Figures that appear in the egamma CSC note.
Fig nb  Figs in paper  Figs for conferences  Caption 
1  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Average energy loss vs. abs(eta) for E = 100 GeV electrons before the presampler/strips (crosses/open circles), and reconstructed energies before/after (solid/open boxes) corrections. 
2  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Fraction of photons converting at a radius of below 80 cm (115 cm) in open (full) circles, as a function of abs(eta) 
3  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Sketch of the accordion structure of the EM calorimeter 
4  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Cluster correction steps. 
5  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf)  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf)  Calorimeter depths versus abs(eta) for layers 1 and 2 and for 100 GeV photons. The points show the derived optimal depths, and the curves are piecewise polynomial fits to the points. For layer 2 of the barrel, a single curve yielded an adequate fit across abs(eta) = 0.8; this may be revisited in future versions. From 100 GeV photons. (a) Barrel. (b) Endcap. 
6  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf) (c:eps,pdf) (d:eps,pdf)  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf) (c:eps,pdf) (d:eps,pdf)  Delta eta versus nu before and after correction for different regions and for 100 GeV electrons. Note the small systematic offset in the endcap due to a change in the endcap geometry since the corrections were derived. For comparison, the “v12” points show results reconstructed using the same geometry as that used to derive the corrections. (a) Layer 1, barrel. (b) Layer 1, endcap. (c) Layer 2, barrel. (d) Layer 2, endcap. 
7  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf)  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf)  Delta eta versus abs(eta) in layers 1 and 2 of the barrel, along with the empirical fit function. (a) Barrel layer 1 (b) Barrel layer 2 
8  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Expected eta position resolution versus abs(eta) for E =100 GeV photons for the two main layers of the barrel and endcap EMcalorimeters 
9  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Profile plot of Delta phi versus abs(eta) before (triangles) and after (circles) correction. For 100 GeV electrons. 
10  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Expected phi position resolution as a function of abs(eta) for electrons and photons with an energy of 100 GeV. 
11  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Resolution of eta position measurement from layers 1 and 2 combined for 100 GeV photons. 
12  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf)  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf)  Angular and vertex resolution as functions of abs(eta) (Gaussian fits), multiplied by root(E). (a) Angular resolution. (b) Vertex resolution. 
13  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf)  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf)  Angular and vertex resolution as functions of E (Gaussian fits), for abs(eta) less than 0.5. (a) Angular resolution. (b) Vertex resolution. 
14  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf) (c:eps,pdf) (d:eps,pdf)  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf) (c:eps,pdf) (d:eps,pdf)  Fitted longitudinal weights for electrons (solid) and photons (open) as functions of abs(eta). (a) Overall scale A. (b) Offset B. (c) Longitudinal weight Wps. (d) Longitudinal weight W3. 
15  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Energy modulation in phi for 200 GeV 3×7 electrons with 0.2 < abs(eta) < 0.4, along with the modulation fit. 
16  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Energy modulation in eta for 200 GeV 3×7 electrons, along with the modulation fit. 
17  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf) (c:eps,pdf) (d:eps,pdf)  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf) (c:eps,pdf) (d:eps,pdf)  Difference between measured and true energy normalised to true energy at E = 100 GeV. (a) Electrons, abs(eta) = 0.325. (b) Electrons, abs(eta) = 1.075. (c) All photons, abs(eta) = 1.075. (d) Unconverted photons, abs(eta) = 1.075. 
18  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf) (c:eps,pdf) (d:eps,pdf)  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf) (c:eps,pdf) (d:eps,pdf)  Energy linearity (left) and resolution (right) for electrons (top) and photons (bottom). (a) Electron energy linearity. (b) Electron energy resolution. (c) Photon energy linearity. (d) Photon energy resolution. 
19  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Energy resolution for electrons and photons as a function of abs(eta). 
20  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Extracted constant term of the energy resolution for photons, as a function of abs(eta), after weight and modulation corrections. Also shown with celllevel miscalibrations enabled. 
21  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf)  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf)  Energy linearity and resolution for photons (5×5 clusters). (a) Energy linearity. (b) Energy resolution. 
22  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  M(eeee) from Higgs boson decays with mH = 130 GeV (energy from calorimeter only, with no Z boson mass constraint). 
23  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  M(gg) from Higgs boson decays with mH =120 GeV. The shaded plot corresponds to at least one photon converting at r less than 80 cm. 
