| 1 |
benhoob |
1.1 |
\clearpage
|
| 2 |
|
|
\section{Background Estimation Techniques}
|
| 3 |
|
|
\label{sec:bkg}
|
| 4 |
|
|
|
| 5 |
|
|
In this section we describe the techniques used to estimate the SM backgrounds in our signal regions defined by requirements of large \MET.
|
| 6 |
benhoob |
1.2 |
The SM backgrounds fall into four categories:
|
| 7 |
benhoob |
1.1 |
|
| 8 |
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
| 9 |
benhoob |
1.2 |
\item \zjets: this is the dominant background after the preselection. The \MET\ in \zjets\ events is estimated with the
|
| 10 |
benhoob |
1.1 |
``\MET\ templates'' technique described in Sec.~\ref{sec:bkg_zjets};
|
| 11 |
|
|
\item Flavor-symmetric (FS) backgrounds: this category includes processes which produces 2 leptons of uncorrelated flavor. It is dominated
|
| 12 |
|
|
by \ttbar\ but also contains Z$\to\tau\tau$, WW, and single top processes. This is the dominant contribution in the signal regions, and it
|
| 13 |
benhoob |
1.2 |
is estimated using a data control sample of e$\mu$ events as described in Sec.~\ref{sec:bkg_fs};
|
| 14 |
benhoob |
1.1 |
\item WZ and ZZ backgrounds: this background is estimated from MC, after validating the MC modeling of these processes using data control
|
| 15 |
benhoob |
1.2 |
samples with jets and exactly 3 leptons (WZ control sample) and exactly 4 leptons (ZZ control sample) as described in Sec.~\ref{sec:bkg_vz};
|
| 16 |
benhoob |
1.1 |
\item Rare SM backgrounds: this background contains rare processes such as $t\bar{t}$V and triple vector boson processes VVV (V=W,Z).
|
| 17 |
benhoob |
1.2 |
This background is estimated from MC as described in Sec.~\ref{sec:bkg_raresm}. {\bf TODO: add rare MC}
|
| 18 |
benhoob |
1.1 |
\end{itemize}
|
| 19 |
|
|
|
| 20 |
|
|
\subsection{Estimating the \zjets\ Background with \MET\ Templates}
|
| 21 |
|
|
\label{sec:bkg_zjets}
|
| 22 |
|
|
|
| 23 |
|
|
The premise of this data driven technique is that \MET in \zjets\ events
|
| 24 |
|
|
is produced by the hadronic recoil system and {\it not} by the leptons making up the Z.
|
| 25 |
|
|
Therefore, the basic idea of the \MET\ template method is to measure the \MET\ distribution in
|
| 26 |
|
|
a control sample which has no true MET and the same general attributes regarding
|
| 27 |
|
|
fake MET as in \zjets\ events. We thus use a sample of \gjets\ events, since both \zjets\
|
| 28 |
|
|
and \gjets\ events consist of a well-measured object recoiling against hadronic jets.
|
| 29 |
|
|
|
| 30 |
|
|
For selecting photon-like objects, the very loose photon selection described in Sec.~\ref{sec:phosel} is used.
|
| 31 |
|
|
It is not essential for the photon sample to have high purity. For our purposes, selecting jets with predominantly
|
| 32 |
|
|
electromagnetic energy deposition in a good fiducial volume suffices to ensure that
|
| 33 |
|
|
they are well measured and do not contribute to fake \MET. The \gjets\ events are selected with a suite of
|
| 34 |
|
|
single photon triggers with \pt thresholds varying from 22--90 GeV. The events are weighted by the trigger prescale
|
| 35 |
|
|
such that \gjets\ events evenly sample the conditions over the full period of data taking.
|
| 36 |
|
|
There remains a small difference in the PU conditions in the \gjets\ vs. \zjets\ samples due to the different
|
| 37 |
|
|
dependencies of the $\gamma$ vs. Z isolation efficiencies on PU. To account for this, we reweight the \gjets\ samples
|
| 38 |
|
|
to match the distribution of reconstructed primary vertices in the \zjets\ sample.
|
| 39 |
|
|
|
| 40 |
|
|
To account for kinematic differences between the hadronic systems in the control vs. signal
|
| 41 |
|
|
samples, we measure the \MET\ distributions in the \gjets\ sample in bins of the number of jets
|
| 42 |
|
|
and the scalar sum of jet transverse energies (\Ht). These \MET distributions are normalized to unit area to form ``MET templates''.
|
| 43 |
|
|
The prediction of the MET in each \Z event is the template which corresponds to the \njets\ and
|
| 44 |
|
|
\Ht in the \zjets\ event. The prediction for the \Z sample is simply the sum of all such templates.
|
| 45 |
|
|
These templates are displayed in App.~\ref{app:templates}.
|
| 46 |
|
|
|
| 47 |
|
|
While there is in principle a small contribution from backgrounds other than \zjets\ in the preselection regions,
|
| 48 |
|
|
this contribution is only $\approx$3\% ($\approx$2\%) of the total sample in the inclusive search (targeted search),
|
| 49 |
|
|
as shown in Table~\ref{table:zyields_2j} (Table~\ref{table:zyields_2j_targeted}, and is therefore negligible compared to the total
|
| 50 |
|
|
background uncertainty.
|
| 51 |
|
|
|
| 52 |
|
|
\subsection{Estimating the Flavor-Symmetric Background with e$\mu$ Events}
|
| 53 |
|
|
\label{sec:bkg_fs}
|
| 54 |
|
|
|
| 55 |
|
|
In this subsection we describe the background estimate for the FS background. Since this background produces equal rates of same-flavor (SF)
|
| 56 |
|
|
ee and $\mu\mu$ lepton pairs as opposite-flavor (OF) e$\mu$ lepton pairs, the OF yield can be used to estimate the SF yield, after
|
| 57 |
|
|
correcting for the different electron vs. muon offline selection efficiencies and the different efficiencies for the ee, $\mu\mu$, and e$\mu$ triggers.
|
| 58 |
|
|
|
| 59 |
|
|
An important quantity needed to translate from the OF yield to a prediction for the background in the SF final state is the ratio
|
| 60 |
|
|
$R_{\mu e} = \epsilon_\mu / \epsilon_e$, where $\epsilon_\mu$ ($\epsilon_e$) indicates the offline muon (electron) selection efficiency.
|
| 61 |
|
|
This quantity can be extracted from data using the observed Z$\to\mu\mu$ and Z$\to$ee yields in the preselection region, after correcting
|
| 62 |
|
|
for the different trigger efficiencies.
|
| 63 |
|
|
|
| 64 |
|
|
Hence we define:
|
| 65 |
|
|
|
| 66 |
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
| 67 |
|
|
\item $N_{ee}^{\rm{trig}} = \epsilon_{ee}^{\rm{trig}}N_{ee}^{\rm{offline}}$,
|
| 68 |
|
|
\item $N_{\mu\mu}^{\rm{trig}} = \epsilon_{\mu\mu}^{\rm{trig}}N_{\mu\mu}^{\rm{offline}}$,
|
| 69 |
|
|
\item $N_{e\mu}^{\rm{trig}} = \epsilon_{e\mu}^{\rm{trig}}N_{e\mu}^{\rm{offline}}$.
|
| 70 |
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
| 71 |
|
|
|
| 72 |
|
|
Here $N_{\ell\ell}^{\rm{trig}}$ denotes the number of selected events in the $\ell\ell$ channel passing the offline and trigger selection
|
| 73 |
|
|
(in other words, the number of recorded events), $\epsilon_{\ell\ell}^{\rm{trig}}$ is the trigger efficiency, and
|
| 74 |
|
|
$N_{e\mu}^{\rm{offline}}$ is the number of events that would have passed the offline selection if the trigger had an efficiency of 100\%.
