86 |
|
\begin{center} |
87 |
|
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{figs/bdt-medium-frpt.png} |
88 |
|
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{figs/frMu.png} |
89 |
– |
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{figs/frMu.png} |
89 |
|
\caption{ Muon and Electron Fake Rates.} |
90 |
|
\label{fig:FR} |
91 |
|
\end{center} |
104 |
|
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Z1-Inclusive $\ell\ell jj$ Yields} \\ |
105 |
|
\hline |
106 |
|
$Z1 + \mu\mu$ & $0.057 \pm X$ \\ |
107 |
< |
$Z1 + ee$ & $X \pm Y$ \\ |
107 |
> |
$Z1 + ee$ & $1.8 \pm 1$ \\ |
108 |
|
\hline |
109 |
|
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Per-Channel $\ell\ell jj$ Yields} \\ |
110 |
|
\hline |
111 |
|
$4\mu$ & $0.044 \pm X$ \\ |
112 |
< |
$4e$ & $X \pm Y$ \\ |
113 |
< |
$2e2\mu$ & $(0.013 + Z) \pm Y$ \\ |
112 |
> |
$4e$ & $0.4 \pm 0.3$ \\ |
113 |
> |
$2e2\mu$ & $(0.013 + 1.4) \pm 0.9$ \\ |
114 |
|
\hline |
115 |
|
\end{tabular} |
116 |
|
\caption{Expected $\ell\ell jj$ Events.} |
152 |
|
|
153 |
|
%This difference can be understood as a result of differences in the composition of the prediction sample (mainly light flavor) and that used to measure the fakerate (a mix of light and heavy flavor). |
154 |
|
|
155 |
< |
{\bf For electrons ...} |
155 |
> |
For electrons, in order to isolate a pure sample of W+jets where the jet fakes an electron, a cross-flavor same-sign sample was chosen with a well-identified muon satisfying $iso_{PF}/P_{T} < 0.025$ and $p_{T}>30$. This region also contains Z+jets and dijet backgrounds. The W+jets and Z+jets components are represented by templates from Monte Carlo while the dijet is modelled by a Rayleigh distribution. The three are fitted to the observed same-sign events on the left of Figure~\ref{fig:ssEle}. The region with $MET>30~GeV$ is enriched in W+jets, so is chosen to test closure in the mass spectrum. The right of the same figure shows this observation compared to the fake prediction computed in the same way as in the muon case, and shows an under-prediction of $15\%$. |
156 |
|
%For electrons, charge misidentification is significant enough to result in a noticible Z-peak. The jet background is however easily estimated from a fit with a same-sign MC Z template and an exponential background PDF. Events selected in data are shown in Figures~\ref{fig:ssMuon} and (\ref{fig:ssEle}) as points. Table~\ref{tab:ssfakes} lists the total number of observed events in the muon-channel and the electron-channel background determined from the fit. |
157 |
|
|
158 |
|
%------------------------------------------------- |
160 |
|
\begin{center} |
161 |
|
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{figs/ssEleMET.png} |
162 |
|
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{figs/ssEleMZ1.png} |
163 |
< |
\caption{ Fakerate Predictions for Same-sign Electron Events. {\bf Plots are currently for muons ... }} |
164 |
< |
\label{fig:ssEle} |
163 |
> |
\caption{ Fakerate Predictions for Same-sign Electron Events.} |
164 |
> |
\label{fig:ssEle} |
165 |
|
\end{center} |
166 |
|
\end{figure} |
167 |
|
%------------------------------------------------- |
168 |
|
|
169 |
< |
Table summarizes the results of this section. We take $47.2\%$ ($X\%$) as the systematic uncertainty on the muon (electron) fakerate to account for potential biases in our prediction due to differences in light flavor composition. |
169 |
> |
Table summarizes the results of this section. We take $47.2\%$ ($15\%$) as the systematic uncertainty on the muon (electron) fakerate to account for potential biases in our prediction due to differences in light flavor composition. |
170 |
|
|
171 |
|
%------------------------------------------------- |
172 |
|
\begin{table}[tbh] |
176 |
|
channel & observed & predicted & systematic \\ |
177 |
|
\hline |
178 |
|
${\rm same~sign} \mu\mu$ & $159$ & $108.04$ & $47.2\%$\\ |
179 |
< |
${\rm same~sign} ee$ & $X$ & $Y$ & $Z\%$ \\ |
179 |
> |
${\rm same~sign} ee$ & $400$ & $346$ & $15\%$ \\ |
180 |
|
\hline |
181 |
|
\end{tabular} |
182 |
|
\caption{Same-sign Control Yields and Systematic} |