24  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf)  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf)  Electron linearity and resolution in H to 4e for the ideal (full triangles) and distorted (circles) geometries. (a) Energy linearity. (b) Energy resolution. 
25  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf)  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf)  Electron energy uniformity in eta and phi , integrated over other kinematic variables, for the ideal (full triangles) and distorted (circles) geometries. (a) Energy uniformity in phi integrated over pT and eta. (b) Energy uniformity in eta integrated over pT and phi . 
26  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf)  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf)  Correction factor Ccal and fraction of outofcluster energy as a function of the shower depth X, averaged over all energies, at two representative abs(eta) points. The dashed lines show the results of the parametrisation. (a) Ccal vs. X. (b) Fraction of outofcluster energy. 
27  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Energy lost in front of the EMcalorimeter as a function of the energy measured in the presampler at abs(eta) = 0.3 for electrons of 100 GeV. The dashed curve shows the parametrisation derived for electrons. 
28  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Energy lost in front of the calorimeter as a function of shower depth X, for electrons of 100 GeV at abs(eta)= 1.9, in a region where the calorimeter is not instrumented with the presampler. 
29  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf)  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf)  Fraction of energy deposited behind the calorimeter, averaged over particle energies, as a function of the shower depth X. The parametrisation used is superimposed. (a) abs(eta) = 0.3. (b) abs(eta) = 1.65. 
30  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf) (c:eps,pdf) (d:eps,pdf)  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf) (c:eps,pdf) (d:eps,pdf)  Total reconstructed energy profiles. (a) E = 25 GeV, abs(eta) = 0.3. (b) E = 25 GeV, abs(eta) = 1.65. (c) E = 100 GeV, abs(eta) = 0.3. (d) E = 100 GeV, abs(eta) = 1.65. 
31  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf)  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf)  Resolution versus particle energy. (a) abs(eta) = 0.3. (b) abs(eta) = 1.65. 
32  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Resolution for various photon energies as a function of abs(eta). 
33  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Sampling term as a function of abs(eta). 
34  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf)  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf)  Linearity for various particle energies as a function of abs(eta). (a) Electrons. (b) Photons. 
35  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf)  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf)  (a) Z boson mass distribution for PYTHIA events fitted with a BreitWigner distribution with (solid line) and without (dashed line) the parton luminosity factor. chi2/NDOF is 1.09 and 3.96, respectively. (b) Residual distribution fitted with a Gaussian. 
36  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf)  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf)  (a) Mean value of the Gaussian fitting the residual distribution as a function of the number of iterations for different mean values of the injected alpha's; (b) Constant term as a function of the number of events or as a function of the luminosity 
37  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf)  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf)  Fit results with distorted geometry and alpha_inj = 0. (a) alpha_fit (solid) and alpha_true (dashed). (b) Difference between alpha_fit and alpha_true. 
38  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf)  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf)  alpha_fit distributions with alpha_inj = 0 and with distorted/ideal (full/open circles) geometry. (a) alpha_fit integrated over phi as a function of eta. (b) alpha_fit integrated over eta as a function of phi , fitted in two separate regions. 
39  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf)  (a:eps,pdf) (b:eps,pdf)  Fit results with distorted geometry and additional injected biases. (a) alpha_fit (solid) and alpha_true +alpha_inj (dashed). (b) Difference between alpha_fit and alpha_true +alpha_inj. 
40  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  avg(alpha_true) after correction as a function of pT for four eta bins. 
Fig nb  Figs in paper  Figs for conferences  Caption 
1  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Left: ratio between the transverse energy of the electron candidate and the sum of this transverse energy and that contained in the first layer of the hadronic calorimeter. The distributions are shown for electrons from Z to ee decays (solid line) and for filtered dijets (dotted line). Right: difference in eta between cluster and extrapolated track positions for electrons from Z to ee decays (solid line) and for filtered dijets (dotted line). 
2  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Showershape distributions for electrons from Z to ee decays (solid lines) compared to those from filtered dijets (dotted lines). Shown are the energy ratios R_phi (left) and R_eta (right) described in Table 3. 
3  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Differential crosssections as a function of ET before identification cuts and after loose, medium, tight (TRT) and tightisol cuts, for an integrated luminosity of 100 pb−1 and for the simulated filtered dijet sample with ET above 17 GeV (left) and the simulated minimumbias sample with ET above 8 GeV (right). 
