| 1 |
– |
In this section, we will assign systematics errors to this |
| 2 |
– |
analysis. The assignement of systematics is expected to be |
| 3 |
– |
conservative. |
| 1 |
|
|
| 2 |
< |
\subsection{Experimental Systematics} |
| 2 |
> |
In this section, we estimate systematics uncertainties of the methods |
| 3 |
> |
used in this analysis. We follow the rule of making conservative estimates |
| 4 |
> |
throughout this section. |
| 5 |
|
|
| 6 |
< |
The experimental systematics errors expected that will affect the |
| 8 |
< |
signal and standard model background are: |
| 9 |
< |
\begin{itemize} |
| 10 |
< |
\item For trigger selection, a systematics of 1\% is assigned. Even |
| 11 |
< |
though the efficiency of the signal is greater than 99\%, the trigger |
| 12 |
< |
path used for both muons and electron expect the leptons to be |
| 13 |
< |
isolated. As the isolation depends on the occupancy of the events, |
| 14 |
< |
the alignment of the tracker (when considering tracker isolation |
| 15 |
< |
variables) and noise in the calorimeters (when considering a |
| 16 |
< |
calorimetric isolation), this value is expected to be conservative. |
| 17 |
< |
|
| 18 |
< |
\item 2\% error is assigned on electron/muons reconstruction. Both of |
| 19 |
< |
them are link to alignment of the track in order to reconstruct the |
| 20 |
< |
leptons. A systematics of 2\% is assigned for the determination of |
| 21 |
< |
the charge of the electron candidate while 1\% for the muon as the |
| 22 |
< |
electron problem is coming from the high probability of emission of |
| 23 |
< |
photons. |
| 24 |
< |
|
| 25 |
< |
\item A systematics of 1\% will be assigned for the measurement of |
| 26 |
< |
the lepton energy. |
| 6 |
> |
\subsection{Modeling systematics} |
| 7 |
|
|
| 28 |
– |
\item 4\% of systematics are considered for the electron |
| 29 |
– |
identification, 2\% for the muon case. |
| 30 |
– |
\end{itemize} |
| 8 |
|
|
| 9 |
< |
The PDF uncertainties on the signal has been determined in~\cite{OldNote}. |
| 10 |
< |
The uncertainty was found to be: |
| 11 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
| 12 |
< |
\Delta \sigma_+ ^{tot} = 3.9\% \hspace{0.9cm} \Delta \sigma_- ^{tot} = 3.5\% |
| 13 |
< |
\end{equation} |
| 9 |
> |
The sources of systematic uncertainties due to modeling of trigger, |
| 10 |
> |
reconstruction, PDF, and luminosity are described below |
| 11 |
> |
|
| 12 |
> |
\begin{itemize} |
| 13 |
> |
\item {\it Trigger}: the trigger path used to select four categories |
| 14 |
> |
require leptons to be isolated. Though, the isolation criteria |
| 15 |
> |
depends on the occupancy of the sub-detectors, the alignment of the |
| 16 |
> |
tracker (when considering tracker isolation variables), and noise in |
| 17 |
> |
the calorimeters (when considering a calorimetric isolation), the |
| 18 |
> |
trigger efficiency is expected to be around 99\%, and therefore, a |
| 19 |
> |
systematic uncertainty is conservatively estimated as 1\%. From the |
| 20 |
> |
current analysis of $Z\rightarrow l^+l^-$ in |
| 21 |
> |
CMS~\ref{Zmumu}~\ref{Zee}, the number of \Z events is estimated of the |
| 22 |
> |
order of 50k per 100pb$^{-1}$ of data analysed. To determine the |
| 23 |
> |
