| 148 |
|
|
| 149 |
|
\subsection{Uncertainty on the \ttll\ Acceptance} |
| 150 |
|
|
| 151 |
– |
[CLAUDIO: WE NEED TO DISCUSS THIS A LITTLE MORE -- THEN I CAN PUT THE |
| 152 |
– |
WORDS IN] |
| 153 |
– |
|
| 151 |
|
The \ttbar\ background prediction is obtained from MC, with corrections |
| 152 |
|
derived from control samples in data. The uncertainty associated with |
| 153 |
|
the theoretical modeling of the \ttbar\ production and decay is |
| 186 |
|
This effect was studied earlier using 7~TeV samples and found to be negligible. |
| 187 |
|
\end{itemize} |
| 188 |
|
|
| 189 |
< |
|
| 190 |
< |
\begin{table}[!h] |
| 191 |
< |
\begin{center} |
| 192 |
< |
{\footnotesize |
| 193 |
< |
\begin{tabular}{l||c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c} |
| 194 |
< |
\hline |
| 195 |
< |
Sample & Powheg & Madgraph & Mass Up & Mass Down & Scale Up & Scale Down & |
| 196 |
< |
Match Up & Match Down \\ |
| 197 |
< |
\hline |
| 198 |
< |
\hline |
| 199 |
< |
SRA & $579 \pm 10$ & $569 \pm 16$ & $591 \pm 18$ & $610 \pm 22$ & $651 \pm 22$ & $537 \pm 16$ & $578 \pm 18$ & $570 \pm 17$ \\ |
| 200 |
< |
\hline |
| 201 |
< |
SRB & $328 \pm 7$ & $307 \pm 11$ & $329 \pm 13$ & $348 \pm 15$ & $344 \pm 15$ & $287 \pm 10$ & $313 \pm 13$ & $307 \pm 12$ \\ |
| 202 |
< |
\hline |
| 203 |
< |
SRC & $111 \pm 4$ & $99 \pm 5$ & $107 \pm 7$ & $113 \pm 8$ & $124 \pm 8$ & $95 \pm 6$ & $93 \pm 6$ & $106 \pm 6$ \\ |
| 204 |
< |
\hline |
| 205 |
< |
SRD & $39 \pm 2$ & $35 \pm 3$ & $41 \pm 4$ & $41 \pm 5$ & $47 \pm 5$ & $33 \pm 3$ & $31 \pm 3$ & $39 \pm 4$ \\ |
| 206 |
< |
\hline |
| 207 |
< |
SRE & $14 \pm 1$ & $15 \pm 2$ & $17 \pm 3$ & $12 \pm 3$ & $15 \pm 3$ & $13 \pm 2$ & $12 \pm 2$ & $16 \pm 2$ \\ |
| 211 |
< |
\hline |
| 212 |
< |
\end{tabular}} |
| 213 |
< |
\caption{ \ttdl\ predictions for alternative MC samples. The uncertainties are statistical only. |
| 214 |
< |
\label{tab:ttdlalt}} |
| 215 |
< |
\end{center} |
| 216 |
< |
\end{table} |
| 189 |
> |
\begin{figure}[hbt] |
| 190 |
> |
\begin{center} |
| 191 |
> |
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/n_dl_comp_SRA.pdf}% |
| 192 |
> |
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/n_dl_comp_SRB.pdf} |
| 193 |
> |
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/n_dl_comp_SRC.pdf}% |
| 194 |
> |
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/n_dl_comp_SRD.pdf} |
| 195 |
> |
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/n_dl_comp_SRE.pdf} |
| 196 |
> |
\caption{ |
| 197 |
> |
\label{fig:ttllsyst}\protect |
| 198 |
> |
Comparison of the \ttll\ central prediction with those using |
| 199 |
> |
alternative MC samples. The blue band corresponds to the |
| 200 |
> |
total statistical error for all data and MC samples. The |
| 201 |
> |
alternative sample predictions are indicated by the |
| 202 |
> |
datapoints. The uncertainties on the alternative predictions |
| 203 |
> |
correspond to the uncorrelated statistical uncertainty from |
| 204 |
> |
the size of the alternative sample only. Note the |