|
| 75 |
|
|
Thus we calculate the quantity:
|
| 76 |
|
|
|
| 77 |
|
|
\begin{equation}
|
| 78 |
|
|
R_{\mu e} = \sqrt{\frac{N_{\mu\mu}^{\rm{offline}}}{N_{ee}^{\rm{offline}}}} = \sqrt{\frac{N_{\mu\mu}^{\rm{trig}}/\epsilon_{\mu\mu}^{\rm{trig}}}{N_{ee}^{\rm{trig}}/\epsilon_{ee}^{\rm{trig}}}}
|
| 79 |
|
|
= \sqrt{\frac{80367/0.88}{54426/0.95}} = 1.26\pm0.07.
|
| 80 |
|
|
\end{equation}
|
| 81 |
|
|
|
| 82 |
|
|
Here we have used the Z$\to\mu\mu$ and Z$\to$ee yields from Table~\ref{table:zyields_2j} and the trigger efficiencies quoted in Sec.~\ref{sec:datasets}.
|
| 83 |
|
|
The indicated uncertainty is due to the 3\% uncertainties in the trigger efficiencies. {\bf TODO: check for variation w.r.t. lepton \pt}.
|
| 84 |
|
|
The predicted yields in the ee and $\mu\mu$ final states are calculated from the observed e$\mu$ yield as
|
| 85 |
|
|
|
| 86 |
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
| 87 |
|
|
\item $N_{ee}^{\rm{predicted}} = \frac {N_{e\mu}^{\rm{trig}}} {\epsilon_{e\mu}^{\rm{trig}}} \frac {\epsilon_{ee}^{\rm{trig}}} {2 R_{\mu e}}
|
| 88 |
|
|
= \frac{N_{e\mu}^{\rm{trig}}}{0.92}\frac{0.95}{2\times1.26} = (0.41\pm0.04) \times N_{e\mu}^{\rm{trig}}$ ,
|
| 89 |
|
|
\item $N_{\mu\mu}^{\rm{predicted}} = \frac {N_{e\mu}^{\rm{trig}}} {\epsilon_{e\mu}^{\rm{trig}}} \frac {\epsilon_{\mu\mu}^{\rm{trig}} R_{\mu e}} {2}
|
| 90 |
|
|
= \frac {N_{e\mu}^{\rm{trig}}} {0.95} \frac {0.88 \times 1.26}{2} = (0.58\pm0.06) \times N_{e\mu}^{\rm{trig}}$,
|
| 91 |
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
| 92 |
|
|
|
| 93 |
|
|
and the predicted yield in the combined ee and $\mu\mu$ channel is simply the sum of these two predictions:
|
| 94 |
|
|
|
| 95 |
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
| 96 |
|
|
\item $N_{ee+\mu\mu}^{\rm{predicted}} = (0.99\pm0.06)\times N_{e\mu}^{\rm{trig}}$.
|
| 97 |
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
| 98 |
|
|
|
| 99 |
|
|
Note that the relative uncertainty in the combined ee and $\mu\mu$ prediction is smaller than the those for the individual ee and $\mu\mu$ predictions
|
| 100 |
|
|
because the uncertainty in $R_{\mu e}$ cancels when summing the ee and $\mu\mu$ predictions. {\bf N.B. these uncertainties are preliminary}.
|
| 101 |
|
|
|
| 102 |
|
|
To improve the statistical precision of the FS background estimate, we remove the requirement that the e$\mu$ lepton pair falls in the Z mass window.
|
| 103 |
|
|
Instead we scale the e$\mu$ yield by $K$, the efficiency for e$\mu$ events to satisfy the Z mass requirement, extracted from simulation. In Fig.~\ref{fig:K_incl}
|
| 104 |
|
|
we display the value of $K$ in data and simulation, for a variety of \MET\ requirements, for the inclusive analysis. Based on this we chose $K=0.14\pm0.02$
|
| 105 |
|
|
for all \MET\ regions except for \MET\ $>$ 300 GeV. For this region the statistical precision is reduced, so that we inflate the uncertainty and chose $K=0.14\pm0.08$.
|
| 106 |
|
|
The corresponding plot for the targeted analysis, including the b-veto, is displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:K_targeted}.