4  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Differential crosssections as a function of ET after tight (TRT) cuts, shown separately for the expected components from isolated electrons, nonisolated electrons and residual jet background, for an integrated luminosity of 100 pb−1 and for the simulated filtered dijet sample with ET above 17 GeV (left) and the simulated minimumbias sample with ET above 8 GeV (right). 
5  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Energy containment, R_eta (Table 3), for 1.12 < abs(eta) < 1.25 (left) and 1.62 < abs(eta) < 1.75 (right). The symbols correspond to the nominal description and the histogram to the one with additional material. 
6  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Energy fraction outside a threestrip core, F_side (Table 3), for 1.12 < abs(eta) < 1.25 (left) and 1.62 < abs(eta) < 1.75 (right). The symbols correspond to the nominal description and the histogram to the one with additional material. 
7  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Jet rejection versus isolated electron efficiency obtained with a likelihood method (full circles) compared to the results from the two sets of tight cuts (open triangle and open square). 
8  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Background electron rejections versus signal efficiencies for electrons in Z to ee decays (left) and in tbart decays (right), for two illustrative bins in abs(eta) and pT . 
9  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Example of discriminating variables used in the forward region for signal electrons (full circles) and the QCD dijet background (open circles). Shown in the case of the FCal are the fraction of the total cluster energy deposited in the cell with maximum energy (left) and the relative lateral moment (right). 
10  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Expected rejection against QCD jets versus efficiency for signal electrons from Z to ee decay, for the cutbased and likelihood discriminant methods in the inner wheel of the electromagnetic endcap (left) and in the FCal (right). The rejection power of the likelihood method is expected to increase when additional variables beyond the minimal set shown here are added. 
11  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Electron identification efficiency as a function of eta (left) and ET (right) for electrons with ET > 5 GeV from H to eeee decays. 
12  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Electron identification efficiency as a function of ET (left) and abs(eta) (right). The full symbols correspond to electrons in SUSY events and the open ones to single electrons of fixed ET . The efficiencies as a function of abs(eta) are shown only for electrons with ET > 17 GeV. 
13  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Electron identification efficiency as a function of the distance Delta R to the closest jet in SUSY events, for electrons with ET > 17 GeV. 
14  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Electron identification efficiency as a function of ET (left) and abs(eta) (right), for electrons from Z′ to e+e− decays with mZ′ = 1 TeV. 
15  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Efficiency of the electron preselection as a function of abs(eta) (left) and ET (right) for Z to ee decays, using the tagandprobe method and the Monte Carlo truth information. 
16  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Efficiency of the medium electron identification cuts relative to the preselection cuts as a function of abs(eta) (left) and ET (right) for Z to ee decays, using the tagandprobe method and the Monte Carlo truth information. 
Fig nb  Figs in paper  Figs for conferences  Caption 
1  (1:eps,pdf) (2:eps,pdf) (3:eps,pdf) (4:eps,pdf) (5:eps,pdf) (6:eps,pdf) (7:eps,pdf) (8:eps,pdf) (9:eps,pdf)  (1:eps,pdf) (2:eps,pdf) (3:eps,pdf) (4:eps,pdf) (5:eps,pdf) (6:eps,pdf) (7:eps,pdf) (8:eps,pdf) (9:eps,pdf)  Distributions of the mean of each calorimetric discriminating variable as a function of the pseudorapidity abs(eta) for true and fake photons (before cuts) with 20 < ET < 30 GeV. The samples have been simulated with the geometry under the realistic alignment scenario and additional material. 
2  (1:eps,pdf) (2:eps,pdf) (3:eps,pdf) (4:eps,pdf) (5:eps,pdf) (6:eps,pdf) (7:eps,pdf) (8:eps,pdf) (9:eps,pdf)  (1:eps,pdf) (2:eps,pdf) (3:eps,pdf) (4:eps,pdf) (5:eps,pdf) (6:eps,pdf) (7:eps,pdf) (8:eps,pdf) (9:eps,pdf)  Normalised distributions of the discriminating variable for abs(eta) < 0.7 for true and fake photons (before cuts) with 20 < ET < 30 GeV. The samples have been simulated with the geometry under the realistic alignment scenario. 
3  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Effect of pileup and distorted material on mean values of two showershape variables for photons from H to gg decays: R_eta (left) and energy of the second maximum in the first layer (right). 
