-- SushilChauhan - 08-Aug-2011

EXO-11-058 ARC Comments

ARC Comments (August 2011)

All the (physics) comments below refer to these two notes:



And the PAS EXO-11-058.

Convention :

  • (OPEN) : Still under discussion with ARC
  • (CLOSED) : Analyzers and ARC are happy with the conclusion

The responses are organized by topic. The questions appear in black, ARC member names appear in red, and author responses appear in blue.

Veto Efficiencies (OPEN)

UPDATED Before looking at the detailed answers, please realize that we have changed the track veto. Instead of simply requiring a track with Pt > 10 GeV for the veto, we now ask that this track also be separated from the photon by ΔR > 0.04 instead of 0.4. The study that lead us to this change is described in the following remarks.

The reason for the original addition of a ΔR cut to the track veto was to distinguish conversion photons from QCD backgrounds. This revised cut now admits converted photons into our sample, which were earlier being vetoed. This change is now described in the supporting ANs.

We have in-line answers and a discussion of differences in veto efficiencies between W(e nu) and Z(inv)Gamma samples.


I am surprised by the choice of R=0.4 for the modified track veto. To allow conversions, cone of 0.05 or so would be totally sufficient, no? I guess that makes me even more curious about the vetoes. What was your exclusion cone for the tracks from W->enu originally? REQUEST: can you plot the dR distributions in Z(vv)gamma, ADD, and W->enu(CLOSED)

Allow me to elucidate a bit. Initially we had constructed the veto very poorly, in fact, we simply vetoed any candidate event in which there was a track with pT > 10 GeV anywhere. After the preapproval we realized that this was non-optimal (to say the least) and needed to be changed. We first decided to set the cone size to 0.4 because we figured that this would preserve any tracks within the inner cone set in the photon identification, and then any within the 0.4 cone would be taken care of by the track isolation, and thus there would be effectively no difference between having a separation cone of 0.4 and 0.04. Below we have included the deltaR plots for both the W->en sample and the Z->nng sample. Based on this, we find ourselves in agreement with you: cutting at 0.4 is far too wide. We have rerun things altered to define the photon-trk separation cut to be 0.04 (which is where it initially was for the W->en sample). The plots and numbers in the papers have been updated to reflect this change. Having scanned all of the new events, they do seem pretty consistent with the change in our track veto. Those new candidates typically have a track at very close angle to the centroid of the supercluster, and indeed, some are flagged as having tracker driven electrons (never ECAL driven of course, since the pixel seed veto takes care of that).

Wenu dr AN.png

Znunu dr AN.png

So basically the answer we got during the talk was not correct, you actually did not exclude tracks close to the electron from W?

No, this is not correct. Otherwise our W estimation would have made no sense. When we built the W sample, we excluded tracks which were within 0.04 of the object, however, when we made the candidate plots, we simply vetoed tracks anywhere.

yes, and the latter was exactly the question I asked, if you remember. But at least now we know what actually happens in the analysis, and I'm ready to move forward.

My major concern is veto efficiencies. The efficiencies seem low. Moreover, they are different by a factor of two between otherwise similar processes, W->enu and (Z->nunu)gamma. I would like to understand what causes the difference.

1. do you make the same kinematic cuts on W and (Z->nunu)gamma events? (OPEN)


2. is the difference as large when you do jet veto alone, as opposed to jet and track veto together? (OPEN)

From the new table in the AN, the efficiency for W(Z) events are as follows: track Pt = 0.41 (0.77), jet Pt = 0.24 (0.55) and the OR of the two = 0.25 (0.54).

3. for the track veto, do you cut out the region around the EM object? (OPEN)

This has now been implemented, consistently across candidate and control samples.

4. can you make a plot of the veto efficiency v.s. thresholds for both W and Z? (OPEN)

We have the following table, as this study is progressing. It provides an estimate, e.g., raising the jet veto to 30 GeV changes our efficiency for Z(inv)Gamma from 0.57 to 0.73 – further updates to this will follow in the next few days.

