| 2 |
|
\subsection{Single Lepton Top MC Modelling Validation from CR2} |
| 3 |
|
\label{sec:cr2} |
| 4 |
|
|
| 5 |
– |
IS THIS GOING TO BE DONE WITH A BVETO OR NOT. IF SO, IS IT GOING TO |
| 6 |
– |
BE CSVL OR CSVM? NEED TO DISCUSS THIS. |
| 5 |
|
|
| 6 |
|
The \mt\ tail for single-lepton top events (\ttsl\ and single top) is dominated by jet resolution effects. The \W\ cannot be far off-shell because $\mW < \mtop$. |
| 7 |
< |
The modeling of the \mt\ tail from jet resolution effects is studied using \zjets\ data and MC samples. |
| 8 |
< |
\Z\ events are selection by requiring 2 good leptons (satisfying ID and isolation requirements) and requiring the \mll\ to be in the range $81-101$ GeV. |
| 9 |
< |
The negative lepton is treated as a neutrino and so is added to the MET: \met\ $\rightarrow$ \pt(\Lepm) + \met, |
| 10 |
< |
and the \mt\ is recalculated with the positive lepton \mt(\Lepp, \met). |
| 7 |
> |
The modeling of the \mt\ tail from jet resolution effects can be studied |
| 8 |
> |
using \zjets\ data and MC samples. However, as we will show below, |
| 9 |
> |
this test is statistically limited and can only be performed for the |
| 10 |
> |
\met\ requirements corresponding to SRA and SRB. |
| 11 |
> |
|
| 12 |
> |
\Z\ events are selected by requiring exactly 2 good leptons (satisfying ID |
| 13 |
> |
and isolation requirements) and requiring the \mll\ to be in the range |
| 14 |
> |
$81-101$ GeV. |
| 15 |
> |
Events with additional isolated tracks are vetoed, as in Section~\ref{sec:tkveto}. |
| 16 |
> |
To reduce \ttbar\ backgrounds, events with a CSVM tag %H |
| 17 |
> |
are removed. |
| 18 |
> |
The positive lepton is treated as a neutrino and so is added to the MET: \met\ $\rightarrow$ \pt(\Lepp) + \met, |
| 19 |
> |
and the \mt\ is recalculated with the negative lepton: \mt(\Lepm, \met). |
| 20 |
|
The resulting ``pseudo-\mt'' is dominated by jet resolution effects, since no off-shell |
| 21 |
|
\Z\ production enters the sample due to the \mll\ requirement. |
| 22 |
|
This section describes how well the MC predicts the tail of ``pseudo-\mt''. |
| 23 |
|
|
| 24 |
< |
The underlying distributions are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:cr2met} |
| 25 |
< |
and~\ref{fig:cr2mtrest}. The comparison of data and MC event counts |
| 26 |
< |
is shown in Table~\ref{tab:cr2yields}. From this table we extract |
| 27 |
< |
the data to MC scale factors $SFR^{e}_{top}$ and $SFR^{\mu}_{top}$. |
| 24 |
> |
The underlying distributions are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:cr2met}. |
| 25 |
> |
%and~\ref{fig:cr2mtrest}. |
| 26 |
> |
We then perform the exact same type of Data/MC comparison and analysis as |
| 27 |
> |
described for CR1 in Section~\ref{sec:cr1}. For CR1 we collected |
| 28 |
> |
the data/MC tail information in |
| 29 |
> |
Table~\ref{tab:cr1yields}; the equivalent for CR2 is |
| 30 |
> |
Table~\ref{tab:cr2yields} (for CR2 the statistics are not sufficient to split electrons and muons). |
| 31 |
> |
The last line of Table~\ref{tab:cr2yields} gives the data/MC scale factors |
| 32 |
> |
for the \ttbar\ lepton $+$ jets $M_T$ tail ($SFR_{top}$). This is |
| 33 |
> |
calculated in the same way as $SFR_{wjets}$ of Table~\ref{tab:cr1yields}. |
| 34 |
> |
Just as in CR1, there is an excess of data in the tails, as reflected |
| 35 |
> |