| 205 |
> |
suppressed vertical scales.} |
| 206 |
> |
\end{center} |
| 207 |
> |
\end{figure} |
| 208 |
|
|
| 209 |
|
|
| 210 |
|
\begin{table}[!h] |
| 220 |
|
\hline |
| 221 |
|
SRB & $6$ & $0$ & $6$ & $5$ & $12$ & $5$ & $6$ \\ |
| 222 |
|
\hline |
| 223 |
< |
SRC & $10$ & $3$ & $2$ & $12$ & $14$ & $16$ & $4$ \\ |
| 224 |
< |
\hline |
| 225 |
< |
SRD & $10$ & $6$ & $6$ & $21$ & $15$ & $19$ & $0$ \\ |
| 226 |
< |
\hline |
| 227 |
< |
SRE & $6$ & $17$ & $15$ & $2$ & $12$ & $17$ & $8$ \\ |
| 223 |
> |
% SRC & $10$ & $3$ & $2$ & $12$ & $14$ & $16$ & $4$ \\ |
| 224 |
> |
% \hline |
| 225 |
> |
% SRD & $10$ & $6$ & $6$ & $21$ & $15$ & $19$ & $0$ \\ |
| 226 |
> |
% \hline |
| 227 |
> |
% SRE & $6$ & $17$ & $15$ & $2$ & $12$ & $17$ & $8$ \\ |
| 228 |
|
\hline |
| 229 |
|
\end{tabular}} |
| 230 |
< |
\caption{ Relative difference in \ttdl\ predictions for alternative MC samples. |
| 230 |
> |
\caption{ Relative difference in \ttdl\ predictions for alternative MC |
| 231 |
> |
samples in |
| 232 |
> |
the higher statistics regions SRA and SRB. These differences |
| 233 |
> |
are based on the central values of the predictions. For a fuller |
| 234 |
> |
picture |
| 235 |
> |
of the situation, including statistical uncertainites, see Fig.~\ref{fig:ttllsyst}. |
| 236 |
|
\label{tab:fracdiff}} |
| 237 |
|
\end{center} |
| 238 |
|
\end{table} |
| 239 |
|
|
| 240 |
|
|
| 241 |
< |
\begin{table}[!h] |
| 242 |
< |
\begin{center} |
| 243 |
< |
{\footnotesize |
| 248 |
< |
\begin{tabular}{l||c|c|c|c|c|c|c} |
| 249 |
< |
\hline |
| 250 |
< |
$N \sigma$ & Madgraph & Mass Up & Mass Down & Scale Up & Scale Down & |
| 251 |
< |
Match Up & Match Down \\ |
| 252 |
< |
\hline |
| 253 |
< |
\hline |
| 254 |
< |
SRA & $0.38$ & $0.42$ & $1.02$ & $2.34$ & $1.58$ & $0.01$ & $0.33$ \\ |
| 255 |
< |
\hline |
| 256 |
< |
SRB & $1.17$ & $0.07$ & $0.98$ & $0.76$ & $2.29$ & $0.78$ & $1.11$ \\ |
| 257 |
< |
\hline |
| 258 |
< |
SRC & $1.33$ & $0.37$ & $0.26$ & $1.24$ & $1.82$ & $1.97$ & $0.54$ \\ |
| 259 |
< |
\hline |
| 260 |
< |
SRD & $0.82$ & $0.46$ & $0.38$ & $1.32$ & $1.27$ & $1.47$ & $0.00$ \\ |
| 261 |
< |
\hline |
| 262 |
< |
SRE & $0.32$ & $0.75$ & $0.66$ & $0.07$ & $0.66$ & $0.83$ & $0.38$ \\ |
| 263 |
< |
\hline |
| 264 |
< |
\end{tabular}} |
| 265 |
< |
\caption{ N $\sigma$ difference in \ttdl\ predictions for alternative MC samples. |
| 266 |
< |
\label{tab:nsig}} |
| 267 |
< |
\end{center} |
| 268 |
< |
\end{table} |
| 241 |
> |
In Fig.~\ref{fig:ttllsyst} we compare the alternate MC \ttll\ background predictions |
| 242 |
> |
for regions A through E. We can make the following observations based |
| 243 |
> |
on this Figure. |
| 244 |
|
|
| 245 |
+ |
\begin{itemize} |
| 246 |
+ |
\item In the tighter signal regions we are running out of |
| 247 |
+ |
statistics. |
| 248 |
+ |
\item Within the limited statistics, there is no evidence that the |
| 249 |
+ |
situation changes as we go from signal region A to signal region E. |
| 250 |
+ |
Therefore, we assess a systematic based on the relatively high |
