| 12 |
|
For both regions, we find reasonable agreement between the observed yields and the predictions from MC and from the 2 |
| 13 |
|
data-driven methods. We choose here to extract the upper limits using the MC prediction for the |
| 14 |
|
background estimate. The 95\% CL upper limit is extracted using a Bayesian technique~\cite{ref:cl95cms}, |
| 15 |
< |
with a log-normal model of nuissance parameter integration. The results are summarized in |
| 16 |
< |
Table~\ref{tab:results}. Based on these results, we exclude LM1. |
| 15 |
> |
with a log-normal model of nuissance parameter integration assuming 0 signal . The results are summarized in |
| 16 |
> |
Table~\ref{tab:results}. Based on these results, we exclude LM1 and LM3. |
| 17 |
|
|
| 18 |
|
\begin{table}[hbt] |
| 19 |
|
\begin{center} |
| 34 |
|
\ptll\ prediction & 5.4 $\pm$ 3.8 (stat) $\pm$ 2.2 (syst) & 1.7 $\pm$ 1.7 (stat) $\pm$ 0.6 (syst) \\ |
| 35 |
|
non-SM yield UL & 5.2 & 4.1 \\ |
| 36 |
|
LM1 yield & 17 $\pm$ 3.1 & 14 $\pm$ 3.1 \\ |
| 37 |
< |
LM3 yield & 4.3 $\pm$ 0.9 & 4.3 $\pm$ 1.0 \\ |
| 37 |
> |
LM3 yield & 6.4 $\pm$ 1.3 & 6.7 $\pm$ 1.6 \\ |
| 38 |
|
\hline |
| 39 |
|
OF subtraction ($\Delta$) & 1.3 $\pm$ 1.9 (stat) $\pm$ 0.1 (syst) & 0.1 $\pm$ 1.5 (stat) $\pm$ 0.0 (syst) \\ |
| 40 |
|
\hline |
