDIES ON ID,ISO EFFICIENCIES] |
| 225 |
+ |
|
| 226 |
+ |
|
| 227 |
+ |
\subsubsection{Trigger Efficiency Measurements} |
| 228 |
+ |
|
| 229 |
+ |
In this section we measure the efficiencies of the single lepton triggers, HLT\_IsoMu24(\_eta2p1) for muons and HLT\_Ele27\_WP80 for electrons, using a tag-and-probe |
| 230 |
+ |
approach. The tag is required to pass the full offline analysis selection and have \pt\ $>$ 30 GeV, $|\eta|<2.1$, and be matched to the single |
| 231 |
+ |
lepton trigger. The probe is also required to pass the full offline analysis selection and have $|\eta|<2.1$, but the \pt\ requirement is relaxed to 20 GeV |
| 232 |
+ |
in order to measure the \pt\ turn-on curve. The tag-probe pair is required to have opposite-sign and an invariant mass in the range 76--106 GeV. |
| 233 |
+ |
The measured trigger efficiencies are displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:trigeff} and summarized in Table~\ref{tab:mutriggeff} (muons) and Table~\ref{tab:eltriggeff} (electrons). |
| 234 |
+ |
These trigger efficiencies will be applied to the MC when used to predict data yields selected by single lepton triggers. [THESE TRIGGER EFFICIENCIES TO BE APPLIED TO MC] |
| 235 |
+ |
|
| 236 |
+ |
|
| 237 |
+ |
\begin{figure}[!ht] |
| 238 |
+ |
\begin{center} |
| 239 |
+ |
\begin{tabular}{cc} |
| 240 |
+ |
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{plots/mutrig_pt_etabins.pdf} & |
| 241 |
+ |
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{plots/eltrig_pt_etabins.pdf} \\ |
| 242 |
+ |
\end{tabular} |
| 243 |
+ |
\caption{\label{fig:trigeff} |
| 244 |
+ |
Efficiency for the single muon trigger HLT\_IsoMu24(\_eta2p1) (left) and single electron trigger HLT\_Ele27\_WP80 (right) as a function of lepton \pt, |
| 245 |
+ |
for several bins in lepton $|\eta|$. |
| 246 |
+ |
} |
| 247 |
+ |
\end{center} |
| 248 |
+ |
\end{figure} |
| 249 |
+ |
|
| 250 |
+ |
\clearpage |
| 251 |
+ |
|
| 252 |
+ |
\begin{table}[htb] |
| 253 |
+ |
\begin{center} |
| 254 |
+ |
\footnotesize |
| 255 |
+ |
\caption{\label{tab:mutriggeff} |
| 256 |
+ |
Summary of the single muon trigger efficiency HLT\_IsoMu24(\_eta2p1). Uncertainties are statistical.} |
| 257 |
+ |
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c} |
| 258 |
+ |
|
| 259 |
+ |
\hline |
| 260 |
+ |
\hline |
| 261 |
+ |
\pt\ range [GeV] & $|\eta|<0.8$ & $0.8<|\eta|<1.5$ & $1.5<|\eta|<2.1$ \\ |
| 262 |
+ |
\hline |
| 263 |
+ |
20 - 22 & 0.00 $\pm$ 0.000 & 0.00 $\pm$ 0.000 & 0.00 $\pm$ 0.000 \\ |
| 264 |
+ |
22 - 24 & 0.03 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.05 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.11 $\pm$ 0.002 \\ |
| 265 |
+ |
24 - 26 & 0.87 $\pm$ 0.002 & 0.78 $\pm$ 0.002 & 0.76 $\pm$ 0.003 \\ |
| 266 |
+ |
26 - 28 & 0.90 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.81 $\pm$ 0.002 & 0.78 $\pm$ 0.002 \\ |
| 267 |
+ |
28 - 30 & 0.91 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.81 $\pm$ 0.002 & 0.79 $\pm$ 0.002 \\ |
| 268 |
+ |
30 - 32 & 0.91 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.81 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.80 $\pm$ 0.002 \\ |
| 269 |
+ |
32 - 34 & 0.92 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.82 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.80 $\pm$ 0.002 \\ |