| 251 |
+ |
statistics |
| 252 |
+ |
test in signal region A, and apply the same systematic uncertainty |
| 253 |
+ |
to all other regions. |
| 254 |
+ |
\item In order to fully (as opposed as 1$\sigma$) cover the |
| 255 |
+ |
alternative MC variations in region A we would have to take a |
| 256 |
+ |
systematic |
| 257 |
+ |
uncertainty of $\approx 10\%$. This would be driven by the |
| 258 |
+ |
scale up/scale down variations, see Table~\ref{tab:fracdiff}. |
| 259 |
+ |
\end{itemize} |
| 260 |
|
|
| 261 |
< |
\begin{table}[!h] |
| 261 |
> |
\begin{table}[!ht] |
| 262 |
|
\begin{center} |
| 263 |
< |
\begin{tabular}{l||c|c|c|c} |
| 274 |
< |
\hline |
| 275 |
< |
Av. $\Delta$ Evt. & Alt. Gen. & $\Delta$ Mass & $\Delta$ Scale |
| 276 |
< |
& $\Delta$ Match \\ |
| 277 |
< |
\hline |
| 263 |
> |
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c} |
| 264 |
|
\hline |
| 265 |
< |
SRA & $5.0$ ($1\%$) & $9.6$ ($2\%$) & $56.8$ ($10\%$) & $4.4$ ($1\%$) \\ |
| 265 |
> |
Sample |
| 266 |
> |
& K3 & K4\\ |
| 267 |
|
\hline |
| 281 |
– |
SRB & $10.4$ ($3\%$) & $9.6$ ($3\%$) & $28.2$ ($9\%$) & $2.8$ ($1\%$) \\ |
| 268 |
|
\hline |
| 269 |
< |
SRC & $5.7$ ($5\%$) & $3.1$ ($3\%$) & $14.5$ ($13\%$) & $6.4$ ($6\%$) \\ |
| 270 |
< |
\hline |
| 271 |
< |
SRD & $1.9$ ($5\%$) & $0.1$ ($0\%$) & $6.9$ ($18\%$) & $3.6$ ($9\%$) \\ |
| 272 |
< |
\hline |
| 273 |
< |
SRE & $0.5$ ($3\%$) & $2.3$ ($16\%$) & $1.0$ ($7\%$) & $1.8$ ($12\%$) \\ |
| 269 |
> |
Powheg & $1.01 \pm 0.03$ & $0.93 \pm 0.04$ \\ |
| 270 |
> |
Madgraph & $1.01 \pm 0.04$ & $0.92 \pm 0.04$ \\ |
| 271 |
> |
Mass Up & $1.00 \pm 0.04$ & $0.92 \pm 0.04$ \\ |
| 272 |
> |
Mass Down & $1.06 \pm 0.04$ & $0.99 \pm 0.05$ \\ |
| 273 |
> |
Scale Up & $1.14 \pm 0.04$ & $1.23 \pm 0.06$ \\ |
| 274 |
> |
Scale Down & $0.89 \pm 0.03$ & $0.74 \pm 0.03$ \\ |
| 275 |
> |
Match Up & $1.02 \pm 0.04$ & $0.97 \pm 0.04$ \\ |
| 276 |
> |
Match Down & $1.02 \pm 0.04$ & $0.91 \pm 0.04$ \\ |
| 277 |
|
\hline |
| 278 |
|
\end{tabular} |
| 279 |
< |
\caption{ Av. difference in \ttdl\ events for alternative sample pairs. |
| 280 |
< |
\label{tab:devt}} |
| 279 |
> |
\caption{$\met>100$ GeV: Data/MC scale factors used to account for differences in the |
| 280 |
> |
fraction of events with additional hard jets from radiation in |
| 281 |
> |
\ttll\ events. \label{tab:njetskfactors_met100}} |
| 282 |
|
\end{center} |
| 283 |
|
\end{table} |
| 284 |
|
|
| 285 |
|
|
| 286 |
+ |
However, we have two pieces of information indicating that the |
| 287 |
+ |
scale up/scale down variations are inconsistent with the data. |
| 288 |
+ |
These are described below. |
| 289 |
+ |
|
| 290 |
+ |
The first piece of information is that the jet multiplicity in the scale |
| 291 |
+ |
up/scale down sample is the most inconsistent with the data. This can be shown |
| 292 |
+ |
in Table~\ref{tab:njetskfactors_met100}, where we tabulate the |
| 293 |
+ |
$K_3$ and $K_4$ factors of Section~\ref{tab:njetskfactors_met100} for |
| 294 |
+ |
