| 1 |
ymaravin |
1.1 |
\section{Estimation of the background contributions}
|
| 2 |
|
|
\label{sec:moreDetailsBackground}
|
| 3 |
ymaravin |
1.3 |
In this section we provide information on an alternative method to estimate
|
| 4 |
|
|
the background contribution to the \WZ signal where we estimate the instrumental
|
| 5 |
|
|
background with no genuine \Z boson from the \Z candidate invariant mass
|
| 6 |
|
|
side-band subtraction. The fit of the invariant mass distribution to the
|
| 7 |
|
|
Gaussian and linear functions for ``loose'' and ``tight'' \W leptons is given
|
| 8 |
|
|
in Fig.~\ref{fig:AllFits} using the full statistics of the CSA07 samples.
|
| 9 |
ymaravin |
1.1 |
The fit is performed using an addition of a convolution of a Gaussian and Breit-Wigner function
|
| 10 |
|
|
and a line in order to fit the background. It has to be noticed that due to a lack
|
| 11 |
|
|
of statistics in ``Chowder soup'' sample, all bins with 0 events from the sample
|
| 12 |
|
|
have been modified in order to avoid to have a null uncertainty. The
|
| 13 |
|
|
corresponding uncertainty in the bin with no events correspond to the weight
|
| 14 |
|
|
of each process in the ``Chowder soup''. One can see that the uncertainties are
|
| 15 |
|
|
large, and the fit is not really constrained.
|
| 16 |
|
|
|
| 17 |
|
|
\begin{figure}[hbt]
|
| 18 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 19 |
|
|
\scalebox{0.3}{\includegraphics{figs/Fit3eLoose.eps}\includegraphics{figs/Fit3eTight.eps}}\\
|
| 20 |
|
|
\scalebox{0.3}{\includegraphics{figs/Fit2e1muLoose.eps}\includegraphics{figs/Fit2e1muTight.eps}}\\
|
| 21 |
|
|
\scalebox{0.3}{\includegraphics{figs/Fit2mu1eLoose.eps}\includegraphics{figs/Fit2mu1eTight.eps}}\\
|
| 22 |
|
|
\scalebox{0.3}{\includegraphics{figs/Fit3muLoose.eps}\includegraphics{figs/Fit3muTight.eps}}\\
|
| 23 |
|
|
\caption{Invariant mass of \Z boson candidate for $3e$, $2e1\mu$, $2\mu1e$, and $3\mu$
|
| 24 |
|
|
signatures (from top to bottom) for the lepton passing loose (left) and tight (right) identification
|
| 25 |
|
|
criteria.}
|
| 26 |
|
|
\label{fig:AllFits}
|
| 27 |
|
|
\end{center}
|
| 28 |
|
|
\end{figure}
|
| 29 |
|
|
|
| 30 |
|
|
The linear fit takes into account not only the background with non-genuine
|
| 31 |
|
|
\Z boson but it also accounts for some part of the \Z+jets and
|
| 32 |
|
|
$Zb\bar{b}$ background as the $\gamma^*$ processes populate the sidebands as well.
|
| 33 |
|
|
However, the results are still consistent within errors, as it can be seen by comparison
|
| 34 |
|
|
of the last two columns in Table~\ref{tab:CompFit}.
