| 1 |
|
\subsection{Further cross-checks} |
| 2 |
< |
The test described in the previous Section illustrate the robustness of the |
| 3 |
< |
matrix method to estimate the misidentification background correctly for varied |
| 2 |
> |
The test described in the previous Section illustrates the robustness of the |
| 3 |
> |
matrix method to estimate the background correctly for a different |
| 4 |
|
jet flavor composition in the $\Z+jet$ sample. |
| 5 |
|
|
| 6 |
|
In the following we further scrutinize the details of the background estimation. |
| 7 |
< |
We provide detailed information on the background extraction using the |
| 8 |
< |
default selection criteria, that without the requirement on the \W candidate |
| 9 |
< |
transverse mass, and finally using default selection criteria without subtracting |
| 10 |
< |
backgrounds that have no genuine \Z bosons. |
| 11 |
< |
|
| 12 |
< |
\subsubsection{Details on extracting background with matrix method} |
| 13 |
< |
|
| 14 |
< |
In Fig.~\ref{fig:AllFits} we provide dilepton mass fit information for each channel |
| 15 |
< |
for loose and tight \W lepton requirements using the full statistics of the CSA07 samples. |
| 16 |
< |
The fit is performed using an addition of a convolution of a Gaussian and Breit-Wigner function |
| 17 |
< |
and a line in order to fit the background. It has to be noticed that due to a lack |
| 18 |
< |
of statistics in ``Chowder soup'' sample, all bins with 0 events from the sample |
| 19 |
< |
have been modified in order to avoid to have a null uncertainty. The |
| 20 |
< |
corresponding uncertainty in the bin with no events correspond to the weight |
| 21 |
< |
of each process in the ``Chowder soup''. One can see that the uncertainties are |
| 22 |
< |
large, and the fit is not really constrained. |
| 7 |
> |
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 |
|
|
| 24 |
– |
\begin{figure}[hbt] |
| 25 |
– |
\begin{center} |
| 26 |
– |
\scalebox{0.3}{\includegraphics{figs/Fit3eLoose.eps}\includegraphics{figs/Fit3eTight.eps}}\\ |
| 27 |
– |
\scalebox{0.3}{\includegraphics{figs/Fit2e1muLoose.eps}\includegraphics{figs/Fit2e1muTight.eps}}\\ |
| 28 |
– |
\scalebox{0.3}{\includegraphics{figs/Fit2mu1eLoose.eps}\includegraphics{figs/Fit2mu1eTight.eps}}\\ |
| 29 |
– |
\scalebox{0.3}{\includegraphics{figs/Fit3muLoose.eps}\includegraphics{figs/Fit3muTight.eps}}\\ |
| 30 |
– |
\caption{Invariant mass of \Z boson candidate for $3e$, $2e1\mu$, $2\mu1e$, and $3\mu$ |
| 31 |
– |
signatures (from top to bottom) for the lepton passing loose (left) and tight (right) identification |
| 32 |
– |
criteria.} |
| 33 |
– |
\label{fig:AllFits} |
| 34 |
– |
\end{center} |
| 35 |
– |
\end{figure} |
| 36 |
– |
|
| 37 |
– |
The linear fit takes into account not only the background with non-genuine |
| 38 |
– |
\Z boson but it also accounts for some part of the \Z+jets and |
| 39 |
– |
$Zb\bar{b}$ background as the $\gamma^*$ processes populate the sidebands as well. |
| 40 |
– |
However, the results are still consistent within errors, as it can be seen by comparison |
| 41 |
– |
of the last two columns in Table~\ref{tab:CompFit}. |
| 42 |
– |
\begin{table}[h] |
| 43 |
– |
\begin{center} |
| 44 |
– |
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline |
| 45 |
– |
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Background with genuine \Z} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Background without |
| 46 |
– |
genuine \Z boson} \\ |
| 47 |
– |
Channel & $\Z+jets$ & $\Z b\bar{b}$ & $t\bar{t}$ & $\W+jets$ & Combined & Fit result \\ \hline |
| 48 |
– |
$3e$ Loose &7.1 & 2.9 & 1.1 & 0.4 & 1.5 & 1.5$ \pm $3.0 \\\hline |
| 49 |
– |
$3e$ Tight &2.0 & 1.2 & 0.6 & 0.4 & 1.0 & 1.1$ \pm $2.8 \\\hline |
| 50 |
– |
$2e1\mu$ Loose &4.0 & 4.7 & 6.2 & 0.0 & 6.2 & 6.0$ \pm $4.1 \\\hline |
| 51 |
– |
$2e1\mu$ Tight &0.0 & 0.1 & 0.7 & 0.0 & 0.7 & 1.0$ \pm $2.8 \\\hline |
| 52 |
– |
$2\mu 1e$ Loose &10.1 & 2.9 & 0.8 & 0.0 & 0.8 & 1.6$ \pm $3.1 \\\hline |
| 53 |
– |
$2\mu 1e$ Tight &1.8 & 1.3 & 0.6 & 0.0 & 0.6 & 1.0$ \pm $2.7 \\\hline |
| 54 |
– |
$3\mu$ Loose &4.5 & 4.2 & 5.9 & 0.0 & 5.9 & 3.1$ \pm $3.5 \\\hline |
| 55 |
– |
$3\mu$ Tight &0.1 & 0.3 & 0.3 & 0.0 & 0.3 & 0.5$ \pm $2.5 \\\hline |
| 56 |
– |
\end{tabular} |
| 57 |
– |
\end{center} |
| 58 |
– |
\caption{Comparison between Monte Carlo truth information and the results of the fit for the background without genuine \Z boson. Number of events are obtained in the invariant mass range between 81 and 101 GeV. The ``Loose'' and ``Tight'' selection criteria applied on the \W lepton candidate.} |
| 59 |
– |
\label{tab:CompFit} |
| 60 |
– |
\end{table} |
| 61 |
– |
|
| 62 |
– |
The comparison between estimated background and the MC truth information is provided |
| 63 |
– |
in Table~\ref{tab:FinalXCLoose} for ``Loose'' and \ref{tab:FinalXC} for ``Tight'' lepton candidates. |
| 64 |
– |
Within uncertainties the results agree with each other for every signature and every category of |
| 65 |
– |
\W lepton identification. The agreement between predicted and MC truth background |
| 66 |
– |
as function of the dilepton mass is given in Figs.~\ref{fig:FinalMatrix3e}-\ref{fig:FinalMatrix3mu} |
| 67 |
– |
for all four signal categories respectively. |
| 68 |
– |
|
| 69 |
– |
\begin{table}[h] |
| 70 |
– |
\begin{center} |
| 71 |
– |
\begin{tabular}{lcccc} \hline \hline |
| 72 |
– |
& 3e &2e1$\mu$ &2$\mu$1e &3$\mu$\\ \hline |
| 73 |
– |
$N$ - \ZZ -\Z$\gamma$ &19.9$\pm$1.0&23.6$\pm$0.0&23.4$\pm$1.0&25.5$\pm$0.0\\ \hline |
| 74 |
– |
$N^{non genuine \Z}$ (Fit)&1.5$\pm$3.0&6.0$\pm$4.1&1.6$\pm$3.1&3.1$\pm$3.5\\ \hline |
| 75 |
– |
$N^{genuine \Z}$ (matrix method)&10.1 $\pm$6.8&15.8 $\pm$8.4&14.5 $\pm$6.8&15.8 $\pm$5.7\\ \hline |
| 76 |
– |
$N^{\WZ}$ & 8.8$\pm$7.5&7.8$\pm$11.1&7.9$\pm$7.6&9.8 $\pm$7.4\\ \hline |
| 77 |
– |
\WZ from MC &8.1&9.0& 9.2 &11.3\\ |
| 78 |
– |
\hline |
| 79 |
– |
\end{tabular} |
| 80 |
– |
\caption{Expected number of selected events for an integrated luminosity of 300 |
| 81 |
– |
pb$^{-1}$ for the signal and estimated background with 81 GeV $< M_Z < $ 101 GeV |
| 82 |
– |
