| 34 |
|
LM0 and LM1 events from Table~\ref{tab:sigcont}: $8.6 \pm 1.6$ |
| 35 |
|
events and $3.6 \pm 0.5$ events respectively, where the uncertainties |
| 36 |
|
are from energy scale (Section~\ref{sec:systematics}), luminosity, |
| 37 |
< |
and lepton efficiency. Note that these expected SUSY yields |
| 38 |
< |
are computed using LO cross-sections, and are therefore underestimated. |
| 37 |
> |
and lepton efficiency. |
| 38 |
> |
|
| 39 |
> |
We also performed a scan of the mSUGRA parameter space. We set $\tan\beta=10$, |
| 40 |
> |
sign of $\mu = +$, $A_{0}=0$~GeV, and scan the $m_{0}$ and $m_{1/2}$ parameters |
| 41 |
> |
in steps of 10~GeV. For each scan point, we exclude the point if the expected |
| 42 |
> |
yield in the signal region exceeds 4.7, which is the 95\% CL upper limit |
| 43 |
> |
based on an expected background of $N_{BG}=1.4 \pm 0.8$ and a 20\% acceptance |
| 44 |
> |
uncertainty. The results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:msugra}. |
| 45 |
> |
|
| 46 |
> |
\begin{figure}[tbh] |
| 47 |
> |
\begin{center} |
| 48 |
> |
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{msugra.png} |
| 49 |
> |
\caption{\label{fig:msugra}\protect Exclusion curve in the mSUGRA parameter space, |
| 50 |
> |
assuming $\tan\beta=10$, sign of $\mu = +$ and $A_{0}=0$~GeVs.} |
| 51 |
> |
\end{center} |
| 52 |
> |
\end{figure} |
| 53 |
> |
|
| 54 |
|
|
| 55 |
|
Conveying additional useful information about the results of |
| 56 |
|
a generic ``signature-based'' search such as the one described |
| 60 |
|
Other models of new physics in the dilepton final state |
| 61 |
|
can be confronted in an approximate way by simple |
| 62 |
|
generator-level studies that |
| 63 |
< |
compare the expected number of events in 35 pb$^{-1}$ |
| 63 |
> |
compare the expected number of events in 34.0~pb$^{-1}$ |
| 64 |
|
with our upper limit of 4.1 events. The key ingredients |
| 65 |
|
of such studies are the kinematical cuts described |
| 66 |
|
in this note, the lepton efficiencies, and the detector |
| 71 |
|
$P_T = 10$ GeV to 91\% for $P_T > 30$ GeV. The isolation |
| 72 |
|
efficiency in top events varies from $\approx 83\%$ (muons) |
| 73 |
|
and $\approx 89\%$ (electrons) at $P_T=10$ GeV to |
| 74 |
< |
$\approx 95\%$ for $P_T>60$ GeV. |
| 75 |
< |
{\bf \color{red} The following quantities were calculated |
| 61 |
< |
with Spring10 samples. } |
| 62 |
< |
The average detector |
| 74 |
> |
$\approx 95\%$ for $P_T>60$ GeV. {\bf \color{red} The following quantities were calculated |
| 75 |
> |
with Spring10 samples. } The average detector |
| 76 |
|
responses for SumJetPt and $\met/\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ are |
| 77 |
< |
$1.00 \pm 0.05$ and $0.94 \pm 0.05$ respectively, where |
| 77 |
> |
$1.00 \pm 0.05$ and $0.96 \pm 0.05$ respectively, where |
| 78 |
|
the uncertainties are from the jet energy scale uncertainty. |
| 79 |
< |
The experimental resolutions on these quantities are 10\% and |
| 80 |
< |
14\% respectively. |
| 79 |
> |
The experimental resolutions on these quantities are 11\% and |
| 80 |
> |
16\% respectively. |
| 81 |
|
|
| 82 |
|
To justify the statements in the previous paragraph |
| 83 |
|
about the detector responses, we plot |
| 87 |
|
signal region. |
| 88 |
|
% (SumJetPt $>$ 300 GeV and \met/$\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt} > 8.5$ |
| 89 |
|
% Gev$^{\frac{1}{2}}$). |
| 90 |
< |
{\bf \color{red} The following numbers were derived from Spring10 samples.} |
| 90 |
> |
{\bf \color{red} The following numbers were derived from Fall10 samples } |
| 91 |
|
We find that the average SumJetPt response |
| 92 |
< |
in the Monte Carlo is very close to one, with an RMS of order 10\% while |
| 93 |
< |
the response of \met/$\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ is approximately 0.94 with an |
| 94 |
< |
RMS of 14\%. |
| 92 |
> |
in the Monte Carlo is very close to one, with an RMS of order 11\% while |
| 93 |
> |
the response of \met/$\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ is approximately 0.96 with an |
| 94 |
> |
RMS of 16\%. |
| 95 |
|
|
| 96 |
|
%Using this information as well as the kinematical |
| 97 |
|
%cuts described in Section~\ref{sec:eventSel} and the lepton efficiencies |
| 102 |
|
|
| 103 |
|
\begin{figure}[tbh] |
| 104 |
|
\begin{center} |
| 105 |
< |
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{selectionEff.png} |
| 105 |
> |
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{selectionEffDec10.png} |
| 106 |
|
\caption{\label{fig:response} Left plots: the efficiencies |
| 107 |
|
as a function of the true quantities for the SumJetPt (top) and |
| 108 |
|
tcMET/$\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ (bottom) requirements for the signal |
| 114 |
|
to the true quantity in MC. These plots are done using the LM0 |
| 115 |
|
Monte Carlo, but they are not expected to depend strongly on |
| 116 |
|
the underlying physics. |
| 117 |
< |
{\bf \color{red} These plots were made with Spring10 samples. } } |
| 117 |
> |
{\bf \color{red} These plots were made with Fall10 samples. } } |
| 118 |
|
\end{center} |
| 119 |
|
\end{figure} |
| 120 |
|
|
| 150 |
|
% Are the above correct? y |
| 151 |
|
% 1 29.995 0.50457E-06 |
| 152 |
|
% |
| 153 |
< |
% limit: less than 4.689 signal events |
| 153 |
> |
% limit: less than 4.689 signal events |
