| 13 |
|
For both regions, we find reasonable agreement between the observed yields and the predictions from MC and from the 2 |
| 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 assuming 0 signal. The results are summarized in |
| 16 |
> |
with a log-normal model of nuissance parameter integration assuming 0 signal efficiency uncertainty. The results are summarized in |
| 17 |
|
Table~\ref{tab:results}. |
| 18 |
|
|
| 19 |
|
\begin{table}[hbt] |
| 21 |
|
\caption{\label{tab:results} |
| 22 |
|
Summary of the observed and predicted yields in the 2 signal regions. The uncertainty in the MC prediction is statistical only. |
| 23 |
|
The systematic uncertainties on the ABCD', \ptll, and OF subtraction predictions are discussed in the text. The non-SM yield UL is a |
| 24 |
< |
Bayesian 95\% confidence level upper limit. The LM1 and LM3 yields include uncertainties from trigger efficiency, |
| 24 |
> |
Bayesian 95\% confidence level upper limit. The LM1 and LM3 yields include uncertainties from MC statistics, trigger efficiency, |
| 25 |
|
lepton selection efficiency, hadronic energy scale and integrated luminosity. |
| 26 |
|
} |
| 27 |
|
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c} |
| 38 |
|
LM3 yield & 6.4 $\pm$ 1.2 & 6.7 $\pm$ 1.5 \\ |
| 39 |
|
\hline |
| 40 |
|
OF subtraction ($\Delta$) & 1.3 $\pm$ 1.9 (stat) $\pm$ 0.1 (syst) & 0.1 $\pm$ 1.5 (stat) $\pm$ 0.0 (syst) \\ |
| 41 |
+ |
LM1 $\Delta$ & 9.6 $\pm$ 1.4 & 8.5 $\pm$ 1.8 \\ |
| 42 |
+ |
LM3 $\Delta$ & 1.2 $\pm$ 0.4 & 1.2 $\pm$ 0.4 \\ |
| 43 |
|
\hline |
| 44 |
|
\end{tabular} |
| 45 |
|
\end{center} |
