| 1 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\subsection{W+Jets MC Modelling Validation from CR1}
|
| 2 |
|
|
\label{sec:cr1}
|
| 3 |
|
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
|
| 5 |
|
|
The estimate of the uncertainty on this background is based on CR1,
|
| 6 |
burkett |
1.2 |
defined by applying the full signal selection, including the isolated track veto, but requiring 0 b-tags
|
| 7 |
|
|
(CSV medium working point as described in Sec.~\ref{sec:selection}).
|
| 8 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
The sample is dominanted by \wjets\ and is thus used to validate the MC modelling of this background.
|
| 9 |
|
|
|
| 10 |
|
|
In Table~\ref{tab:cr1mtsf} we show the amount that we need to scale the Wjets MC
|
| 11 |
|
|
by in order to have agreement between data and Monte Carlo in the $M_T$ peak
|
| 12 |
claudioc |
1.9 |
region, defined as $50 < M_T < 80$ GeV, for the
|
| 13 |
|
|
different signal regions. (Recall, the signal regions have different
|
| 14 |
|
|
\met\ requirements). These scale factors are not terribly
|
| 15 |
vimartin |
1.4 |
important, but it is reassuring that they are not too different from
|
| 16 |
claudioc |
1.9 |
1.
|
| 17 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
|
| 18 |
|
|
|
| 19 |
|
|
\begin{table}[!h]
|
| 20 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 21 |
vimartin |
1.7 |
{\footnotesize
|
| 22 |
|
|
\begin{tabular}{l||c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
|
| 23 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\hline
|
| 24 |
vimartin |
1.7 |
Sample & CR1PRESEL & CR1A & CR1B & CR1C & CR1D & CR1E &
|
| 25 |
|
|
CR1F & CR1G\\
|
| 26 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\hline
|
| 27 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 28 |
vimartin |
1.7 |
$\mu$ \mt-SF & $0.92 \pm 0.02$ & $0.97 \pm 0.03$ & $0.90 \pm 0.04$ & $0.91 \pm 0.06$ & $0.93 \pm 0.09$ & $0.98 \pm 0.13$ & $0.94 \pm 0.18$ & $0.96 \pm 0.25$ \\
|
| 29 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\hline
|
| 30 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 31 |
vimartin |
1.7 |
e \mt-SF & $0.94 \pm 0.02$ & $0.90 \pm 0.04$ & $0.84 \pm 0.05$ & $0.80 \pm 0.07$ & $0.83 \pm 0.10$ & $0.77 \pm 0.13$ & $0.86 \pm 0.20$ & $0.87 \pm 0.29$ \\
|
| 32 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\hline
|
| 33 |
vimartin |
1.7 |
\end{tabular}}
|
| 34 |
claudioc |
1.9 |
\caption{ \mt\ peak Data/MC scale factors applied to Wjets
|
| 35 |
|
|
samples. The MC is used for backgrounds from rare
|
| 36 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
processes. CR1PRESEL refers to a sample with $\met>50$ GeV.
|
| 37 |
|
|
The uncertainties are statistical only.
|
| 38 |
|
|
\label{tab:cr1mtsf}}
|
| 39 |
|
|
\end{center}
|
| 40 |
|
|
\end{table}
|
| 41 |
|
|
|
| 42 |
claudioc |
1.9 |
Next, in Fig~\ref{fig:cr1met},~\ref{fig:cr1mtrest},
|
| 43 |
|
|
and~\ref{fig:cr1mtrest2}, we show plots of \met\ and then $M_T$
|
| 44 |
benhoob |
1.10 |
for different \met\ requirements corresponding to those defining our signal regions.
|
| 45 |
claudioc |
1.9 |
It is clear that there are more events in the $M_T$ tail than
|
| 46 |
|
|
predicted
|
| 47 |
|
|
from MC. This implies that we need to rescale the MC Wjets
|
| 48 |
|
|
background
|
| 49 |
|
|
in the tail region.
