| 1 |
ymaravin |
1.9 |
\subsection{Further cross-checks}
|
| 2 |
ymaravin |
1.10 |
The test described in the previous Section illustrates the robustness of the
|
| 3 |
|
|
matrix method to estimate the background correctly for a different
|
| 4 |
ymaravin |
1.9 |
jet flavor composition in the $\Z+jet$ sample.
|
| 5 |
|
|
|
| 6 |
|
|
In the following we further scrutinize the details of the background estimation.
|
| 7 |
ymaravin |
1.10 |
We test the performance of the matrix method on a sample selected with the
|
| 8 |
|
|
full selection criteria but the requirement on the \W candidate transverse mass.
|
| 9 |
|
|
We also test a possibility of extracting the background without categorization
|
| 10 |
|
|
of the instrumental background contributions into genuine/fake \Z bosons.
|
| 11 |
beaucero |
1.1 |
|
| 12 |
ymaravin |
1.9 |
\subsubsection{Background estimation without the \W boson transverse mass requirement}
|
| 13 |
ymaravin |
1.10 |
One of the ways to validate the matrix method is a comparison of its background
|
| 14 |
|
|
prediction with the MC truth information at different stage of application of the
|
| 15 |
vuko |
1.11 |
\WZ signal selection criteria. We show that the matrix method works well with a very
|
| 16 |
ymaravin |
1.10 |
loose selection criteria (see the Section above). In the following we perform
|
| 17 |
|
|
the comparison after applying the full selection criteria but the requirement on the
|
| 18 |
|
|
\W candidate transverse mass.
|
| 19 |
|
|
|
| 20 |
vuko |
1.11 |
We repeat the procedure described in Section~\ref{sec:moreDetailsBackground} for
|
| 21 |
ymaravin |
1.10 |
every signature channels and provide the results of background estimation from processes
|
| 22 |
|
|
without real \Z boson in Table~\ref{tab:FitNoMWt} and final results in
|
| 23 |
|
|
Tables~\ref{tab:FinalNoMWtCutLoose} and \ref{tab:FinalNoMWtCut} for ``Loose''
|
| 24 |
|
|
and ``Tight'' requirements on the \W lepton. The results agree with each other
|
| 25 |
|
|
within one sigma of uncertainty.
|
| 26 |
beaucero |
1.2 |
|
| 27 |
|
|
\begin{table}[h]
|
| 28 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 29 |
|
|
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
|
| 30 |
|
|
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Background with genuine \Z} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Background without
|
| 31 |
|
|
genuine \Z boson} \\
|
| 32 |
|
|
Channel & $\Z+jets$ & $\Z b\bar{b}$ & $t\bar{t}$ & $\W+jets$ & $t\bar{t}$ + $\W+jets$ & Fit result \\ \hline
|
| 33 |
beaucero |
1.6 |
$3e$ Loose &44.6 & 12.7 & 1.6 & 0.4 & 2.0 & 6.6$\pm$4.2 \\\hline
|
| 34 |
|
|
$3e$ Tight &13.9 & 5.0 & 0.8 & 0.4 & 1.2 & 3.8$\pm$3.5 \\\hline
|
| 35 |
|
|
$2e1mu$ Loose &41.5 & 78.9 & 12.6 & 0 & 12.6 & 16.9$\pm$5.5 \\\hline
|
| 36 |
|
|
$2e1mu$ Tight &1.0 & 2.0 & 0.9 & 0 & 0.9 & 1.5$\pm$3.2 \\\hline
|
| 37 |
|
|
$2mu1e$ Loose &56.3 & 15.4 & 1.9 & 0 & 1.9 & 6.9$\pm$4.4 \\\hline
|
| 38 |
|
|
$2mu1e$ Tight &17.3 & 5.6 & 0.8 & 0 & 0.8 & 4.1$\pm$2.5 \\\hline
|
| 39 |
|
|
$3mu$ Loose &43.7 & 84.9 & 12.0 & 0 & 12.0 & 11.0$\pm$5.0 \\\hline
|
| 40 |
|
|
$3mu$ Tight &0.8 & 2.3 & 0.3 & 0 & 0.3 & 0.8$\pm$2.8 \\\hline
|
| 41 |
beaucero |
1.2 |
\end{tabular}
|
| 42 |
|
|
\end{center}
|
| 43 |
ymaravin |
1.9 |
\caption{Comparison between Monte Carlo truth information and the results of the fit for the background
|
| 44 |
|
|
without genuine \Z boson. Number of events are obtained in the invariant mass range between 81 and 101 GeV. The