4  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Normalised distribution of the trackisolation variable for events passing the calorimeter selection criteria. Left: comparison of true and fake photons. Right: comparison of early conversions (true conversion radius less than 40 cm) and late conversions (true conversion radius above 40 cm) for photons from H to gg decays. 
5  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Expected Loglikelihood ratio (LLR) cutparameter distributions for photons (solid histogram) and for jets (dashed histogram). 
6  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  The distributions of Hmatrix chi2 for photons from the H to gg sample (solid histogram) and for jets from the inclusive jet samples (dashed histogram). 
7  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Efficiency of the calorimeter cuts as a function of pseudorapidity (left) and transverse energy (right) of the photons for the distorted geometry. 
8  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Fakephoton rate as a function of pseudorapidity in the filtered jet sample 
9  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  ET spectra from the inclusive jet sample, for the generated jets (solid squares for full simulation and solid triangles for uncorrected jets from parametrised fast simulation) and the fakephoton candidates before (inverted solid triangles) and after (open circles) the trackisolation cut. The normalisation is that predicted by PYTHIA. 
10  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  ET distribution of fakephoton candidates in jets after different level of cuts. The contribution from ”single” pi0 is also shown 
11  (left:eps,pdf) (middle:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (middle:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Rejection of the striplayer cuts against fake photons coming from ”single” pi0 in the jet sample as a function of the transverse energy, for three different pseudorapidity regions. 
12  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Efficiency of calorimeter cuts versus pseudorapidity for 40 GeV ET single photons and pi0 (distorted geometry without pileup). 
13  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Photon efficiency as a function of pT and eta for different Loglikelihood ratio (LLR) cuts. The photons are from H to gg decays simulated with the nominal geometry. 
14  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Jet rejection (left) and photon efficiency (right) as a function of Loglikelihood ratio (LLR) cutparameter values. 
15  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Photon efficiency in the 500 GeV graviton sample as a function of pT for barrel (left) and endcap (right) calorimeters. 
16  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Fakephoton rejection as a function of pT of the reconstructed photon object for highpT binned dijet samples in the barrel (left) and endcap (right) calorimeters. 
17  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Jet rejection vs photon efficiency for binned gamma+jet and H to gg benchmark samples for pTgamma, pTjet > 25 GeV(left) and pTgamma, pTjet > 40 GeV(right). 
18  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Jet rejection vs photon efficiency of the two methods for filtered dijet and H to gg benchmark samples for pTgamma, pTjet > 25 GeV (left) and pTgamma, pTjet > 40 GeV (right). 
Fig nb  Figs in paper  Figs for conferences  Caption 
1  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Leadingorder Feynman diagrams for photon conversions. 
2  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Material in the inner detector as a function of abs(eta). 
3  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Probability of a photon to have converted as a function of radius for different values of pseudorapidity. 
4  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Location of the inner detector material as obtained from the true positions of simulated photon conversions in minimumbias events. 
5  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Track reconstruction efficiency for conversions from 20 GeV pT photons as a function of the conversion radius. The gain in track reconstruction efficiency when tracks reconstructed moving inwards from the TRT are combined with tracks reconstructed by the insideout algorithm, is evident particularly at higher radial distances. 
6  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Track reconstruction efficiency for conversions from 20 GeV pT converted photons (left) and 5 GeV pT converted photons (right) as a function of conversion radius. 
7  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Track reconstruction efficiency for conversions from 20 GeV photons (left) and 5 GeV photons (right) as a function of pseudorapidity. 
8  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Reconstructed inverse transverse momentum from 20 GeV pT converted photons with (left) and without (right) significant energy losses due to bremsstrahlung. 
9  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Reconstructed vertex radial positions for 20 GeV pT converted photons, compared to their true values, with (left) and without (right) significant energy losses due to bremsstrahlung. 
10  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Overall reconstructed relative 1/pT resolution (left) and radial position resolution (right) for K0s decays (to charged pions) with pT = 10 GeV. Only tracks with at least two silicon space points are used. 
11  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Reconstructed relative 1/pT resolution as a function of radial distance from the beam axis for 20 GeV pT converted photons and 10 GeV pT K0s decays to charged pions. In the plot on the left, only converted photons, where both of the daughter electrons lost less than 20percent of their energy due to bremsstrahlung, are shown. In the plot on the right, all conversions are included. 
