| 60 |
|
The signal region is region D. The expected number of events |
| 61 |
|
in the four regions for the SM Monte Carlo, as well as the background |
| 62 |
|
prediction A $\times$ C / B are given in Table~\ref{tab:abcdMC} for an integrated |
| 63 |
< |
luminosity of 35 pb$^{-1}$. The ABCD method with chosen boundaries is accurate |
| 64 |
< |
to about 20\%, and we assess a corresponding systematic uncertainty |
| 65 |
< |
{\bf \color{red} More detail needed here???} |
| 63 |
> |
luminosity of 35 pb$^{-1}$. In Table~\ref{tab:abcdsyst}, we test the stability of |
| 64 |
> |
observed/predicted with respect to variations in the ABCD boundaries. |
| 65 |
> |
Based on the results in Tables~\ref{tab:abcdMC} and~\ref{tab:abcdsyst}, we assess |
| 66 |
> |
a systematic uncertainty of 20\% on the prediction of the ABCD method. |
| 67 |
|
|
| 68 |
|
%As shown in Table~\ref{tab:abcdsyst}, we assess systematic uncertainties |
| 69 |
|
%by varying the boundaries by an amount consistent with the hadronic energy scale uncertainty, |
| 103 |
|
\begin{table}[ht] |
| 104 |
|
\begin{center} |
| 105 |
|
\caption{\label{tab:abcdsyst} |
| 105 |
– |
{\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??? } |
| 106 |
|
Results of the systematic study of the ABCD method by varying the boundaries |
| 107 |
|
between the ABCD regions shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:abcdMC}. Here $x_1$ is the lower SumJetPt boundary and |
| 108 |
|
$x_2$ is the boundary separating regions A and B from C and D, their nominal values are 125 and 300~GeV, |
| 113 |
|
\hline |
| 114 |
|
$x_1$ & $x_2$ & $y_1$ & $y_2$ & Observed/Predicted \\ |
| 115 |
|
\hline |
| 116 |
< |
nominal & nominal & nominal & nominal & $1.20 \pm 0.12$ \\ |
| 117 |
< |
+5\% & +5\% & +2.5\% & +2.5\% & $1.38 \pm 0.15$ \\ |
| 118 |
< |
+5\% & +5\% & nominal & nominal & $1.31 \pm 0.14$ \\ |
| 119 |
< |
nominal & nominal & +2.5\% & +2.5\% & $1.25 \pm 0.13$ \\ |
| 120 |
< |
nominal & +5\% & nominal & +2.5\% & $1.32 \pm 0.14$ \\ |
| 121 |
< |
nominal & -5\% & nominal & -2.5\% & $1.16 \pm 0.09$ \\ |
| 122 |
< |
-5\% & -5\% & +2.5\% & +2.5\% & $1.21 \pm 0.11$ \\ |
| 123 |
< |
+5\% & +5\% & -2.5\% & -2.5\% & $1.26 \pm 0.12$ \\ |
| 116 |
> |
nominal & nominal & nominal & nominal & $1.03 \pm 0.10$ \\ |
| 117 |
> |
+5\% & +5\% & +2.5\% & +2.5\% & $1.13 \pm 0.13$ \\ |
| 118 |
> |
+5\% & +5\% & nominal & nominal & $1.08 \pm 0.12$ \\ |
| 119 |
> |
nominal & nominal & +2.5\% & +2.5\% & $1.07 \pm 0.11$ \\ |
| 120 |
> |
nominal & +5\% & nominal & +2.5\% & $1.09 \pm 0.12$ \\ |
| 121 |
> |
nominal & -5\% & nominal & -2.5\% & $0.98 \pm 0.08$ \\ |
| 122 |
> |
-5\% & -5\% & +2.5\% & +2.5\% & $1.03 \pm 0.09$ \\ |
| 123 |
> |
+5\% & +5\% & -2.5\% & -2.5\% & $1.03 \pm 0.11$ \\ |
| 124 |
|
\hline |
| 125 |
|
\end{tabular} |
| 126 |
|
\end{center} |
| 197 |
|
\begin{table}[htb] |
| 198 |
|
\begin{center} |
| 199 |
|
\caption{\label{tab:victorybad} |
| 200 |
– |
{\bf \color{red} Should we either update this with 38X MC or remove it?? } |
| 200 |
|
Test of the data driven method in Monte Carlo |
| 201 |
< |
under different assumptions. See text for details.} |
| 201 |
> |
under different assumptions, evaluated using 36X MC. See text for details.} |
| 202 |
|
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} |
| 203 |
|
\hline |
| 204 |
|
& True $t\bar{t}$ dilepton & $t\to W\to\tau$& other SM & GEN or & Lepton $P_T$ & Z veto & \met $>$ 50& obs/pred \\ |
| 219 |
|
\begin{table}[htb] |
| 220 |
|
\begin{center} |
| 221 |
|
\caption{\label{tab:victorysyst} |
| 222 |
< |
Summary of uncertainties in $K_C$ due to the MET scale and resolution uncertainty, and to backgrounds other than $t\bar{t} \to$~dilepton. |
| 222 |
> |
Summary of variations in $K_C$ due to the MET scale and resolution uncertainty, and to backgrounds other than $t\bar{t} \to$~dilepton. |
| 223 |
|
In the first table, `up' and `down' refer to shifting the hadronic energy scale up and down by 5\%. In the second table, the quoted value |
| 224 |
|
refers to the amount of additional smearing of the MET, as discussed in the text. In the third table, the normalization of all backgrounds |
| 225 |
< |
other than $t\bar{t} \to$~dilepton is varied. |
| 227 |
< |
{\bf \color{red} Should I remove `observed' and `predicted' and show only the ratio? }} |
| 228 |
< |
|
| 225 |
> |
other than $t\bar{t} \to$~dilepton is varied.} |
| 226 |
|
\begin{tabular}{ lcccc } |
| 227 |
|
\hline |
| 228 |
|
MET scale & Predicted & Observed & Obs/pred \\ |
