| 37 |
|
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{ttdilD6T_eff_Dec02_38X.png} |
| 38 |
|
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{lm_eff_Dec02_38X.png} |
| 39 |
|
\caption{\label{fig:effttbar}\protect |
| 40 |
< |
Identification and isolation efficiencies for |
| 41 |
< |
leptons from $t \to W \to \ell$ and |
| 42 |
< |
$t \to W \to \tau \to \ell$ in |
| 43 |
< |
$t\bar{t}$ events.} |
| 40 |
> |
Identification and isolation efficiencies for leptons from $t \to W \to \ell$ and |
| 41 |
> |
$t \to W \to \tau \to \ell$ in $t\bar{t}$ events (top). Isolation efficiency |
| 42 |
> |
for $t\bar{t}$, LM0 and LM1 (bottom).} |
| 43 |
|
\end{center} |
| 44 |
|
\end{figure} |
| 45 |
|
|
| 48 |
|
\begin{center} |
| 49 |
|
\caption{\label{tab:tagandprobe} Tag and probe results on $Z \to \ell \ell$ |
| 50 |
|
on data and MC. We quote ID efficiency given isolation and |
| 51 |
< |
the isolation efficiency given ID. {\bf \color{red} UPDATE WITH 38X }} |
| 51 |
> |
the isolation efficiency given ID. } |
| 52 |
|
\begin{tabular}{|l||c|c|} |
| 53 |
|
\hline |
| 54 |
< |
& Data T\&P & MC T\&P \\ \hline |
| 55 |
< |
$\epsilon(id|iso)$ electrons & $0.909\pm0.006$ & 0.926 \\ |
| 56 |
< |
$\epsilon(iso|id)$ electrons & $0.987\pm0.003$ & 0.985 \\ |
| 57 |
< |
$\epsilon(id|iso)$ muons & $0.955\pm0.003$ & 0.953 \\ |
| 58 |
< |
$\epsilon(iso|id)$ muons & $0.984\pm0.003$ & 0.981 \\ |
| 54 |
> |
& Data T\&P & MC T\&P \\ |
| 55 |
> |
\hline |
| 56 |
> |
$\epsilon(id|iso)$ electrons & $0.925 \pm 0.007$ & $0.934 \pm 0.004$ \\ |
| 57 |
> |
$\epsilon(iso|id)$ electrons & $0.991 \pm 0.002$ & $0.987 \pm 0.002$ \\ |
| 58 |
> |
$\epsilon(id|iso)$ muons & $0.962 \pm 0.005$ & $0.984 \pm 0.002$ \\ |
| 59 |
> |
$\epsilon(iso|id)$ muons & $0.987 \pm 0.003$ & $0.982 \pm 0.002$ \\ |
| 60 |
|
\hline |
| 61 |
|
\end{tabular} |
| 62 |
|
\end{center} |
| 72 |
|
the final state. For example, in MC we find that the |
| 73 |
|
lepton isolation efficiency differs by $\approx 4\%$ |
| 74 |
|
{\bf per lepton} between $Z$ events and $t\bar{t}$ events\cite{ref:top}. |
| 75 |
< |
{\bf \color{red} VERIFY THAT THESE VALUES ARE UNCHANGED IN 38X MC. } |
| 75 |
> |
{\bf \color{red} This difference has been evaluated with Spring10 MC, currently checking with Fall10 MC. } |
| 76 |
|
%\noindent {\bf This figure should be cut off at 100 GeV, and |
| 77 |
|
%the y-axis should be zero-suppressed} |
| 78 |
|
|
| 87 |
|
and two benchmark SUSY points. The uncertainties are calculated |
| 88 |
|
assuming a 5\% uncertainty to the hadronic energy scale in CMS. |
| 89 |
|
|
| 90 |
< |
For $t\bar{t}$ we find uncertainties of 3\% (baseline |
| 91 |
< |
selection) and 21\% (signal region D); for LM0 and LM1 we find |
| 92 |
< |
15\% and 6\% respectively for signal region D |
| 93 |
< |
{\bf \color{red} THESE VALUES HAVE BEEN RECALCULATED FOR 38X MC, AWAITING VERIFICATION} |
| 90 |
> |
For $t\bar{t}$ we find uncertainties of 8\% (baseline |
| 91 |
> |
selection) and 27\% (signal region D) ({\bf \color{red} This number |
| 92 |
> |
needs to be double-checked, Derek finds 33\%.}); for LM0 and LM1 we find |
| 93 |
> |
14\% and 6\% respectively for signal region D. |