with the full selection criteria applied but the requirement on the \W lepton which is |
| 83 |
– |
required to pass only ``Loose'' criteria.} |
| 84 |
– |
\label{tab:FinalXCLoose} |
| 85 |
– |
\end{center} |
| 86 |
– |
\end{table} |
| 87 |
– |
|
| 88 |
– |
\begin{table}[h] |
| 89 |
– |
\begin{center} |
| 90 |
– |
\begin{tabular}{lcccc} \hline \hline |
| 91 |
– |
& 3e &2e1$\mu$ &2$\mu$1e &3$\mu$\\ \hline |
| 92 |
– |
$N$ - ZZ -Zgamma &12.4$\pm$1.0 &8.7$\pm$0.1 &13.1$\pm$0.9&10.6$\pm$0.0\\ \hline |
| 93 |
– |
$N^{non genuine Z}$ (Fit)&1.1$\pm$2.8&1.0$\pm$2.8&1.0$\pm$2.7&0.5$\pm$2.5\\ \hline |
| 94 |
– |
$N^{genuine Z}$ (matrix method)&3.2 $\pm$1.8&0.9 $\pm$1.1&4.6 $\pm$2.1&0.9 $\pm$1.1\\ \hline |
| 95 |
– |
$N^{WZ}$ & 8.2$\pm$3.5&7.7 $\pm$3.2 &7.6$\pm$3.5&9.6 $\pm$2.8\\ \hline |
| 96 |
– |
\WZ from MC &7.9&8.1& 9.0 &10.1\\ \hline |
| 97 |
– |
\end{tabular} |
| 98 |
– |
\caption{Expected number of selected events for an integrated luminosity of 300 |
| 99 |
– |
pb$^{-1}$ for the signal and estimated background with 81 GeV $< M_Z < $ 101 GeV for |
| 100 |
– |
the full selection criteria applied.} |
| 101 |
– |
\label{tab:FinalXC} |
| 102 |
– |
\end{center} |
| 103 |
– |
\end{table} |
| 104 |
– |
|
| 105 |
– |
\begin{figure}[hbt] |
| 106 |
– |
\begin{center} |
| 107 |
– |
\scalebox{0.62}{\includegraphics{figs/MatrixMethod3eLooseTightZmassMWtCut.eps}} |
| 108 |
– |
\caption{Comparison between background predicted with matrix method and MC truth information for the |
| 109 |
– |
$3e$ channel as a function of the \Z boson candidate invariant mass for loose (a, c) and tight (b, d) requirements |
| 110 |
– |
on the \W lepton for background (a, b) and signal (c, d).} |
| 111 |
– |
\label{fig:FinalMatrix3e} |
| 112 |
– |
\end{center} |
| 113 |
– |
\end{figure} |
| 114 |
– |
|
| 115 |
– |
\begin{figure}[hbt] |
| 116 |
– |
\begin{center} |
| 117 |
– |
\scalebox{0.62}{\includegraphics{figs/MatrixMethod2e1muLooseTightZmassMWtCut.eps}} |
| 118 |
– |
\caption{ |
| 119 |
– |
Comparison between background predicted with matrix method and MC truth information for the |
| 120 |
– |
$2e1\mu$ channel as a function of the \Z boson candidate invariant mass for loose (a, c) and tight (b, d) requirements |
| 121 |
– |
on the \W lepton for background (a, b) and signal (c, d).} |
| 122 |
– |
\label{fig:FinalMatrix2e1mu} |
| 123 |
– |
\end{center} |
| 124 |
– |
\end{figure} |
| 125 |
– |
|
| 126 |
– |
\begin{figure}[hbt] |
| 127 |
– |
\begin{center} |
| 128 |
– |
\scalebox{0.62}{\includegraphics{figs/MatrixMethod2mu1eLooseTightZmassMWtCut.eps}} |
| 129 |
– |
\caption{Comparison between background predicted with matrix method and MC truth information for the |
| 130 |
– |
$2\mu 1e$ channel as a function of the \Z boson candidate invariant mass for loose (a, c) and tight (b, d) requirements |
| 131 |
– |
on the \W lepton for background (a, b) and signal (c, d).} |
| 132 |
– |
\label{fig:FinalMatrix2mu1e} |
| 133 |
– |
\end{center} |
| 134 |
– |
\end{figure} |
| 135 |
– |
|
| 136 |
– |
\begin{figure}[hbt] |
| 137 |
– |
\begin{center} |
| 138 |
– |