|
| 107 |
|
|
Based on this we chose $K=0.13\pm0.02$
|
| 108 |
|
|
for all \MET\ regions up to \MET\ $>$ 100 GeV. For higher \MET\ regions (\MET\ $>$ 150 GeV and above) the statistical precision is reduced,
|
| 109 |
|
|
so that we inflate the uncertainty and chose $K=0.13\pm0.07$.
|
| 110 |
|
|
|
| 111 |
|
|
\begin{figure}[!ht]
|
| 112 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 113 |
|
|
\begin{tabular}{cc}
|
| 114 |
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{plots/K_incl.pdf} &
|
| 115 |
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{plots/K_excl.pdf} \\
|
| 116 |
|
|
\end{tabular}
|
| 117 |
|
|
\caption{
|
| 118 |
|
|
The efficiency for e$\mu$ events to satisfy the dilepton mass requirement, $K$, in data and simulation for inclusive \MET\ intervals (left) and
|
| 119 |
|
|
exclusive \MET\ intervals (right) for the inclusive analysis. Based on this we chose $K=0.14\pm0.02$ for all \MET\ regions except \MET\ $>$ 300 GeV,
|
| 120 |
|
|
where we chose $K=0.14\pm0.08$.
|
| 121 |
|
|
{\bf plots made with 10\% of \zjets\ MC statistics, to be remade with full statistics}
|
| 122 |
|
|
\label{fig:K_incl}
|
| 123 |
|
|
}
|
| 124 |
|
|
\end{center}
|
| 125 |
|
|
\end{figure}
|
| 126 |
|
|
|
| 127 |
|
|
\begin{figure}[!hb]
|
| 128 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 129 |
|
|
\begin{tabular}{cc}
|
| 130 |
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{plots/extractK_inclusive_bveto.pdf} &
|
| 131 |
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{plots/extractK_exclusive_bveto.pdf} \\
|
| 132 |
|
|
\end{tabular}
|
| 133 |
|
|
\caption{
|
| 134 |
|
|
The efficiency for e$\mu$ events to satisfy the dilepton mass requirement, $K$, in data and simulation for inclusive \MET\ intervals (left) and
|
| 135 |
|
|
exclusive \MET\ intervals (right) for the targeted analysis, including the b-veto.
|
| 136 |
|
|
Based on this we chose $K=0.13\pm0.02$ for the \MET\ regions up to \MET\ $>$ 100 GeV.
|
| 137 |
|
|
For higher \MET\ regions we chose $K=0.13\pm0.07$.
|
| 138 |
|
|
{\bf plots made with 10\% of \zjets\ MC statistics, to be remade with full statistics}
|
| 139 |
|
|
\label{fig:K_targeted}
|
| 140 |
|
|
}
|
| 141 |
|
|
\end{center}
|
| 142 |
|
|
\end{figure}
|
| 143 |
|
|
|
| 144 |
|
|
\clearpage
|
| 145 |
|
|
|
| 146 |
|
|
\subsection{Estimating the WZ and ZZ Background with MC}
|
| 147 |
|
|
\label{sec:bkg_vz}
|
| 148 |
|
|
|
| 149 |
|
|
Backgrounds from W($\ell\nu$)Z($\ell\ell$) where the W lepton is not identified or is outside acceptance, and Z($\nu\nu$)Z($\ell\ell$),
|
| 150 |
|
|
are estimated from simulation. The MC modeling of these processes is validated by comparing the MC predictions with data in control samples
|
| 151 |
|
|
with exactly 3 leptons (WZ control sample) and exactly 4 leptons (ZZ control sample).
|
| 152 |
|
|
The relevant WZ and ZZ MC samples are:
|
| 153 |
|
|
|
| 154 |
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
| 155 |
|
|
\footnotesize{
|
| 156 |
|
|
\item \verb=/WZJetsTo3LNu_TuneZ2_8TeV-madgraph-tauola/Summer12-PU_S7_START52_V9-v2/AODSIM= ($\sigma=1.058$ pb),
|
| 157 |
|
|
\item \verb=/ZZJetsTo4L_TuneZ2star_8TeV-madgraph-tauola/Summer12-PU_S7_START52_V9-v3/AODSIM= ($\sigma=0.093$ pb),
|
| 158 |
|
|
}
|
| 159 |
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
| 160 |
|
|
The WZJetsTo2L2Q, ZZJetsTo2L2Q, and ZZJetsTo2L2Nu samples are also used in this analysis but their contribution to the 3-lepton and 4-lepton
|
| 161 |
|
|
control samples is negligible.