|
| 45 |
ymaravin |
1.10 |
``Loose'' and ``Tight'' selection criteria applied on the \W lepton. No requirement is applied on the transverse
|
| 46 |
|
|
\W candidate mass.}
|
| 47 |
beaucero |
1.2 |
\label{tab:FitNoMWt}
|
| 48 |
|
|
\end{table}
|
| 49 |
|
|
|
| 50 |
|
|
\begin{table}[h]
|
| 51 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 52 |
|
|
\begin{tabular}{lcccc} \hline \hline
|
| 53 |
|
|
& 3e &2e1$\mu$ &2$\mu$1e &3$\mu$\\ \hline
|
| 54 |
beaucero |
1.12 |
$N$ - ZZ -Z$\gamma$ &71.2$\pm$5.7 &147.2$\pm$1.5 & 87.2$\pm$4.7 & 157.7$\pm$2.0\\ \hline
|
| 55 |
ymaravin |
1.10 |
$N^{non genuine~Z}$ (Fit) &6.6$\pm$4.2 &16.9$\pm$5.5 & 6.9$\pm$ 4.4 & 11.0$\pm$5.0\\ \hline
|
| 56 |
beaucero |
1.12 |
$N^{genuine~Z}$ (matrix method) &52.6 $\pm$14.8 &123.2 $\pm$8.8 & 70.3 $\pm$13.1 & 137.0 $\pm$ 8.9\\ \hline
|
| 57 |
|
|
$N^{\WZ}$ &12.0$\pm$16.4 &7.0 $\pm$10.5 &10.0 $\pm$14.6 & 9.7 $\pm$10.4\\\hline
|
| 58 |
ymaravin |
1.9 |
\WZ from MC &12.0&14.2& 13.6 &17.2\\
|
| 59 |
beaucero |
1.2 |
\hline
|
| 60 |
|
|
\end{tabular}
|
| 61 |
ymaravin |
1.9 |
\caption{Expected number of selected events for an integrated luminosity of 300 \invpb
|
| 62 |
|
|
for the signal and estimated background for 81 GeV $< M_Z < $ 101 GeV and for ``Loose''
|
| 63 |
ymaravin |
1.10 |
\W lepton. No requirement is applied on the transverse \W candidate mass.}
|
| 64 |
ymaravin |
1.9 |
\label{tab:FinalNoMWtCutLoose}
|
| 65 |
beaucero |
1.2 |
\end{center}
|
| 66 |
|
|
\end{table}
|
| 67 |
beaucero |
1.4 |
|
| 68 |
beaucero |
1.6 |
\begin{table}[h]
|
| 69 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 70 |
|
|
\begin{tabular}{lcccc} \hline \hline
|
| 71 |
|
|
& 3e &2e1$\mu$ &2$\mu$1e &3$\mu$\\ \hline
|
| 72 |
beaucero |
1.12 |
$N$ - ZZ -Z$\gamma$ & 31.8 $\pm$5.5 & 16.3$\pm$1.0 & 36.9$\pm$4.5 & 18.5$\pm$1.3\\ \hline
|
| 73 |
ymaravin |
1.10 |
$N^{non genuine~Z}$ (Fit) & 3.8 $\pm$3.5 & 1.5$\pm$3.2 & 4.1$\pm$2.5 & 0.8$\pm$2.8\\ \hline
|
| 74 |
beaucero |
1.12 |
$N^{genuine~Z}$ (matrix method) & 16.8 $\pm$5.7 & 7.4 $\pm$5.9 & 22.5 $\pm$7.1 & 8.2 $\pm$6.6\\ \hline
|
| 75 |
|
|
$N^{\WZ}$ & 11.2 $\pm$8.7 & 7.5 $\pm$6.8 & 10.3 $\pm$8.8 & 9.5 $\pm$7.3\\ \hline
|
| 76 |
|
|
\WZ from MC &11.6&12.3& 13.3 &14.9\\
|
| 77 |
beaucero |
1.6 |
\hline
|
| 78 |
|
|
\end{tabular}
|
| 79 |
ymaravin |
1.10 |
\caption{Expected number of data events for an integrated luminosity of 300 \invpb for the signal and estimated background for 81 GeV $< M_Z < $ 101 GeV and for ``Tight'' \W lepton. No requirement is applied
|
| 80 |
|
|
on the transverse \W candidate mass.}
|
| 81 |
ymaravin |
1.9 |
\label{tab:FinalNoMWtCut}
|
| 82 |
beaucero |
1.6 |
\end{center}
|
| 83 |
|
|
\end{table}
|
| 84 |
|
|
|
| 85 |
ymaravin |
1.9 |
\subsubsection{Performance of the matrix method without background categorization}
|
| 86 |
ymaravin |
1.10 |
|
| 87 |
|
|
The performance of the matrix method depends on the validity of the following three assumptions:
|
| 88 |
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
| 89 |
vuko |
1.11 |
\item the contribution from processes with two or more misidentified jets is negligible,
|
| 90 |
ymaravin |
1.10 |
\item $p_{fake}$ should describe the probability of misidentified jets passing loose criteria to also
|
| 91 |
|
|
pass tight lepton requirements in the background to the signal,
|
| 92 |
|
|
\item the misidentified lepton is associated with the \W candidate decay.
