CERN Accelerating science

Amount of material, in units of radiation length $X_{0}$, traversed by a particle as a function of $\eta$: (left) material in front of the presampler detector and the EM calorimeter, and (right) material up to the ID boundaries. The contributions of the different detector elements, including the services and thermal enclosures are shown separately by filled color areas. The extra material used for systematic studies is indicated by dashed lines. The primary vertex position has been smeared along the beamline.

Amount of material, in units of radiation length $X_{0}$, traversed by a particle as a function of $\eta$: (left) material in front of the presampler detector and the EM calorimeter, and (right) material up to the ID boundaries. The contributions of the different detector elements, including the services and thermal enclosures are shown separately by filled color areas. The extra material used for systematic studies is indicated by dashed lines. The primary vertex position has been smeared along the beamline.

(left) \ET\ distribution of electron candidates passing the \tight\ identification cuts for events selected by single electron triggers with varying \ET\ thresholds. Data with $\ET<20$~GeV correspond to lower integrated luminosity values and were rescaled to the full luminosity. (right) Reconstructed dielectron mass distribution of electron candidate pairs passing the \tight\ identification cuts for events selected by low \ET\ threshold dielectron triggers. The number of events is normalised by the bin width. Errors are statistical only.

(left) \ET\ distribution of electron candidates passing the \tight\ identification cuts for events selected by single electron triggers with varying \ET\ thresholds. Data with $\ET<20$~GeV correspond to lower integrated luminosity values and were rescaled to the full luminosity. (right) Reconstructed dielectron mass distribution of electron candidate pairs passing the \tight\ identification cuts for events selected by low \ET\ threshold dielectron triggers. The number of events is normalised by the bin width. Errors are statistical only.

Track--cluster matching variables of electron candidates from \Wboson\ and \Zboson\ decays for reconstruction with nominal geometry and after the 2010 alignment corrections have been applied: (left) $\Delta\eta$ distributions for $-2.47<\eta<-1.52$ and (middle) $-1.37<\eta<0$; (right) $\Delta\phi$ distributions for $-1.37<\eta<0$. The MC prediction with perfect alignment is also shown.

The energy-scale correction factor $\alpha$ as a function of the pseudorapidity of the electron cluster derived from fits (left) to \Zee\ data and (right) to \Jee\ data. The uncertainties of the \Zee\ measurement are statistical only. The \Jee\ measurement was made after the \Zee\ calibration had been applied. Its results are given with statistical (inner error bars) and total (outer error bars) uncertainties. The boundaries of the different detector parts defined in Section~\ref{sec:Detector} are indicated by dotted lines.

The energy-scale correction factor $\alpha$ as a function of the pseudorapidity of the electron cluster derived from fits (left) to \Zee\ data and (right) to \Jee\ data. The uncertainties of the \Zee\ measurement are statistical only. The \Jee\ measurement was made after the \Zee\ calibration had been applied. Its results are given with statistical (inner error bars) and total (outer error bars) uncertainties. The boundaries of the different detector parts defined in Section~\ref{sec:Detector} are indicated by dotted lines.

noimgSystematic uncertainties (in \%) on the electron energy scale in different detector regions.

Total systematic uncertainty on the electron energy scale (left) for the region $|\eta|<0.6$ which has the smallest uncertainty. and (right) for $1.52<|\eta|<1.8$ which has the largest uncertainty within the central region. The uncertainty is also shown without the contribution due to the amount of additional material in front of the EM calorimeters.

Total systematic uncertainty on the electron energy scale (left) for the region $|\eta|<0.6$ which has the smallest uncertainty. and (right) for $1.52<|\eta|<1.8$ which has the largest uncertainty within the central region. The uncertainty is also shown without the contribution due to the amount of additional material in front of the EM calorimeters.