|
| 162 |
|
|
|
| 163 |
|
|
\subsubsection{WZ Validation Studies}
|
| 164 |
|
|
\label{sec:bkg_wz}
|
| 165 |
|
|
|
| 166 |
|
|
A pure WZ sample can be selected in data with the requirements:
|
| 167 |
|
|
|
| 168 |
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
| 169 |
|
|
\item Exactly 3 $p_T>20$~GeV leptons passing analysis identication and isolation requirements,
|
| 170 |
|
|
\item 2 of the 3 leptons must fall in the Z window 81-101 GeV,
|
| 171 |
|
|
\item \MET $>$ 50 GeV (to suppress DY).
|
| 172 |
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
| 173 |
|
|
|
| 174 |
|
|
The data and MC yields passing the above selection are in Table~\ref{tab:wz}.
|
| 175 |
|
|
The inclusive yields (without any jet requirements) agree within 17\%, which is approximately equal
|
| 176 |
|
|
to the uncertainty in the measured WZ cross section. A data vs. MC comparison of kinematic
|
| 177 |
|
|
distributions (jet multiplicity, \MET, Z \pt) is given in Fig.~\ref{fig:wz}. High \MET\
|
| 178 |
|
|
values in WZ and ZZ events arise from highly boosted W or Z bosons that decay leptonically,
|
| 179 |
|
|
and we therefore check that the MC does a reasonable job of reproducing the \pt distributions of the
|
| 180 |
|
|
leptonically decaying \Z. While the inclusive WZ yields are in reasonable agreement, we observe
|
| 181 |
|
|
an excess in data in events with at least 2 jets, corresponding to the jet multiplicity requirement
|
| 182 |
|
|
in our preselection. We observe 60 events in data while the MC predicts $34\pm5.2$~(stat)), representing an excess of 78\%,
|
| 183 |
|
|
as indicated in Table~\ref{tab:wz2j}.
|
| 184 |
|
|
We note some possible causes for this discrepancy:
|
| 185 |
|
|
|
| 186 |
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
| 187 |
|
|
|
| 188 |
|
|
\item The \zjets\ contribution is under-estimated here, for 2 reasons: first, because the \zjets\
|
| 189 |
|
|
yield passing a \MET $>$ 50 GeV requirement is under-estimated in MC and second, because the fake
|
| 190 |
|
|
rate is typically under-estimated in the MC. To get a rough idea for how much the excess depends
|
| 191 |
|
|
on the \zjets\ yield, if the \zjets\ yield is doubled then the excess is reduced from 78\% to 55\%.
|
| 192 |
|
|
{\bf currently using 10\% of \zjets\ MC, and there is 1 event with a weight of about 5, plots and tables to be remade with full \zjets\ stats}.
|
| 193 |
|
|
|
| 194 |
|
|
\item The \ttbar\ contribution is under-estimated here because the fake
|
| 195 |
|
|
rate is typically under-estimated in the MC. To get a rough idea for how much the excess depends
|
| 196 |
|
|
on the \ttbar\ yield, if the \ttbar\ yield is doubled then the excess is reduced from 78\% to 57\%.
|
| 197 |
|
|
|
| 198 |
|
|
\item Currently no attempt is made to reject jets from pile-up interactions, which may be responsible
|
| 199 |
|
|
for some of this excess. To check this, we increase the jet \pt requirement to 40 GeV which
|
| 200 |
|
|
helps to suppress PU jets and observe 39 events in data vs. an MC prediction of $25\pm5.2$~(stat),
|
| 201 |
|
|
decreasing the excess from 78\% to 58\%. In the future this may be improved by explicitly
|
| 202 |
|
|
requiring the jets to be consistent with originating from the signal primary vertex.