|
| 35 |
|
|
\begin{table}[h]
|
| 36 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 37 |
|
|
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
|
| 38 |
|
|
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Background with genuine \Z} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Background without
|
| 39 |
|
|
genuine \Z boson} \\
|
| 40 |
|
|
Channel & $\Z+jets$ & $\Z b\bar{b}$ & $t\bar{t}$ & $\W+jets$ & Combined & Fit result \\ \hline
|
| 41 |
|
|
$3e$ Loose &7.1 & 2.9 & 1.1 & 0.4 & 1.5 & 1.5$ \pm $3.0 \\\hline
|
| 42 |
|
|
$3e$ Tight &2.0 & 1.2 & 0.6 & 0.4 & 1.0 & 1.1$ \pm $2.8 \\\hline
|
| 43 |
|
|
$2e1\mu$ Loose &4.0 & 4.7 & 6.2 & 0.0 & 6.2 & 6.0$ \pm $4.1 \\\hline
|
| 44 |
|
|
$2e1\mu$ Tight &0.0 & 0.1 & 0.7 & 0.0 & 0.7 & 1.0$ \pm $2.8 \\\hline
|
| 45 |
|
|
$2\mu 1e$ Loose &10.1 & 2.9 & 0.8 & 0.0 & 0.8 & 1.6$ \pm $3.1 \\\hline
|
| 46 |
|
|
$2\mu 1e$ Tight &1.8 & 1.3 & 0.6 & 0.0 & 0.6 & 1.0$ \pm $2.7 \\\hline
|
| 47 |
|
|
$3\mu$ Loose &4.5 & 4.2 & 5.9 & 0.0 & 5.9 & 3.1$ \pm $3.5 \\\hline
|
| 48 |
|
|
$3\mu$ Tight &0.1 & 0.3 & 0.3 & 0.0 & 0.3 & 0.5$ \pm $2.5 \\\hline
|
| 49 |
|
|
\end{tabular}
|
| 50 |
|
|
\end{center}
|
| 51 |
ymaravin |
1.3 |
\caption{Comparison between Monte Carlo truth information and the results
|
| 52 |
|
|
of the fit for the background without genuine \Z boson. Number of events are
|
| 53 |
|
|
obtained in the invariant mass range between 81 and 101 GeV. The ``loose'' and ``tight''
|
| 54 |
|
|
selection criteria applied on the \W lepton candidate.}
|
| 55 |
ymaravin |
1.1 |
\label{tab:CompFit}
|
| 56 |
|
|
\end{table}
|
| 57 |
|
|
|
| 58 |
|
|
The comparison between estimated background and the MC truth information is provided
|
| 59 |
ymaravin |
1.3 |
in Table~\ref{tab:FinalXCLoose} for ``loose'' and \ref{tab:FinalXC} for ``tight'' lepton candidates.
|
| 60 |
ymaravin |
1.1 |
Within uncertainties the results agree with each other for every signature and every category of
|
| 61 |
|
|
\W lepton identification. The agreement between predicted and MC truth background
|
| 62 |
|
|
as function of the dilepton mass is given in Figs.~\ref{fig:FinalMatrix3e}-\ref{fig:FinalMatrix3mu}
|
| 63 |
|
|
for all four signal categories respectively.
|
| 64 |
|
|
|
| 65 |
|
|
\begin{table}[hbt]
|
| 66 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 67 |
|
|
\begin{tabular}{lcccc} \hline \hline
|
| 68 |
|
|
& 3e &2e1$\mu$ &2$\mu$1e &3$\mu$\\ \hline
|
| 69 |
beaucero |
1.2 |
$N$ - ZZ -Z$\gamma$ &19.6$\pm$1.2&23.9$\pm$0.7&23.1$\pm$1.1&25.9$\pm$0.8\\ \hline
|
| 70 |
|
|
$N^{non genuine~Z}$ (Fit) & 1.5$\pm$3.0& 6.0$\pm$4.1& 1.6$\pm$3.1& 3.1$\pm$3.5\\ \hline
|
| 71 |
|
|
$N^{genuine~Z}$ (matrix method)&11.6$\pm$6.6&10.5$\pm$5.4&14.5$\pm$6.6&12.6$\pm$4.7\\ \hline
|
| 72 |
|
|
$N^{\WZ}$ & 6.6$\pm$7.4& 7.3$\pm$6.8& 7.0$\pm$7.4&10.2$\pm$6.0\\ \hline
|
| 73 |
|
|
\WZ from MC & 8.1 & 9.0 & 9.2 &11.3\\
|
| 74 |
ymaravin |
1.1 |
\hline
|
| 75 |
|
|
\end{tabular}
|
| 76 |
|
|
\caption{Expected number of selected events for an integrated luminosity of 300
|
| 77 |
|
|
pb$^{-1}$ for the signal and estimated background with 81 GeV $< M_Z < $ 101 GeV
|
| 78 |
|
|
with the full selection criteria applied but the requirement on the \W lepton which is
|
| 79 |
ymaravin |
1.3 |
required to pass only ``loose'' criteria.}
|
| 80 |
ymaravin |
1.1 |
\label{tab:FinalXCLoose}
|
| 81 |
|
|
\end{center}
|
| 82 |
|
|
\end{table}
|
| 83 |
|
|
|
| 84 |
|
|
\begin{table}[hbt]
|