different \ttbar\ MC samples. The data/MC disagreement in the $N_{jets}$ |
| 295 |
+ |
distribution |
| 296 |
+ |
for the scale up/scale down samples is also shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dileptonnjets_scaleup} |
| 297 |
+ |
and~\ref{fig:dileptonnjets_scaledw}. This should be compared with the |
| 298 |
+ |
equivalent $N_{jets}$ plots for the default Powheg MC, see |
| 299 |
+ |
Fig.~\ref{fig:dileptonnjets}, which agrees much better with data. |
| 300 |
+ |
|
| 301 |
|
\begin{figure}[hbt] |
| 302 |
|
\begin{center} |
| 303 |
< |
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/n_dl_comp_SRA.pdf}% |
| 304 |
< |
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/n_dl_comp_SRB.pdf} |
| 305 |
< |
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/n_dl_comp_SRC.pdf}% |
| 306 |
< |
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/n_dl_comp_SRD.pdf} |
| 307 |
< |
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/n_dl_comp_SRE.pdf} |
| 308 |
< |
\caption{ |
| 309 |
< |
\label{fig:ttllsyst}\protect |
| 305 |
< |
Comparison of the \ttll\ central prediction with those using |
| 306 |
< |
alternative MC samples. The blue band corresponds to the |
| 307 |
< |
total statistical error for all data and MC samples. The |
| 308 |
< |
alternative sample predictions are indicated by the |
| 309 |
< |
datapoints. The uncertainties on the alternative predictions |
| 310 |
< |
correspond to the uncorrelated statistical uncertainty from |
| 311 |
< |
the size of the alternative sample only. |
| 312 |
< |
[TO BE UPDATED WITH THE LATEST SELECTION AND SFS]} |
| 303 |
> |
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/njets_all_met50_mueg_scaleup.pdf} |
| 304 |
> |
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/njets_all_met50_diel_scaleup.pdf}% |
| 305 |
> |
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/njets_all_met50_dimu_scaleup.pdf} |
| 306 |
> |
\caption{ |
| 307 |
> |
\label{fig:dileptonnjets_scaleup}%\protect |
| 308 |
> |
SCALE UP: Comparison of the jet multiplicity distribution in data and MC for dilepton events in the \E-\M\ |
| 309 |
> |
(top), \E-\E\ (bottom left) and \M-\M\ (bottom right) channels.} |
| 310 |
|
\end{center} |
| 311 |
< |
\end{figure} |
| 311 |
> |
\end{figure} |
| 312 |
> |
|
| 313 |
> |
\begin{figure}[hbt] |
| 314 |
> |
\begin{center} |
| 315 |
> |
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/njets_all_met50_mueg_scaledw.pdf} |
| 316 |
> |
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/njets_all_met50_diel_scaledw.pdf}% |
| 317 |
> |
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/njets_all_met50_dimu_scaledw.pdf} |
| 318 |
> |
\caption{ |
| 319 |
> |
\label{fig:dileptonnjets_scaledw}%\protect |
| 320 |
> |
SCALE DOWN: Comparison of the jet multiplicity distribution in data and MC for dilepton events in the \E-\M\ |
| 321 |
> |
(top), \E-\E\ (bottom left) and \M-\M\ (bottom right) channels.} |
| 322 |
> |
\end{center} |
| 323 |
> |
\end{figure} |
| 324 |
> |
|
| 325 |
