| 1 |
\documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{report}
|
| 2 |
\usepackage{graphicx}
|
| 3 |
\usepackage{textcomp}
|
| 4 |
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb}
|
| 5 |
\usepackage{color,multirow,rotating}
|
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
\begin{document}
|
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
\begin{itemize}
|
| 10 |
\item \textbf{Do you understand the factor 2 increase in background Z+jets in 2e1mu channel compare to 3mu channel?}\\
|
| 11 |
We are trying to fully understand the behaviour (trying to obtain an
|
| 12 |
event display but as we have to dig the chowder soup [26 Millions of
|
| 13 |
events] this can take time), but by asking that the 3 letpons are
|
| 14 |
isolated to each others solve the issue. The fake muon is indeed
|
| 15 |
within DeltaR of 0.1 around one of the two electrons making the Z at
|
| 16 |
generator level.
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
\item \textbf{Why the PDF systematics are only considered for significance (should be the opposite)?}\\
|
| 19 |
The PDF systematics should indeed also be considered for the cross section measurement and we added
|
| 20 |
them to the list of uncertainties affecting the cross section. It affects it through the signal acceptance
|
| 21 |
which may vary for different PDF assumptions. PDF uncertainties are not relevant for the signal significance
|
| 22 |
we will quote one day on real data, but they are however relevant for the expected significance we quote
|
| 23 |
in this analysis. The estimated significance depends on the number of expected
|
| 24 |
signal events, which depend on the WZ cross section. The PDF uncertainties on the cross section have
|
| 25 |
been determined at the PTDR time by varying the PDF within the range allowed by the errors of the PDF
|
| 26 |
fit (to HERA data).
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
\item \textbf{What are the PDF systematics for ZZ background? [mainly for 3mu channel]}\\
|
| 29 |
We are using the systematics derived in note AN-2006/055 which are 6.4\%.
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
\item \textbf{Does the cross section used for signal include the gamma*?}\\
|
| 32 |
The response is complex: the signal simulated by Pythia does not include
|
| 33 |
the $\gamma^*$ but the k-factor which has been used to go from LO to
|
| 34 |
NLO has been computed via MCFM including $\gamma^*$ (NLO with $\gamma^*$ / LO with $\gamma^*$).
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
\item \textbf{Does reconstruction efficiency (Z) depend on pt(Z) ?}\\
|
| 37 |
Indeed a bit, so we have applied a k-factor dependant on pt(Z).
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
\item \textbf{Are you sure to not have a double counting between $Zb\bar{b}$ background and $Z+jets$?}\\
|
| 40 |
Yes, please see the hypernews message:\\
|
| 41 |
$https://hypernews.cern.ch/HyperNews/CMS/get/alpgen/83/1.html$
|
| 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 |
$Zb\bar{b}$ 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*)$<$200GeV
|
| 51 |
please see the note:IN 2007/031.
|
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
\item \textbf{Can you improve signal over background by adding a cut on MET?}\\
|
| 54 |
We have studied the possibility but we obtain a better significance by
|
| 55 |
applying a cut on transverse mass of W candidate ($>$50 GeV). In the
|
| 56 |
analysis we are now considering such cuts. The studies of the
|
| 57 |
different angle proposed have been also performed, 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 |
|
| 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}$, produce event yields table with errors}\\
|
| 116 |
Done in the note
|
| 117 |
|
| 118 |
\item \textbf{Please check the quality of the fit of figure 11?}\\
|
| 119 |
Done please see below [M(W)$>$50 GeV has been applied]
|
| 120 |
\begin{figure}[!bp]
|
| 121 |
\begin{center}
|
| 122 |
\scalebox{0.4}{\includegraphics{FitTight3eErrors.eps}}
|
| 123 |
\caption{The invariant mass distribution of the $Z$ boson candidate that is fitted to a signal
|
| 124 |
parameterized as a Gaussian function convoluted with a Breit-Wigner function and
|
| 125 |
a background, parameterized as a straight line.}
|
| 126 |
\label{fig:ZFit}
|
| 127 |
\end{center}
|
| 128 |
\end{figure}
|
| 129 |
|
| 130 |
|
| 131 |
|
| 132 |
\item \textbf{Please developp the way systematics will be evaluated}\\
|
| 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~\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~\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
|
| 143 |
done by looking at the Z peak without opposite charge
|
| 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 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}
|
| 151 |
|
| 152 |
\item \textbf{Write a section on the pseudo-experiment and start the plot at 100pb$^-1$}\\
|
| 153 |
To estimate the amount of data necessary to claim an evidence or observation
|
| 154 |
of the WZ signal, we perform 200,000 pseudoexperiements for data for a given
|
| 155 |
value of data that is varied from 40 to 500 pb$^{-1}$. For each pseudoexperiment
|
| 156 |
we use Poisson statistics to estimate the expected number of events for
|
| 157 |
signal and for each background sources separately, for each signature channel.
|
| 158 |
The mean of the expected number of events is varied using Gaussian statistic
|
| 159 |
using systematic uncertainties given in Table~\ref{tab:FullSys}. The significance of the
|
| 160 |
signal in each pseudo-experiment is calculated using the likelihood ratio
|
| 161 |
\begin{equation}
|
| 162 |
\label{eq:sl}
|
| 163 |
S_L=\sqrt{2\ln Q},\ Q=\biggl( 1+\frac{N_S}{N_B}\biggr)^{N_S+N_B}e^{-N_S},
|
| 164 |
\end{equation}
|
| 165 |
where $N_S$ and $N_B$ are the expected number of signal and background
|
| 166 |
events observed in the four signatures of the analysis, respectively. By summing
|
| 167 |
signal and background together, we assume no correlation between the signature
|
| 168 |
channels, which result in a conservative estimation of the sensitivity reach.
|
| 169 |
The obtained $S_L$ distribution is fitted with Gaussian function to obtain the mean
|
| 170 |
and resolution width, which would correspond to the most probable value of $S_L$
|
| 171 |
and its uncertainty for a given value of integrated luminosity. The 68\% and 95\%
|
| 172 |
CL bands are $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 1.96\sigma$ bands around the mean value
|
| 173 |
of the $S_L$ respectively. To estimate the effect of the systematic uncertainty in
|
| 174 |
this estimation, we double all the systematic uncertainties and re-calculate the
|
| 175 |
68\% and 95\% CL bands. The results for the sensitivity of the analysis without
|
| 176 |
requirements on the $W$ boson transverse mass are given in Fig.~\ref{fig:sl_full}.
|
| 177 |
5$\sigma$ significance of the WZ signal can be established with data size between
|
| 178 |
50 and 300 pb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity at 95\% CL.
|
| 179 |
|
| 180 |
\end{itemize}
|
| 181 |
|
| 182 |
\end{document}
|