trigger efficiency ``tag-and-probe'' method~\ref{TP} will be used. |
| 24 |
> |
|
| 25 |
> |
\item {\it Reconstruction}: we assign 2\% systematic uncertainty per |
| 26 |
> |
lepton due to initial tracker alignment which is of paramount |
| 27 |
> |
importance to reconstruct leptons, 2\% and 1\% is assigned for the |
| 28 |
> |
determination of the charge of the electron and muon candidates, |
| 29 |
> |
respectively. We assigned a larger electron charge identification |
| 30 |
> |
uncertainty due to much stronger Bremsstrahlung energy loss which |
| 31 |
> |
makes the charge identification more difficult. The mismeasurement of |
| 32 |
> |
the charge is of the order of 2\% in CMSSW\_1\_6\_7 release for |
| 33 |
> |
electron. The estimation of the fraction with data will be done by |
| 34 |
> |
looking at the \Z peak without opposite charge requirement. Then |
| 35 |
> |
number of events within the \Z mass windows asking for two leptons of |
| 36 |
> |
same sign will give us a estimate of the fraction of mismeasure sign |
| 37 |
> |
leptons. |
| 38 |
> |
|
| 39 |
> |
\item {\it Lepton identification}: we assign 4\% of systematic |
| 40 |
> |
uncertainty due to efficiency measurement from early data using |
| 41 |
> |
``tag-and-probe'' method and 2\% for that for a muon. Additionally we |
| 42 |
> |
assign a systematic uncertainty on lepton energy scale of 2\% per |
| 43 |
> |
lepton. The letpons scale will be established using the \Z mass peak. |
| 44 |
> |
|
| 45 |
> |
\item {\it PDF uncertainties}: we estimate PDF uncertainties following prescription |
| 46 |
> |
described in~\cite{OldNote}. The uncertainty is found to be |
| 47 |
> |
$$ \Delta \sigma_+ ^{tot} = 3.9\% \hspace{0.9cm} \Delta \sigma_- ^{tot} = 3.5\% $$. |
| 48 |
|
|
| 49 |
< |
The luminosity error is expected to be 10\%. |
| 49 |
> |
\item {\it Luminosity}: we estimate luminosity uncertainty of 10\%. |
| 50 |
> |
\end{itemize} |
| 51 |
|
|
| 52 |
< |
The table~\ref{tab:sys} resume all systematics considered. |
| 52 |
> |
The systematic uncertainties are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:sys}. |
| 53 |
|
|
| 54 |
|
\begin{table}[!tb] |
| 55 |
|
\begin{center} |
| 56 |
|
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|} \hline |
| 57 |
< |
Systematics Source (in \%) & Cross Section & Signficance \\ \hline |
| 57 |
> |
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Systematic uncertainty} \\ |
| 58 |
> |
Source & on the cross section,\% & on the signficance,\% \\ \hline |
| 59 |
|
Luminosity & 10.0 & - \\ |
| 60 |
|
Trigger & 1.0 & 1.0\\ |
| 61 |
< |
Lepton Reconstruction & 2.0 & 2.0\\ |
| 62 |
< |
Electron Charge Determination &2.0& 2.0\\ |
| 63 |
< |
Muon Charge Determination &1.0& 1.0\\ |
| 64 |
< |
Lepton Energy Scale& 1.0& 1.0\\ |
| 65 |
< |
Electron Identification& 4.0 &4.0\\ |
| 66 |
< |
Muon Identification& 2.0 &2.0\\ |
| 67 |
< |
PDF Uncertainties& - & + 3.9\\ |
| 61 |
> |
Lepton reconstruction & 2.0 & 2.0\\ |
| 62 |
> |
Electron charge determination &2.0& 2.0\\ |
| 63 |
> |
Muon charge determination &1.0& 1.0\\ |
| 64 |
> |
Lepton energy scale& 1.0& 1.0\\ |
| 65 |
> |
Electron identification& 4.0 &4.0\\ |
| 66 |
> |
Muon identification& 2.0 &2.0\\ |
| 67 |
> |
PDF uncertainties& - & + 3.9\\ |