Track Veto Pt Threshold Jet Veto Pt Threshold Track Veto Efficiency Jet Veto Efficiency
Z(inv) Gamma 7 GeV 15 GeV 0.72 0.42
W (e nu)     0.38 0.20
Z(inv) Gamma 10 GeV 20 GeV 0.82 0.57
W (e nu)     0.44 0.26
Z(inv) Gamma 10 GeV 30 GeV 0.82 0.73
W (e nu)     0.44 0.34
Z(inv) Gamma 15 GeV 25 GeV 0.89 0.66
W (e nu)     0.50 0.31

I am satisfied with your explanation for the difference between W and Z. One last request on the subject: in your Z(->ee)+gamma study, can you plot the veto efficiency v.s. the photon pT? You just give it at one point at 30 GeV. The photon pT is really the only difference in kinematics with your Zgamma events, correct? So the fact that 0.55 is close to 0.57 should be significant, no?

I think that this would be a very much confidence-building plot. The acceptance is indeed different, and indeed you can a bit different mixture of s-chanel and t-channel diagrams, but seeing no big dependence of the jet veto on photon PT would at least tell us that the radiation is not very big function of the "hardness" of the interactions. I also would feel more comfortable if you claim that Z(->vv)gamma is described by MC by looking at Z(->ll)gamma then W->(lv)gamma (or, rather in addition to)

We have attached three plots. The first two are the data and MC efficiencies for the jet/track veto measured in Zgamma->eegamma events as a function of photon ET. The third is the ratio of the Data/MC efficiency. One can see that the ratio is consistent with being flat, with a value consistent with one within uncertainties (all error bars are statistical only). I would caution against putting too much credence behind the fact that the efficiency is close to the same though. There's the difference in the acceptance due to the requirement of the two reconstructed electrons in the ECAL which is present in this efficiency as opposed to the Zgamma where the neutrinos escape, so as previously cautioned this is not exactly the same topology. I do think that it does add additional confidence however that things are modeled at least to the uncertainty that we assess on the acceptance.




5. did you try your jet/track veto on other events, i.e. Z- >mumu? (OPEN)

We have studied the Z(ee) sample, which includes some Z(ee) Gamma events also. First the Z(ee) sample. Applying a veto on jets pT > 20 GeV (separated from EB-EB electrons by 0.5) and tracks pT > 10 GeV (separated from EB-EB electrons by dR > 0.4), we find that over the entire sample: 92052 pass out of 131634 (eff = 0.699). If we only look at the mass range between 80-100, then this becomes 91504 out of 120184 (eff=0.761). The plot below shows the invariant mass for all (black) and passing (red).


(Andrew): Yes, it's a different kinematic ballpark, and there's really no reason why that efficiency should be very similar to W->en up at 95 GeV, or Zgamma->nngamma for that matter. Further, if we require that at least one electron has Pt above 95 GeV, our veto efficiency is effectively ZERO! That makes sense to me, you don't get an electron in the Z mass window with ET=95 GeV if there isn't some substantial recoil about, and that recoil will usually come in the form of a jet, and that jet will make you fail the veto. So that makes sense, but it isn't as helpful as it could be perhaps. We next studied a Z(ee)Gamma sample derived from a looser skim than this, just requiring three EM objects pT > 30 GeV, which is even better for attempting to estimate the veto efficiency. Preliminarily, what I find in the data is that the efficiency is 0.55 +/- 0.05, again in good agreement with the MC value 0.56+/- 0.02. Again, since it's a different kinematic region, you wouldn't necessarily expect it to be EXACTLY the same as Zgamma- >nngamma. So again we have evidence that we do indeed simulate the veto efficiency quite well. Further see answer in response to Fabian’s question below.