(left) $E/p$ distributions of electrons and positrons from \Wen\ decays for $0. < \eta < 1.37$ in data (full circles with statistical error bars) and \Wen\ MC (filled histogram). The result of the fit with a Crystal Ball function to the data is also shown (full line). The most probable value ($\widehat{E/p}$) and the Gaussian width ($\sigma$) of the fitted Crystal Ball function are given both for the data and the signal MC. (right) The $\alpha_{E/p}$ energy-scale correction factors derived from fits to $E/p$ distributions of \Wen\ electron and positron data, after the baseline calibration had been applied. The inner error bars show the statistical uncertainty, while the outer error bars indicate the total uncertainty. The boundaries of the different detector parts defined in Section~\ref{sec:Detector} are indicated by dotted lines.

(left) $E/p$ distributions of electrons and positrons from \Wen\ decays for $0. < \eta < 1.37$ in data (full circles with statistical error bars) and \Wen\ MC (filled histogram). The result of the fit with a Crystal Ball function to the data is also shown (full line). The most probable value ($\widehat{E/p}$) and the Gaussian width ($\sigma$) of the fitted Crystal Ball function are given both for the data and the signal MC. (right) The $\alpha_{E/p}$ energy-scale correction factors derived from fits to $E/p$ distributions of \Wen\ electron and positron data, after the baseline calibration had been applied. The inner error bars show the statistical uncertainty, while the outer error bars indicate the total uncertainty. The boundaries of the different detector parts defined in Section~\ref{sec:Detector} are indicated by dotted lines.

The $\alpha$ energy-scale correction factor as a function of the electron track $\phi$ for (left) $|\eta|<0.6$ and (right) $1.52<|\eta|<1.8$ determined by the baseline calibration using \Zee\ decays (circles) and by the $E/p$ method using \Wen\ decays (triangles). Errors are statistical only.

The $\alpha$ energy-scale correction factor as a function of the electron track $\phi$ for (left) $|\eta|<0.6$ and (right) $1.52<|\eta|<1.8$ determined by the baseline calibration using \Zee\ decays (circles) and by the $E/p$ method using \Wen\ decays (triangles). Errors are statistical only.

The $\alpha$ energy-scale correction factor as a function of the electron energy for (left) $|\eta|<0.6$ and (right) $1.52<|\eta|<1.8$ determined by the baseline calibration method using \Zee\ (circles) and \Jee\ (square) decays and by the $E/p$ method described in Subsection~\ref{sec:EoP} using \Wen\ decays (triangles). For the \Zee\ data points, the inner error bar represents the statistical uncertainty and the outer gives the combined error when bin migration effects are also included. The error on the \Jee\ measurements are statistical only. The band represents the systematic errors on the energy scale for the baseline calibration method as discussed in Table~\ref{tab:sys}. For the $E/p$ method, the inner error bar represents the statistical and the outer the total uncertainty.

The $\alpha$ energy-scale correction factor as a function of the electron energy for (left) $|\eta|<0.6$ and (right) $1.52<|\eta|<1.8$ determined by the baseline calibration method using \Zee\ (circles) and \Jee\ (square) decays and by the $E/p$ method described in Subsection~\ref{sec:EoP} using \Wen\ decays (triangles). For the \Zee\ data points, the inner error bar represents the statistical uncertainty and the outer gives the combined error when bin migration effects are also included. The error on the \Jee\ measurements are statistical only. The band represents the systematic errors on the energy scale for the baseline calibration method as discussed in Table~\ref{tab:sys}. For the $E/p$ method, the inner error bar represents the statistical and the outer the total uncertainty.

Reconstructed dielectron mass distribution for \Jee\ decays, as measured after applying the baseline \Zee\ calibration. The data (full circles with statistical error bars) are compared to the sum of the MC signal (light filled histogram) and the background contribution (darker filled histogram) modelled by a Chebyshev polynomial. The mean ($\mu$) and the Gaussian width ($\sigma$) of the fitted Crystal Ball function are given both for data and MC.

Reconstructed dielectron mass distributions for \Zee\ decays for different pseudorapidity regions after applying the baseline \Zee\ calibration. The transition region $1.37<|\eta|<1.52$ is excluded. The data (full circles with statistical error bars) are compared to the signal MC expectation (filled histogram). The fits of a Breit-Wigner convolved with a Crystal Ball function are shown (full lines). The Gaussian width ($\sigma$) of the Crystal Ball function is given both for data and MC simulation.