\scalebox{0.62}{\includegraphics{figs/MatrixMethod3muLooseTightZmassMWtCut.eps}} |
| 139 |
– |
\caption{Comparison between background predicted with matrix method and MC truth information for the |
| 140 |
– |
$3\mu$ channel as a function of the \Z boson candidate invariant mass for loose (a, c) and tight (b, d) requirements |
| 141 |
– |
on the \W lepton for background (a, b) and signal (c, d).} |
| 142 |
– |
\label{fig:FinalMatrix3mu} |
| 143 |
– |
\end{center} |
| 144 |
– |
\end{figure} |
| 145 |
– |
|
| 146 |
– |
|
| 147 |
– |
\clearpage |
| 12 |
|
\subsubsection{Background estimation without the \W boson transverse mass requirement} |
| 13 |
+ |
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 |
+ |
\WZ signal selection criteria. We show that the matrix method works well with a very |
| 16 |
+ |
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 |
+ |
We repeat the procedure described in Section~\ref{sec:moreDetailsBackground} for |
| 21 |
+ |
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 |
|
|
| 150 |
– |
We also estimate background to the \WZ signal for the selection criteria without |
| 151 |
– |
the requirement on the transverse \W boson candidate mass. The results of |
| 152 |
– |
extraction of the background sources without real \Z boson are given in Table~\ref{tab:FitNoMWt}. |
| 27 |
|
\begin{table}[h] |
| 28 |
|
\begin{center} |
| 29 |
|
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline |
| 42 |
|
\end{center} |
| 43 |
|
\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 |
< |
``Loose'' and ``Tight'' selection criteria applied on the \W lepton.} |
| 45 |
> |
``Loose'' and ``Tight'' selection criteria applied on the \W lepton. No requirement is applied on the transverse |
| 46 |
> |
\W candidate mass.} |
| 47 |
|
\label{tab:FitNoMWt} |
| 48 |
|
\end{table} |
| 49 |
|
|
| 175 |
– |
The comparison between the estimated and MC truth backgrounds is given |
| 176 |
– |
in Tables~\ref{tab:FinalNoMWtCutLoose} and {tab:FinalNoMWtCut} for ``Loose'' |
| 177 |
– |
and ``Tight'' requirements on the \W lepton. The results agree with each other |
| 178 |
– |
within one sigma of uncertainty. |
| 179 |
– |
|
| 50 |
|
\begin{table}[h] |
| 51 |
|
\begin{center} |
| 52 |
|
\begin{tabular}{lcccc} \hline \hline |
| 53 |
|
& 3e &2e1$\mu$ &2$\mu$1e &3$\mu$\\ \hline |
| 54 |
< |
$N$ - \ZZ -\Z$\gamma$ &75.3$\pm$7.3&146.6$\pm$0.0&90.4$\pm$5.9&156.9$\pm$0.0\\ \hline |
| 55 |
< |
$N^{non genuine \Z}$ (Fit)&6.6$\pm$4.2&16.9$\pm$5.5&6.9$\pm$4.4&11.0$\pm$5.0\\ \hline |
| 56 |
< |
$N^{genuine \Z}$ (matrix method)&58.5 $\pm$14.4&139.2 $\pm$20.3&73.2 $\pm$14.9& 147.7 $\pm$14.7\\ \hline |
| 57 |
< |
$N^{\WZ}$ &9.5$\pm$16.4&7.4 $\pm$27.0&11.3 $\pm$17.0& 9.2 $\pm$19.0\\\hline |
| 54 |
> |
$N$ - ZZ -Z$\gamma$ &75.3$\pm$7.3 &146.6$\pm$0.1 & 90.4$\pm$5.9 & 156.9$\pm$0.1\\ \hline |
| 55 |
> |
$N^{non genuine~Z}$ (Fit) &6.6$\pm$4.2 &16.9$\pm$5.5 & 6.9$\pm$ 4.4 & 11.0$\pm$5.0\\ \hline |
| 56 |
> |
$N^{genuine~Z}$ (matrix method)&52.5 $\pm$17.6 &122.2 $\pm$8.6 & 68.7 $\pm$15.1 & 136.0 $\pm$ 8.5\\ \hline |
| 57 |
> |