> |
|
| 326 |
> |
\clearpage |
| 327 |
> |
|
| 328 |
> |
The second piece of information is that we have performed closure |
| 329 |
> |
tests in CR5 using the alternative MC samples. These are exactly |
| 330 |
> |
the same tests as the one performed in Section~\ref{sec:CR5} on the |
| 331 |
> |
Powheg sample. As we argued previously, this is a very powerful |
| 332 |
> |
test of the background calculation. |
| 333 |
> |
The results of this test are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:hugecr5yields}. |
| 334 |
> |
Concentrating on the relatively high statistics CR5A region, we see |
| 335 |
> |
for all \ttbar\ MC samples except scale up/scale down we obtain |
| 336 |
> |
closure within 1$\sigma$. The scale up/scale down tests closes |
| 337 |
> |
worse, only within 2$\sigma$. This again is evidence that the |
| 338 |
> |
scale up/scale down variations are in disagreement with the data. |
| 339 |
> |
|
| 340 |
> |
\input{hugeCR5Table.tex} |
| 341 |
> |
|
| 342 |
> |
Based on the two observations above, we argue that the MC |
| 343 |
> |
scale up/scale down variations are too extreme. We feel that |
| 344 |
> |
a reasonable choice would be to take one-half of the scale up/scale |
| 345 |
> |
down variations in our MC. This factor of 1/2 would then bring |
| 346 |
> |
the discrepancy in the closure test of |
| 347 |
> |
Table~\ref{tab:hugecr5yields} for the scale up/scale down variations |
| 348 |
> |
from about 2$\sigma$ to about 1$\sigma$. |
| 349 |
> |
|
| 350 |
> |
Then, going back to Table~\ref{tab:fracdiff}, and reducing the scale |
| 351 |
> |
up/scale |
| 352 |
> |
down variations by a factor 2, we can see that a systematic |
| 353 |
> |
uncertainty |
| 354 |
> |
of 6\% would fully cover all of the variations from different MC |
| 355 |
> |
samples in SRA and SRB. |
| 356 |
> |
{\bf Thus, we take a 6\% systematic uncertainty, constant as a |
| 357 |
> |
function of signal region, as the systematic due to alternative MC |
| 358 |
> |
models.}. |
| 359 |
> |
Note that this 6\% is also consistent with the level at which we are |
| 360 |
> |
able |
| 361 |
> |
to test the closure of the method in CR5 for the high statistics |
| 362 |
> |
regions |
| 363 |
> |
(Table~\ref{tab:hugecr5yields}). |
| 364 |
> |
|
| 365 |
> |
|
| 366 |
> |
|
| 367 |
> |
|
| 368 |
> |
|
| 369 |
> |
|
| 370 |
> |
%\begin{table}[!h] |
| 371 |
> |
%\begin{center} |
| 372 |
> |
%{\footnotesize |
| 373 |
> |
%\begin{tabular}{l||c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c} |
| 374 |
> |
%\hline |
| 375 |
> |
%Sample & Powheg & Madgraph & Mass Up & Mass Down & Scale |
| 376 |
> |
%Up & Scale Down & |
| 377 |
> |
%Match Up & Match Down \\ |
| 378 |
> |
%\hline |
| 379 |
> |
%\hline |
| 380 |
> |
%SRA & $579 \pm 10$ & $569 \pm 16$ & $591 \pm 18$ & $610 \pm 22$ & $651 \pm 22$ & $537 \pm 16$ & $578 \pm 18$ & $570 \pm 17$ \\ |
| 381 |
> |
%\hline |
| 382 |
> |
%SRB & $328 \pm 7$ & $307 \pm 11$ & $329 \pm 13$ & $348 \pm 15$ & $344 \pm 15$ & $287 \pm 10$ & $313 \pm 13$ & $307 \pm 12$ \\ |
