1: \newpage
2: \begin{figure}[ht]
3: \begin{center}
4: \begin{tabular}{cc}
5: \hspace*{-1.3cm}
6: \begin{minipage}[c]{8.0cm}
7: \epsfxsize=9.3cm
8: \epsffile{plotb2061jj_108_108_n_151_p.eps_v5}
9: \end{minipage}
10: &
11: \hspace*{0.4cm}
12: \begin{minipage}[c]{8.0cm}
13: \epsfxsize=9.3cm
14: \epsffile{plotb2061ll_103_103_n_3_p.eps_v5}
15: \end{minipage}
16: \\
17: \end{tabular}
18: \vspace{0.5cm}\\
19: \begin{tabular}{cc}
20: \hspace*{-0.9cm}
21: \begin{minipage}[c]{8.0cm}
22: \hspace*{-0.5cm}
23: \epsfxsize=9.3cm
24: \epsffile{plotb2061gg_108_108_n_21_p.eps_v5}
25: \end{minipage}
26: &
27: \hspace*{0.01cm}
28: \begin{minipage}[c]{8.0cm}
29: \epsfxsize=9.3cm
30: \epsffile{lrdatamc206_susana.eps}
31: \end{minipage}
32: \\
33: \end{tabular}
34: \vspace{0.5cm}
35: \caption[]{ a), b) and c) show comparisons between real data (dots) and simulated background events
36: (histogram) for the $jets$, $\ell\ell$
37: and $rad$ topologies respectively, using a logical {\tt OR} of the 6 preselection cut
38: functions of the corresponding topology. The dashed lines indicate how a characteristic
39: chargino signal would appear (arbitrary normalisation). d) shows the number of events selected by the
40: standard chargino analysis as a function of the $\mathcal{L}_{R_{CUT}}$ cut in the \jjl\ topology for 25 $\leq$ \DM\ $<$ 35~\GeVcc.
41: The squares are the data and the solid line is the background simulation. The dotted curve shows
42: a possible signal, \MXC{1}=102.8~\GeVcc\ \MXN{1}=73~\GeVcc, of 0.5 pb. In all cases the data collected in the year 2000 with the TPC sector 6
43: on are shown.}
44: \label{fig:DATAMC}
45: \end{center}
46: \end{figure}
47:
48: \newpage
49: \begin{figure}[ht]
50: \begin{center}
51: \begin{tabular}{cc}
52: \hspace*{-1.3cm}
53: \begin{minipage}[c]{8.0cm}
54: \epsfxsize=9.3cm
55: \epsffile{plotb2071jj_108_108_n_151_p.eps_v5}
56: \end{minipage}
57: &
58: \hspace*{0.4cm}
59: \begin{minipage}[c]{8.0cm}
60: \epsfxsize=9.3cm
61: \epsffile{plotb2071ll_103_103_n_3_p.eps_v5}
62: \end{minipage}
63: \\
64: \end{tabular}
65: \vspace{0.5cm}\\
66: \begin{tabular}{cc}
67: \hspace*{-0.9cm}
68: \begin{minipage}[c]{8.0cm}
69: \hspace*{-0.5cm}
70: \epsfxsize=9.3cm
71: \epsffile{plotb2071gg_108_108_n_21_p.eps_v5}
72: \end{minipage}
73: &
74: \hspace*{0.01cm}
75: \begin{minipage}[c]{8.0cm}
76: \epsfxsize=9.3cm
77: \epsffile{lrdatamc207_susana.eps}
78: \end{minipage}
79: \\
80: \end{tabular}
81: \vspace{0.5cm}
82: \caption[]{ a), b) and c) show comparisons between real data (dots) and simulated background events
83: (histogram) for the $jets$, $\ell\ell$
84: and $rad$ topologies respectively, using a logical {\tt OR} of the 6 preselection cut
85: functions of the corresponding topology. The dashed lines indicate how a characteristic
86: chargino signal would appear (arbitrary normalisation). d) shows the number of events selected by the
87: standard chargino analysis as a function of the $\mathcal{L}_{R_{CUT}}$ cut in the \jjl\ topology for 25 $\leq$ \DM\ $<$ 35~\GeVcc.
88: The squares are the data and the solid line is the background simulation. The dotted curve shows
89: a possible signal, \MXC{1}=102.8~\GeVcc\ \MXN{1}=73~\GeVcc, of 0.5 pb. In all cases the data collected in the year 2000 with the TPC sector 6 off are shown.}
90: \label{fig:DATAMCS1}
91: \end{center}
92: \end{figure}
93:
94: \newpage
95:
96: \begin{figure}[htb]
97: \centerline{
98: \epsfxsize=18cm\epsffile{isrcomp.eps} }
99: \caption[]{
100: Some of the variables used in the selection for mass-degenerate charginos with
101: an ISR photon tag.
102: In the plots on the left the data (dots) are compared with the SM expectations.
103: On the right, as an example, the corresponding distributions (with arbitrary
104: normalisation) are shown for the signal with $M(\tilde\chi_1^+)$ = 80~\GeVcc\
105: and $\DM=1$~\GeVcc.
106: }
107:
108: \label{fig:isrcomp}
109: \end{figure}
110: