| 81 |
|
$W^{\pm}Z^0$, $Z^0Z^0$ and single top.} |
| 82 |
|
\begin{tabular}{lccccc} |
| 83 |
|
\hline |
| 84 |
< |
sample & A & B & C & D & A $\times$ C / B \\ |
| 84 |
> |
sample & A & B & C & D & A $\times$ C / B \\ |
| 85 |
|
\hline |
| 86 |
< |
$t\bar{t}\rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ & 7.96 $\pm$ 0.17 & 33.07 $\pm$ 0.35 & 4.81 $\pm$ 0.13 & 1.20 $\pm$ 0.07 & 1.16 $\pm$ 0.04 \\ |
| 87 |
< |
$Z^0 \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ & 0.03 $\pm$ 0.03 & 1.47 $\pm$ 0.38 & 0.10 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.10 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.00 $\pm$ 0.00 \\ |
| 88 |
< |
SM other & 0.65 $\pm$ 0.06 & 2.31 $\pm$ 0.13 & 0.17 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.14 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.05 $\pm$ 0.01 \\ |
| 86 |
> |
$t\bar{t}\rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ & 8.27 $\pm$ 0.18 & 32.16 $\pm$ 0.35 & 4.69 $\pm$ 0.13 & 1.05 $\pm$ 0.06 & 1.21 $\pm$ 0.04 \\ |
| 87 |
> |
$Z^0 \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ & 0.22 $\pm$ 0.11 & 1.54 $\pm$ 0.29 & 0.05 $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.16 $\pm$ 0.09 & 0.01 $\pm$ 0.01 \\ |
| 88 |
> |
SM other & 0.54 $\pm$ 0.03 & 2.28 $\pm$ 0.12 & 0.23 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.07 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.05 $\pm$ 0.01 \\ |
| 89 |
|
\hline |
| 90 |
< |
total SM MC & 8.63 $\pm$ 0.18 & 36.85 $\pm$ 0.53 & 5.07 $\pm$ 0.17 & 1.43 $\pm$ 0.12 & 1.19 $\pm$ 0.05 \\ |
| 90 |
> |
total SM MC & 9.03 $\pm$ 0.21 & 35.97 $\pm$ 0.46 & 4.97 $\pm$ 0.15 & 1.29 $\pm$ 0.11 & 1.25 $\pm$ 0.05 \\ |
| 91 |
|
\hline |
| 92 |
|
\end{tabular} |
| 93 |
|
\end{center} |
| 97 |
|
|
| 98 |
|
\begin{table}[ht] |
| 99 |
|
\begin{center} |
| 100 |
< |
\caption{\label{tab:abcdsyst} Results of the systematic study of the ABCD method by varying the boundaries |
| 100 |
> |
\caption{\label{tab:abcdsyst} |
| 101 |
> |
{\bf \color{red} Do we need this study at all? Observed/predicted is consistent within stat uncertainties as the boundaries are varied- is it enough to simply state this fact in the text??? } |
| 102 |
> |
Results of the systematic study of the ABCD method by varying the boundaries |
| 103 |
|
between the ABCD regions shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:abcdMC}. Here $x_1$ is the lower SumJetPt boundary and |
| 104 |
|
$x_2$ is the boundary separating regions A and B from C and D, their nominal values are 125 and 300~GeV, |
| 105 |
|
respectively. $y_1$ is the lower MET/$\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ boundary and |
| 194 |
|
|
| 195 |
|
\begin{table}[htb] |
| 196 |
|
\begin{center} |
| 197 |
< |
\caption{\label{tab:victorybad} Test of the data driven method in Monte Carlo |
| 197 |
> |
\caption{\label{tab:victorybad} |
| 198 |
> |
{\bf \color{red} Need to either update this with 38X MC, or replace it with the systematic studies varying the non-ttdil background yield and jet/met scale. } |
| 199 |
> |
Test of the data driven method in Monte Carlo |
| 200 |
|
under different assumptions. See text for details.} |
| 201 |
|
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} |
| 202 |
|
\hline |
| 301 |
|
\hline |
| 302 |
|
& Yield & ABCD & $P_T(\ell \ell)$ \\ |
| 303 |
|
\hline |
| 304 |
< |
SM only & 1.43 & 1.19 & 1.03 \\ |
| 305 |
< |
SM + LM0 & 7.90 & 4.23 & 2.35 \\ |
| 306 |
< |
SM + LM1 & 4.00 & 1.53 & 1.51 \\ |
| 304 |
> |
SM only & 1.29 & 1.25 & 0.92 \\ |
| 305 |
> |
SM + LM0 & 7.57 & 4.44 & 1.96 \\ |
| 306 |
> |
SM + LM1 & 3.85 & 1.60 & 1.43 \\ |
| 307 |
|
\hline |
| 308 |
|
\end{tabular} |
| 309 |
|
\end{center} |
| 310 |
|
\end{table} |
| 311 |
|
|
| 308 |
– |
|
| 309 |
– |
|
| 310 |
– |
%\begin{table}[htb] |
| 311 |
– |
%\begin{center} |
| 312 |
– |
%\caption{\label{tab:sigcontABCD} Effects of signal contamination |
| 313 |
– |
%for the background predictions of the ABCD method including LM0 or |
| 314 |
– |
%LM1. Results |
| 315 |
– |
%are normalized to 30 pb$^{-1}$.} |
| 316 |
– |
%\begin{tabular}{|c|c||c|c||c|c|} |
| 317 |
– |
%\hline |
| 318 |
– |
%SM & BG Prediction & SM$+$LM0 & BG Prediction & SM$+$LM1 & BG Prediction \\ |
| 319 |
– |
%Background & SM Only & Contribution & Including LM0 & Contribution & Including LM1 \\ \hline |
| 320 |
– |
%1.2 & 1.0 & 6.8 & 3.7 & 3.4 & 1.3 \\ |
| 321 |
– |
%\hline |
| 322 |
– |
%\end{tabular} |
| 323 |
– |
%\end{center} |
| 324 |
– |
%\end{table} |
| 325 |
– |
|
| 326 |
– |
%\begin{table}[htb] |
| 327 |
– |
%\begin{center} |
| 328 |
– |
%\caption{\label{tab:sigcontPT} Effects of signal contamination |
| 329 |
– |
%for the background predictions of the $P_T(\ell\ell)$ method including LM0 or |
| 330 |
– |
%LM1. Results |
| 331 |
– |
%are normalized to 30 pb$^{-1}$.} |
| 332 |
– |
%\begin{tabular}{|c|c||c|c||c|c|} |
| 333 |
– |
%\hline |
| 334 |
– |
%SM & BG Prediction & SM$+$LM0 & BG Prediction & SM$+$LM1 & BG Prediction \\ |
| 335 |
– |
%Background & SM Only & Contribution & Including LM0 & Contribution & Including LM1 \\ \hline |
| 336 |
– |
%1.2 & 1.0 & 6.8 & 2.2 & 3.4 & 1.5 \\ |
| 337 |
– |
%\hline |
| 338 |
– |
%\end{tabular} |
| 339 |
– |
%\end{center} |
| 340 |
– |
%\end{table} |
| 341 |
– |
|