12  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Reconstructed radial resolution as a function of radial distance from the beam axis for 20 GeV pT converted photons and 10 GeV pT K0s decays to charged pions. In the case of the converted photons, all daughter electrons regardless of bremsstrahlung losses have been included. 
13  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Transverse momentum distribution of reconstructed photon conversions for both correct and wrong track pairs for all three types of pairs: SiliconSilicon (Si, left column), TRTTRT (Trt, centre column), and SiliconTRT (ST, right column). In the top row all electron tracks regardless of bremsstrahlung energy losses are considered for the case of the correct track pairs. In the bottom row only track pairs where both electrons have lost less than 20percent of their energy due to bremsstrahlung are shown. For comparison the truth pT of the converted photon is also shown. 
14  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Conversion reconstruction efficiency for conversions from 20 GeV pT photons as a function of conversion radius (left) and pseudorapidity (right). The solid histograms show the track reconstruction efficiency, the dashed histograms show the trackpair reconstruction efficiency, and the points with error bars show the conversion vertex reconstruction efficiency. 
15  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Conversion reconstruction efficiency for conversions coming from 20 GeV pT photons as a function of conversion radius. The solid histogram shows the track reconstruction efficiency, the dashed histogram shows the trackpair reconstruction efficiency, and the points with error bars show the conversion vertex reconstruction efficiency as published in Ref. [6]. 
16  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Conversion vertex reconstruction efficiency as a function of conversion radius for photons with transverse energy of 2 and 5 GeV. 
17  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Reconstruction efficiencies for conversions from 20 GeV pT photons as a function of conversion radius (left) and pseudorapidity (right). The points with error bars show the total reconstruction efficiency, the solid histograms show the conversion vertex reconstruction efficiency, and the dashed histograms show the singletrack conversion reconstruction efficiency. 
18  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Conversion reconstruction efficiency for conversions coming from 20 GeV pT photons as a function of conversion radius. The points with error bars show the total reconstruction efficiency, the solid histogram shows the conversion vertex reconstruction efficiency, and the dashed histogram shows the singletrack conversion reconstruction efficiency as published in Ref. [6]. 
19  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Reconstructed radial positions for conversions of 5 GeV pT photons. The black histogram shows the truth radial position of the conversion vertices, and the gray histogram shows the radial positions of the reconstructed vertices, regardless of the bremsstrahlung losses of their daughter electrons. 
20  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Reconstructed radial position resolution for converted photons produced by the decay of neutral pions with various energies. 
21  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  pT/ET distribution for 20 GeV pT converted photons and for photons from a 20 GeV pi0. The top row shows the distribution for all photons irrespective of the daughter electron energy losses due to bremsstrahlung. The bottom row shows the distribution only for those photon conversions in which the daughter electrons have lost less than 20% of their energy to bremsstrahlung. Three different pseudorapidity ranges are shown, corresponding to the barrel (left), the barrel/endcap transition (centre) and the endcap (right) regions. 
22  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Fraction of remaining pi0 as a function of converted photon efficiency with (left) and without (right) significant bremsstrahlung losses of the corresponding daughter electrons, for three pseudorapidity regions as described in the text. 
23  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Rejection factors against pi0 corresponding to photon acceptance efficiencies of 90percent, with and without significant energy losses due to bremsstrahlung for the three pseudorapidity regions described in the text. The results are shown for converted photons and pi0 with a pT of 20 GeV. 
24  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Track, trackpair, and vertex reconstruction efficiencies for converted photons from H to gg decays with mH = 120 GeV, as a function of radial distance from the beam axis (left) and pseudorapidity (right). The efficiency reduction at abs(eta) approx 0.8, is due to the track reconstruction inefficiencies in the gap region between the TRT barrel and endcap detectors. 
25  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Reconstruction efficiencies for converted photons from H to gg decays with mH = 120 GeV, as a function of conversion radius (left) and pseudorapidity (right). The points with error bars show the total reconstruction efficiency, the solid histograms show the conversion vertex reconstruction efficiency, and the dashed histograms show the singletrack conversion reconstruction efficiency. 
26  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Reconstructed vertex radial position resolution (in mm) for converted photons from H to gg decays with mH = 120 GeV. For comparison, the two cases where the participating tracks have lost > 20% (< 20%) of their energy due to bremsstrahlung are also shown separately. 
27  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Reconstructed polar angle resolution (in radians) for converted photons from H to gg decays with mH = 120 GeV. 