|
| 50 |
vimartin |
1.7 |
|
| 51 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\begin{table}[!h]
|
| 52 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 53 |
vimartin |
1.3 |
{\footnotesize
|
| 54 |
vimartin |
1.7 |
\begin{tabular}{l||c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
|
| 55 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 56 |
|
|
Sample & CR1PRESEL & CR1A & CR1B & CR1C & CR1D & CR1E &
|
| 57 |
|
|
CR1F & CR1G\\
|
| 58 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 59 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 60 |
|
|
$\mu$ MC & $480 \pm 22$ & $173 \pm 5$ & $114 \pm 4$ & $40 \pm 2$ & $16 \pm 1$ & $8 \pm 1$ & $4 \pm 1$ & $2 \pm 1$ \\
|
| 61 |
|
|
$\mu$ Data & $629$ & $238$ & $139$ & $45$ & $12$ & $8$ & $3$ & $2$ \\
|
| 62 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 63 |
|
|
$\mu$ Data/MC & $1.31 \pm 0.08$ & $1.37 \pm 0.10$ & $1.22 \pm 0.11$ & $1.12 \pm 0.18$ & $0.75 \pm 0.23$ & $0.99 \pm 0.37$ & $0.75 \pm 0.45$ & $0.96 \pm 0.72$ \\
|
| 64 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 65 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 66 |
|
|
e MC & $330 \pm 8$ & $118 \pm 4$ & $79 \pm 3$ & $29 \pm 2$ & $13 \pm 1$ & $5 \pm 1$ & $3 \pm 1$ & $2 \pm 0$ \\
|
| 67 |
|
|
e Data & $473$ & $174$ & $100$ & $36$ & $16$ & $5$ & $5$ & $2$ \\
|
| 68 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 69 |
|
|
e Data/MC & $1.43 \pm 0.07$ & $1.47 \pm 0.12$ & $1.27 \pm 0.14$ & $1.23 \pm 0.22$ & $1.26 \pm 0.34$ & $1.07 \pm 0.51$ & $1.80 \pm 0.91$ & $1.26 \pm 0.97$ \\
|
| 70 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\hline
|
| 71 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 72 |
vimartin |
1.7 |
$\mu$+e MC & $810 \pm 23$ & $291 \pm 7$ & $192 \pm 5$ & $69 \pm 3$ & $29 \pm 2$ & $13 \pm 1$ & $7 \pm 1$ & $4 \pm 1$ \\
|
| 73 |
|
|
$\mu$+e Data & $1102$ & $412$ & $239$ & $81$ & $28$ & $13$ & $8$ & $4$ \\
|
| 74 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\hline
|
| 75 |
vimartin |
1.7 |
$\mu$+e Data/MC & $1.36 \pm 0.08$ & $1.42 \pm 0.13$ & $1.24 \pm 0.15$ & $1.17 \pm 0.23$ & $0.97 \pm 0.31$ & $1.02 \pm 0.51$ & $1.18 \pm 0.69$ & $1.09 \pm 0.96$ \\
|
| 76 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\hline
|
| 77 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 78 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 79 |
vimartin |
1.7 |
$\mu$ W MC & $300 \pm 23$ & $84 \pm 5$ & $52 \pm 4$ & $20 \pm 2$ & $9 \pm 2$ & $5 \pm 1$ & $3 \pm 1$ & $1 \pm 1$ \\
|
| 80 |
|
|
$\mu$ W Data & $449 \pm 26$ & $149 \pm 16$ & $78 \pm 12$ & $25 \pm 7$ & $5 \pm 4$ & $5 \pm 3$ & $2 \pm 2$ & $1 \pm 1$ \\
|
| 81 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\hline
|
| 82 |
vimartin |
1.7 |
$\mu$ W Data/MC & $1.50 \pm 0.14$ & $1.77 \pm 0.21$ & $1.49 \pm 0.26$ & $1.25 \pm 0.38$ & $0.56 \pm 0.39$ & $0.98 \pm 0.62$ & $0.60 \pm 0.73$ & $0.94 \pm 1.14$ \\
|
| 83 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\hline
|
| 84 |
vimartin |
1.6 |
\hline
|
| 85 |
vimartin |
1.7 |
e W MC & $192 \pm 8$ & $55 \pm 4$ & $36 \pm 3$ & $14 \pm 2$ & $6 \pm 1$ & $3 \pm 1$ & $2 \pm 1$ & $1 \pm 0$ \\
|
| 86 |
|
|
e W Data & $335 \pm 22$ & $111 \pm 13$ & $58 \pm 10$ & $20 \pm 6$ & $10 \pm 4$ & $3 \pm 2$ & $4 \pm 2$ & $1 \pm 1$ \\
|
| 87 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 88 |
|
|