6. the track veto is mostly helpful against W->tau. You might as well ask that the track be isolated, may be in a hollow cone? this would make it work specifically on W->tau and not gain you as much extra systematics with the QCD radiation... (OPEN)

This was studied. The veto efficiency table is shown below. The net change in efficiency is negligible. This table can be compared to the much abridged version in the AN.

Veto Criteria W(e nu) MC W( e nu) Data Z(nu nu) gamma MC Cand Data
preselection 1.00 +/- 0.05 1.00 +/- 0.03 1.00 +/- 0.02 1.00 +/- 0.05
Cosmic Muon 0.84 +/- 0.04 0.75 +/- 0.02 0.94 +/- 0.02 0.61 +/- 0.03
Muon 0.88 +/- 0.04 0.81 +/- 0.02 0.95 +/- 0.02 0.67 +/- 0.04
Muon or Cosmic Muon 0.83 +/- 0.04 0.74 +/- 0.02 0.94 +/- 0.02 0.60 +/- 0.03
Tracks Pt >10 0.41 +/- 0.03 0.31 +/- 0.01 0.77 +/- 0.02 0.22 +/- 0.02
Jets Pt>20 0.24 +/- 0.02 0.23 +/- 0.01 0.55 +/- 0.01 0.15 +/- 0.01
Jets Pt>20 abs(eta)<3.0 0.27 +/- 0.02 0.24 +/- 0.01 0.60 +/- 0.01 0.16 +/- 0.02
Jets Pt>30 0.35 +/- 0.02 0.29 +/- 0.01 0.72 +/- 0.01 0.20 +/- 0.02
Jets Pt>50 0.43 +/- 0.03 0.36 +/- 0.01 0.86 +/- 0.02 0.28 +/- 0.02
Tracks Pt>10 or Jets Pt>20 abs(eta)<3.0 0.25 +/- 0.02 0.22 +/- 0.01 0.54 +/- 0.01 0.13 +/- 0.01
Tracks Pt>10 or Jets Pt>20 abs(eta)<3.0 or Muon 0.24 +/- 0.02 0.21 +/- 0.01 0.52 +/- 0.01 0.10 +/- 0.01
Tracks Pt>10 or Jets Pt>20 abs(eta)<3.0 or Cosmic Muon 0.23 +/- 0.02 0.20 +/- 0.01 0.52 +/- 0.01 0.10 +/- 0.01
Tracks Pt>10 or Jets Pt>20 abs(eta)<3.0 or Cosmic Muon or Muon 0.23 +/- 0.02 0.20 +/- 0.01 0.52 +/- 0.01 0.10 +/- 0.01

Is this table for isolated tracks? The question was not about the efficiency, but for systematics on the background.

Yes, this is part of the reason why the cone is so large.

7. I see that your MC for W is PYTHIA, unlike the Z which is MADGRAPH (and I assume matched??). The jet spectra in these two samples should be completely different, why does the fact that PYTHIA describes W data means that you trust MADGRAPH to describe Z->vv? (OPEN)

Actually, both are Pythia samples. Please refer to Table 2 in AN-11-108.


1. Finally I'd like to emphasize the one point that from my point of view needs clarifications, which is the importance of resolving the differences in the veto efficiencies for W->enu vs Z->nunu Monte-Carlo. This needs to be understood. (OPEN)

The veto efficiency for W->en is lower than for Zgamma. The former sample has a mix of two types of events: 1. High mass W events (from the tail given by the natural width), which should be very efficient in our event selection (including high MET), and have jets from ISR. 2. High Pt W events that are produced recoiling off a jet. The ZGamma events, on the oother hand, are all of the type in which the Z recoils off a photon, and the jets are due to ISR. The plots below show the differences in the Pt and eta distributions for the two samples. The variables plotted are for the leading jet in each event. The two different populations in the W samples are clearly visible, while the Z sample has only the ISR component.