$N^{\WZ}$ &16.3$\pm$19.5 &7.5 $\pm$10.2 &14.8 $\pm$16.8 & 10.0 $\pm$9.8\\\hline |
| 58 |
|
\WZ from MC &12.0&14.2& 13.6 &17.2\\ |
| 59 |
|
\hline |
| 60 |
|
\end{tabular} |
| 61 |
|
\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 |
< |
\W lepton.} |
| 63 |
> |
\W lepton. No requirement is applied on the transverse \W candidate mass.} |
| 64 |
|
\label{tab:FinalNoMWtCutLoose} |
| 65 |
|
\end{center} |
| 66 |
|
\end{table} |
| 69 |
|
\begin{center} |
| 70 |
|
\begin{tabular}{lcccc} \hline \hline |
| 71 |
|
& 3e &2e1$\mu$ &2$\mu$1e &3$\mu$\\ \hline |
| 72 |
< |
$N$ - \ZZ -\Z$\gamma$ &36.0$\pm$7.1&15.9$\pm$0.0&40.2$\pm$5.7&18.0$\pm$0.0\\ \hline |
| 73 |
< |
$N^{non genuine \Z}$ (Fit)&3.8$\pm$3.5&1.5$\pm$3.2&4.1$\pm$2.5&0.8$\pm$2.8\\ \hline |
| 74 |
< |
$N^{genuine \Z}$ (matrix method)&18.7 $\pm$6.1&8.4 $\pm$6.6&23.4 $\pm$7.5& 8.9 $\pm$7.1\\ \hline |
| 75 |
< |
$N^{\WZ}$ &10.1 $\pm$8.0&7.6 $\pm$7.5&11.0 $\pm$8.9& 9.1 $\pm$7.6\\ \hline |
| 72 |
> |
$N$ - ZZ -Z$\gamma$ & 36.0 $\pm$7.1 & 15.2$\pm$0.1 & 40.2$\pm$5.7 & 18.0$\pm$0.1\\ \hline |
| 73 |
> |
$N^{non genuine~Z}$ (Fit) & 3.8 $\pm$3.5 & 1.5$\pm$3.2 & 4.1$\pm$2.5 & 0.8$\pm$2.8\\ \hline |
| 74 |
> |
$N^{genuine~Z}$ (matrix method) & 16.8 $\pm$6.1 & 7.3 $\pm$5.8 & 22.0 $\pm$7.4 & 8.2 $\pm$6.6\\ \hline |
| 75 |
> |
$N^{\WZ}$ & 15.4 $\pm$10.0 & 7.1 $\pm$6.6 & 14.1 $\pm$9.7 & 9.1 $\pm$7.1\\ \hline |
| 76 |
|
\WZ from MC &11.6&12.3& 13.3 &14.9\\ |
| 77 |
|
\hline |
| 78 |
|
\end{tabular} |
| 79 |
< |
\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.} |
| 79 |
> |
\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 |
|
\label{tab:FinalNoMWtCut} |
| 82 |
|
\end{center} |
| 83 |
|
\end{table} |
| 84 |
|
|
| 85 |
|
\subsubsection{Performance of the matrix method without background categorization} |
| 86 |
< |
The performance of the matrix method depends on the validity of the following two assumptions: |
| 87 |
< |
the $p_{fake}$ should describe the probability of misidentified jets passing loose criteria to also |
| 88 |
< |
pass tight lepton requirements, and there must be only one misidentified lepton. If the former |
| 89 |
< |
challenge can be tackled by estimating $p_{fake}$ in the sample with the jet composition similar |
| 90 |
< |
to that of the major \WZ background (\W+jets in this case), then the latter can be safely assumed |
| 91 |
< |
if the sources of backgrounds with multiple leptons are suppressed. The latter can be checked |
| 92 |
< |
with data by measuring comparing \W+jets cross-section measured in data with MC truth information |
| 93 |
< |
and estimating the \W+jets background to the \WZ signal. As total $\W+jets$ background to |
| 94 |
< |
\WZ signal is very small, we can neglect background contribution with multiple misidentified leptons |
| 95 |
< |
to the signal. |
| 96 |
< |
|
| 97 |
< |
Therefore, with small data sample, it might be a good approximation not to divide instrumental |
| 98 |
< |
background into genuine \Z boson and fake \Z boson categories, but apply the matrix method |
| 99 |
< |
directly to the dilepton |
| 100 |
< |
