| 12 |
|
from $W$-decays, which is reconstructed as \met in the |
| 13 |
|
detector. |
| 14 |
|
|
| 15 |
< |
In 35 pb$^{-1}$ we expect 1.4 SM event in |
| 16 |
< |
the signal region. The expectations from the LMO |
| 17 |
< |
and LM1 SUSY benchmark points are 6.5 and |
| 18 |
< |
2.6 events respectively. |
| 15 |
> |
|
| 16 |
|
%{\color{red} I took these |
| 17 |
|
%numbers from the twiki, rescaling from 11.06 to 30/pb. |
| 18 |
|
%They seem too large...are they really right?} |
| 203 |
|
The value of this correction factor as well as the systematic uncertainty |
| 204 |
|
will be assessed using 38X ttbar madgraph MC. In the following we use |
| 205 |
|
$K_C = 1$ for simplicity. Based on previous MC studies we foresee a correction |
| 206 |
< |
factor of $K_C \approx 1.2 - 1.4$, and we will assess an uncertainty |
| 206 |
> |
factor of $K_C \approx 1.2 - 1.5$, and we will assess an uncertainty |
| 207 |
|
based on the stability of the Monte Carlo tests under |
| 208 |
|
variations of event selections, choices of \met algorithm, etc. |
| 209 |
|
For example, we find that observed/predicted changes by roughly 0.1 |
| 233 |
|
|
| 234 |
|
The LM points are benchmarks for SUSY analyses at CMS. The effects |
| 235 |
|
of signal contaminations for a couple such points are summarized |
| 236 |
< |
in Table~\ref{tab:sigcontABCD} and~\ref{tab:sigcontPT}. |
| 240 |
< |
Signal contamination is definitely an important |
| 236 |
> |
in Table~\ref{tab:sigcont}. Signal contamination is definitely an important |
| 237 |
|
effect for these two LM points, but it does not totally hide the |
| 238 |
|
presence of the signal. |
| 239 |
|
|
| 240 |
|
|
| 241 |
|
\begin{table}[htb] |
| 242 |
|
\begin{center} |
| 243 |
< |
\caption{\label{tab:sigcontABCD} Effects of signal contamination |
| 244 |
< |
for the background predictions of the ABCD method including LM0 or |
| 245 |
< |
LM1. Results |
| 246 |
< |
are normalized to 30 pb$^{-1}$.} |
| 247 |
< |
\begin{tabular}{|c|c||c|c||c|c|} |
| 252 |
< |
\hline |
| 253 |
< |
SM & BG Prediction & SM$+$LM0 & BG Prediction & SM$+$LM1 & BG Prediction \\ |
| 254 |
< |
Background & SM Only & Contribution & Including LM0 & Contribution & Including LM1 \\ \hline |
| 255 |
< |
1.2 & 1.0 & 6.8 & 3.7 & 3.4 & 1.3 \\ |
| 243 |
> |
\caption{\label{tab:sigcont} Effects of signal contamination |
| 244 |
> |
for the two data-driven background estimates. The three columns give |
| 245 |
> |
the expected yield in the signal region and the background estimates |
| 246 |
> |
using the ABCD and $P_T(\ell \ell)$ methods. Results are normalized to 35~pb$^{-1}$.} |
| 247 |
> |
\begin{tabular}{lccc} |
| 248 |
|
\hline |
| 249 |
< |
\end{tabular} |
| 258 |
< |
\end{center} |
| 259 |
< |
\end{table} |
| 260 |
< |
|
| 261 |
< |
\begin{table}[htb] |
| 262 |
< |
\begin{center} |
| 263 |
< |
\caption{\label{tab:sigcontPT} Effects of signal contamination |
| 264 |
< |
for the background predictions of the $P_T(\ell\ell)$ method including LM0 or |
| 265 |
< |
LM1. Results |
| 266 |
< |
are normalized to 30 pb$^{-1}$.} |
| 267 |
< |
\begin{tabular}{|c|c||c|c||c|c|} |
| 249 |
> |
& Yield & ABCD & $P_T(\ell \ell)$ \\ |
| 250 |
|
\hline |
| 251 |
< |
SM & BG Prediction & SM$+$LM0 & BG Prediction & SM$+$LM1 & BG Prediction \\ |
| 252 |
< |
Background & SM Only & Contribution & Including LM0 & Contribution & Including LM1 \\ \hline |
| 253 |
< |
1.2 & 1.0 & 6.8 & 2.2 & 3.4 & 1.5 \\ |
| 251 |
> |
SM only & 1.41 & 1.19 & 0.96 \\ |
| 252 |
> |
SM + LM0 & 7.88 & 4.24 & 2.28 \\ |
| 253 |
> |
SM + LM1 & 3.98 & 1.53 & 1.44 \\ |
| 254 |
|
\hline |
| 255 |
|
\end{tabular} |
| 256 |
|
\end{center} |
| 257 |
|
\end{table} |
| 258 |
|
|
| 259 |
+ |
|
| 260 |
+ |
|
| 261 |
+ |
%\begin{table}[htb] |
| 262 |
+ |
%\begin{center} |
| 263 |
+ |
%\caption{\label{tab:sigcontABCD} Effects of signal contamination |
| 264 |
+ |
%for the background predictions of the ABCD method including LM0 or |
| 265 |
+ |
%LM1. Results |
| 266 |
+ |
%are normalized to 30 pb$^{-1}$.} |
| 267 |
+ |
%\begin{tabular}{|c|c||c|c||c|c|} |
| 268 |
+ |
%\hline |
| 269 |
+ |
%SM & BG Prediction & SM$+$LM0 & BG Prediction & SM$+$LM1 & BG Prediction \\ |
| 270 |
+ |
%Background & SM Only & Contribution & Including LM0 & Contribution & Including LM1 \\ \hline |
| 271 |
+ |
%1.2 & 1.0 & 6.8 & 3.7 & 3.4 & 1.3 \\ |
| 272 |
+ |
%\hline |
| 273 |
+ |
%\end{tabular} |
| 274 |
+ |
%\end{center} |
| 275 |
+ |
%\end{table} |
| 276 |
+ |
|
| 277 |
+ |
%\begin{table}[htb] |
| 278 |
+ |
%\begin{center} |
| 279 |
+ |
%\caption{\label{tab:sigcontPT} Effects of signal contamination |
| 280 |
+ |
%for the background predictions of the $P_T(\ell\ell)$ method including LM0 or |
| 281 |
+ |
%LM1. Results |
| 282 |
+ |
%are normalized to 30 pb$^{-1}$.} |
| 283 |
+ |
%\begin{tabular}{|c|c||c|c||c|c|} |
| 284 |
+ |
%\hline |
| 285 |
+ |
%SM & BG Prediction & SM$+$LM0 & BG Prediction & SM$+$LM1 & BG Prediction \\ |
| 286 |
+ |
%Background & SM Only & Contribution & Including LM0 & Contribution & Including LM1 \\ \hline |
| 287 |
+ |
%1.2 & 1.0 & 6.8 & 2.2 & 3.4 & 1.5 \\ |
| 288 |
+ |
%\hline |
| 289 |
+ |
%\end{tabular} |
| 290 |
+ |
%\end{center} |
| 291 |
+ |
%\end{table} |
| 292 |
+ |
|