| 270 |
+ |
34 - 36 & 0.93 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.82 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.81 $\pm$ 0.001 \\ |
| 271 |
+ |
36 - 38 & 0.93 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.83 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.81 $\pm$ 0.001 \\ |
| 272 |
+ |
38 - 40 & 0.93 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.83 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.82 $\pm$ 0.001 \\ |
| 273 |
+ |
40 - 50 & 0.94 $\pm$ 0.000 & 0.84 $\pm$ 0.000 & 0.82 $\pm$ 0.001 \\ |
| 274 |
+ |
50 - 60 & 0.95 $\pm$ 0.000 & 0.84 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.83 $\pm$ 0.001 \\ |
| 275 |
+ |
60 - 80 & 0.95 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.84 $\pm$ 0.002 & 0.83 $\pm$ 0.002 \\ |
| 276 |
+ |
80 - 100 & 0.94 $\pm$ 0.002 & 0.84 $\pm$ 0.004 & 0.83 $\pm$ 0.006 \\ |
| 277 |
+ |
100 - 150 & 0.94 $\pm$ 0.003 & 0.84 $\pm$ 0.005 & 0.83 $\pm$ 0.008 \\ |
| 278 |
+ |
150 - 200 & 0.93 $\pm$ 0.006 & 0.84 $\pm$ 0.011 & 0.82 $\pm$ 0.018 \\ |
| 279 |
+ |
$>$200 & 0.92 $\pm$ 0.010 & 0.82 $\pm$ 0.017 & 0.82 $\pm$ 0.031 \\ |
| 280 |
+ |
\hline |
| 281 |
+ |
\hline |
| 282 |
+ |
|
| 283 |
+ |
\end{tabular} |
| 284 |
+ |
\end{center} |
| 285 |
+ |
\end{table} |
| 286 |
+ |
|
| 287 |
+ |
\begin{table}[htb] |
| 288 |
+ |
\begin{center} |
| 289 |
+ |
\footnotesize |
| 290 |
+ |
\caption{\label{tab:eltriggeff} |
| 291 |
+ |
Summary of the single electron trigger efficiency HLT\_Ele27\_WP80. Uncertainties are statistical.} |
| 292 |
+ |
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c} |
| 293 |
+ |
|
| 294 |
+ |
\hline |
| 295 |
+ |
\hline |
| 296 |
+ |
\pt\ range [GeV] & $|\eta|<1.5$ & $1.5<|\eta|<2.1$ \\ |
| 297 |
+ |
\hline |
| 298 |
+ |
20 - 22 & 0.00 $\pm$ 0.000 & 0.00 $\pm$ 0.000 \\ |
| 299 |
+ |
22 - 24 & 0.00 $\pm$ 0.000 & 0.00 $\pm$ 0.001 \\ |
| 300 |
+ |
24 - 26 & 0.00 $\pm$ 0.000 & 0.02 $\pm$ 0.001 \\ |
| 301 |
+ |
26 - 28 & 0.08 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.18 $\pm$ 0.003 \\ |
| 302 |
+ |
28 - 30 & 0.61 $\pm$ 0.002 & 0.50 $\pm$ 0.004 \\ |
| 303 |
+ |
30 - 32 & 0.86 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.63 $\pm$ 0.003 \\ |
| 304 |
+ |
32 - 34 & 0.88 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.68 $\pm$ 0.003 \\ |
| 305 |
+ |
34 - 36 & 0.90 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.70 $\pm$ 0.002 \\ |
| 306 |
+ |
36 - 38 & 0.91 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.72 $\pm$ 0.002 \\ |
| 307 |
+ |
38 - 40 & 0.92 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.74 $\pm$ 0.002 \\ |
| 308 |
+ |
40 - 50 & 0.94 $\pm$ 0.000 & 0.76 $\pm$ 0.001 \\ |
| 309 |
+ |
50 - 60 & 0.95 $\pm$ 0.000 & 0.77 $\pm$ 0.002 \\ |
| 310 |
+ |
60 - 80 & 0.96 $\pm$ 0.001 & 0.78 $\pm$ 0.003 \\ |
| 311 |
+ |
80 - 100 & 0.96 $\pm$ 0.002 & 0.80 $\pm$ 0.008 \\ |
| 312 |
+ |
100 - 150 & 0.96 $\pm$ 0.002 & 0.79 $\pm$ 0.010 \\ |
| 313 |
+ |
150 - 200 & 0.97 $\pm$ 0.004 & 0.76 $\pm$ 0.026 \\ |
| 314 |
+ |
$>$200 & 0.97 $\pm$ 0.005 & 0.81 $\pm$ 0.038 \\ |
| 315 |
+ |
\hline |
| 316 |
+ |
\hline |
| 317 |
+ |
|
| 318 |
+ |
\end{tabular} |
| 319 |
+ |
\end{center} |
| 320 |
+ |
\end{table} |
| 321 |
+ |
|
| 322 |
+ |
\clearpage |