Fig nb  Figs in paper  Figs for conferences  Caption 
1  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Normalised distributions of generatorlevel transverse momentum pT (left) and pseudorapidity abs(eta) (right) in the pp to J/Psi X sample are shown for signal electrons (hatched histograms), electrons from conversions (dotted line histogram), and pions (plain histograms). 
2  (top left:eps,pdf) (top right:eps,pdf) (bottom:eps,pdf)  (top left:eps,pdf) (top right:eps,pdf) (bottom:eps,pdf)  Distance Delta R at generatorlevel between the two signal electrons for direct J/Psi events (top left), direct upsilon (top right) and J/Psi from b decays (bottom). 
3  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Distribution of the generatorlevel transverse momentum of the less energetic electron versus the transverse momentum of the most energetic electron in the direct J/Psi (left) and upsilon (right) decays. 
4  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Expected differential cross section for lowmass electron pairs using the 2EM3 trigger menu item after L1 selection for J/Psi decays (dotted histogram), upsilon decays (dashed histogram), DrellYan production (solid histogram) and expected background (full circles). The invariant mass is reconstructed with calorimeter only information available at L1. 
5  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Left : ratio of the reconstructed to true momentum for electrons, for the default Kalman filter (hatched histogram) and for bremsstrahlung recovery algorithm (plain histogram) in the J/Psi samples. Right : ratio of the reconstructed to true energy versus h for electrons. 
6  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Electron identification efficiency with "Tight(TRT)"; cuts level as a function of the pseudorapidity (left) and the transverse momentum (right) in direct J/Psi events. 
7  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  Pion rejection as a function of the electron identification efficiency, in b Bd to mu J/Psi X sample. 
8  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Electron identification efficiency in b Bd to mu(6) J/Psi X sample as a function of the pseudorapidity (left) and the transverse momentum (right). The mean electron identification efficiency is epsilon_e = 80percent. 
9  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Expected differential cross section for lowmass electron pairs using the 2EM3 trigger menu item and the offline selection in linear (left) and log (right) scale. Shown is the invariant dielectron mass distribution reconstructed using tracks for J/Psi to ee decays (dotted histogram), upsilon to ee decays (dashed histogram) and DrellYan production (full histogram). Also shown is the expected background (full circles). The invariant mass is reconstructed with direction taken from the inner detector and energy from the electromagnetic calorimeter. 
10  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  (left:eps,pdf) (right:eps,pdf)  Distributions of the reconstructed transverse decay length direct J/Psi events (left) and J/Psi events originated from B hadrons decay (right). 
11  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  The electron pair invariant mass distribution for b Bd to mu(6) J/Psi X events. The energy and direction information are taken from the inner detector. An asymmetric fit is performed with a function which behaves as a BreitWigner distribution to the left of the peak and as a Gaussian to the right of the peak. Results are shown without (crosses) and with (bullets) bremsstrahlung recovery included. Selection of events includes L1 trigger and offline and number of events is scaled to 100 pb−1. 
12  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  The electron pair invariant mass for b Bd to mu(6) J/Psi X events. The energy is taken from the electromagnetic calorimeter and the direction from the inner detector (including bremstrahlung recovery). Selection of events includes L1 trigger and offline and number of events is scaled to 100 pb−1. 
13  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  The electron pair invariant mass for b Bd to mu(6) J/Psi X events. The energy and direction are taken from the electromagnetic calorimeter. Selection of events includes L1 trigger and offline and number of events is scaled to 100 pb−1. 
14  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  The electron pair invariant mass distribution for pp to J/Psi X events. The energy and direction information are taken from the inner detector. An asymmetric fit is performed with a function which behaves as a BreitWigner distribution to the left of the peak and as a Gaussian to the right of the peak. Selection of events includes L1 trigger, offline and a cut on ET > 5 GeV for each electron to mimic the HLT. The number of events is scaled to 100 pb−1. 
15  (eps,pdf)  (eps,pdf)  The electron pair invariant mass distribution for pp to upsilon X events. The energy and direction information are taken from the inner detector. An asymmetric fit is performed with a function that behaves as a BreitWigner distribution to the left of the peak and as a Gaussian to the right of the peak. Selection of events includes L1 trigger, offline and a cut on ET > 5 GeV for each electron to mimic the HLT. Number of events is scaled to 100 pb−1. 
Responsible: ManuellaVincter
Last reviewed by: Never reviewed

