CERN Accelerating science

Asymmetry distribution as defined in Equation~\eqref{Asym} for $\bar{p}_\T=60-80$~GeV and $|y| < 0.8$. Data (points with error bars) and Monte Carlo simulation (histogram with shaded bands) are overlaid, together with a Gaussian fit to the data. The lower panel shows the ratio between data and MC simulation. The errors shown are only statistical.

Fractional jet $\pt$ resolutions, from Equation~\ref{eq:dijet_formula}, measured in events with $60 \le\bar{p}_\T <80$~GeV and with third jet with $\pt$ less than $p_{\T,3}^{\rm{EM-scale}}$, as a function of $p_{\T,3}^{\rm{EM-scale}}$, for data (squares) and Monte Carlo simulation (circles). The solid lines correspond to linear fits while the dashed lines show the extrapolations to $p_{\T,3}^{\rm{EM-scale}}= 0$. The lower panel shows the ratio between data and MC simulation. The errors shown are only statistical.

Fractional jet resolution obtained in simulation using the dijet balance method, shown as a function of $\bar{p}_\T$, both before (circles) and after the particle-balance (PB) correction (triangles). Also shown is the dijet PB correction itself (squares) and, in the lower panel, its relative size with respect to the fractional jet resolution. The errors shown are only statistical.

noimgVariables used in the bisector method. The $\eta$-axis corresponds to the azimuthal angular bisector of the dijet system in the plane transverse to the beam, while the $\psi$-axis is defined as the one orthogonal to the $\eta$-axis.

Distributions of the $P_{\T,\psi}$ (top) and $P_{\T,\eta}$ (bottom) components of the balance vector $\vec{P}_\T$, for $\bar{p}_\T= 60-80$~GeV. The data (points with error bars) and Monte Carlo simulation (histogram with shaded bands) are overlaid. The lower panel shows the ratio between data and MC simulation. The errors shown are only statistical.

Distributions of the $P_{\T,\psi}$ (top) and $P_{\T,\eta}$ (bottom) components of the balance vector $\vec{P}_\T$, for $\bar{p}_\T= 60-80$~GeV. The data (points with error bars) and Monte Carlo simulation (histogram with shaded bands) are overlaid. The lower panel shows the ratio between data and MC simulation. The errors shown are only statistical.

Standard deviations of $P_{\T,\psi}$ and $P_{\T,\eta}$, the components of the balance vector, as a function of $\bar{p}_\T$. The lower panel shows the ratio between data and MC simulation. The errors shown are only statistical.

Standard deviations $\sigma^\calo_\psi$, $\sigma^\calo_\eta$ and $[(\sigma^2_\psi-\sigma^2_\eta)^\calo]^{1/2}$ as a function of the upper $p_{\T,3}^\mathrm{EM-scale}$ cut, for $R = 0.6$ anti-$k_t$ jets with $\bar{p}_\T=160-260$~GeV. The errors shown are only statistical.

Fractional jet \pt\ resolution for the dijet balance and bisector methods as a function of $\bar{p}_\T$. The lower panel shows the relative difference between data and Monte Carlo results. The dotted lines indicate a relative difference of $\pm$10\%. Both methods are found to be in agreement within 10\% between data and Monte Carlo simulation. The errors shown are only statistical.

Fractional jet \pt\ resolution as a function of $\bar{p}_\T$ for anti-$k_t$ with $R=0.6$ jets in the Extended Tile Barrel (top), Transition (center) and End-Cap (bottom) regions using the bisector method. In the lower panel of each figure, the relative difference between the data and the MC simulation results is shown. The dotted lines indicate a relative difference of $\pm$10\%. The errors shown are only statistical.

Fractional jet \pt\ resolution as a function of $\bar{p}_\T$ for anti-$k_t$ with $R=0.6$ jets in the Extended Tile Barrel (top), Transition (center) and End-Cap (bottom) regions using the bisector method. In the lower panel of each figure, the relative difference between the data and the MC simulation results is shown. The dotted lines indicate a relative difference of $\pm$10\%. The errors shown are only statistical.

Fractional jet \pt\ resolution as a function of $\bar{p}_\T$ for anti-$k_t$ with $R=0.6$ jets in the Extended Tile Barrel (top), Transition (center) and End-Cap (bottom) regions using the bisector method. In the lower panel of each figure, the relative difference between the data and the MC simulation results is shown. The dotted lines indicate a relative difference of $\pm$10\%. The errors shown are only statistical.

Comparison between the Monte Carlo simulation truth jet $\pt$ resolution and the results obtained from the bisector and dijet balance in situ methods (applied to Monte Carlo simulation) for the EM+JES calibration, as a function of $\bar{p}_\T$. The lower panel of the figure shows the relative difference, obtained from the fits, between the in situ methods and Monte Carlo truth results. The dotted lines indicate a relative difference of $\pm$10\%. The errors shown are only statistical.