Reconstructed dielectron mass distributions for \Zee\ decays for different pseudorapidity regions after applying the baseline \Zee\ calibration. The transition region $1.37<|\eta|<1.52$ is excluded. The data (full circles with statistical error bars) are compared to the signal MC expectation (filled histogram). The fits of a Breit-Wigner convolved with a Crystal Ball function are shown (full lines). The Gaussian width ($\sigma$) of the Crystal Ball function is given both for data and MC simulation.

Reconstructed dielectron mass distributions for \Zee\ decays for different pseudorapidity regions after applying the baseline \Zee\ calibration. The transition region $1.37<|\eta|<1.52$ is excluded. The data (full circles with statistical error bars) are compared to the signal MC expectation (filled histogram). The fits of a Breit-Wigner convolved with a Crystal Ball function are shown (full lines). The Gaussian width ($\sigma$) of the Crystal Ball function is given both for data and MC simulation.

Reconstructed dielectron mass distributions for \Zee\ decays for different pseudorapidity regions after applying the baseline \Zee\ calibration. The transition region $1.37<|\eta|<1.52$ is excluded. The data (full circles with statistical error bars) are compared to the signal MC expectation (filled histogram). The fits of a Breit-Wigner convolved with a Crystal Ball function are shown (full lines). The Gaussian width ($\sigma$) of the Crystal Ball function is given both for data and MC simulation.

Reconstructed dielectron mass distributions for \Zee\ decays for different pseudorapidity regions after applying the baseline \Zee\ calibration. The transition region $1.37<|\eta|<1.52$ is excluded. The data (full circles with statistical error bars) are compared to the signal MC expectation (filled histogram). The fits of a Breit-Wigner convolved with a Crystal Ball function are shown (full lines). The Gaussian width ($\sigma$) of the Crystal Ball function is given both for data and MC simulation.

Reconstructed dielectron mass distributions for \Zee\ decays for different pseudorapidity regions after applying the baseline \Zee\ calibration. The transition region $1.37<|\eta|<1.52$ is excluded. The data (full circles with statistical error bars) are compared to the signal MC expectation (filled histogram). The fits of a Breit-Wigner convolved with a Crystal Ball function are shown (full lines). The Gaussian width ($\sigma$) of the Crystal Ball function is given both for data and MC simulation.

Transverse energy spectra, compared between data and MC, for the selected electron probes passing \tight\ identification cuts for the (top left) \Zee, (top right) \Jee, and (bottom left) \Wen\ channels, together with (bottom right) the transverse mass distribution for the \Wen\ channel. The data points are plotted as full circles with statistical error bars, and the MC prediction, normalised to the number of data entries, as a filled histogram.

Transverse energy spectra, compared between data and MC, for the selected electron probes passing \tight\ identification cuts for the (top left) \Zee, (top right) \Jee, and (bottom left) \Wen\ channels, together with (bottom right) the transverse mass distribution for the \Wen\ channel. The data points are plotted as full circles with statistical error bars, and the MC prediction, normalised to the number of data entries, as a filled histogram.

Transverse energy spectra, compared between data and MC, for the selected electron probes passing \tight\ identification cuts for the (top left) \Zee, (top right) \Jee, and (bottom left) \Wen\ channels, together with (bottom right) the transverse mass distribution for the \Wen\ channel. The data points are plotted as full circles with statistical error bars, and the MC prediction, normalised to the number of data entries, as a filled histogram.

Transverse energy spectra, compared between data and MC, for the selected electron probes passing \tight\ identification cuts for the (top left) \Zee, (top right) \Jee, and (bottom left) \Wen\ channels, together with (bottom right) the transverse mass distribution for the \Wen\ channel. The data points are plotted as full circles with statistical error bars, and the MC prediction, normalised to the number of data entries, as a filled histogram.

The distributions of the dielectron invariant mass of \Zee\ candidate events, before applying electron identification cuts on the probe electron, in the \ET-range (left) $20-25$~GeV and (right) $35-40$~GeV. The data distribution (full circles with statistical error bars) is fitted with the sum (full line) of a signal component (dashed line) modelled by a Breit-Wigner convolved with a Crystal Ball function (BWCB) on the left or by a MC template on the right, and a background component (dotted line) chosen here as an exponential decay function convolved with a Gaussian.

