| 197 |
|
\begin{table}[htb] |
| 198 |
|
\begin{center} |
| 199 |
|
\caption{\label{tab:victorybad} |
| 200 |
< |
{\bf \color{red} Need to either update this with 38X MC or remove it } |
| 200 |
> |
{\bf \color{red} Should we either update this with 38X MC or remove it?? } |
| 201 |
|
Test of the data driven method in Monte Carlo |
| 202 |
|
under different assumptions. See text for details.} |
| 203 |
|
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} |
| 290 |
|
giving an uncertainty of $0.04$. |
| 291 |
|
|
| 292 |
|
The uncertainty in $K_C$ due to the MET scale uncertainty is assessed by varying the hadronic energy scale using |
| 293 |
< |
the same method as in~\ref{ref:top}, giving an uncertainty of 0.3. We also assess the impact of the MET resolution |
| 293 |
> |
the same method as in~\cite{ref:top}, giving an uncertainty of 0.3. We also assess the impact of the MET resolution |
| 294 |
|
uncertainty on $K_C$ by applying a random smearing to the MET. For each event, we determine the expected MET resolution |
| 295 |
|
based on the sumJetPt, and smear the MET to simulate an increase in the resolution of 10\%, 20\%, 30\%, 40\% and 50\%. |
| 296 |
|
The results show that $K_C$ does not depend strongly on the MET resolution and we therefore do not assess any uncertainty. |