| 85 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 86 |
|
|
\begin{tabular}{lcccc} \hline \hline
|
| 87 |
|
|
& 3e &2e1$\mu$ &2$\mu$1e &3$\mu$\\ \hline
|
| 88 |
beaucero |
1.2 |
$N$ - ZZ -Zgamma &12.1$\pm$1.1 &8.9$\pm$0.6 &12.8$\pm$1.0 &10.8$\pm$0.7\\ \hline
|
| 89 |
|
|
$N^{non genuine Z}$ (Fit) & 1.1$\pm$2.8 &1.0$\pm$2.8 & 1.0$\pm$2.7 & 0.5$\pm$2.5\\ \hline
|
| 90 |
|
|
$N^{genuine Z}$ (matrix method)& 3.7$\pm$1.8 &0.6$\pm$0.8 & 4.6$\pm$2.0 & 0.8$\pm$1.0\\ \hline
|
| 91 |
|
|
$N^{WZ}$ & 7.3$\pm$3.5 &7.3$\pm$3.0 & 7.1$\pm$3.5 & 9.6$\pm$2.7\\ \hline
|
| 92 |
|
|
\WZ from MC & 7.9 &8.1 & 9.0 & 10.1\\ \hline
|
| 93 |
ymaravin |
1.1 |
\end{tabular}
|
| 94 |
|
|
\caption{Expected number of selected events for an integrated luminosity of 300
|
| 95 |
|
|
pb$^{-1}$ for the signal and estimated background with 81 GeV $< M_Z < $ 101 GeV for
|
| 96 |
|
|
the full selection criteria applied.}
|
| 97 |
|
|
\label{tab:FinalXC}
|
| 98 |
|
|
\end{center}
|
| 99 |
|
|
\end{table}
|
| 100 |
|
|
|
| 101 |
|
|
\begin{figure}[hbt]
|
| 102 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 103 |
|
|
\scalebox{0.62}{\includegraphics{figs/MatrixMethod3eLooseTightZmassMWtCut.eps}}
|
| 104 |
|
|
\caption{Comparison between background predicted with matrix method and MC truth information for the
|
| 105 |
|
|
$3e$ channel as a function of the \Z boson candidate invariant mass for loose (a, c) and tight (b, d) requirements
|
| 106 |
|
|
on the \W lepton for background (a, b) and signal (c, d).}
|
| 107 |
|
|
\label{fig:FinalMatrix3e}
|
| 108 |
|
|
\end{center}
|
| 109 |
|
|
\end{figure}
|
| 110 |
|
|
|
| 111 |
|
|
\begin{figure}[hbt]
|
| 112 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 113 |
|
|
\scalebox{0.62}{\includegraphics{figs/MatrixMethod2e1muLooseTightZmassMWtCut.eps}}
|
| 114 |
|
|
\caption{
|
| 115 |
|
|
Comparison between background predicted with matrix method and MC truth information for the
|
| 116 |
|
|
$2e1\mu$ channel as a function of the \Z boson candidate invariant mass for loose (a, c) and tight (b, d) requirements
|
| 117 |
|
|
on the \W lepton for background (a, b) and signal (c, d).}
|
| 118 |
|
|
\label{fig:FinalMatrix2e1mu}
|
| 119 |
|
|
\end{center}
|
| 120 |
|
|
\end{figure}
|
| 121 |
|
|
|
| 122 |
|
|
\begin{figure}[hbt]
|
| 123 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 124 |
|
|
\scalebox{0.62}{\includegraphics{figs/MatrixMethod2mu1eLooseTightZmassMWtCut.eps}}
|
| 125 |
|
|
\caption{Comparison between background predicted with matrix method and MC truth information for the
|
| 126 |
|
|
$2\mu 1e$ channel as a function of the \Z boson candidate invariant mass for loose (a, c) and tight (b, d) requirements
|
| 127 |
|
|
on the \W lepton for background (a, b) and signal (c, d).}
|
| 128 |
|
|
\label{fig:FinalMatrix2mu1e}
|
| 129 |
|
|
\end{center}
|
| 130 |
|
|
\end{figure}
|
| 131 |
|
|
|
| 132 |
|
|
\begin{figure}[hbt]
|
| 133 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 134 |
|
|
\scalebox{0.62}{\includegraphics{figs/MatrixMethod3muLooseTightZmassMWtCut.eps}}
|
| 135 |
|
|
\caption{Comparison between background predicted with matrix method and MC truth information for the
|
| 136 |
|
|
$3\mu$ channel as a function of the \Z boson candidate invariant mass for loose (a, c) and tight (b, d) requirements
|
| 137 |
|
|
on the \W lepton for background (a, b) and signal (c, d).}
|
| 138 |
|
|
\label{fig:FinalMatrix3mu}
|
| 139 |
|
|
\end{center}
|
| 140 |
|
|
\end{figure}
|