Out-of-Time Backgrounds (OPEN)


1. Figure 17: this is before the Sieie cut, right? Can you make a fraction fit after the Sieie cut? Are the results consistent? (OPEN)

We did a progression of different width cuts in the two dimensional plots and show how the timing distribution changes as we cut harder on the shape. By the time we're at 0.014, there is no longer a real hint in the time distribution, or that our contribution is small and consistent with zero, which is what our estimate says. See plots below - the first one is just the full range without cut (<0.03 does not change anything). The successive ones show the diminishing fraction. The numbers are listed here:

Cut Beam Halo Events within +/- 3ns from Fraction Fit
0.03 2216 +/- 87
0.024 2216 +/- 87
0.018 1280 +/- 56
0.016 55.3 +/- 9.2
0.014 -- No beam halo req'd to fit timing



1. let me reiterate what I would like to see: - A 2D treatment of seedtime vs sieie (sigma ieta ieta) for the halo contribution. (OPEN)

Please see these plots and the text in the new version of the AN- 11-108, section 4.1.4.

WidthVsTiming BH.png

WidthVsTiming cand.png

I think this figure makes it crystal clear what is being done in Fig 17 (AN-11-108v9). So I think it has a natural place there, in addition (side-by-side or perhaps even replacing) the projections in Figs 10--16. One would need the same 2D distributions for prompt and anomalous.

Please see the same 2D distributions for the prompt and anomalous samples below.

WidthVsTime spikes.png

WidthVsTiming prompt.png

On k-factors (OPEN)


1. how does the JES affect the k-factor calculation? (OPEN)

See the text of AN-11-108, section 5, last para. Uncertainty in JES at 20 GeV is 4% (see figure). This introduces an error of 0.01 in the k-factor, which is an order of magnitude below the 0.1 error due to PDF.


2. what is the theoretical uncertainty on the k-factor? What happens if you vary renormalization scale? (OPEN)

Baur’s code does not have a direct way of varying the renormalization scale. However, it does allow the user to change alpha_s. If we vary alpha_s by +-10%, the resultant k-factor varies from 0.74 to 0.68, +/-0.03 from the central value of 0.71. This corresponds to a 4% variation in k-factor for a 10% change in alpha_s, again small compared to the uncertainty due to PDFs.

I understand that Baur has limitations, but MCFM does not. This is not for the green light, but I'd like to see the variation from MCFM by the final approval.

3. did you take all W+gamma backgrounds from MC? What cross- section did you normalize it to? (remember, the k-factor for W will also be affected by jet veto...) (OPEN)

We rely on Madgraph to estimate the jet veto efficiency. We have also used the cross section from Madgraph. If an additional k- factor is needed, it is going to make a very small change in our background estimate.


1. let me reiterate what I would like to see: Slide 41: a comparison of apples with apples (k factors, combinations of channels, etc); it also underlines the importance to have a model-independent statement. (OPEN)

We are showing a preliminary limit on M_D in photon+MET channel only, and a comparison with Tevatron results in the same channel. The ADD k-factors are being calculated by theorists, right now - not ready yet. A model independent limits in photon+MET topology would be expected and observed limits on the cross section time acceptance, similar to figure 3, which we will add in the AN appendix. We plan to combine the limits on ADD model with monojets at the end of 2011 pp running period.

The PAS must expand on the comparison made in Fig 10. A discussion of how results can be compared, to what extent, and any caveats. Also, there was a reference to an AN-11-319 update. Is the result in Appendix B of AN-11-319v7 going to be put in the PAS?(OPEN)

Yes, the result in Appendix B of AN-11-319 has been integrated into the PAS, along with an ET dependent cross section limit.



