ViewVC Help
View File | Revision Log | Show Annotations | Root Listing
root/cvsroot/UserCode/benhoob/cmsnotes/StopSearch/systematics.tex
(Generate patch)

Comparing UserCode/benhoob/cmsnotes/StopSearch/systematics.tex (file contents):
Revision 1.27 by vimartin, Wed Oct 31 17:13:29 2012 UTC vs.
Revision 1.29 by benhoob, Wed Oct 31 22:19:34 2012 UTC

# Line 183 | Line 183 | to the \ttdl\ background prediction base
183  
184   We examine the contribution of possible signal events in the \ttll\
185   control regions (CR4 and CR5). It should be emphasized that these
186 < regions are not used to apply data/MC SFs. They are used to quantify
186 > regions are not used to apply data/MC SFs. They are used only to quantify
187   the level of data/MC agreement and assign a corresponding uncertainty.
188 + As a result, if signal events were to populate these control regions
189 + this would not lead to an increase in the predicted background.
190  
191   To illustrate how much signal is expected to populate these control
192 < regions, we examine signal points near the edge of the analysis'
192 > regions, we examine signal points near the edge of the analysis
193   sensitivity (m(stop) = 450 m($\chi^0$) = 0 for T2tt, m(stop) = 450
194 < m($\chi^0$) = 0 for T2bw with x=0.75 and m(stop) = 350
193 < m($\chi^0$) = 0 for T2bw with x=0.5).
194 > m($\chi^0$) = 0, x=0.75 for T2bw)
195   Table~\ref{tab:signalcontamination} compares the expected signal
196   yields and the raw total MC background prediction in the control
197   regions with the \met\ and \mt\ requirements corresponding to SRB, SRC
198   and SRD (these are the signal regions that dominate the
199   sensitivity). The signal contamination is smaller than the uncertainty
200   on the dilepton background and smaller than the signal/background in
201 < the signal regions, with the exception of the T2bw scenario with x=0.5.
202 < However, based on the fact that the CR4 and CR5 are not used to extract
203 < data/MC SFs and that CR4 shows a slight deficit of data compared to
204 < the MC prediction, indicating that we do not observe evidence of
205 < signal contamination, we do not assign an additional uncertainty.
201 > the signal regions.
202 > Based on the fact that the CR4 and CR5 are not used to extract
203 > data/MC scale factors and that we do not observe evidence for signal
204 > contamination in these control regions (CR5, the control region with
205 > larger statistical precision, actually shows a slight deficit of data w.r.t. MC), we
206 > do not assign a correction for signal contamination in these control regions.
207  
208   \begin{table}[!h]
209   \begin{center}
# Line 215 | Line 217 | signal contamination, we do not assign a
217   %\hline
218   & T2tt m(stop) = 450 m($\chi^0$) = 0  & $2.6 \pm 0.3$ $(2\%)$ & $2.0 \pm 0.2$ $(4\%)$ & $1.4 \pm 0.2$ $(7\%)$ \\
219   & T2bw x=0.75 m(stop) = 450 m($\chi^0$) = 0 & $10.5 \pm 0.4$ $(6\%)$ &$6.1 \pm 0.3$ $(12\%)$ & $3.1 \pm 0.2$ $(16\%)$ \\
218 & T2bw x=0.5  m(stop) = 350 m($\chi^0$) = 0     & $32.1 \pm 1.5$ $(19\%)$ & $14.7 \pm 1.0$ $(29\%)$ & $5.5 \pm 0.6$ $(28\%)$ \\
220   \hline
221   \hline
222   \multirow{4}{*}{CR5} & Raw MC            & $306.5 \pm 6.2$& $101.8 \pm 3.6$& $38.0 \pm 2.2$ \\
223   %\hline
224   & T2tt m(stop) = 450 m($\chi^0$) = 0  & $10.6 \pm 0.6$ $(3\%)$ & $7.8 \pm 0.5$ $(8\%)$ & $5.4 \pm 0.4$ $(14\%)$ \\
225   & T2bw x=0.75 m(stop) = 450 m($\chi^0$) = 0 & $17.3 \pm 0.5$ $(6\%)$ &$11.3 \pm 0.4$ $(11\%)$ & $6.2 \pm 0.3$ $(16\%)$\\
225 & T2bw x=0.5  m(stop) = 350 m($\chi^0$) = 0     & $33.0 \pm 1.5$ $(11\%)$& $14.4 \pm 1.0$ $(14\%)$& $5.7 \pm 0.6$ $(15\%)$ \\
226   \hline
227   \hline
228   \hline
229   \multirow{4}{*}{SIGNAL} & Raw MC                 & $486.3 \pm 7.8$& $164.3 \pm 4.5$& $61.5 \pm 2.8$ \\
230   & T2tt m(stop) = 450 m($\chi^0$) = 0    & $65.3 \pm 1.4$ $(13\%)$& $48.8 \pm 1.2$ $(30\%)$& $32.9 \pm 1.0$ $(53\%)$ \\
231   & T2bw x=0.75 m(stop) = 450 m($\chi^0$) = 0     & $69.3 \pm 1.0$ $(14\%)$& $47.3 \pm 0.8$ $(29\%)$& $27.3 \pm 0.6$ $(44\%)$ \\
232 & T2bw x=0.5  m(stop) = 350 m($\chi^0$) = 0     & $105.5 \pm 2.8$ $(22\%)$& $44.6 \pm 1.8$ $(27\%)$& $15.9 \pm 1.1$ $(26\%)$ \\
232   \hline
233   \end{tabular}}
234   \caption{ Yields in \mt\ tail comparing the raw SM MC prediction to the

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines