1 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\section{Non $t\bar{t}$ Backgrounds}
|
2 |
|
|
\label{sec:othBG}
|
3 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
Backgrounds from divector bosons and single top
|
5 |
|
|
can be reliably estimated from Monte Carlo.
|
6 |
|
|
They are negligible compared to $t\bar{t}$.
|
7 |
|
|
|
8 |
claudioc |
1.4 |
%Backgrounds from Drell Yan are also expected
|
9 |
|
|
%to be negligible from MC. However one always
|
10 |
|
|
%worries about the modeling of tails of the \met.
|
11 |
|
|
%In the context of other dilepton analyses we
|
12 |
|
|
%have developed a data driven method to estimate
|
13 |
|
|
%the number of Drell Yan events\cite{ref:dy}.
|
14 |
|
|
%The method is based on counting the number of
|
15 |
|
|
%$Z$ candidates passing the full selection, and
|
16 |
|
|
%then scaling by the expected ratio of Drell Yan
|
17 |
|
|
%events outside vs. inside the $Z$ mass
|
18 |
|
|
%window.\footnote{A correction based on $e\mu$ events
|
19 |
|
|
%is also applied.} This ratio is called $R_{out/in}$
|
20 |
|
|
%and is obtained from Monte Carlo.
|
21 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
%To estimate the Drell-Yan contribution in the four $ABCD$
|
23 |
|
|
%regions, we count the numbers of $Z \to ee$ and $Z \to \mu\mu$
|
24 |
|
|
%events falling in each region, we subtract off the number
|
25 |
|
|
%of $e\mu$ events with $76 < M(e\mu) < 106$ GeV, and
|
26 |
|
|
%we multiply the result by $R_{out/in}$ from Monte Carlo.
|
27 |
|
|
%The results are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:ABCD-DY}.
|
28 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
%\begin{table}[hbt]
|
30 |
|
|
%\begin{center}
|
31 |
|
|
%\caption{\label{tab:ABCD-DY} Drell-Yan estimations
|
32 |
|
|
%in the four
|
33 |
|
|
%regions of Figure~\ref{fig:abcdData}. The yields are
|
34 |
|
|
%for dileptons with invariant mass consistent with the $Z$.
|
35 |
|
|
%The factor
|
36 |
|
|
%$R_{out/in}$ is from MC. All uncertainties
|
37 |
|
|
%are statistical only. In regions $A$ and $D$ there is no statistics
|
38 |
|
|
%in the Monte Carlo to calculate $R_{out/in}$.}
|
39 |
|
|
%\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c||c|}
|
40 |
|
|
%\hline
|
41 |
|
|
%Region & $N(ee)+N(\mu\mu)$ & $N(e\mu)$ & $R_{out/in}$ & Estimated DY BG \\
|
42 |
|
|
%\hline
|
43 |
|
|
%$A$ & 0 & 0 & ?? & ??$\pm$xx \\
|
44 |
|
|
%$B$ & 5 & 1 & 2.5$\pm$1.0 & 9$\pm$xx \\
|
45 |
|
|
%$C$ & 0 & 0 & 1.$\pm$1. & 0$\pm$xx \\
|
46 |
|
|
%$D$ & 0 & 0 & ?? & 0$\pm$xx \\
|
47 |
|
|
%\hline
|
48 |
|
|
%\end{tabular}
|
49 |
|
|
%\end{center}
|
50 |
|
|
%\end{table}
|
51 |
claudioc |
1.2 |
|
52 |
|
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
54 |
|
|
%When find no dilepton events with invariant mass
|
55 |
|
|
%consistent with the $Z$ in the signal region.
|
56 |
|
|
%Using the value of 0.1 for the ratio described above, this
|
57 |
|
|
%means that the Drell Yan background in our signal
|
58 |
|
|
%region is $< 0.23\%$ events at the 90\% confidence level.
|
59 |
|
|
%{\color{red} (If we find 1 event this will need to be adjusted)}.
|
60 |
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
As discussed in Section~\ref{sec:victory}, residual Drell-Yan
|
62 |
|
|
events can have a significant effect on the data driven background
|
63 |
|
|
prediction based on $P_T(\ell\ell)$. This is taken into account,
|
64 |
|
|
based on MC expectations,
|
65 |
benhoob |
1.5 |
by the $K_C$ factor described in that Section.
|
66 |
claudioc |
1.4 |
As a cross-check, we use a separate data driven method to
|
67 |
|
|
estimate the impact of Drell Yan events on the
|
68 |
|
|
background prediction based on $P_T(\ell\ell)$.
|
69 |
|
|
In this method\cite{ref:top} we count the number
|
70 |
|
|
of $Z$ candidates\footnote{$e^+e^-$ and $\mu^+\mu^-$
|
71 |
|
|
with invariant mass between 76 and 106 GeV.}
|
72 |
|
|
passing the same selection as
|
73 |
|
|
region $D$ except that the $\met/\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ requirement is
|
74 |
|
|
replaced by a $P_T(\ell\ell)/\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ requirement
|
75 |
|
|
(we call this the ``region $D'$ selection'').
|
76 |
|
|
We subtract off the number of $e\mu$ events with
|
77 |
|
|
invariant mass in the $Z$ passing the region $D'$ selection.
|
78 |
|
|
Finally, we multiply the result by ratio $R_{out/in}$ derived
|
79 |
|
|
from Monte Carlo as the ratio of Drell-Yan events
|
80 |
|
|
outside/inside the $Z$ mass window
|
81 |
|
|
in the $D'$ region.