The distributions of the dielectron invariant mass of \Zee\ candidate events, before applying electron identification cuts on the probe electron, in the \ET-range (left) $20-25$~GeV and (right) $35-40$~GeV. The data distribution (full circles with statistical error bars) is fitted with the sum (full line) of a signal component (dashed line) modelled by a Breit-Wigner convolved with a Crystal Ball function (BWCB) on the left or by a MC template on the right, and a background component (dotted line) chosen here as an exponential decay function convolved with a Gaussian.

The distributions of the dielectron invariant mass of \Jee\ candidate events, before applying electron identification cuts on the probe electron, in the \ET-range (left) $4-7$~GeV and (right) $10-15$~GeV. The data distribution (full circles with statistical error bars) is fitted with the sum (full line) of a signal component (dashed line) described by a Crystal Ball function and two background components, one taken from same-sign pairs in the data (dash-dotted line) and the remaining background modelled by an exponential function (dotted line).

The distributions of the dielectron invariant mass of \Jee\ candidate events, before applying electron identification cuts on the probe electron, in the \ET-range (left) $4-7$~GeV and (right) $10-15$~GeV. The data distribution (full circles with statistical error bars) is fitted with the sum (full line) of a signal component (dashed line) described by a Crystal Ball function and two background components, one taken from same-sign pairs in the data (dash-dotted line) and the remaining background modelled by an exponential function (dotted line).

The distributions of the calorimeter isolation variable, \Isol\ for the \Wen\ data sample for (left) $20 < \ET < 25$~GeV and (right) $35 < \ET < 40$~GeV. The full circles with statistical error bars correspond to the probe electrons before applying any identification cuts. The open squares show the corresponding background template, derived from data, normalised to the probe electron data in the region $\Isol>0.4$. To illustrate the expected shape of the \Wen\ signal, the distributions obtained for electron probes passing the \medium\ identification cuts and normalised to the calculated \Wen\ signal are shown by full histograms.

The distributions of the calorimeter isolation variable, \Isol\ for the \Wen\ data sample for (left) $20 < \ET < 25$~GeV and (right) $35 < \ET < 40$~GeV. The full circles with statistical error bars correspond to the probe electrons before applying any identification cuts. The open squares show the corresponding background template, derived from data, normalised to the probe electron data in the region $\Isol>0.4$. To illustrate the expected shape of the \Wen\ signal, the distributions obtained for electron probes passing the \medium\ identification cuts and normalised to the calculated \Wen\ signal are shown by full histograms.

Electron identification efficiencies measured from \Wen\ events and predicted by~MC for (left) \medium\ and (right) \tight\ identification as a function (top) of~\ET\ and integrated over~$|\eta|<2.47$ excluding the transition region $1.37<|\eta|<1.52$ and (bottom) of~$\eta$ and integrated over $20<\ET<50$~GeV. The results for the data are shown with their statistical (inner error bars) and total (outer error bars) uncertainties. The statistical error on the MC efficiencies plotted as open squares is negligible. For clarity, the data and MC points are slightly displaced horizontally in opposite directions.

Electron identification efficiencies measured from \Wen\ events and predicted by~MC for (left) \medium\ and (right) \tight\ identification as a function (top) of~\ET\ and integrated over~$|\eta|<2.47$ excluding the transition region $1.37<|\eta|<1.52$ and (bottom) of~$\eta$ and integrated over $20<\ET<50$~GeV. The results for the data are shown with their statistical (inner error bars) and total (outer error bars) uncertainties. The statistical error on the MC efficiencies plotted as open squares is negligible. For clarity, the data and MC points are slightly displaced horizontally in opposite directions.

Electron identification efficiencies measured from \Wen\ events and predicted by~MC for (left) \medium\ and (right) \tight\ identification as a function (top) of~\ET\ and integrated over~$|\eta|<2.47$ excluding the transition region $1.37<|\eta|<1.52$ and (bottom) of~$\eta$ and integrated over $20<\ET<50$~GeV. The results for the data are shown with their statistical (inner error bars) and total (outer error bars) uncertainties. The statistical error on the MC efficiencies plotted as open squares is negligible. For clarity, the data and MC points are slightly displaced horizontally in opposite directions.

