| 42 |
|
|
| 43 |
|
\item \textbf{Can you confirm that gamma* is included in Zbb and ZZ Monte Carlo and that cross section are correctly calculated?}\\ |
| 44 |
|
For $ZZ$, the production as been done with a m(gamma*) $>$ 12 GeV and for |
| 45 |
< |
$Zbbar{b}$ m(gamma*)$>$40 GeV. Please see the webpage: |
| 45 |
> |
$Zb\bar{b}$ m(gamma*)$>$40 GeV. Please see the webpage: |
| 46 |
|
$http://cmsdoc.cern.ch/\sim anikiten/cms\-higgs/sm\_cross\-sections.txt$ for |
| 47 |
|
$ZZ$ and the CMSNote AN 2008/020 for $Zb\bar{b}$ background. |
| 48 |
|
|
| 49 |
|
\item \textbf{Can you confirm that gamma* is included in $Z+jets$ samples?}\\ |
| 50 |
< |
Yes the production has been done within: 40 GeV<M(z/gamma*)<200GeV |
| 50 |
> |
Yes the production has been done within: 40 GeV$<$M(z/gamma*)$<$200GeV |
| 51 |
|
please see the note:IN 2007/031. |
| 52 |
|
|
| 53 |
< |
\item \textbf{Can you improve signal over background by adding a cut on MET?} |
| 53 |
> |
\item \textbf{Can you improve signal over background by adding a cut on MET?}\\ |
| 54 |
|
We have studied the possibility but we obtain a better significance by |
| 55 |
|
applying a cut on transverse mass of W candidate ($>$50 GeV). In the |
| 56 |
|
analysis we are now considering such cuts. The studies of the |
| 57 |
< |
different angle proposed have been also performed but the transverse |
| 58 |
< |
mass remain the best variable. DO YOU HAVE PLOTS? |
| 57 |
> |
different angle proposed have been also performed, see figures~\ref{fig:dphiWlMET_noWTM}, |
| 58 |
> |
\ref{fig:metcos}, \ref{fig:metsin} and \ref{fig:sig_metcos}, but the transverse |
| 59 |
> |
mass remain the best variable. |
| 60 |
|
|
| 61 |
< |
\item \textbf{Produce Event yield table and mass plot with MET$>$20} |
| 61 |
> |
|
| 62 |
> |
\begin{figure}[p] |
| 63 |
> |
\begin{center} |
| 64 |
> |
\scalebox{0.55}{\includegraphics{backupfigs/dphiWlMET_noWTM.eps}} |
| 65 |
> |
\caption{ |
| 66 |
> |
Azimuthal angle between the MET and the lepton associated to the W-decay. |
| 67 |
> |
All selection cuts are applied, except the cut on $M_T^W$. |
| 68 |
> |
} |
| 69 |
> |
\label{fig:dphiWlMET_noWTM} |
| 70 |
> |
\scalebox{0.55}{\includegraphics{backupfigs/dphiWlMET.eps}} |
| 71 |
> |
\caption{ |
| 72 |
> |
Azimuthal angle between the MET and the lepton associated to the W-decay. |
| 73 |
> |
All selection cuts are applied, including the cut on $M_T^W$. |
| 74 |
> |
} |
| 75 |
> |
\label{fig:dphiWlMET} |
| 76 |
> |
\end{center} |
| 77 |
> |
\end{figure} |
| 78 |
> |
|
| 79 |
> |
|
| 80 |
> |
\begin{figure}[!bp] |
| 81 |
> |
\begin{center} |
| 82 |
> |
\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics{backupfigs/metcos.eps}} |
| 83 |
> |
\caption{ |
| 84 |
> |
Longitudinal component of the MET vector with respect to the direction of the |
| 85 |
> |
lepton associated to the W-decay. |
| 86 |
> |
} |
| 87 |
> |
\label{fig:metcos} |
| 88 |
> |
\end{center} |
| 89 |
> |
\end{figure} |
| 90 |
> |
|
| 91 |
> |
|
| 92 |
> |
\begin{figure}[p] |
| 93 |
> |
\begin{center} |
| 94 |
> |
\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics{backupfigs/metsin.eps}} |
| 95 |
> |
\caption{ |
| 96 |
> |
Transverse component of the MET vector with respect to the direction of the |
| 97 |
> |
lepton associated to the W-decay. |
| 98 |
> |
} |
| 99 |
> |
\label{fig:metsin} |
| 100 |
> |
|
| 101 |
> |
\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics{backupfigs/sig_metsin.eps}} |
| 102 |
> |
\caption{ |
| 103 |
> |
Signal significance as a function of a cut on the transverse component of the MET |
| 104 |
> |
vector with respect to the direction of the lepton associated to the W-decay. |
| 105 |
> |
} |
| 106 |
> |
\label{fig:sig_metsin} |
| 107 |
> |
\end{center} |
| 108 |
> |
\end{figure} |
| 109 |
> |
|
| 110 |
> |
|
| 111 |
> |
|
| 112 |
> |
\item \textbf{Produce Event yield table and mass plot with MET$>$20}\\ |
| 113 |
|
We have updated the note but with a transverse mass cut at 50 GeV. |
| 114 |
|
|
| 115 |
|
\item \textbf{Redo all plots with 300pb$^{-1}$, produce event yields table with errors}\\ |
| 130 |
|
|
| 131 |
|
|
| 132 |
|
\item \textbf{Please developp the way systematics will be evaluated}\\ |
| 133 |
< |
We have added:\\ |
| 133 |
> |
We have added: (Bibliography is done in the note)\\ |
| 134 |
|
\begin{itemize} |
| 135 |
|
\item {\it Trigger}: [...] From the current analysis of |
| 136 |
< |
$Z\rightarrow l^+l^-$ in CMS~\ref{Zmumu}~\ref{Zee}, the number of Z |
| 136 |
> |
$Z\rightarrow l^+l^-$ in CMS~\cite{Zmumu}~\cite{Zee}, the number of Z |
| 137 |
|
events is estimated of the order of 50k per 100pb$^{-1}$ of data |
| 138 |
|
analysed. To determine the trigger efficiency ``tag-and-probe'' |
| 139 |
< |
method~\ref{TP} will be used. |
| 139 |
> |
method~\cite{TP} will be used. |
| 140 |
|
\item {\it Reconstruction}: The |
| 141 |
|
mismeasurement of the charge is of the order of 2\% in CMSSW\_1\_6\_7 |
| 142 |
|
release for electron. The estimation of the fraction with data will be |
| 144 |
|
requirement. Then number of events within the Z mass windows asking |
| 145 |
|
for two leptons of same sign will give us a estimate of the fraction |
| 146 |
|
of mismeasure sign leptons. |
| 147 |
< |
\item {\it Lepton identification}:The letpons |
| 147 |
> |
\item {\it Lepton identification}:The leptons |
| 148 |
|
scale will be established using the Z mass peak. |
| 149 |
|
\item {\it PDF uncertainties}: see response about PDF's above |
| 150 |
|
\end{itemize} |