|
82 |
|
|
|
83 |
benhoob |
1.6 |
We find $N^{D'}(ee+\mu\mu)=2$, $N^{D'}(e\mu)=0$,
|
84 |
benhoob |
1.8 |
$R^{D'}_{out/in}=0.18\pm0.16$ (stat.).
|
85 |
benhoob |
1.6 |
Thus we estimate the number of Drell Yan events in region $D'$ to
|
86 |
benhoob |
1.8 |
be $0.36\pm 0.36$.
|
87 |
claudioc |
1.4 |
|
88 |
benhoob |
1.9 |
We also perform the DY estimate in the region $A'$. Here we find
|
89 |
|
|
$N^{A'}(ee+\mu\mu)=5$, $N^{A'}(e\mu)=0$,
|
90 |
|
|
$R^{D'}_{out/in}=0.50\pm0.43$ (stat.), giving an estimated
|
91 |
|
|
number of Drell Yan events in region $A'$ to
|
92 |
|
|
be $2.5 \pm 2.4$.
|
93 |
|
|
|
94 |
|
|
|
95 |
claudioc |
1.4 |
This Drell Yan method could also be used to estimate
|
96 |
|
|
the number of DY events in the signal region (region $D$).
|
97 |
|
|
However, there is not enough statistics in the Monte
|
98 |
|
|
Carlo to make a measurement of $R_{out/in}$ in region
|
99 |
|
|
$D$. In any case, no $Z \to \ell\ell$ candidates are
|
100 |
|
|
found in region $D$.
|
101 |
|
|
|
102 |
|
|
|
103 |
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
%In the context of other dilepton analyses we
|
105 |
|
|
%have developed a data driven method to estimate
|
106 |
|
|
%the number of Drell Yan events\cite{ref:dy}.
|
107 |
|
|
%The method is based on counting the number of
|
108 |
|
|
%$Z$ candidates passing the full selection, and
|
109 |
|
|
%then scaling by the expected ratio of Drell Yan
|
110 |
|
|
%events outside vs. inside the $Z$ mass
|
111 |
|
|
%window.\footnote{A correction based on $e\mu$ events
|
112 |
|
|
%is also applied.} This ratio is called $R_{out/in}$
|
113 |
|
|
%and is obtained from Monte Carlo.
|
114 |
|
|
|
115 |
|
|
|
116 |
|
|
|
117 |
|
|
|
118 |
|
|
%As a cross-check, we use the same Drell Yan background
|
119 |
|
|
%estimation method described above to estimate the
|
120 |
|
|
%number of DY events in the regions $A'B'C'D'$.
|
121 |
|
|
%The region $A'$ is defined in the same way as the region $A$
|
122 |
|
|
%except that the $\met/\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ requirement is
|
123 |
|
|
%replaced by a $P_T(\ell\ell)/\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ requirement.
|
124 |
|
|
%The regions B',
|
125 |
|
|
%C', and D' are defined in a similar way. The results are
|
126 |
|
|
%summarized in Table~\ref{tab:ABCD-DYptll}.
|
127 |
|
|
|
128 |
|
|
%\begin{table}[hbt]
|
129 |
|
|
%\begin{center}
|
130 |
|
|
%\caption{\label{tab:ABCD-DYptll} Drell-Yan estimations
|
131 |
|
|
%in the four
|
132 |
|
|
%regions $A'B'C'D'$ defined in the text. The yields are
|
133 |
|
|
%for dileptons with invariant mass consistent with the $Z$.
|
134 |
|
|
%The factor
|
135 |
|
|
%$R_{out/in}$ is from MC. All uncertainties
|
136 |
|
|
%are statistical only.}
|
137 |
|
|
%\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c||c|}
|
138 |
|
|
%\hline
|
139 |
|
|
%Region & $N(ee)+N(\mu\mu)$ & $N(e\mu)$ & $R_{out/in}$ & Estimated DY BG \\
|
140 |
|
|
%\hline
|
141 |
|
|
%$A'$ & 3 & 0 & 0.7$\pm$0.3 & 2.1$\pm$xx \\
|
142 |
|
|
%$B'$ & 3 & 0 & 2.5$\pm$2.1 & 7.5$\pm$xx \\
|
143 |
|
|
%$C'$ & 0 & 0 & 0.1$\pm$0.1 & 0$\pm$xx \\
|
144 |
|
|
%$D'$ & 1 & 0 & 0.4$\pm$0.3 & 0.4$\pm$xx \\
|
145 |
|
|
%\hline
|
146 |
|
|
%\end{tabular}
|
147 |
|
|
%\end{center}
|
148 |
|
|
%\end{table}
|
149 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
|
150 |
|
|
|
151 |
|
|
Finally, we can use the ``Fake Rate'' method\cite{ref:FR}
|
152 |
|
|
to predict
|
153 |
|
|
the number of events with one fake lepton. We select
|
154 |
|
|
events where one of the leptons passes the full selection and
|
155 |
|
|
the other one fails the full selection but passes the
|
156 |
|
|
``Fakeable Object'' selection of
|
157 |
|
|
Reference~\cite{ref:FR}.\footnote{For electrons we use
|
158 |
|
|
the V3 fakeable object definition to avoid complications
|
159 |
|
|
associated with electron ID cuts applied in the trigger.}
|
160 |
|
|
We then weight each event passing the full selection
|
161 |
|
|
by FR/(1-FR) where FR is the ``fake rate'' for the
|
162 |
benhoob |
1.7 |
fakeable object. {\color{red} \bf The results are...}
|
163 |
claudioc |
1.4 |
|
164 |
benhoob |
1.10 |
{\color{red} \bf We will do the same thing that we did for the top analysis, but we will only do it on the full dataset. From previous studies, the contribution of fakes to the total background is at the level of a few \% or less.}
|