|
| 203 |
|
|
|
| 204 |
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
| 205 |
|
|
|
| 206 |
|
|
Based on these studies we currently assess an uncertainty of 80\% on the WZ yield.
|
| 207 |
|
|
|
| 208 |
|
|
\begin{table}[htb]
|
| 209 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 210 |
|
|
\caption{\label{tab:wz} Data and Monte Carlo yields passing the WZ preselection. }
|
| 211 |
|
|
\begin{tabular}{lccccc}
|
| 212 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 213 |
|
|
Sample & ee & $\mu\mu$ & e$\mu$ & total \\
|
| 214 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 215 |
|
|
WZ & 58.9 $\pm$ 0.7 & 82.2 $\pm$ 0.8 & 4.0 $\pm$ 0.2 &145.1 $\pm$ 1.0 \\
|
| 216 |
|
|
\ttbar & 0.6 $\pm$ 0.5 & 4.3 $\pm$ 1.5 & 3.0 $\pm$ 1.2 & 8.0 $\pm$ 2.0 \\
|
| 217 |
|
|
\zjets & 0.4 $\pm$ 0.4 & 4.9 $\pm$ 4.9 & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.0 & 5.3 $\pm$ 4.9 \\
|
| 218 |
|
|
ZZ & 1.4 $\pm$ 0.0 & 2.0 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.1 $\pm$ 0.0 & 3.5 $\pm$ 0.0 \\
|
| 219 |
|
|
WW & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.2 $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.2 $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.3 $\pm$ 0.1 \\
|
| 220 |
|
|
single top & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.1 $\pm$ 0.1 \\
|
| 221 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 222 |
|
|
total SM MC & 61.3 $\pm$ 0.9 & 93.7 $\pm$ 5.2 & 7.3 $\pm$ 1.3 &162.3 $\pm$ 5.4 \\
|
| 223 |
|
|
data & 68 & 108 & 14 & 190 \\
|
| 224 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 225 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 226 |
|
|
|
| 227 |
|
|
\end{tabular}
|
| 228 |
|
|
\end{center}
|
| 229 |
|
|
\end{table}
|
| 230 |
|
|
|
| 231 |
|
|
\begin{table}[htb]
|
| 232 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 233 |
|
|
\caption{\label{tab:wz2j} Data and Monte Carlo yields passing the WZ preselection and \njets\ $>$ 2. }
|
| 234 |
|
|
\begin{tabular}{lccccc}
|
| 235 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 236 |
|
|
Sample & ee & $\mu\mu$ & e$\mu$ & total \\
|
| 237 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 238 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 239 |
|
|
WZ & 9.8 $\pm$ 0.3 & 13.3 $\pm$ 0.3 & 0.6 $\pm$ 0.1 & 23.6 $\pm$ 0.4 \\
|
| 240 |
|
|
\ttbar & 0.2 $\pm$ 0.2 & 2.0 $\pm$ 0.9 & 2.2 $\pm$ 1.2 & 4.4 $\pm$ 1.5 \\
|
| 241 |
|
|
\zjets & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.0 & 4.9 $\pm$ 4.9 & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.0 & 4.9 $\pm$ 4.9 \\
|
| 242 |
|
|
ZZ & 0.3 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.4 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.7 $\pm$ 0.0 \\
|
| 243 |
|
|
WW & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.1 $\pm$ 0.0 \\
|
| 244 |
|
|
single top & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.0 \\
|
| 245 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 246 |
|
|
tot SM MC & 10.3 $\pm$ 0.3 & 20.8 $\pm$ 5.0 & 2.8 $\pm$ 1.2 & 33.8 $\pm$ 5.2 \\
|
| 247 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 248 |
|
|
data & 23 & 32 & 5 & 60 \\
|
| 249 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 250 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 251 |
|
|
|
| 252 |
|
|
\end{tabular}
|
| 253 |
|
|
\end{center}
|
| 254 |
|
|
\end{table}
|
| 255 |
|
|
|
| 256 |
|
|
\begin{figure}[tbh]
|
| 257 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 258 |
|
|
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{plots/WZ.pdf}
|
| 259 |
|
|
\caption{\label{fig:wz}\protect
|
| 260 |
|
|
Data vs. MC comparisons for the WZ selection discussed in the text for \lumi.