in the values of $SFR_{top}$. There are insufficient events to derive scale factors for |
| 36 |
> |
$\met\ > 150$~GeV. As a result, the scale factors derived from CR2 are |
| 37 |
> |
not used for the central prediction of the single-lepton top |
| 38 |
> |
background. They serve as a valuable cross check of the predictions |
| 39 |
> |
described in Section~\ref{sec:ttp}. The single lepton top predictions |
| 40 |
> |
obtained for SRA and SRB using the $SFR_{top}$ values described here |
| 41 |
> |
are consistent with the default predictions. |
| 42 |
|
|
| 43 |
|
|
| 44 |
|
\begin{table}[!h] |
| 45 |
|
\begin{center} |
| 46 |
|
{\footnotesize |
| 47 |
< |
\begin{tabular}{l||c|c||c|c|c|c|c} |
| 47 |
> |
\begin{tabular}{l||c|c||c|c} |
| 48 |
|
\hline |
| 49 |
< |
Sample & CR2PRESEL0 &CR2PRESEL1 & CR2A & CR2B & CR2C & |
| 29 |
< |
CR2D & CR2E \\ |
| 49 |
> |
Sample & CR2PRESEL0 &CR2PRESEL1 & CR2A & CR2B \\ |
| 50 |
|
\hline |
| 51 |
|
\hline |
| 52 |
< |
MC & $36 \pm 2$ & $30 \pm 2$ & $18 \pm 1$ & $30 \pm 2$ & $13 \pm 1$ & $5 \pm 0$ & $2 \pm 0$ \\ |
| 53 |
< |
Data & $56$ & $43$ & $32$ & $40$ & $21$ & $12$ & $2$ \\ |
| 52 |
> |
MC & $32 \pm 2$ & $28 \pm 2$ & $10 \pm 1$ & $10 \pm 1$ \\ |
| 53 |
> |
Data & $50$ & $45$ & $17$ & $17$ \\ |
| 54 |
|
\hline |
| 55 |
< |
Data/MC & $1.56 \pm 0.23$ & $1.44 \pm 0.24$ & $1.77 \pm 0.34$ & $1.32 \pm 0.22$ & $1.65 \pm 0.37$ & $2.65 \pm 0.79$ & $0.99 \pm 0.71$ \\ |
| 55 |
> |
Data/MC & $1.56 \pm 0.24$ & $1.63 \pm 0.27$ & $1.68 \pm 0.45$ & $1.74 \pm 0.48$ \\ |
| 56 |
|
\hline |
| 57 |
|
\hline |
| 58 |
|
\hline |
| 59 |
< |
DY MC & $27 \pm 2$ & $23 \pm 2$ & $14 \pm 2$ & $25 \pm 3$ & $11 \pm 2$ & $3 \pm 1$ & $1 \pm 1$ \\ |
| 60 |
< |
DY Data & $47 \pm 8$ & $36 \pm 7$ & $28 \pm 6$ & $35 \pm 6$ & $19 \pm 5$ & $11 \pm 3$ & $1 \pm 1$ \\ |
| 59 |
> |
DY MC & $25 \pm 2$ & $20 \pm 2$ & $5 \pm 1$ & $5 \pm 1$ \\ |
| 60 |
> |
DY Data & $42 \pm 7$ & $38 \pm 7$ & $12 \pm 4$ & $12 \pm 4$ \\ |
| 61 |
|
\hline |
| 62 |
< |
DY Data/MC & $1.75 \pm 0.31$ & $1.58 \pm 0.32$ & $2.00 \pm 0.47$ & $1.38 \pm 0.31$ & $1.78 \pm 0.56$ & $3.29 \pm 1.73$ & $0.98 \pm 1.20$ \\ |
| 62 |
> |
DY Data/MC & $1.73 \pm 0.32$ & $1.85 \pm 0.37$ & $2.37 \pm 0.96$ & $2.58 \pm 1.16$ \\ |
| 63 |
|
\hline |
| 64 |
|
\hline |
| 65 |
|
\hline |
| 66 |
< |
$SFR_{top}$ & $1.66 \pm 0.40$ & $1.51 \pm 0.35$ & $1.89 \pm 0.56$ & $1.35 \pm 0.28$ & $1.71 \pm 0.51$ & $2.97 \pm 1.26$ & $0.98 \pm 0.71$ \\ |
| 66 |
> |
$SFR_{top}$ & $1.64 \pm 0.40$ & $1.74 \pm 0.46$ & $2.02 \pm 0.68$ & $2.16 \pm 0.75$ \\ |
| 67 |
|
\hline |
| 68 |
|
\end{tabular}} |
| 69 |
|
\caption{ Yields in \mt\ tail comparing the \zjets\ MC prediction (after |
| 70 |
< |
applying SFs) to data after subtracting the non-\zjets\ components. |
| 70 |
> |
applying SFs) to data without subtracting the non-\zjets\ components (top table) and with subtracting the non-\zjets\ components (bottom table). |
| 71 |
|
CR2PRESEL refers to a sample with $\met>50$ GeV and $\mt>150$ GeV. |
| 52 |
– |
The uncertainties are statistical only. NEED TO ADD THE SYMBOLS |
| 53 |
– |
DEFINED IN THE TEXT FOR THESE SCALE FACTORS. IS THIS GOING TO BE |
| 54 |
– |
DONE SEPARATELY FOR MUONS AND ELECTRONS??? |
| 55 |
– |
MAYBE WANT TO REMOVE LAST ENTRIES WHERE STATS ARE VERY LOW |
| 72 |
|
\label{tab:cr2yields}} |
| 73 |
|
\end{center} |
| 74 |
|
\end{table} |
| 75 |
|
|
| 76 |
+ |
%\hline |
| 77 |
+ |
