| 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 |
| 220 |
|
\begin{table}[htb] |
| 221 |
|
\begin{center} |
| 222 |
|
\caption{\label{tab:victorysyst} |
| 223 |
< |
{Summary of uncertainties in $K_C$ due to the MET scale and resolution uncertainty, and to backgrounds other than $t\bar{t} \to$~dilepton. |
| 223 |
> |
Summary of uncertainties in $K_C$ due to the MET scale and resolution uncertainty, and to backgrounds other than $t\bar{t} \to$~dilepton. |
| 224 |
|
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 |
| 225 |
|
refers to the amount of additional smearing of the MET, as discussed in the text. In the third table, the normalization of all backgrounds |
| 226 |
|
other than $t\bar{t} \to$~dilepton is varied. |
| 227 |
< |
{\bf \color{ref} Should I remove `observed' and `predicted' and show only the ratio? }} |
| 227 |
> |
{\bf \color{red} Should I remove `observed' and `predicted' and show only the ratio? }} |
| 228 |
|
|
| 229 |
|
\begin{tabular}{ lcccc } |
| 230 |
|
\hline |