invariant mass after the physics backgrounds are subtracted. This results in smaller |
| 101 |
< |
systematic uncertainties associated with the fit. We follow this procedure and provide the |
| 102 |
< |
comparisons between predicted and true MC backgrounds |
| 103 |
< |
in Tables~\ref{tab:FinalNoFitLoose} and \ref{tab:FinalNoFit} for ``Loose'' and ``Tight'' |
| 104 |
< |
\W lepton, respectively. |
| 86 |
> |
|
| 87 |
> |
The performance of the matrix method depends on the validity of the following three assumptions: |
| 88 |
> |
\begin{itemize} |
| 89 |
> |
\item the contribution from processes with two or more misidentified jets is negligible, |
| 90 |
> |
\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 |
> |
that the jet composition in the control sample used to establish $p_{fake}$ is the same as that |
| 97 |
> |
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 |
> |
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 |
> |
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 |
|
|
| 112 |
|
\begin{table}[h] |
| 113 |
|
\begin{center} |
| 114 |
|
\begin{tabular}{lcccc} \hline \hline |
| 115 |
< |
& 3e &2e1$\mu$ &2$\mu$1e &3$\mu$\\ \hline |
| 116 |
< |
$N$ - \ZZ -\Z$\gamma$ &19.9$\pm$1.0&23.6$\pm$0.0&23.4$\pm$1.0&25.5$\pm$0.0\\ \hline |
| 117 |
< |
$N^{genuine \Z}$ (matrix method)&10.1 $\pm$0.6&0.9 $\pm$1.0&14.5 $\pm$0.9&15.8 $\pm$0.7\\ \hline |
| 118 |
< |
$N^{\WZ}$ &8.8 $\pm$0.6&7.7 $\pm$1.0&7.9 $\pm$0.9&9.8 $\pm$0.7\\ \hline |
| 115 |
> |
& 3e &2e1$\mu$ & 2$\mu$1e &3$\mu$\\ \hline |
| 116 |
> |
$N$ - ZZ - Z$\gamma$ & 19.9$\pm$1.0 & 23.6$\pm$0.1 & 23.4$\pm$1.0 & 25.5$\pm$0.0\\ \hline |
| 117 |
> |
$N^{genuine~Z}$ (matrix method) & 10.0 $\pm$2.2 & 15.8 $\pm$0.7 & 14.5 $\pm$2.2 & 15.8 $\pm$0.7\\ \hline |
| 118 |
> |
$N^{WZ}$ & 9.9 $\pm$2.4 & 7.8 $\pm$0.7 & 8.9 $\pm$2.4 & 9.8 $\pm$0.7\\ \hline |
| 119 |
|
\WZ from MC &8.1&9.0& 9.2 &11.3\\ |
| 120 |
|
\hline |
| 121 |
|
\end{tabular} |
| 129 |
|
\begin{center} |
| 130 |
|
\begin{tabular}{lcccc} \hline \hline |
| 131 |
|
& 3e &2e1$\mu$ &2$\mu$1e &3$\mu$\\ \hline |
| 132 |
< |
$N$ - \ZZ -\Z$\gamma$ &12.4$\pm$1.0 &8.7$\pm$0&13.1$\pm$0.9&10.6$\pm$0.0\\ \hline |
| 133 |
< |
$N^{genuine \Z}$ (matrix method)&3.2 $\pm$1.6&15.8 $\pm$0.7&4.6 $\pm$1.9&0.9 $\pm$1.1\\ \hline |
| 134 |
< |
$N^{\WZ}$ &8.2 $\pm$1.6&7.8 $\pm$0.7&7.6 $\pm$1.9&9.6$\pm$1.1\\ \hline |
| 132 |
> |
$N$ - ZZ -Z$\gamma$ &12.4$\pm$1.0 &8.7$\pm$0.1 &13.1$\pm$0.9 &10.6$\pm$0.0\\ \hline |
| 133 |
> |
$N^{genuine~Z}$ (matrix method) &3.2 $\pm$1.7 &0.9 $\pm$1.0 &4.6 $\pm$2.1 &0.9 $\pm$1.1\\ \hline |
| 134 |
> |
$N^{\WZ}$ &9.2 $\pm$2.0 &7.7 $\pm$1.0 &8.5 $\pm$2.3 &9.6$\pm$1.1\\ \hline |
| 135 |
|
\WZ from MC &7.9&8.1& 9.0 &10.1\\ \hline |
| 136 |
|
\end{tabular} |
| 137 |
|
\caption{Expected number of events for an integrated luminosity of 300 \invpb for the signal |
| 139 |
|
\label{tab:FinalNoFit} |
| 140 |
|
\end{center} |
| 141 |
|
\end{table} |
| 142 |
< |
The agreement between estimated and MC true backgrounds is excellent. |
| 142 |
> |
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 |
> |
|