Electron identification efficiencies measured from \Wen\ events and predicted by~MC for (left) \medium\ and (right) \tight\ identification as a function (top) of~\ET\ and integrated over~$|\eta|<2.47$ excluding the transition region $1.37<|\eta|<1.52$ and (bottom) of~$\eta$ and integrated over $20<\ET<50$~GeV. The results for the data are shown with their statistical (inner error bars) and total (outer error bars) uncertainties. The statistical error on the MC efficiencies plotted as open squares is negligible. For clarity, the data and MC points are slightly displaced horizontally in opposite directions.

Electron identification efficiencies measured from \Zee\ events and predicted by~MC for (left) \medium\ and (right) \tight\ identification as a function (top) of~\ET\ and integrated over $|\eta|<2.47$ excluding the transition region $1.37<|\eta|<1.52$ and (bottom) of~$\eta$ and integrated over $20<\ET<50$~GeV. The results for the data are shown with their statistical (inner error bars) and total (outer error bars) uncertainties. The statistical error on the MC efficiencies plotted as open squares is negligible. For clarity, the data and MC points are slightly displaced horizontally in opposite directions.

Electron identification efficiencies measured from \Zee\ events and predicted by~MC for (left) \medium\ and (right) \tight\ identification as a function (top) of~\ET\ and integrated over $|\eta|<2.47$ excluding the transition region $1.37<|\eta|<1.52$ and (bottom) of~$\eta$ and integrated over $20<\ET<50$~GeV. The results for the data are shown with their statistical (inner error bars) and total (outer error bars) uncertainties. The statistical error on the MC efficiencies plotted as open squares is negligible. For clarity, the data and MC points are slightly displaced horizontally in opposite directions.

Electron identification efficiencies measured from \Zee\ events and predicted by~MC for (left) \medium\ and (right) \tight\ identification as a function (top) of~\ET\ and integrated over $|\eta|<2.47$ excluding the transition region $1.37<|\eta|<1.52$ and (bottom) of~$\eta$ and integrated over $20<\ET<50$~GeV. The results for the data are shown with their statistical (inner error bars) and total (outer error bars) uncertainties. The statistical error on the MC efficiencies plotted as open squares is negligible. For clarity, the data and MC points are slightly displaced horizontally in opposite directions.

Electron identification efficiencies measured from \Zee\ events and predicted by~MC for (left) \medium\ and (right) \tight\ identification as a function (top) of~\ET\ and integrated over $|\eta|<2.47$ excluding the transition region $1.37<|\eta|<1.52$ and (bottom) of~$\eta$ and integrated over $20<\ET<50$~GeV. The results for the data are shown with their statistical (inner error bars) and total (outer error bars) uncertainties. The statistical error on the MC efficiencies plotted as open squares is negligible. For clarity, the data and MC points are slightly displaced horizontally in opposite directions.

Electron identification efficiencies measured from \Jee\ events and predicted by~MC for (left) \medium\ and (right) \tight\ identification as a function of \ET\ and integrated over $|\eta|<2.47$ excluding the transition region $1.37<|\eta|<1.52$. The results for the data are shown with their statistical (inner error bars) and total (outer error bars) uncertainties. The MC~predictions are a weighted average of the efficiencies expected for prompt and non-prompt \Jpsi\ production as explained in the text. The total error on the MC efficiencies plotted as open squares is also shown. For clarity, the data and MC points are slightly displaced horizontally in opposite directions.

Electron identification efficiencies measured from \Jee\ events and predicted by~MC for (left) \medium\ and (right) \tight\ identification as a function of \ET\ and integrated over $|\eta|<2.47$ excluding the transition region $1.37<|\eta|<1.52$. The results for the data are shown with their statistical (inner error bars) and total (outer error bars) uncertainties. The MC~predictions are a weighted average of the efficiencies expected for prompt and non-prompt \Jpsi\ production as explained in the text. The total error on the MC efficiencies plotted as open squares is also shown. For clarity, the data and MC points are slightly displaced horizontally in opposite directions.

