| 57 |
|
|
| 58 |
|
Our choice of ABCD regions is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:abcdMC}. |
| 59 |
|
The signal region is region D. The expected number of events |
| 60 |
< |
in the four regions for the SM Monte Carlo, as well as the BG |
| 61 |
< |
prediction AC/B are given in Table~\ref{tab:abcdMC} for an integrated |
| 60 |
> |
in the four regions for the SM Monte Carlo, as well as the background |
| 61 |
> |
prediction A $\times$ C / B are given in Table~\ref{tab:abcdMC} for an integrated |
| 62 |
|
luminosity of 35 pb$^{-1}$. The ABCD method with chosen boundaries is accurate |
| 63 |
< |
to about 20\%. As shown in Table~\ref{tab:abcdsyst}, we assess systematic uncertainties |
| 64 |
< |
by varying the boundaries by an amount consistent with the hadronic energy scale uncertainty, |
| 65 |
< |
which we take as $\pm$5\% for SumJetPt and $\pm$2.5\% for MET/$\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$, since the |
| 66 |
< |
uncertainty on this quantity partially cancels due to the fact that it is a ratio of correlated |
| 67 |
< |
quantities. Based on these studies we assess a correction factor $k_{ABCD} = 1.2 \pm 0.2$ to the |
| 68 |
< |
predicted yield using the ABCD method. |
| 63 |
> |
to about 20\%, and we assess a corresponding systematic uncertainty. |
| 64 |
> |
|
| 65 |
> |
%As shown in Table~\ref{tab:abcdsyst}, we assess systematic uncertainties |
| 66 |
> |
%by varying the boundaries by an amount consistent with the hadronic energy scale uncertainty, |
| 67 |
> |
%which we take as $\pm$5\% for SumJetPt and $\pm$2.5\% for MET/$\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$, since the |
| 68 |
> |
%uncertainty on this quantity partially cancels due to the fact that it is a ratio of correlated |
| 69 |
> |
%quantities. Based on these studies we assess a correction factor $k_{ABCD} = 1.2 \pm 0.2$ to the |
| 70 |
> |
%predicted yield using the ABCD method. |
| 71 |
|
|
| 72 |
|
|
| 73 |
|
%{\color{red} Avi wants some statement about stability |
