| 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}. |
| 44 |
> |
uncertainty. |
| 45 |
> |
The results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:msugra}. |
| 46 |
> |
This figure is still preliminary: |
| 47 |
> |
\begin{itemize} |
| 48 |
> |
\item The process dependent k-factors from Prospino were not yet available |
| 49 |
> |
when the figure was made. We took a flat k=1.4. |
| 50 |
> |
\item The PDF uncertainties were still missing. |
| 51 |
> |
\item The limits from other experiments are missing. Wwe are hoping to |
| 52 |
> |
converge on a common format for this plot with other SUSY analyses, so |
| 53 |
> |
we have not made any attempt to make the plot look pretty (!). |
| 54 |
> |
\item As mentioned above, we took a constant acceptance uncertainty |
| 55 |
> |
instead of calculating the uncertainty point by point. |
| 56 |
> |
\end{itemize} |
| 57 |
|
|
| 58 |
|
\begin{figure}[tbh] |
| 59 |
|
\begin{center} |
| 77 |
|
of such studies are the kinematical cuts described |
| 78 |
|
in this note, the lepton efficiencies, and the detector |
| 79 |
|
responses for SumJetPt and \met/$\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$. |
| 68 |
– |
{LOOKING AT THE 38X MC PLOTS BY EYE, THE FOLLOWING QUANTITIES LOOK ABOUT RIGHT.} |
| 80 |
|
The muon identification efficiency is $\approx 95\%$; |
| 81 |
|
the electron identification efficiency varies from $\approx$ 63\% at |
| 82 |
|
$P_T = 10$ GeV to 91\% for $P_T > 30$ GeV. The isolation |
| 86 |
|
%{\bf \color{red} The following numbers were derived from Fall 10 samples. } |
| 87 |
|
The average detector |
| 88 |
|
responses for SumJetPt and $\met/\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ are |
| 89 |
< |
$1.00 \pm 0.05$ and $0.96 \pm 0.05$ respectively, where |
| 89 |
> |
$1.02 \pm 0.05$ and $0.94 \pm 0.05$ respectively, where |
| 90 |
|
the uncertainties are from the jet energy scale uncertainty. |
| 91 |
|
The experimental resolutions on these quantities are 11\% and |
| 92 |
|
16\% respectively. |
| 101 |
|
% Gev$^{\frac{1}{2}}$). |
| 102 |
|
%{\bf \color{red} The following numbers were derived from Fall10 samples } |
| 103 |
|
We find that the average SumJetPt response |
| 104 |
< |
in the Monte Carlo is very close to one, with an RMS of order 11\% while |
| 105 |
< |
the response of \met/$\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ is approximately 0.96 with an |
| 104 |
> |
in the Monte Carlo is about 1.02, with an RMS of order 11\% while |
| 105 |
> |
the response of \met/$\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ is approximately 0.94 with an |
| 106 |
|
RMS of 16\%. |
| 107 |
|
|
| 108 |
|
%Using this information as well as the kinematical |
