| 1 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\section{Data Driven Background Estimation Methods}
|
| 2 |
|
|
\label{sec:datadriven}
|
| 3 |
|
|
We have developed two data-driven methods to
|
| 4 |
|
|
estimate the background in the signal region.
|
| 5 |
|
|
The first one explouts the fact that
|
| 6 |
|
|
\met and \met$/\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ are nearly
|
| 7 |
|
|
uncorrelated for the $t\bar{t}$ background
|
| 8 |
|
|
(Section~\ref{sec:abcd}); the second one
|
| 9 |
|
|
is based on the fact that in $t\bar{t}$ the
|
| 10 |
|
|
$P_T$ of the dilepton pair is on average
|
| 11 |
|
|
nearly the same as the $P_T$ of the pair of neutrinos
|
| 12 |
|
|
from $W$-decays, which is reconstructed as \met in the
|
| 13 |
|
|
detector.
|
| 14 |
|
|
|
| 15 |
|
|
in 30 pb$^{-1}$ we expect $\approx$ 1 SM event in
|
| 16 |
|
|
the signal region. The expectations from the LMO
|
| 17 |
|
|
and LM1 SUSY benchmark points are {\color{red} XX} and
|
| 18 |
|
|
{\color{red} XX} events respectively.
|
| 19 |
|
|
|
| 20 |
|
|
|
| 21 |
|
|
\subsection{ABCD method}
|
| 22 |
|
|
\label{sec:abcd}
|
| 23 |
|
|
|
| 24 |
|
|
We find that in $t\bar{t}$ events \met and
|
| 25 |
|
|
\met$/\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ are nearly uncorrelated.
|
| 26 |
|
|
This is demonstrated in Figure~\ref{fig:uncor}.
|
| 27 |
|
|
Thus, we can use an ABCD method in the \met$/\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ vs
|
| 28 |
|
|
sumJetPt plane to estimate the background in a data driven way.
|
| 29 |
|
|
|
| 30 |
|
|
\begin{figure}[htb]
|
| 31 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 32 |
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{uncorrelated.pdf}
|
| 33 |
|
|
\caption{\label{fig:uncor}\protect Distributions of SumJetPt
|
| 34 |
|
|
in MC $t\bar{t}$ events for different intervals of
|
| 35 |
|
|
MET$/\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$.}
|
| 36 |
|
|
\end{center}
|
| 37 |
|
|
\end{figure}
|
| 38 |
|
|
|
| 39 |
|
|
\begin{figure}[htb]
|
| 40 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 41 |
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{abcdMC.jpg}
|
| 42 |
|
|
\caption{\label{fig:abcdMC}\protect Distributions of SumJetPt
|
| 43 |
|
|
vs. MET$/\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ for SM Monte Carlo. Here we also
|
| 44 |
|
|
show our choice of ABCD regions. {\color{red} We need a better
|
| 45 |
|
|
picture with the letters A-B-C-D and with the numerical values
|
| 46 |
|
|
of the boundaries clearly indicated.}}
|
| 47 |
|
|
\end{center}
|
| 48 |
|
|
\end{figure}
|
| 49 |
|
|
|
| 50 |
|
|
|
| 51 |
|
|
Our choice of ABCD regions is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:abcdMC}.
|
| 52 |
|
|
The signal region is region D. The expected number of events
|
| 53 |
|
|
in the four regions for the SM Monte Carlo, as well as the BG
|
| 54 |
|
|
prediction AC/B is given in Table~\ref{tab:abcdMC} for an integrated
|
| 55 |
|
|
luminosity of 30 pb$^{-1}$. The ABCD method is accurate
|
| 56 |
|
|
to about 10\%.
|
| 57 |
|
|
|
| 58 |
|
|
\begin{table}[htb]
|
| 59 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 60 |
|
|
\caption{\label{tab:abcdMC} Expected SM Monte Carlo yields for
|
| 61 |
|
|
30 pb$^{-1}$ in the ABCD regions.}
|
| 62 |
|
|
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c||c|}
|
| 63 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 64 |
|
|
Sample & A & B & C & D & AC/D \\ \hline
|
| 65 |
|
|
ttdil & 6.4 & 28.4 & 4.2 & 1.0 & 0.9 \\
|
| 66 |
|
|
Zjets & 0.0 & 1.3 & 0.2 & 0.0 & 0.0 \\
|
| 67 |
|
|
Other SM & 0.6 & 2.1 & 0.2 & 0.1 & 0.0 \\ \hline
|
| 68 |
|
|
total MC & 7.0 & 31.8 & 4.5 & 1.1 & 1.0 \\ \hline
|
| 69 |
|
|
\end{tabular}
|
| 70 |
|
|
\end{center}
|
| 71 |
|
|
\end{table}
|
| 72 |
|
|
|
| 73 |
|
|
|
| 74 |
|
|
|
| 75 |
|
|
|
