| 1 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\subsection{Dilepton studies in CR4}
|
| 2 |
|
|
\label{sec:cr4}
|
| 3 |
|
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
\subsubsection{Modeling of Additional Hard Jets in Top Dilepton Events}
|
| 5 |
|
|
\label{sec:jetmultiplicity}
|
| 6 |
|
|
|
| 7 |
|
|
Dilepton \ttbar\ events have 2 jets from the top decays, so additional
|
| 8 |
|
|
jets from radiation or higher order contributions are required to
|
| 9 |
claudioc |
1.10 |
enter the signal sample. In this Section we develop an algorithm
|
| 10 |
vimartin |
1.13 |
to be applied to all \ttll\ MC samples to ensure that the distribution
|
| 11 |
claudioc |
1.10 |
of extra jets is properly modelled.
|
| 12 |
|
|
|
| 13 |
|
|
|
| 14 |
|
|
The modeling of additional jets in \ttbar\
|
| 15 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
events is checked in a \ttll\ control sample,
|
| 16 |
|
|
selected by requiring
|
| 17 |
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
| 18 |
|
|
\item exactly 2 selected electrons or muons with \pt $>$ 20 GeV
|
| 19 |
linacre |
1.8 |
\item \met\ $>$ 50 GeV
|
| 20 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\item $\geq1$ b-tagged jet
|
| 21 |
burkett |
1.2 |
\item Z-veto ($|m_{\ell\ell} - 91| > 15$ GeV)
|
| 22 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\end{itemize}
|
| 23 |
|
|
Figure~\ref{fig:dileptonnjets} shows a comparison of the jet
|
| 24 |
|
|
multiplicity distribution in data and MC for this two-lepton control
|
| 25 |
|
|
sample. After requiring at least 1 b-tagged jet, most of the
|
| 26 |
|
|
events have 2 jets, as expected from the dominant process \ttll. There is also a
|
| 27 |
|
|
significant fraction of events with additional jets.
|
| 28 |
|
|
The 3-jet sample is mainly comprised of \ttbar\ events with 1 additional
|
| 29 |
|
|
emission and similarly the $\ge4$-jet sample contains primarily
|
| 30 |
|
|
$\ttbar+\ge2$ jet events.
|
| 31 |
|
|
%Even though the primary \ttbar\
|
| 32 |
|
|
%Madgraph sample used includes up to 3 additional partons at the Matrix
|
| 33 |
|
|
%Element level, which are intended to describe additional hard jets,
|
| 34 |
|
|
%Figure~\ref{fig:dileptonnjets} shows a slight mis-modeling of the
|
| 35 |
|
|
%additional jets.
|
| 36 |
|
|
|
| 37 |
|
|
|
| 38 |
|
|
\begin{figure}[hbt]
|
| 39 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 40 |
linacre |
1.8 |
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/njets_all_met50_mueg.pdf}
|
| 41 |
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/njets_all_met50_diel.pdf}%
|
| 42 |
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/njets_all_met50_dimu.pdf}
|
| 43 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\caption{
|
| 44 |
|
|
\label{fig:dileptonnjets}%\protect
|
| 45 |
|
|
Comparison of the jet multiplicity distribution in data and MC for dilepton events in the \E-\M\
|
| 46 |
|
|
(top), \E-\E\ (bottom left) and \M-\M\ (bottom right) channels.}
|
| 47 |
|
|
\end{center}
|
| 48 |
|
|
\end{figure}
|
| 49 |
|
|
|
| 50 |
|
|
It should be noted that in the case of \ttll\ events
|
| 51 |
|
|
with a single reconstructed lepton, the other lepton may be
|
| 52 |
|
|
mis-reconstructed as a jet. For example, a hadronic tau may be
|
| 53 |
|
|
mis-identified as a jet (since no $\tau$ identification is used).
|
| 54 |
|
|
In this case only 1 additional jet from radiation may suffice for
|
| 55 |
|
|
a \ttll\ event to enter the signal sample. As a result, both the
|
| 56 |
|
|
samples with $\ttbar+1$ jet and $\ttbar+\ge2$ jets are relevant for
|
| 57 |
burkett |
1.2 |
estimating the top dilepton background in the signal region.