Electron identification efficiencies measured separately for positrons (full circles) and electrons (open circles) from \Wen\ events (left) for \medium\ identification as a function of~\ET\ and integrated over $|\eta|<2.47$ excluding the transition region $1.37<|\eta|<1.52$ and (right) for \tight\ identification as a function of~$\eta$ and integrated over $20<\ET<50$~GeV. The results are shown with statistical uncertainties only. For clarity, the electron and positron data points are slightly displaced horizontally in opposite directions.

Electron identification efficiencies measured separately for positrons (full circles) and electrons (open circles) from \Wen\ events (left) for \medium\ identification as a function of~\ET\ and integrated over $|\eta|<2.47$ excluding the transition region $1.37<|\eta|<1.52$ and (right) for \tight\ identification as a function of~$\eta$ and integrated over $20<\ET<50$~GeV. The results are shown with statistical uncertainties only. For clarity, the electron and positron data points are slightly displaced horizontally in opposite directions.

Electron identification efficiencies measured from \Jee\ events and predicted by~MC for \medium\ identification for two~\ET\ ranges: $4<\ET<7$~GeV (lower points) and $7<\ET<10$~GeV (higher points) for different ranges of pseudo-proper time. The left-most open triangles show the MC efficiencies for a pure non-prompt \Jpsi\ sample, while the right-most open stars show them for a pure prompt \Jpsi\ sample integrated over all pseudo-proper time values. The MC~predictions plotted as open squares in the middle are weighted averages of the efficiency values expected for prompt and non-prompt \Jpsi\ production as explained in the text. The results for the data are shown with statistical uncertainties only. For clarity, the data and MC points are slightly displaced horizontally in opposite directions.

Electron shower shapes from \Zee\ events for probe electrons in the range $\ET=40-50$~GeV: (top left) $R_\mathrm{had}$ hadronic leakage, (top right) $R_{\eta}$ and (bottom left) $w_{\eta2}$ middle-layer variables, (bottom right) $E_\mathrm{ratio}$ strip-layer variable. The data points are plotted as full circles with error bars, representing the total statistical and systematic uncertainties. The MC predictions, normalised to the number of data entries, are shown by filled histograms.

Electron shower shapes from \Zee\ events for probe electrons in the range $\ET=40-50$~GeV: (top left) $R_\mathrm{had}$ hadronic leakage, (top right) $R_{\eta}$ and (bottom left) $w_{\eta2}$ middle-layer variables, (bottom right) $E_\mathrm{ratio}$ strip-layer variable. The data points are plotted as full circles with error bars, representing the total statistical and systematic uncertainties. The MC predictions, normalised to the number of data entries, are shown by filled histograms.

Electron shower shapes from \Zee\ events for probe electrons in the range $\ET=40-50$~GeV: (top left) $R_\mathrm{had}$ hadronic leakage, (top right) $R_{\eta}$ and (bottom left) $w_{\eta2}$ middle-layer variables, (bottom right) $E_\mathrm{ratio}$ strip-layer variable. The data points are plotted as full circles with error bars, representing the total statistical and systematic uncertainties. The MC predictions, normalised to the number of data entries, are shown by filled histograms.

Electron shower shapes from \Zee\ events for probe electrons in the range $\ET=40-50$~GeV: (top left) $R_\mathrm{had}$ hadronic leakage, (top right) $R_{\eta}$ and (bottom left) $w_{\eta2}$ middle-layer variables, (bottom right) $E_\mathrm{ratio}$ strip-layer variable. The data points are plotted as full circles with error bars, representing the total statistical and systematic uncertainties. The MC predictions, normalised to the number of data entries, are shown by filled histograms.

Distributions of the fraction of high-threshold hits in the TRT measured from \Zee\ data and compared to MC prediction for (left) $|\eta|<0.625$ and (right) $1.07<|\eta|<1.304$. The data points are plotted as full circles with statistical error bars, while the MC predictions, normalised to the number of data entries, as filled histograms.

