| 3 |
|
|
| 4 |
|
We set an upper limit on the signal yield extracted by the fit to the dilepton mass |
| 5 |
|
distribution, assuming the LM1 shape. The 95\% confidence level (CL) upper limit (UL) |
| 6 |
< |
is extracted using a profile likelihood technique, giving an UL of 18 events, including |
| 7 |
< |
uncertainties in the resolution model and $Z$ yield. |
| 8 |
< |
The expected LM1 yield is 23 $\pm$ X events including the uncertainties from trigger efficiency, |
| 9 |
< |
lepton selection efficiency, hadronic energy scale and integrated luminosity; hence LM1 is excluded by these results. |
| 6 |
> |
is extracted using a profile likelihood technique, giving an UL of 14.3 events, including |
| 7 |
> |
uncertainties in the background yield and shape, resolution model and $Z$ yield. |
| 8 |
> |
In the limit setting we also include the uncertainties from trigger efficiency, |
| 9 |
> |
lepton selection efficiency, hadronic energy scale and integrated luminosity on the signal efficiency. |
| 10 |
> |
The expected LM1 yield is 23 $\pm$ 2 events. |
| 11 |
|
|
| 12 |
|
We set upper limits on the non-SM contributions to the high \MET\ and high \Ht\ signal regions. |
| 13 |
< |
For both regions, we find reasonable agreement between the observed yields and the predictions from MC and from the 2 |
| 13 |
> |
For both regions, we find reasonable agreement between the observed yields and the predictions from MC and from the ABCD' and \ptll\ |
| 14 |
|
data-driven methods. We choose here to extract the upper limits using the MC prediction for the |
| 15 |
|
background estimate. The 95\% CL upper limit is extracted using a Bayesian technique~\cite{ref:cl95cms}, |
| 16 |
< |
with a log-normal model of nuissance parameter integration. The results are summarized in |
| 17 |
< |
Table~\ref{tab:results}. Based on these results, we exclude LM1. |
| 16 |
> |
with a log-normal model of nuissance parameter integration assuming 0 signal efficiency uncertainty. |
| 17 |
> |
The results are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:results}. |
| 18 |
> |
|
| 19 |
> |
The results of the opposite-flavor subtraction are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:ofresults}. |
| 20 |
> |
We set a Bayesian 95\% CL upper limit on the quantity $\Delta$ and compare this to the predicted |
| 21 |
> |
values in the LM1 and LM3 scenarios. |
| 22 |
> |
|
| 23 |
|
|
| 24 |
|
\begin{table}[hbt] |
| 25 |
|
\begin{center} |
| 26 |
|
\caption{\label{tab:results} |
| 27 |
< |
Summary of the observed and predicted yields in the 2 signal regions. The error in the MC prediction is statistical only. |
| 27 |
> |
Summary of the observed and predicted yields in the 2 signal regions. The uncertainty in the MC prediction is statistical only. |
| 28 |
|
The systematic uncertainties on the ABCD', \ptll, and OF subtraction predictions are discussed in the text. The non-SM yield UL is a |
| 29 |
< |
Bayesian 95\% confidence level upper limit. The LM1 and LM3 yields include uncertainties from trigger efficiency, |
| 29 |
> |
Bayesian 95\% confidence level upper limit. The LM1 and LM3 yields include uncertainties from MC statistics, trigger efficiency, |
| 30 |
|
lepton selection efficiency, hadronic energy scale and integrated luminosity. |
| 31 |
|
} |
| 32 |
< |
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c} |
| 32 |
> |
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c} |
| 33 |
|
\hline |
| 34 |
|
& high \met\ signal region & high \Ht\ signal region \\ |
| 35 |
|
\hline |
| 36 |
< |
Observed yield & 4 & 3 \\ |
| 36 |
> |
observed yield & 4 & 3 \\ |
| 37 |
|
\hline |
| 38 |
|
MC prediction & 2.6 $\pm$ 0.8 & 2.5 $\pm$ 0.8 \\ |
| 39 |
|
ABCD' prediction & 1.2 $\pm$ 0.4 (stat) $\pm$ 0.5 (syst) & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.6 (stat) $\pm$ 0.3 (syst) \\ |
| 40 |
|
\ptll\ prediction & 5.4 $\pm$ 3.8 (stat) $\pm$ 2.2 (syst) & 1.7 $\pm$ 1.7 (stat) $\pm$ 0.6 (syst) \\ |
| 41 |
< |
non-SM yield UL & 5.2 & 4.1 \\ |
| 42 |
< |
LM1 yield & 17 $\pm$ 3.1 & 14 $\pm$ 3.1 \\ |
| 43 |
< |
LM3 yield & 4.3 $\pm$ 0.9 & 4.3 $\pm$ 1.0 \\ |
| 41 |
> |
non-SM yield UL & 6.9 & 5.8 \\ |
| 42 |
> |
LM1 yield & 17 $\pm$ 2.5 & 14 $\pm$ 2.9 \\ |
| 43 |
> |
LM3 yield & 6.4 $\pm$ 1.2 & 6.7 $\pm$ 1.5 \\ |
| 44 |
> |
\hline |
| 45 |
> |
\end{tabular} |
| 46 |
> |
\end{center} |
| 47 |
> |
\end{table} |
| 48 |
> |
|
| 49 |
> |
|
| 50 |
> |
\begin{table}[hbt] |
| 51 |
> |
\begin{center} |
| 52 |
> |
\caption{\label{tab:ofresults} |
| 53 |
> |
Summary of the opposite-flavor subtraction results. The quantity $\Delta$ is defined in Eq.~\ref{eq:ofhighpt}. |
| 54 |
> |
The Bayesian 95\% CL upper limit on this quantity, as well as the predicted values in the LM1 and LM3 scenarios, |
| 55 |
> |
are also summarized. The LM1 and LM3 uncertainties are from MC statistics, trigger efficiency, |
| 56 |
> |
lepton selection efficiency, hadronic energy scale and integrated luminosity. |
| 57 |
> |
} |
| 58 |
> |
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c} |
| 59 |
> |
\hline |
| 60 |
> |
& high \met\ signal region & high \Ht\ signal region \\ |
| 61 |
> |
\hline |
| 62 |
> |
observed $\Delta$ & 1.3 $\pm$ 1.9 (stat) $\pm$ 0.5 (syst) & 0.1 $\pm$ 1.5 (stat) $\pm$ 0.5 (syst) \\ |
| 63 |
|
\hline |
| 64 |
< |
OF subtraction ($\Delta$) & 1.3 $\pm$ 1.9 (stat) $\pm$ 0.1 (syst) & 0.1 $\pm$ 1.5 (stat) $\pm$ 0.0 (syst) \\ |
| 64 |
> |
UL & 4.0 & 2.7 \\ |
| 65 |
> |
LM1 & 9.6 $\pm$ 1.4 & 8.5 $\pm$ 1.8 \\ |
| 66 |
> |
LM3 & 1.2 $\pm$ 0.4 & 1.2 $\pm$ 0.4 \\ |
| 67 |
|
\hline |
| 68 |
|
\end{tabular} |
| 69 |
|
\end{center} |