|
| 58 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
|
| 59 |
|
|
%In this section we discuss a correction to $ N_{2 lep}^{MC} $ in Equation XXX
|
| 60 |
|
|
%due to differences in the modelling of the jet multiplicity in data versus MC.
|
| 61 |
|
|
%The same correction also enters $ N_{peak}^{MC}$ in Equation XXX to the extend that the
|
| 62 |
|
|
%dilepton contributions to $ N_{peak}^{MC}$ gets corrected.
|
| 63 |
|
|
|
| 64 |
|
|
%The dilepton control sample is defined by the following requirements:
|
| 65 |
|
|
%\begin{itemize}
|
| 66 |
|
|
%\item Exactly 2 selected electrons or muons with \pt $>$ 20 GeV
|
| 67 |
|
|
%\item \met\ $>$ 50 GeV
|
| 68 |
|
|
%\item $\geq1$ b-tagged jet
|
| 69 |
|
|
%\end{itemize}
|
| 70 |
|
|
%
|
| 71 |
|
|
%This sample is dominated by \ttll. The distribution of \njets\ for data and MC passing this selection is displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:dilepton_njets}.
|
| 72 |
|
|
%We use this distribution to derive scale factors which reweight the \ttll\ MC \njets\ distribution to match the data. We define the following
|
| 73 |
|
|
%quantities
|
| 74 |
|
|
%
|
| 75 |
|
|
%\begin{itemize}
|
| 76 |
|
|
%\item $N_{2}=$ data yield minus non-dilepton \ttbar\ MC yield for \njets\ $\leq$ 2
|
| 77 |
|
|
%\item $N_{3}=$ data yield minus non-dilepton \ttbar\ MC yield for \njets\ = 3
|
| 78 |
|
|
%\item $N_{4}=$ data yield minus non-dilepton \ttbar\ MC yield for \njets\ $\geq$ 4
|
| 79 |
|
|
%\item $M_{2}=$ dilepton \ttbar\ MC yield for \njets\ $\leq$ 2
|
| 80 |
|
|
%\item $M_{3}=$ dilepton \ttbar\ MC yield for \njets\ = 3
|
| 81 |
|
|
%\item $M_{4}=$ dilepton \ttbar\ MC yield for \njets\ $\geq$ 4
|
| 82 |
|
|
%\end{itemize}
|
| 83 |
|
|
%
|
| 84 |
|
|
%We use these yields to define 3 scale factors, which quantify the data/MC ratio in the 3 \njets\ bins:
|
| 85 |
|
|
%
|
| 86 |
|
|
%\begin{itemize}
|
| 87 |
|
|
%\item $SF_2 = N_2 / M_2$
|
| 88 |
|
|
%\item $SF_3 = N_3 / M_3$
|
| 89 |
|
|
%\item $SF_4 = N_4 / M_4$
|
| 90 |
|
|
%\end{itemize}
|
| 91 |
|
|
%
|
| 92 |
|
|
%And finally, we define the scale factors $K_3$ and $K_4$:
|
| 93 |
|
|
%
|
| 94 |
|
|
%\begin{itemize}
|
| 95 |
|
|
%\item $K_3 = SF_3 / SF_2$
|
| 96 |
|
|
%\item $K_4 = SF_4 / SF_2$
|
| 97 |
|
|
%\end{itemize}
|
| 98 |
|
|
%
|
| 99 |
|
|
%The scale factor $K_3$ is extracted from dilepton \ttbar\ events with \njets = 3, which have exactly 1 ISR jet.
|
| 100 |
|
|
%The scale factor $K_4$ is extracted from dilepton \ttbar\ events with \njets $\geq$ 4, which have at least 2 ISR jets.