%$N_{1l-top}$ SF & - & - & $172 \pm 58$ & $119 \pm 42$ \\ |
| 78 |
+ |
%\hline |
| 79 |
+ |
%$N_{1l-top}$ Opt/Pess & - & - & $256 \pm 131$ & $120 \pm 50$ \\ |
| 80 |
+ |
|
| 81 |
|
|
| 82 |
|
\begin{figure}[hbt] |
| 83 |
|
\begin{center} |
| 88 |
|
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/CR2plots/mt_lepcor_scaled_met100_nj4_emucomb.pdf} |
| 89 |
|
|
| 90 |
|
\caption{ |
| 91 |
< |
Comparison of the pseudo\-\met\ (top, left), pseudo\-\mt\ (top, |
| 91 |
> |
Comparison of the pseudo-\met\ (top, left), pseudo-\mt\ (top, |
| 92 |
|
right and bottom) distributions in data vs. MC for events |
| 93 |
|
satisfying the requirements of CR2, combining both the muon and |
| 94 |
< |
electron channels. The pseudo\-\mt\ distributions are shown |
| 94 |
> |
electron channels. The pseudo-\mt\ distributions are shown |
| 95 |
|
before any additional requirements (top, right) and after |
| 96 |
< |
requiring pseudo\-\met>50 GeV (bottom, left) and pseudo\-\met>100 GeV (bottom, right) . |
| 96 |
> |
requiring pseudo-\met $>$50 GeV (bottom, left) and pseudo-\met |
| 97 |
> |
$>$ 100 GeV (bottom, right). |
| 98 |
|
\label{fig:cr2met} |
| 99 |
|
} |
| 100 |
|
\end{center} |
| 101 |
|
\end{figure} |
| 102 |
|
|
| 103 |
< |
\begin{figure}[hbt] |
| 104 |
< |
\begin{center} |
| 105 |
< |
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/CR2plots/mt_lepcor_scaled_met150_nj4_emucomb.pdf}% |
| 106 |
< |
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/CR2plots/mt_lepcor_scaled_met200_nj4_emucomb.pdf} |
| 107 |
< |
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/CR2plots/mt_lepcor_scaled_met250_nj4_emucomb.pdf}% |
| 108 |
< |
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/CR2plots/mt_lepcor_scaled_met300_nj4_emucomb.pdf} |
| 109 |
< |
\caption{ |
| 110 |
< |
Comparison of the \mt\ distribution in data vs. MC for events |
| 111 |
< |
satisfying the requirements of CR2, combining both the muon and |
| 112 |
< |
electron channels. The pseudo-\met\ requirements used are |
| 113 |
< |
150 GeV (top, left), 200 GeV (top, right), 250 GeV (bottom, |
| 114 |
< |
left) and 300 GeV (bottom, right). |
| 115 |
< |
\label{fig:cr2mtrest} |
| 116 |
< |
} |
| 117 |
< |
\end{center} |
| 118 |
< |
\end{figure} |
| 119 |
< |
\clearpage |
| 103 |
> |
%\begin{figure}[hbt] |
| 104 |
> |
% \begin{center} |
| 105 |
> |
% \includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/CR2plots/mt_lepcor_scaled_met150_nj4_emucomb.pdf}% |
| 106 |
> |
% \includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/CR2plots/mt_lepcor_scaled_met200_nj4_emucomb.pdf} |
| 107 |
> |
% \includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/CR2plots/mt_lepcor_scaled_met250_nj4_emucomb.pdf}% |
| 108 |
> |
% \includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/CR2plots/mt_lepcor_scaled_met300_nj4_emucomb.pdf} |
| 109 |
> |
% \caption{ |
| 110 |
> |
% Comparison of the \mt\ distribution in data vs. MC for events |
| 111 |
> |
% satisfying the requirements of CR2, combining both the muon and |
| 112 |
> |
% electron channels. The pseudo-\met\ requirements used are |
| 113 |
> |
% 150 GeV (top, left), 200 GeV (top, right), 250 GeV (bottom, |
| 114 |
> |
% left) and 300 GeV (bottom, right). |
| 115 |
> |
%\label{fig:cr2mtrest} |
| 116 |
> |
%} |
| 117 |
> |
% \end{center} |
| 118 |
> |
%\end{figure} |
| 119 |
> |
\clearpage |