|
| 93 |
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
| 94 |
|
|
|
| 95 |
|
|
The first assumption is true for the \WZ analysis, and the second one is true if we assume
|
| 96 |
vuko |
1.11 |
that the jet composition in the control sample used to establish $p_{fake}$ is the same as that
|
| 97 |
ymaravin |
1.10 |
in the background in the \WZ data sample. This can be achieved by using $\W+X$
|
| 98 |
|
|
processes as a control sample, as described in Section~\ref{sec:WPFake}. The latter assumption
|
| 99 |
|
|
is generally not true for $t\bar{t}$ processes, and therefore, we subtract background
|
| 100 |
|
|
without genuine \Z bosons using the fit results of the \Z candidate invariant mass.
|
| 101 |
|
|
|
| 102 |
vuko |
1.11 |
However, after applying the full selection criteria, the contribution from the backgrounds
|
| 103 |
|
|
without real \Z boson is negligible, and the fit results in an unacceptable large uncertainty
|
| 104 |
ymaravin |
1.10 |
for the 300 \invpb scenario. Thus, it is possible to neglect the combinatorial bias from $t\bar{t}$
|
| 105 |
|
|
processes with small integrated luminosity sample and forgo the fit altogether. In the following
|
| 106 |
|
|
we provide the results of estimation of the background without subtracting the estimated
|
| 107 |
|
|
non-genuine \Z boson background.
|
| 108 |
|
|
|
| 109 |
|
|
The comparisons between predicted and true MC backgrounds are given in Tables~\ref{tab:FinalNoFitLoose}
|
| 110 |
|
|
and \ref{tab:FinalNoFit} for ``Loose'' and ``Tight'' \W lepton, respectively.
|
| 111 |
beaucero |
1.4 |
|
| 112 |
|
|
\begin{table}[h]
|
| 113 |
beaucero |
1.6 |
\begin{center}
|
| 114 |
|
|
\begin{tabular}{lcccc} \hline \hline
|
| 115 |
ymaravin |
1.10 |
& 3e &2e1$\mu$ & 2$\mu$1e &3$\mu$\\ \hline
|
| 116 |
beaucero |
1.12 |
$N$ - ZZ - Z$\gamma$ & 19.6$\pm$1.2 & 23.9$\pm$0.7 & 23.1$\pm$1.1 & 25.9$\pm$0.8\\ \hline
|
| 117 |
|
|
$N^{genuine~Z}$ (matrix method) & 10.0 $\pm$2.5 & 15.8 $\pm$1.2 & 16.0 $\pm$2.4 & 15.8 $\pm$1.4\\ \hline
|
| 118 |
|
|
$N^{WZ}$ & 9.6 $\pm$2.8 & 8.1 $\pm$1.3 & 7.1 $\pm$2.7 & 10.1 $\pm$1.6\\ \hline
|
| 119 |
ymaravin |
1.9 |
\WZ from MC &8.1&9.0& 9.2 &11.3\\
|
| 120 |
beaucero |
1.6 |
\hline
|
| 121 |
|
|
\end{tabular}
|
| 122 |
ymaravin |
1.9 |
\caption{Expected number of events for an integrated luminosity of 300 \invpb for the signal
|
| 123 |
|
|
and estimated background for 81 GeV $< M_Z < $ 101 GeV with ``Loose'' \W lepton criteria.}
|
| 124 |
|
|
\label{tab:FinalNoFitLoose}
|
| 125 |
beaucero |
1.6 |
\end{center}
|
| 126 |
|
|
\end{table}
|
| 127 |
|
|
|
| 128 |
|
|
\begin{table}[h]
|
| 129 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 130 |
|
|
\begin{tabular}{lcccc} \hline \hline
|
| 131 |
|
|
& 3e &2e1$\mu$ &2$\mu$1e &3$\mu$\\ \hline
|
| 132 |
beaucero |
1.12 |
$N$ - ZZ -Z$\gamma$ &12.1$\pm$1.1 &8.9$\pm$0.7 &12.8$\pm$1.0 &10.6$\pm$0.7\\ \hline
|
| 133 |
|
|
$N^{genuine~Z}$ (matrix method) &3.2 $\pm$1.7 &0.9 $\pm$1.0 &5.1 $\pm$2.1 &0.9 $\pm$1.1\\ \hline
|
| 134 |
|
|
$N^{\WZ}$ &8.9 $\pm$2.1 &8.0 $\pm$1.2 &7.7 $\pm$2.3 &9.9$\pm$1.3\\ \hline
|
| 135 |
ymaravin |
1.9 |
\WZ from MC &7.9&8.1& 9.0 &10.1\\ \hline
|
| 136 |
beaucero |
1.4 |
\end{tabular}
|
| 137 |
ymaravin |
1.9 |
\caption{Expected number of events for an integrated luminosity of 300 \invpb for the signal
|
| 138 |
|
|
and estimated background for 81 GeV $< M_Z < $ 101 GeV and ``Tight'' \W lepton requirement.}
|
| 139 |
|
|
\label{tab:FinalNoFit}
|
| 140 |
beaucero |
1.4 |
\end{center}
|
| 141 |
|
|
\end{table}
|
| 142 |
ymaravin |
1.10 |
The agreement between estimated and MC true backgrounds is excellent. Smaller systematic uncertainty
|
| 143 |
|
|
associated with the linear fit also results in a higher discovery potential, as described in the next Section.
|
| 144 |
|
|
|