1.jet veto mostly rejects QCD. Looking at the MET distribution it seems that you can afford factor of 2-3 more QCD, especially if you slightly raise the MET cut. I guess it would be too time consuming to make a study of how the analysis would look with looser veto and higher MET cut, but I'd like to see some effort in this direction for publication. Basically it would be quite a leap of faith to assign 10% systematic error to an effect that causes factor of two differences between W and Z, for which the radiation should be about the same, without understanding where the difference is coming from, or loosing the veto until the efficiencies for W and Z are closer to each other. (OPEN)

The points about veto efficiency differences are addressed earlier. But yes, raising the MET cut while simultaneously loosening the veto is an interesting suggestion. This will be certainly done before going to publication. Also, see plot on the next page of ADD sensitivity to the MET cut – it supports your point – ADD lies below SM even at 150 GeV.

The figure in your presentation on slide 31 (PFMET) is different from the one in the note (Fig 31 on page 34), especially the QCD contribution is markedly different. I assume the one in the talk is right - it shows QCD being reduced by MET cut. But then I do not understand where Z+jet with jet faking the photon belongs. Do you call it QCD? If so, I'm confused why it disappears at high MET... (OPEN)

Yes, the one in the talk is the correct one – the QCD estimate had a problem that was fixed. And yes, Z+jet is included in QCD which is derived from data. I suspect that it hasn’t “disappeared” but we are statistics limited. Z(inv)Jet->fake should be at least an order of magnitude below the Z(inv)Gamma.


1. Slide 31: The MC error band is large "enough", but do we expect the data to inflect down at lowest MET values? (CLOSED)

We believe that this is due to the MET resolution. When we cut on photon Pt > 95 GeV, we lower the MET cut down to 80 GeV to capture the events in which MET fluctuated downwards. Evidently, that is not enough. Secondly, ISR effects will tend to favor (due to trigger) the events in which photon Pt is boosted up. Recall that we allow up to 20 GeV of jet activity in the event.

I understand the explanation. Looking at the binning, do you confirm that the first bin does not go from 80 to 100, but from 80 to 95? If that is the case, then the binning seems to be exactly match the one for the photon ET (though the ranges are different...). What was the rationale for the binning? What does the PT/MET distribution look like?

The binning is entirely driven by the statistics that we observe. We will make the ranges equal. We have plotted the PT/MET distribution and include it here.

pt met.png

Thank you for this. Unfortunately it is not a variable that can show us where the excess may be coming from as all the components seem to be very similar and similar to the data (except for QCD). Also, here the ~1.5 sigma excess is very clearly visible.

A plot for the deltaPhi distribution between MET and the photon candidate was requested since it might be more illuminating than the PT/MET plot. Please see the plot attached below.

dphi pho met.png

So, the conclusion is that all events are balanced and pretty back-to-back even if not explicit requirement is made on that.


1. I could not find any justification of the MET threshold at 80 GeV. How was this value chosen? It would help to see, if possible, the MET spectra of the signal (ADD) compared to the dominant backgrounds. (OPEN)

Please see comments above and the plot below. The plot with backgrounds is in the text. As mentioned in response to Yuri, a study of raising MET cut and loosening veto cuts is in order.

PFMET ADDm1n2.png

Miscellaneous Questions (OPEN)


1. I have no reason to doubt that the pthat cutoff at 80 GeV for the signal MC production is low enough. But it would help to see that the lower pthat values have negligible impact. (OPEN)

We are investigating this and will have something definite in the next few days.

2. Figure 2 in AN-11-319: I find the errors in the last two bins quite irregular. Unless the B&W printed version is deceiving me, I don't understand the evolution of errors for the SM estimate. (OPEN)

The SM estimates in the lower Pt bins are mostly from data-driven techniques, which suffer from statistics, while the last two bins are mostly from MC that have better statistical precision. Hence, the apparent irregularity.

3. Figure 23 in AN-11-108: what are the units of the y-axis? (CLOSED)

This has been fixed in the AN. It is the “fake ratio” which is dimensionless.