| 383 |
> |
%\hline |
| 384 |
> |
%SRC & $111 \pm 4$ & $99 \pm 5$ & $107 \pm 7$ & $113 \pm 8$ & $124 \pm 8$ & $95 \pm 6$ & $93 \pm 6$ & $106 \pm 6$ \\ |
| 385 |
> |
%\hline |
| 386 |
> |
%SRD & $39 \pm 2$ & $35 \pm 3$ & $41 \pm 4$ & $41 \pm 5$ & $47 \pm 5$ & $33 \pm 3$ & $31 \pm 3$ & $39 \pm 4$ \\ |
| 387 |
> |
%\hline |
| 388 |
> |
%SRE & $14 \pm 1$ & $15 \pm 2$ & $17 \pm 3$ & $12 \pm 3$ & $15 \pm 3$ & $13 \pm 2$ & $12 \pm 2$ & $16 \pm 2$ \\ |
| 389 |
> |
%\hline |
| 390 |
> |
%\end{tabular}} |
| 391 |
> |
%\caption{ \ttdl\ predictions for alternative MC samples. The uncertainties are statistical only. |
| 392 |
> |
%\label{tab:ttdlalt}} |
| 393 |
> |
%\end{center} |
| 394 |
> |
%\end{table} |
| 395 |
> |
|
| 396 |
> |
|
| 397 |
> |
|
| 398 |
> |
|
| 399 |
> |
%\begin{table}[!h] |
| 400 |
> |
%\begin{center} |
| 401 |
> |
%{\footnotesize |
| 402 |
> |
%\begin{tabular}{l||c|c|c|c|c|c|c} |
| 403 |
> |
%\hline |
| 404 |
> |
%$N \sigma$ & Madgraph & Mass Up & Mass Down & Scale Up & Scale Down & |
| 405 |
> |
%Match Up & Match Down \\ |
| 406 |
> |
%\hline |
| 407 |
> |
%\hline |
| 408 |
> |
%SRA & $0.38$ & $0.42$ & $1.02$ & $2.34$ & $1.58$ & $0.01$ & $0.33$ \\ |
| 409 |
> |
%\hline |
| 410 |
> |
%SRB & $1.17$ & $0.07$ & $0.98$ & $0.76$ & $2.29$ & $0.78$ & $1.11$ \\ |
| 411 |
> |
%\hline |
| 412 |
> |
%SRC & $1.33$ & $0.37$ & $0.26$ & $1.24$ & $1.82$ & $1.97$ & $0.54$ \\ |
| 413 |
> |
%\hline |
| 414 |
> |
%SRD & $0.82$ & $0.46$ & $0.38$ & $1.32$ & $1.27$ & $1.47$ & $0.00$ \\ |
| 415 |
> |
%\hline |
| 416 |
> |
%SRE & $0.32$ & $0.75$ & $0.66$ & $0.07$ & $0.66$ & $0.83$ & $0.38$ \\ |
| 417 |
> |
%\hline |
| 418 |
> |
%\end{tabular}} |
| 419 |
> |
%\caption{ N $\sigma$ difference in \ttdl\ predictions for alternative MC samples. |
| 420 |
> |
%\label{tab:nsig}} |
| 421 |
> |
%\end{center} |
| 422 |
> |
%\end{table} |
| 423 |
> |
|
| 424 |
> |
|
| 425 |
> |
%\begin{table}[!h] |
| 426 |
> |
%\begin{center} |
| 427 |
> |
%\begin{tabular}{l||c|c|c|c} |
| 428 |
> |
%\hline |
| 429 |
> |
%Av. $\Delta$ Evt. & Alt. Gen. & $\Delta$ Mass & $\Delta$ Scale |
| 430 |
> |
%& $\Delta$ Match \\ |
| 431 |
> |
%\hline |
| 432 |
> |
%\hline |
| 433 |
> |
%SRA & $5.0$ ($1\%$) & $9.6$ ($2\%$) & $56.8$ ($10\%$) & $4.4$ ($1\%$) \\ |
| 434 |
> |
%\hline |
| 435 |
> |
%SRB & $10.4$ ($3\%$) & $9.6$ ($3\%$) & $28.2$ ($9\%$) & $2.8$ ($1\%$) \\ |
| 436 |
> |
%\hline |
| 437 |
> |
%SRC & $5.7$ ($5\%$) & $3.1$ ($3\%$) & $14.5$ ($13\%$) & $6.4$ ($6\%$) \\ |
| 438 |
> |
%\hline |
| 439 |
> |
%SRD & $1.9$ ($5\%$) & $0.1$ ($0\%$) & $6.9$ ($18\%$) & $3.6$ ($9\%$) \\ |
| 440 |
> |
%\hline |
| 441 |
> |
%SRE & $0.5$ ($3\%$) & $2.3$ ($16\%$) & $1.0$ ($7\%$) & $1.8$ ($12\%$) \\ |
| 442 |
> |
%\hline |
| 443 |
> |
%\end{tabular} |
| 444 |
> |
%\caption{ Av. difference in \ttdl\ events for alternative sample pairs. |
| 445 |
> |
%\label{tab:devt}} |
| 446 |
> |
%\end{center} |
| 447 |
> |
%\end{table} |
| 448 |
> |
|
| 449 |
> |
|
| 450 |
|
|
| 451 |
|
\clearpage |
| 452 |
|
|