The experimental systematic uncertainty on the dijet balance (squares) and bisector (circles) methods as a function of $\bar{p}_\T$, for jets with $|y|<0.8$. The absolute value of the relative difference between the two methods in each $\pt$ bin is also shown for data and for Monte Carlo simulation (dashed lines).

Systematic uncertainty due to event modelling in Monte Carlo generators on the expected jet energy resolution as a function of $\pt$, for jets with $|y|<0.8$. The reference is taken from \pythia{} MC10 and other event generators are shown as solid triangles (\herwigpp{}) and open circles (\alpgen{}). Solid squares (\pythia{} {\sc Perugia}\-2010) and inverted triangles (\pythia{} PARP90) summarize differences coming from different tunes and cut-off parameters, respectively. Open squares compare the nominal simulation with \pythia{}8.

Fractional jet \pt\ resolutions as a function of $\bar{p}_\T$ for anti-$k_t$ jets with $R=0.6$ with $|y| < 0.8$ (top left), $0.8 \leq |y| < 1.2$ (top right), $1.2\leq|y|<2.1$ (bottom left) and $2.1\leq|y|<2.8$ (bottom right), using the bisector in situ method, for four jet calibration schemes: EM+JES, Local Cluster Weighting (LCW+JES), Global Cell Weighting (GCW+JES) and Global Sequential (GS). The lower panels show the relative difference between data and Monte Carlo simulation results. The dotted lines indicate relative differences of $\pm$10\%. The errors shown are only statistical.

Fractional jet \pt\ resolutions as a function of $\bar{p}_\T$ for anti-$k_t$ jets with $R=0.6$ with $|y| < 0.8$ (top left), $0.8 \leq |y| < 1.2$ (top right), $1.2\leq|y|<2.1$ (bottom left) and $2.1\leq|y|<2.8$ (bottom right), using the bisector in situ method, for four jet calibration schemes: EM+JES, Local Cluster Weighting (LCW+JES), Global Cell Weighting (GCW+JES) and Global Sequential (GS). The lower panels show the relative difference between data and Monte Carlo simulation results. The dotted lines indicate relative differences of $\pm$10\%. The errors shown are only statistical.

Fractional jet \pt\ resolutions as a function of $\bar{p}_\T$ for anti-$k_t$ jets with $R=0.6$ with $|y| < 0.8$ (top left), $0.8 \leq |y| < 1.2$ (top right), $1.2\leq|y|<2.1$ (bottom left) and $2.1\leq|y|<2.8$ (bottom right), using the bisector in situ method, for four jet calibration schemes: EM+JES, Local Cluster Weighting (LCW+JES), Global Cell Weighting (GCW+JES) and Global Sequential (GS). The lower panels show the relative difference between data and Monte Carlo simulation results. The dotted lines indicate relative differences of $\pm$10\%. The errors shown are only statistical.

Fractional jet \pt\ resolutions as a function of $\bar{p}_\T$ for anti-$k_t$ jets with $R=0.6$ with $|y| < 0.8$ (top left), $0.8 \leq |y| < 1.2$ (top right), $1.2\leq|y|<2.1$ (bottom left) and $2.1\leq|y|<2.8$ (bottom right), using the bisector in situ method, for four jet calibration schemes: EM+JES, Local Cluster Weighting (LCW+JES), Global Cell Weighting (GCW+JES) and Global Sequential (GS). The lower panels show the relative difference between data and Monte Carlo simulation results. The dotted lines indicate relative differences of $\pm$10\%. The errors shown are only statistical.

Fractional jet \pt\ resolutions as a function of $\bar{p}_\T$ for anti-$k_t$ jets with $R=0.6$ for the Local Cluster Weighting (LCW+JES), Global Cell Weighting (GCW+JES) and Global Sequential (GS) calibrations. {\em Left}: Comparison of both in situ methods on data and MC simulation for $|y|<0.8$. The lower panels show the relative difference. {\em Right}: Comparison between the Monte Carlo simulation truth jet $\pt$ resolution and the final results obtained from the bisector and dijet balance in situ methods (applied to Monte Carlo simulation). The lower panels show the relative differences, obtained from the fits, between the in situ methods and Monte Carlo truth results. The dotted lines indicate relative differences of $\pm$10\%. The errors shown are only statistical.