|
| 101 |
|
|
%Both of these scale factors are needed since dilepton \ttbar\ events which fall in our signal region (including
|
| 102 |
|
|
%the \njets $\geq$ 4 requirement) may require exactly 1 ISR jet, in the case that the second lepton is reconstructed
|
| 103 |
|
|
%as a jet, or at least 2 ISR jets, in the case that the second lepton is not reconstructed as a jet. These scale
|
| 104 |
|
|
%factors are applied to the dilepton \ttbar\ MC only. For a given MC event, we determine whether to use $K_3$ or $K_4$
|
| 105 |
|
|
%by counting the number of reconstructed jets in the event ($N_{\rm{jets}}^R$) , and subtracting off any reconstructed
|
| 106 |
|
|
%jet which is matched to the second lepton at generator level ($N_{\rm{jets}}^\ell$); $N_{\rm{jets}}^{\rm{cor}} = N_{\rm{jets}}^R - N_{\rm{jets}}^\ell$.
|
| 107 |
|
|
%For events with $N_{\rm{jets}}^{\rm{cor}}=3$ the factor $K_3$ is applied, while for events with $N_{\rm{jets}}^{\rm{cor}}\geq4$ the factor $K_4$ is applied.
|
| 108 |
|
|
%For all subsequent steps, the scale factors $K_3$ and $K_4$ have been
|
| 109 |
|
|
%applied to the \ttll\ MC.
|
| 110 |
|
|
|
| 111 |
|
|
|
| 112 |
|
|
Table~\ref{tab:njetskfactors} shows scale factors ($K_3$ and $K_4$)
|
| 113 |
|
|
used to correct the
|
| 114 |
|
|
fraction of events with additional jets in MC to the observed fraction
|
| 115 |
|
|
in data. These scale factors are calculated from Fig.~\ref{fig:dileptonnjets}
|
| 116 |
|
|
as follows:
|
| 117 |
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
| 118 |
claudioc |
1.10 |
\item $N_{2}=$ data yield minus non-dilepton \ttbar\ MC yield for
|
| 119 |
|
|
\njets\ =1 or 2.
|
| 120 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\item $N_{3}=$ data yield minus non-dilepton \ttbar\ MC yield for \njets\ = 3
|
| 121 |
|
|
\item $N_{4}=$ data yield minus non-dilepton \ttbar\ MC yield for \njets\ $\geq$ 4
|
| 122 |
claudioc |
1.10 |
\item $M_{2}=$ dilepton \ttbar\ MC yield for \njets\ = 1 or 2
|
| 123 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\item $M_{3}=$ dilepton \ttbar\ MC yield for \njets\ = 3
|
| 124 |
|
|
\item $M_{4}=$ dilepton \ttbar\ MC yield for \njets\ $\geq$ 4
|
| 125 |
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
| 126 |
|
|
\noindent then
|
| 127 |
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
| 128 |
|
|
\item $SF_2 = N_2 / M_2$
|
| 129 |
|
|
\item $SF_3 = N_3 / M_3$
|
| 130 |
|
|
\item $SF_4 = N_4 / M_4$
|
| 131 |
|
|
\item $K_3 = SF_3 / SF_2$
|
| 132 |
|
|
\item $K_4 = SF_4 / SF_2$
|
| 133 |
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
| 134 |
|
|
\noindent This insures that $K_3 M_3/(M_2 + K_3 M_3 + K_4 M_4) = N_3 /
|
| 135 |
|
|
(N_2+N_3+N_4)$ and similarly for the $\geq 4$ jet bin.
|
| 136 |
|
|
|
| 137 |
linacre |
1.8 |
Table~\ref{tab:njetskfactors} also shows the values of $K_3$ and $K_4$ when the \met\ cut in the control sample definition is changed from 50 GeV to 100 GeV and 150 GeV.
|
| 138 |
claudioc |
1.10 |
% These values of $K_3$ and $K_4$ are not used in the analysis, but
|
| 139 |
vimartin |
1.13 |
This demonstrates that there is no statistically significant dependence of $K_3$ and $K_4$ on the \met\ cut.
|
| 140 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
|
| 141 |
linacre |
1.8 |
|
| 142 |
claudioc |
1.10 |
The factors $K_3$ and $K_4$ (derived with the 100 GeV \met\ cut) are applied to the \ttll\ MC throughout the
|
| 143 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
entire analysis, i.e.
|
| 144 |
|
|
whenever \ttll\ MC is used to estimate or subtract
|
| 145 |
claudioc |
1.10 |
a yield or distribution. To be explicit, whenever Powheg is used,
|
| 146 |
|
|
the Powheg $K_3$ and $K_4$ are used; whenever default MadGraph is
|
| 147 |
|
|
used, the MadGraph $K_3$ and $K_4$ are used, etc.