|
| 261 |
|
|
The number of jets, missing transverse energy, and Z boson transverse momentum are displayed.
|
| 262 |
|
|
}
|
| 263 |
|
|
\end{center}
|
| 264 |
|
|
\end{figure}
|
| 265 |
|
|
|
| 266 |
|
|
\clearpage
|
| 267 |
|
|
|
| 268 |
|
|
\subsubsection{ZZ Validation Studies}
|
| 269 |
|
|
\label{sec:bkg_zz}
|
| 270 |
|
|
|
| 271 |
|
|
A pure ZZ sample can be selected in data with the requirements:
|
| 272 |
|
|
|
| 273 |
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
| 274 |
|
|
\item Exactly 4 $p_T>20$~GeV leptons passing analysis identication and isolation requirements,
|
| 275 |
|
|
\item 2 of the 4 leptons must fall in the $Z$ window 81-101 GeV.
|
| 276 |
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
| 277 |
|
|
|
| 278 |
|
|
The data and MC yields passing the above selection are in Table~\ref{tab:zz}. Again we observe an
|
| 279 |
|
|
excess in data with respect to the MC prediction (29 observed vs. $17.3\pm0.1$~(stat) MC predicted).
|
| 280 |
|
|
After requiring at least 2 jets, we observe 2 events and the MC predicts $1.5\pm0.1$~(stat).
|
| 281 |
|
|
Based on this we apply an uncertainty of 80\% to the ZZ background.
|
| 282 |
|
|
|
| 283 |
|
|
\begin{table}[htb]
|
| 284 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 285 |
|
|
\caption{\label{tab:zz} Data and Monte Carlo yields for the ZZ preselection. }
|
| 286 |
|
|
\begin{tabular}{lccccc}
|
| 287 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 288 |
|
|
Sample & ee & $\mu\mu$ & e$\mu$ & total \\
|
| 289 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 290 |
|
|
|
| 291 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 292 |
|
|
ZZ & 6.6 $\pm$ 0.0 & 9.9 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.4 $\pm$ 0.0 & 17.0 $\pm$ 0.1 \\
|
| 293 |
|
|
WZ & 0.1 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.2 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.3 $\pm$ 0.0 \\
|
| 294 |
|
|
\zjets & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.0 \\
|
| 295 |
|
|
\ttbar & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.0 \\
|
| 296 |
|
|
WW & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.0 \\
|
| 297 |
|
|
single top & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.0 \\
|
| 298 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 299 |
|
|
total SM MC & 6.7 $\pm$ 0.0 & 10.1 $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.0 & 17.3 $\pm$ 0.1 \\
|
| 300 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 301 |
|
|
data & 13 & 16 & 0 & 29 \\
|
| 302 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 303 |
|
|
|
| 304 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 305 |
|
|
\end{tabular}
|
| 306 |
|
|
\end{center}
|
| 307 |
|
|
\end{table}
|
| 308 |
|
|
|
| 309 |
|
|
\begin{figure}[tbh]
|
| 310 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 311 |
|
|
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{plots/ZZ.pdf}
|
| 312 |
|
|
\caption{\label{fig:zz}\protect
|
| 313 |
|
|
Data vs. MC comparisons for the $ZZ$ selection discussed in the text for \lumi.
|
| 314 |
|
|
The number of jets, missing transverse energy, and $Z$ boson transverse momentum are displayed.
|
| 315 |
|
|
}
|
| 316 |
|
|
\end{center}
|
| 317 |
|
|
\end{figure}
|
| 318 |
|
|
|
| 319 |
|
|
|
| 320 |
|
|
|
| 321 |
|
|
|
| 322 |
|
|
\subsection{Estimating the Rare SM Backgrounds with MC}
|
| 323 |
|
|
\label{sec:bkg_raresm}
|
| 324 |
|
|
|
| 325 |
|
|
{\bf TODO: list samples, yields in preselection region, and \MET distribution}
|