Fractional jet \pt\ resolutions as a function of $\bar{p}_\T$ for anti-$k_t$ jets with $R=0.6$ for the Local Cluster Weighting (LCW+JES), Global Cell Weighting (GCW+JES) and Global Sequential (GS) calibrations. {\em Left}: Comparison of both in situ methods on data and MC simulation for $|y|<0.8$. The lower panels show the relative difference. {\em Right}: Comparison between the Monte Carlo simulation truth jet $\pt$ resolution and the final results obtained from the bisector and dijet balance in situ methods (applied to Monte Carlo simulation). The lower panels show the relative differences, obtained from the fits, between the in situ methods and Monte Carlo truth results. The dotted lines indicate relative differences of $\pm$10\%. The errors shown are only statistical.

Fractional jet \pt\ resolutions as a function of $\bar{p}_\T$ for anti-$k_t$ jets with $R=0.6$ for the Local Cluster Weighting (LCW+JES), Global Cell Weighting (GCW+JES) and Global Sequential (GS) calibrations. {\em Left}: Comparison of both in situ methods on data and MC simulation for $|y|<0.8$. The lower panels show the relative difference. {\em Right}: Comparison between the Monte Carlo simulation truth jet $\pt$ resolution and the final results obtained from the bisector and dijet balance in situ methods (applied to Monte Carlo simulation). The lower panels show the relative differences, obtained from the fits, between the in situ methods and Monte Carlo truth results. The dotted lines indicate relative differences of $\pm$10\%. The errors shown are only statistical.

Fractional jet \pt\ resolutions as a function of $\bar{p}_\T$ for anti-$k_t$ jets with $R=0.6$ for the Local Cluster Weighting (LCW+JES), Global Cell Weighting (GCW+JES) and Global Sequential (GS) calibrations. {\em Left}: Comparison of both in situ methods on data and MC simulation for $|y|<0.8$. The lower panels show the relative difference. {\em Right}: Comparison between the Monte Carlo simulation truth jet $\pt$ resolution and the final results obtained from the bisector and dijet balance in situ methods (applied to Monte Carlo simulation). The lower panels show the relative differences, obtained from the fits, between the in situ methods and Monte Carlo truth results. The dotted lines indicate relative differences of $\pm$10\%. The errors shown are only statistical.

Fractional jet \pt\ resolutions as a function of $\bar{p}_\T$ for anti-$k_t$ jets with $R=0.6$ for the Local Cluster Weighting (LCW+JES), Global Cell Weighting (GCW+JES) and Global Sequential (GS) calibrations. {\em Left}: Comparison of both in situ methods on data and MC simulation for $|y|<0.8$. The lower panels show the relative difference. {\em Right}: Comparison between the Monte Carlo simulation truth jet $\pt$ resolution and the final results obtained from the bisector and dijet balance in situ methods (applied to Monte Carlo simulation). The lower panels show the relative differences, obtained from the fits, between the in situ methods and Monte Carlo truth results. The dotted lines indicate relative differences of $\pm$10\%. The errors shown are only statistical.

Fractional jet \pt\ resolutions as a function of $\bar{p}_\T$ for anti-$k_t$ jets with $R=0.6$ for the Local Cluster Weighting (LCW+JES), Global Cell Weighting (GCW+JES) and Global Sequential (GS) calibrations. {\em Left}: Comparison of both in situ methods on data and MC simulation for $|y|<0.8$. The lower panels show the relative difference. {\em Right}: Comparison between the Monte Carlo simulation truth jet $\pt$ resolution and the final results obtained from the bisector and dijet balance in situ methods (applied to Monte Carlo simulation). The lower panels show the relative differences, obtained from the fits, between the in situ methods and Monte Carlo truth results. The dotted lines indicate relative differences of $\pm$10\%. The errors shown are only statistical.

{\em Top}: Fractional jet \pt\ resolutions as a function $\bar{p}_\T$, measured in data for anti-$k_t$ jets with $R=0.6$ (top) and $R=0.4$ (bottom) and for four jet calibration schemes: EM+JES, EM+JES+TBJC, LCW+JES and LCW+JES+TBJC. The lower panel of the figure shows the relative improvement for the EM+JES+TBJC, LCW+JES and LCW+JES+TBJC calibrations with respect to the EM+JES jet calibration scheme, used as reference (dotted line). The errors shown are only statistical.

{\em Top}: Fractional jet \pt\ resolutions as a function $\bar{p}_\T$, measured in data for anti-$k_t$ jets with $R=0.6$ (top) and $R=0.4$ (bottom) and for four jet calibration schemes: EM+JES, EM+JES+TBJC, LCW+JES and LCW+JES+TBJC. The lower panel of the figure shows the relative improvement for the EM+JES+TBJC, LCW+JES and LCW+JES+TBJC calibrations with respect to the EM+JES jet calibration scheme, used as reference (dotted line). The errors shown are only statistical.