| 191 |
|
To illustrate how much signal is expected to populate these control |
| 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 |
| 195 |
< |
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 |
| 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 |
| 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 & $10.5 \pm 0.4$ $(6\%)$ &$6.1 \pm 0.3$ $(12\%)$ & $3.1 \pm 0.2$ $(16\%)$ \\ |
| 221 |
– |
& 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 & $17.3 \pm 0.5$ $(6\%)$ &$11.3 \pm 0.4$ $(11\%)$ & $6.2 \pm 0.3$ $(16\%)$\\ |
| 228 |
– |
& 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 & $69.3 \pm 1.0$ $(14\%)$& $47.3 \pm 0.8$ $(29\%)$& $27.3 \pm 0.6$ $(44\%)$ \\ |
| 235 |
– |
& 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 |