e W Data/MC & $1.74 \pm 0.14$ & $2.02 \pm 0.29$ & $1.58 \pm 0.32$ & $1.49 \pm 0.50$ & $1.50 \pm 0.70$ & $1.10 \pm 0.80$ & $2.27 \pm 1.55$ & $1.51 \pm 1.96$ \\
|
| 89 |
vimartin |
1.6 |
\hline
|
| 90 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 91 |
vimartin |
1.7 |
$\mu$+e W MC & $493 \pm 24$ & $139 \pm 6$ & $89 \pm 5$ & $33 \pm 3$ & $16 \pm 2$ & $8 \pm 1$ & $4 \pm 1$ & $2 \pm 1$ \\
|
| 92 |
|
|
$\mu$+e W Data & $785 \pm 59$ & $260 \pm 37$ & $135 \pm 28$ & $45 \pm 16$ & $15 \pm 9$ & $8 \pm 7$ & $6 \pm 5$ & $3 \pm 3$ \\
|
| 93 |
vimartin |
1.6 |
\hline
|
| 94 |
vimartin |
1.7 |
$\mu$+e W Data/MC & $1.59 \pm 0.14$ & $1.87 \pm 0.28$ & $1.53 \pm 0.33$ & $1.35 \pm 0.50$ & $0.95 \pm 0.58$ & $1.03 \pm 0.83$ & $1.29 \pm 1.13$ & $1.16 \pm 1.65$ \\
|
| 95 |
vimartin |
1.6 |
\hline
|
| 96 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 97 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 98 |
vimartin |
1.8 |
$SFR_{wjet}$ & $1.48 \pm 0.26$ & $1.64 \pm 0.38$ & $1.38 \pm 0.30$ & $1.26 \pm 0.39$ & $0.96 \pm 0.45$ & $1.02 \pm 0.67$ & $1.23 \pm 0.92$ & $1.12 \pm 1.31$ \\
|
| 99 |
vimartin |
1.6 |
\hline
|
| 100 |
|
|
\end{tabular}}
|
| 101 |
vimartin |
1.7 |
\caption{ Yields in \mt\ tail comparing the MC prediction (after
|
| 102 |
|
|
applying SFs) to data. CR1PRESEL refers to a sample with $\met>50$
|
| 103 |
claudioc |
1.9 |
GeV and $\mt>150$ GeV. See text for details.
|
| 104 |
|
|
% The uncertainties are statistical only.
|
| 105 |
vimartin |
1.7 |
\label{tab:cr1yields}}
|
| 106 |
vimartin |
1.6 |
\end{center}
|
| 107 |
|
|
\end{table}
|
| 108 |
|
|
|
| 109 |
|
|
|
| 110 |
claudioc |
1.9 |
The rescaling is explored
|
| 111 |
|
|
in Table~\ref{tab:cr1yields},
|
| 112 |
|
|
Here we compare the data and MC yields in the $M_T$ signal regions
|
| 113 |
|
|
and in a looser control region. Note that the
|
| 114 |
|
|
MC is normalized in the $M_T$ peak region by rescaling
|
| 115 |
|
|
the \wjets\ component according to Table~\ref{tab:cr1mtsf}.
|
| 116 |
|
|
|
| 117 |
|
|
We also derive data/MC scale factors.
|
| 118 |
|
|
These are derived in two different ways, separately for muons and
|
| 119 |
|
|
electrons and then combined, as follows;
|
| 120 |
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
| 121 |
|
|
\item For first three sets of scale factors, above the triple horizontal
|
| 122 |
|
|
line, we calculate the scale factor as the amount by which we would
|
| 123 |
|
|
need to rescale {\bf all} MC (\wjets\ , \ttbar\ , single top, rare) in
|
| 124 |
|
|
order to have data-MC agreement in the $M_T$ tail.
|
| 125 |
|
|
\item For the next three set of scale factors, below the triple horizontal
|
| 126 |
|
|
line, we calculate the scale factor as the amount by which we would
|
| 127 |
|
|
need
|
| 128 |
|
|
to scale \wjets\ keeping all other
|
| 129 |
|
|
components fixed in order to have data-MC agreement in the tail.
|
| 130 |
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
| 131 |
|
|
\noindent The true \wjets\ scale factor is somewhere in between these
|
| 132 |
|
|
two extremes. We also note that there is no statistically significant
|
| 133 |
|
|
difference between the electron and muon samples. We use these data
|
| 134 |
|
|
to extract a data/MC scale factor for \wjets\ which will be used to
|
| 135 |
|
|
rescale the \wjets\ MC tail. This scale factor is listed in the last
|
| 136 |
|
|
line of the Table, and is called $SFR_{wjets}$. It is calculated as
|
| 137 |
|
|
follows.