Distributions of the fraction of high-threshold hits in the TRT measured from \Zee\ data and compared to MC prediction for (left) $|\eta|<0.625$ and (right) $1.07<|\eta|<1.304$. The data points are plotted as full circles with statistical error bars, while the MC predictions, normalised to the number of data entries, as filled histograms.

Reconstruction efficiency measured from \Zee\ events and predicted by MC as a function of the cluster pseudorapidity and integrated over $20<\ET<50$~GeV (left) for electron reconstruction only and (right) after applying requirements on the number of silicon hits on the track. The results for the data are shown with their statistical (inner error bars) and total (outer error bars) uncertainties. The statistical error on the MC efficiencies plotted as open squares is negligible. For clarity, the data and MC points are slightly displaced horizontally in opposite directions.

Reconstruction efficiency measured from \Zee\ events and predicted by MC as a function of the cluster pseudorapidity and integrated over $20<\ET<50$~GeV (left) for electron reconstruction only and (right) after applying requirements on the number of silicon hits on the track. The results for the data are shown with their statistical (inner error bars) and total (outer error bars) uncertainties. The statistical error on the MC efficiencies plotted as open squares is negligible. For clarity, the data and MC points are slightly displaced horizontally in opposite directions.

Electron charge misidentification probability measured from \Zee\ events as a function of pseudorapidity and integrated over $\ET>20$~GeV (left) after electron reconstruction and (right) after \tight\ selection. Data points are shown with statistical (inner error bars) and total uncertainties (outer error bars). The MC expectation is indicated by open squares. For clarity, the data and MC points are slightly displaced horizontally in opposite directions.

Electron charge misidentification probability measured from \Zee\ events as a function of pseudorapidity and integrated over $\ET>20$~GeV (left) after electron reconstruction and (right) after \tight\ selection. Data points are shown with statistical (inner error bars) and total uncertainties (outer error bars). The MC expectation is indicated by open squares. For clarity, the data and MC points are slightly displaced horizontally in opposite directions.

Efficiency with respect to offline \tight\ electrons for (top) e15\_medium and (bottom) e20\_loose triggers measured from (left) \Zee\ and (right) \Wen\ events as a function of the offline electron \ET\ and integrated over $|\eta|<2.47$ excluding the transition region between the barrel and \endcap\ EM calorimeters. The results for the data are shown with their statistical (inner error bars) and total (outer error bars) uncertainties. The statistical error on the MC efficiencies plotted as open squares is negligible. For clarity, the data and MC points are slightly displaced horizontally in opposite directions.

Efficiency with respect to offline \tight\ electrons for (top) e15\_medium and (bottom) e20\_loose triggers measured from (left) \Zee\ and (right) \Wen\ events as a function of the offline electron \ET\ and integrated over $|\eta|<2.47$ excluding the transition region between the barrel and \endcap\ EM calorimeters. The results for the data are shown with their statistical (inner error bars) and total (outer error bars) uncertainties. The statistical error on the MC efficiencies plotted as open squares is negligible. For clarity, the data and MC points are slightly displaced horizontally in opposite directions.

Efficiency with respect to offline \tight\ electrons for (top) e15\_medium and (bottom) e20\_loose triggers measured from (left) \Zee\ and (right) \Wen\ events as a function of the offline electron \ET\ and integrated over $|\eta|<2.47$ excluding the transition region between the barrel and \endcap\ EM calorimeters. The results for the data are shown with their statistical (inner error bars) and total (outer error bars) uncertainties. The statistical error on the MC efficiencies plotted as open squares is negligible. For clarity, the data and MC points are slightly displaced horizontally in opposite directions.

Efficiency with respect to offline \tight\ electrons for (top) e15\_medium and (bottom) e20\_loose triggers measured from (left) \Zee\ and (right) \Wen\ events as a function of the offline electron \ET\ and integrated over $|\eta|<2.47$ excluding the transition region between the barrel and \endcap\ EM calorimeters. The results for the data are shown with their statistical (inner error bars) and total (outer error bars) uncertainties. The statistical error on the MC efficiencies plotted as open squares is negligible. For clarity, the data and MC points are slightly displaced horizontally in opposite directions.