| 68 |
|
& & - 3.5 \\ \hline |
| 69 |
|
\end{tabular} |
| 70 |
|
|
| 71 |
|
\end{center} |
| 72 |
< |
\caption{Systematics in percent for $pp\rightarrow WZ$ cross section measurement and significance estimation for 1 fb$^-1$ of integrated luminosity.} |
| 72 |
> |
\caption{Systematic uncertainties for $pp\rightarrow \WZ$ cross section measurement |
| 73 |
> |
and significance estimation for 1 fb$^-1$ of integrated luminosity.} |
| 74 |
|
\label{tab:sys} |
| 75 |
|
\end{table} |
| 76 |
|
|
| 77 |
|
|
| 78 |
< |
\subsection{Background Substraction Systematics} |
| 78 |
> |
\subsection{Systematic uncertainties due to background estimation method} |
| 79 |
> |
|
| 80 |
> |
In the following we estimate a systematic uncertainty due to estimation |
| 81 |
> |
of background using the matrix method described in Section~\ref{sec:D0Matrix} above. |
| 82 |
> |
|
| 83 |
> |
|
| 84 |
|
|
| 85 |
|
We present here, the result for the case where the $W$ is decaying via |
| 86 |
|
an electron. |
| 92 |
|
|
| 93 |
|
From the fit, we will consider a systematics error of 10\%. |
| 94 |
|
|
| 95 |
< |
If we consider an error of 5\% on the fake rate and an error of 2\% |
| 95 |
> |
If we consider an error of 10\% |
| 96 |
> |
on the fake rate and an error of 2\% |
| 97 |
|
on the efficiency on signal to go from loose to tight criteria, we can |
| 98 |
|
calculate the error on the estimated background as follow: |
| 99 |
|
\begin{equation} |
| 100 |
< |
\Delta N_j ^{t} = \sqrt{(\frac{(p[N_{t} - p(N_{l}+N_{t})])}{(\epsilon -p)^2})^2 \times \Delta \epsilon^2 |
| 101 |
< |
+(\frac{(\epsilon[\epsilon(N_{l}+N_{t})-N_{t}]}{(\epsilon -p)^2})^2 \times \Delta p^2 |
| 102 |
< |
+ (\frac{(p\epsilon)}{(\epsilon -p)})^2 \times \Delta N_{l}^2 + (\frac{[p(\epsilon -1 )]}{(\epsilon -p)})^2 \times \Delta N_{t}^2} |
| 83 |
< |
%\Delta N_j ^{tight} = \frac{\sqrt{(p_{fake}[N_{tight} - p_{fake}(N_{loose}+N_{tight})])^2 \dot \Delta \epsilon^2 |
| 84 |
< |
%+(\epsilon[\epsilon(N_{loose}+N_{tight})-N_{tight}]^2 \dot \Delta p_{fake}^2 |
| 85 |
< |
%+ (p_{fake}\epsilon)^2 \dot N_{loose} + [p_{fake}(\epsilon -1 )]^2 \dot N_{tight}}}{\epsilon_{tight} - p_{fake}} |
| 100 |
> |
\Delta N_j ^{t} = \sqrt{\left(\frac{p\left(N_t - pN_l\right)}{\left(\epsilon -p\right)^2}\right)^2 \times \Delta \epsilon^2 |
| 101 |
> |
+\left(\frac{\epsilon\left(\epsilon N_{l}-N_{t}\right)}{\left(\epsilon -p\right)^2}\right)^2 \times \Delta p^2 |
| 102 |
> |
+ \frac{p^2\left(\epsilon^2\Delta N_{l}^2 - \Delta N_{t}^2\left(2\epsilon -1\right)\right)}{\left(\epsilon -p\right)^2}} |
| 103 |
|
\end{equation} |
| 104 |
|
where $N_{t}$,$\Delta N_{t}$ and $N_{l}$,$\Delta N_{l}$ represents |
| 105 |
|
respectivement the number of events in the tight sample and in the |
| 108 |
|
on this value.$p$ gives the probability for a fake loose electron to |
| 109 |
|
pass also the tight criteria and $\Delta p$ its error. |
| 110 |
|
|
| 111 |
< |
The overall error from the background substraction is 18\%. |
| 111 |
> |
The overall error from the background substraction is XXX %18\%. |
| 112 |
|
|
| 113 |
|
\subsection{Summary of Systematics} |
| 114 |
|
|
| 130 |
|
\label{tab:FullSys} |
| 131 |
|
\end{table} |
| 132 |
|
|
| 116 |
– |
\subsection{Background Substraction} |