|
| 138 |
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
| 139 |
|
|
\item Separately for each signal region
|
| 140 |
|
|
\item As the average of the two methods described above
|
| 141 |
|
|
\item Including the statistical uncertainty
|
| 142 |
|
|
\item Adding in quadrature to the uncertainty one-half of the
|
| 143 |
|
|
deviation from 1.0
|
| 144 |
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
| 145 |
|
|
|
| 146 |
|
|
|
| 147 |
|
|
|
| 148 |
|
|
|
| 149 |
|
|
|
| 150 |
|
|
|
| 151 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\begin{figure}[hbt]
|
| 152 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 153 |
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/CR1plots/met_met50_leadmuo_nj4.pdf}%
|
| 154 |
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/CR1plots/met_met50_leadele_nj4.pdf}
|
| 155 |
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/CR1plots/mt_met100_leadmuo_nj4.pdf}%
|
| 156 |
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/CR1plots/mt_met100_leadele_nj4.pdf}
|
| 157 |
|
|
\caption{
|
| 158 |
|
|
Comparison of the \met\ (top) and \mt\ for $\met>100$ (bottom) distributions in data vs. MC for events
|
| 159 |
|
|
with a leading muon (left) and leading electron (right)
|
| 160 |
|
|
satisfying the requirements of CR1.
|
| 161 |
|
|
\label{fig:cr1met}
|
| 162 |
|
|
}
|
| 163 |
|
|
\end{center}
|
| 164 |
|
|
\end{figure}
|
| 165 |
|
|
|
| 166 |
|
|
|
| 167 |
|
|
\begin{figure}[hbt]
|
| 168 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 169 |
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/CR1plots/mt_met150_leadmuo_nj4.pdf}%
|
| 170 |
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/CR1plots/mt_met150_leadele_nj4.pdf}
|
| 171 |
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/CR1plots/mt_met200_leadmuo_nj4.pdf}%
|
| 172 |
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/CR1plots/mt_met200_leadele_nj4.pdf}
|
| 173 |
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/CR1plots/mt_met250_leadmuo_nj4.pdf}%
|
| 174 |
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/CR1plots/mt_met250_leadele_nj4.pdf}
|
| 175 |
|
|
\caption{
|
| 176 |
|
|
Comparison of the \mt\ distribution in data vs. MC for events
|
| 177 |
|
|
with a leading muon (left) and leading electron (right)
|
| 178 |
|
|
satisfying the requirements of CR1. The \met\ requirements used are
|
| 179 |
|
|
150 GeV (top), 200 GeV (middle) and 250 GeV (bottom).
|
| 180 |
|
|
\label{fig:cr1mtrest}
|
| 181 |
|
|
}
|
| 182 |
|
|
\end{center}
|
| 183 |
|
|
\end{figure}
|
| 184 |
|
|
|
| 185 |
vimartin |
1.7 |
\begin{figure}[hbt]
|
| 186 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 187 |
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/CR1plots/mt_met300_leadmuo_nj4.pdf}%
|
| 188 |
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/CR1plots/mt_met300_leadele_nj4.pdf}
|
| 189 |
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/CR1plots/mt_met350_leadmuo_nj4.pdf}%
|
| 190 |
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/CR1plots/mt_met350_leadele_nj4.pdf}
|
| 191 |
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/CR1plots/mt_met400_leadmuo_nj4.pdf}%
|
| 192 |
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/CR1plots/mt_met400_leadele_nj4.pdf}
|
| 193 |
|
|
\caption{
|
| 194 |
|
|
Comparison of the \mt\ distribution in data vs. MC for events
|
| 195 |
|
|
with a leading muon (left) and leading electron (right)
|
| 196 |
|
|
satisfying the requirements of CR1. The \met\ requirements used are
|
| 197 |
|
|
300 GeV (top), 350 GeV (middle) and 400 GeV (bottom).
|
| 198 |
|
|
\label{fig:cr1mtrest2}
|
| 199 |
|
|
}
|
| 200 |
|
|
\end{center}
|
| 201 |
|
|
\end{figure}
|
| 202 |
|
|
|
| 203 |
|
|
|
| 204 |
benhoob |
1.10 |
\clearpage
|