1. Slide 28: If I understood this right, the shape of the background is taken from the flipped tk isolation sideband. If this bears any resemblance to what was done in QCD-10- 019 (AN-10-268,) then there is a large uncertainty in this BG shape and the the result heavily depends on the choice of the sideband. Is this included in any way? (CLOSED)

This is discussed at the end section 4.2.1 and in Tables 5 and 6 of AN-11-108.



1. Figure 4 is a bit misleading. For me, the objective here is to compare data with SM+ADD. But the SM uncertainty is not entering SM+ADD. How do you feel about removing SM, since it is already shown in Fig2 (or drawing SM as markers and SM+ADD as the band)?

We produced a few plots with variations of this kind and selected the one we felt was the clearest among them. An example plot is attached below.


2. What do you think of adding the number of observed be added to Table 1 of the PAS? (I could also not find it in the text) (CLOSED)

We agree that that is a good idea, and have updated Table 1 in the PAS to include the number of observed candidates.

2. In l117 the footnote is puzzling. Why mention this here if no rho factor is derived for it? And if the single major background was measured (and that is mentioned in a small footnote) any reader at this point will be wondering if the measured xsection was used in this limit or not, contrary to the statement in ll96--97. In fact, if the measurement would be used, then the expected limit would get closer to the observed one, since the Znunugamma contribution would go up from 36\pm6 to about 49\pm18 or so and the total background would go up from 67.25 to 80.06, smack on the observed 80. I am sure I missed a fundamental point here, so can someone please remind me why the Znunugamma measurement is not used? Or if it because it is something we have not yet published, why we are not using the Zllgamma measurement and ratios of BR(Zll)/BR(Znunu)?{CLOSED)

In all honesty, the footnote appears there because we wanted to include this detail from AN-11-108. Since rho is the data/MC correction factor, it is the same for both the ADD and Zgamma cross section. Since the way that it's currently written introduces some confusion, we will try to clarify the point in the footnote that while the measurement was made, we still use the MC Zgamma cross section in the ADD measurement, as stated on ll 96-97. We use the MC cross section for a couple of reasons. For one, if we were to scale the Znngamma cross section using last year's Zllgamma measurement, we would incur a significant uncertainty. For another, if there was an excess, that excess would most likely be included in the Zgamma measurement and our backgrounds would always sum up to our total measurement, so we would never see it in this study. We think the MC Zgamma cross section will more accurately provide the expected SM- only contribution, which is what we want to account for.

It is exactly the chicken-and-egg problem that you allude to that may be broken in a later revision of the analysis, possibly by performing the search on one of the kinematic variables of the Zgamma system (like pt gamma or MET). So, not something for now.

3. Any ETA on the "k-factors [that] are being calculated" in ll131--138? I understand they'll make the limits even better, but I for one, need to understand how they are calculated.(OPEN)

The k-factors have been calculated and the PAS is being updated accordingly, the updated version will be uploaded today. The method for calculating the k-factors is described in detail in a paper referenced in AN-11-319, that reference will be included in the PAS and is listed below: X. Gao, C. S. Li, J. Gao et al., “Next-to-leading order QCD predictions for graviton and photon associated production in the Large Extra Dimensions model at the LHC”, Phys. Rev. D81 (2010) 036008, arXiv:0912.0199. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.036008.

So, after a cursory reading of the reference above, the k-factors need to be calculated for: - different values of n, - different values of M_D - using this analysis's jet veto, - using this analysis's pt_min (gamma and MET)

Although the jet veto is in the same ballpark used in the analysis, the pt_min is quite far (400 GeV in the paper, vs. 95 for gamma and 80 for MET in the analysis). And then the kfactors need to be checked for robustness by calculating both the truncated and non-truncated versions. Also, according to Eq 42, there is a cut on Delta phi between the photon and MET, which, as far as I understand, is not applied in this analysis. Then Figure 7 shows a +-5% dependence on the correlated change of theoretical scales mu_r = mu_f = (0.5x, 2x) ptgamma. Then the paper mentions LHC but it never says if it is the 7 or 14 TeV LHC. And finally, there seems to be a marked eta dependence to the k-factors, affecting the central region more strongly. So, as I see it, there are a lot of things to take into account. How were the k-factors calculated and how were the aspects above taken into account?

