JetEtmissApproved2011JetResolution

[Jet resolution EM+JES jets] Fractional jet energy resolution as a function of the average jet transverse momenta for the di-jet balance (squares) and bi-sector (circles) in-situ techniques using EM+JES calibrated jets. The lower part shown the relative difference between Monte Carlo simulation and data results. The dotted lines indicate a relative difference of ± 10 %. No pile-up corrections have been applied. The methods and variables are explained in ATLAS-CONF-2010-054. eps file

[Jet resolution local hadron calibrated jets] Fractional jet energy resolution as a function of the average jet transverse momenta for thlo simulation and data results. The dotted lines indicate a relative difference of ± 10 %. No pile-up corrections have been applied. The methods and variables are explained in ATLAS-CONF-2010-054. eps file

[Jet resolution Comparison EM+JES and LC+JES] Fractional jet energy resolution as a function of the average jet transverse momenta measured with the bi-sector in-situ technique for events with two jet in the same rapidity bin for EM+JES and Local Cluster Weighting (LCW) calibrations with 2011 data. The lines correspond to the fits on data for each JES scheme respectively. The lower plot shows the relative improvement as a function of the average jet transverse momenta. The EM+JES jet calibration scheme is taken as baseline (black dotted line). The improvement is found to be up to 40 % at 1000 GeV for LCW. No pile-up corrections have been applied. The methods and variables are explained in ATLAS-CONF-2010-054. eps file

[Jet resolution comparison 2010 and 2011] Fractional jet energy resolution as a function of the average jet transverse momenta measured with the bi-sector in-situ technique for events with two jet in the same rapidity bin for EM+JES calibration with 2011 (red) and 2011 (black) data. The lines correspond to the fits on data. The lower part shown the relative difference between 2011 and 2010 data results. The dotted lines indicate a relative difference of ± 10 %. No pile-up corrections have been applied. The methods and variables are explained in ATLAS-CONF-2010-054. eps file