|
| 148 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
%
|
| 149 |
|
|
In order to do so, it is first necessary to count the number of
|
| 150 |
|
|
additional jets from radiation and exclude leptons mis-identified as
|
| 151 |
|
|
jets. A jet is considered a mis-identified lepton if it is matched to a
|
| 152 |
|
|
generator-level second lepton with sufficient energy to satisfy the jet
|
| 153 |
|
|
\pt\ requirement ($\pt>30~\GeV$). Then \ttll\ events that need two
|
| 154 |
|
|
radiation jets to enter our selection are scaled by $K_4$,
|
| 155 |
|
|
while those that only need one radiation jet are scaled by $K_3$.
|
| 156 |
|
|
|
| 157 |
|
|
\begin{table}[!ht]
|
| 158 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 159 |
vimartin |
1.12 |
{\footnotesize
|
| 160 |
linacre |
1.8 |
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c}
|
| 161 |
|
|
\cline{2-4}
|
| 162 |
linacre |
1.9 |
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{ \met\ cut for data/MC scale factors} \\
|
| 163 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\hline
|
| 164 |
linacre |
1.8 |
Jet Multiplicity Sample & 50 GeV & 100 GeV & 150 GeV \\
|
| 165 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\hline
|
| 166 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 167 |
linacre |
1.8 |
N jets $= 3$ (sensitive to $\ttbar+1$ extra jet from radiation)
|
| 168 |
|
|
& $K_3 = 0.98 \pm 0.02$ & $K_3 = 1.01 \pm 0.03$ & $K_3 = 1.00 \pm 0.08$ \\
|
| 169 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
N jets $\ge4$ (sensitive to $\ttbar+\ge2$ extra jets from radiation)
|
| 170 |
linacre |
1.8 |
& $K_4 = 0.94 \pm 0.02$ & $K_4 = 0.93 \pm 0.04$ & $K_4 = 1.00 \pm 0.08$ \\
|
| 171 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\hline
|
| 172 |
vimartin |
1.12 |
\end{tabular}}
|
| 173 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\caption{Data/MC scale factors used to account for differences in the
|
| 174 |
|
|
fraction of events with additional hard jets from radiation in
|
| 175 |
claudioc |
1.10 |
\ttll\ events. The values derived with the 100 GeV \met\ cut are applied
|
| 176 |
linacre |
1.8 |
to the \ttll\ MC throughout the analysis. \label{tab:njetskfactors}}
|
| 177 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\end{center}
|
| 178 |
|
|
\end{table}
|
| 179 |
|
|
|
| 180 |
|
|
\clearpage
|
| 181 |
|
|
|
| 182 |
|
|
|
| 183 |
|
|
|
| 184 |
|
|
\subsubsection{Validation of the ``Physics'' Modelling of the \ttdl\
|
| 185 |
|
|
MC in CR4}
|
| 186 |
burkett |
1.2 |
\label{sec:CR4-valid}
|
| 187 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
|
| 188 |
|
|
As mentioned above, $t\bar{t} \to $ dileptons where one of the leptons
|
| 189 |
|
|
is somehow lost constitutes the main background.
|
| 190 |
|
|
The object of this test is to validate the $M_T$ distribution of this
|
| 191 |
|
|
background by looking at the $M_T$ distribution of well identified
|
| 192 |
|
|
dilepton events.
|
| 193 |
|
|
We construct a transverse mass variable from the leading lepton and
|
| 194 |
vimartin |
1.4 |
the \met. We distinguish between events with leading electrons and
|
| 195 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
leading muons.
|
| 196 |
|
|
|
| 197 |
|
|
The $t\bar{t}$ MC is corrected using the $K_3$ and $K_4$ factors
|
| 198 |
|
|
from Section~\ref{sec:jetmultiplicity}. It is also normalized to the
|
| 199 |
claudioc |
1.11 |
total data yield separately for the \met\ requirements of the various signal
|
| 200 |
|
|
regions. These normalization factors are listed
|
| 201 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
in Table~\ref{tab:cr4mtsf} and are close to unity.
|
| 202 |
|
|
|
| 203 |
|
|
The underlying \met\ and $M_T$ distributions are shown in
|
| 204 |
burkett |
1.2 |
Figures~\ref{fig:cr4met} and~\ref{fig:cr4mtrest}. The data-MC agreement
|
| 205 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
is quite good. Quantitatively, this is also shown in Table~\ref{tab:cr4yields}.
|
| 206 |
claudioc |
1.10 |
This is a {\bf very} important Table. It shows that for well
|
| 207 |
|
|
identified \ttdl\ , the MC can predict the $M_T$ tail. Since the
|
| 208 |
|
|
main background is also \ttdl\ except with one ``missed'' lepton,
|
| 209 |
|
|
this is a key test.
|
| 210 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
|
| 211 |
|
|
\begin{table}[!h]
|
| 212 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 213 |
vimartin |
1.3 |
{\footnotesize
|
| 214 |
vimartin |
1.6 |
\begin{tabular}{l||c||c|c|c|c|c|c}
|
| 215 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\hline
|
| 216 |
vimartin |
1.3 |
Sample & CR4PRESEL & CR4A & CR4B & CR4C &
|
| 217 |
vimartin |
1.6 |
CR4D & CR4E & CR4F\\
|
| 218 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\hline
|
| 219 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 220 |
vimartin |
1.6 |
$\mu$ Data/MC-SF & $1.01 \pm 0.03$ & $0.96 \pm 0.04$ & $0.99 \pm 0.07$ & $1.05 \pm 0.13$ & $0.91 \pm 0.20$ & $1.10 \pm 0.34$ & $1.50 \pm 0.67$ \\
|
| 221 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\hline
|
| 222 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 223 |
vimartin |
1.6 |
e Data/MC-SF & $0.99 \pm 0.03$ & $0.99 \pm 0.05$ & $0.91 \pm 0.08$ & $0.84 \pm 0.13$ & $0.70 \pm 0.18$ & $0.73 \pm 0.29$ & $0.63 \pm 0.38$ \\
|
| 224 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\hline
|
| 225 |
vimartin |
1.3 |
\end{tabular}}
|
| 226 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\caption{ Data/MC scale factors for total yields, applied to compare
|
| 227 |
|
|
the shapes of the distributions.
|
| 228 |
|
|
The uncertainties are statistical only.
|
| 229 |
|
|
\label{tab:cr4mtsf}}
|
| 230 |
|
|
\end{center}
|
| 231 |
|
|
\end{table}
|
| 232 |
|
|
|
| 233 |
|
|
|
| 234 |
|
|
\begin{table}[!h]
|
| 235 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 236 |
vimartin |
1.3 |
{\footnotesize
|
| 237 |
vimartin |
1.6 |
\begin{tabular}{l||c||c|c|c|c|c|c}
|
| 238 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\hline
|
| 239 |
vimartin |
1.3 |
Sample & CR4PRESEL & CR4A & CR4B & CR4C &
|
| 240 |
vimartin |
1.6 |
CR4D & CR4E & CR4F\\
|
| 241 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\hline
|
| 242 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 243 |
vimartin |
1.7 |
$\mu$ MC & $256 \pm 14$ & $152 \pm 11$ & $91 \pm 9$ & $26 \pm 5$ & $6 \pm 2$ & $4 \pm 2$ & $2 \pm 1$ \\
|
| 244 |
vimartin |
1.6 |
$\mu$ Data & $251$ & $156$ & $98$ & $27$ & $8$ & $6$ & $4$ \\
|
| 245 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\hline
|
| 246 |
vimartin |
1.7 |
$\mu$ Data/MC SF & $0.98 \pm 0.08$ & $1.02 \pm 0.11$ & $1.08 \pm 0.16$ & $1.04 \pm 0.28$ & $1.29 \pm 0.65$ & $1.35 \pm 0.80$ & $2.10 \pm 1.72$ \\
|
| 247 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\hline
|
| 248 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 249 |
vimartin |
1.7 |
e MC & $227 \pm 13$ & $139 \pm 11$ & $73 \pm 8$ & $21 \pm 4$ & $5 \pm 2$ & $2 \pm 1$ & $1 \pm 1$ \\
|
| 250 |
vimartin |
1.6 |
e Data & $219$ & $136$ & $72$ & $19$ & $2$ & $1$ & $1$ \\
|
| 251 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\hline
|
| 252 |
vimartin |
1.7 |
e Data/MC SF & $0.96 \pm 0.09$ & $0.98 \pm 0.11$ & $0.99 \pm 0.16$ & $0.92 \pm 0.29$ & $0.41 \pm 0.33$ & $0.53 \pm 0.62$ & $0.76 \pm 0.96$ \\
|
| 253 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 254 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 255 |
|
|
$\mu$+e MC & $483 \pm 19$ & $291 \pm 16$ & $164 \pm 13$ & $47 \pm 7$ & $11 \pm 3$ & $6 \pm 2$ & $3 \pm 2$ \\
|
| 256 |
|
|
$\mu$+e Data & $470$ & $292$ & $170$ & $46$ & $10$ & $7$ & $5$ \\
|
| 257 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 258 |
|
|
$\mu$+e Data/MC SF & $0.97 \pm 0.06$ & $1.00 \pm 0.08$ & $1.04 \pm 0.11$ & $0.99 \pm 0.20$ & $0.90 \pm 0.37$ & $1.11 \pm 0.57$ & $1.55 \pm 1.04$ \\
|
| 259 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\hline
|
| 260 |
vimartin |
1.3 |
\end{tabular}}
|
| 261 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\caption{ Yields in \mt\ tail comparing the MC prediction (after
|
| 262 |
|
|
applying SFs) to data. The uncertainties are statistical only.
|
| 263 |
|
|
\label{tab:cr4yields}}
|
| 264 |
|
|
\end{center}
|
| 265 |
|
|
\end{table}
|
| 266 |
|
|
|
| 267 |
|
|
\begin{figure}[hbt]
|
| 268 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 269 |
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/CR4plots/met_met50_leadmuo_nj4.pdf}%
|
| 270 |
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/CR4plots/met_met50_leadele_nj4.pdf}
|
| 271 |
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/CR4plots/mt_met100_leadmuo_nj4.pdf}%
|
| 272 |
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/CR4plots/mt_met100_leadele_nj4.pdf}
|
| 273 |
|
|
\caption{
|
| 274 |
|
|
Comparison of the \met\ (top) and \mt\ for $\met>100$ (bottom) distributions in data vs. MC for events
|
| 275 |
|
|
with a leading muon (left) and leading electron (right)
|
| 276 |
|
|
satisfying the requirements of CR4.
|
| 277 |
|
|
\label{fig:cr4met}
|
| 278 |
|
|
}
|
| 279 |
|
|
\end{center}
|
| 280 |
|
|
\end{figure}
|
| 281 |
|
|
|
| 282 |
|
|
\begin{figure}[hbt]
|
| 283 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 284 |
vimartin |
1.3 |
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/CR4plots/mt_met50_leadmuo_nj4.pdf}%
|
| 285 |
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/CR4plots/mt_met50_leadele_nj4.pdf}
|
| 286 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/CR4plots/mt_met150_leadmuo_nj4.pdf}%
|
| 287 |
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/CR4plots/mt_met150_leadele_nj4.pdf}
|
| 288 |
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/CR4plots/mt_met200_leadmuo_nj4.pdf}%
|
| 289 |
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/CR4plots/mt_met200_leadele_nj4.pdf}
|
| 290 |
|
|
\caption{
|
| 291 |
|
|
Comparison of the \mt\ distribution in data vs. MC for events
|
| 292 |
|
|
with a leading muon (left) and leading electron (right)
|
| 293 |
|
|
satisfying the requirements of CR4. The \met\ requirements used are
|
| 294 |
vimartin |
1.3 |
50 GeV (top), 200 GeV (middle) and 250 GeV (bottom).
|
| 295 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\label{fig:cr4mtrest}
|
| 296 |
|
|
}
|
| 297 |
|
|
\end{center}
|
| 298 |
|
|
\end{figure}
|
| 299 |
|
|
|
| 300 |
|
|
|
| 301 |
|
|
\clearpage
|