Regarding the k-factors calculation question - as you clearly outlined below, it is very complicate (if possible at all) to derive the k-factors from that paper itself. So, we have contacted the authors of the mentioned article and the k-factors were calculated explicitly for our analysis selection (the truncated version).

3. The 5 plots in Figure 5 can be merged into one single plot with all the 'n' curves, and zooming in on 1 < M_D < 1.6 TeV by making a judicious choice of y range. This could then be presented side-by-side with Fig 6. If needed, the individual plots in Fig 5 can be in the twiki with supplementary material for talks.(CLOSED)

We have produced this new plot, it has been added to the PAS and is also displayed below.%ENDCOLOR


Thank you. I think this is a good (albeit busy) synthesis of what then goes into Fig 6.

Topic attachments
I Attachment History Action Size Date Who Comment
PDFpdf 22_15_53-41035-ARC_comments_responsesHN.pdf r1 manage 458.8 K 2011-08-10 - 22:25 UnknownUser  
PNGpng DATAEffZg.png r1 manage 43.2 K 2011-08-16 - 10:09 UnknownUser  
PNGpng MCEffZg.png r1 manage 49.8 K 2011-08-16 - 10:08 UnknownUser  
PNGpng PFMET_ADDm1n2.png r1 manage 87.3 K 2011-08-18 - 04:09 UnknownUser  
PNGpng PfJetUnc20-25GeV.png r1 manage 79.9 K 2011-08-11 - 00:47 UnknownUser  
PNGpng PtADDM1n2.png r1 manage 85.6 K 2011-08-18 - 04:09 UnknownUser  
PNGpng PtADDM1n2_80GeV.png r1 manage 84.5 K 2011-08-11 - 01:06 UnknownUser  
PNGpng RatioEffZg.png r1 manage 57.9 K 2011-08-16 - 10:10 UnknownUser  
PNGpng TimingCutOOT.png r1 manage 143.6 K 2011-08-11 - 00:34 UnknownUser  
PNGpng WenuZnunuCompare.png r1 manage 162.6 K 2011-08-11 - 00:07 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Wenu_dr_AN.png r1 manage 73.0 K 2011-08-16 - 09:28 UnknownUser  
PNGpng WidthVsTime_spikes.png r1 manage 87.6 K 2011-08-16 - 08:51 UnknownUser  
PNGpng WidthVsTiming_BH.png r1 manage 89.9 K 2011-08-16 - 08:59 UnknownUser  
PNGpng WidthVsTiming_cand.png r1 manage 95.2 K 2011-08-16 - 08:56 UnknownUser  
PNGpng WidthVsTiming_prompt.png r1 manage 89.7 K 2011-08-16 - 08:53 UnknownUser  
PNGpng XsecKfMDnAll.png r1 manage 177.1 K 2011-08-16 - 08:07 UnknownUser  
PNGpng ZeeVetoJetAndTracks.png r1 manage 94.3 K 2011-08-11 - 00:11 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Znunu_dr_AN.png r1 manage 76.0 K 2011-08-16 - 09:27 UnknownUser  
PNGpng dphi_pho_met.png r2 r1 manage 33.6 K 2011-08-17 - 19:45 UnknownUser  
PNGpng pt_met.png r1 manage 46.3 K 2011-08-16 - 10:48 UnknownUser  
Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r9 < r8 < r7 < r6 < r5 | Backlinks | Raw View | WYSIWYG | More topic actions
Topic revision: r9 - 2011-08-18 - unknown
    • Cern Search Icon Cern Search
    • TWiki Search Icon TWiki Search
    • Google Search Icon Google Search

    Main All webs login

This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright &© 2008-2019 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback