| 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 |
|
|
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 |
claudioc |
1.2 |
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.}
|
| 38 |
|
|
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c||c|}
|
| 39 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 40 |
|
|
Region & $N(ee)+N(\mu\mu)$ & $N(e\mu)$ & $R_{out/in}$ & Estimated DY BG \\
|
| 41 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 42 |
|
|
$A$ & xx & xx & xx$\pm$xx & xx$\pm$xx \\
|
| 43 |
|
|
$B$ & xx & xx & xx$\pm$xx & xx$\pm$xx \\
|
| 44 |
|
|
$C$ & xx & xx & xx$\pm$xx & xx$\pm$xx \\
|
| 45 |
|
|
$D$ & xx & xx & xx$\pm$xx & xx$\pm$xx \\
|
| 46 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 47 |
|
|
\end{tabular}
|
| 48 |
|
|
\end{center}
|
| 49 |
|
|
\end{table}
|
| 50 |
|
|
|
| 51 |
|
|
|
| 52 |
|
|
|
| 53 |
|
|
%When find no dilepton events with invariant mass
|
| 54 |
|
|
%consistent with the $Z$ in the signal region.
|
| 55 |
|
|
%Using the value of 0.1 for the ratio described above, this
|
| 56 |
|
|
%means that the Drell Yan background in our signal
|
| 57 |
|
|
%region is $< 0.23\%$ events at the 90\% confidence level.
|
| 58 |
|
|
%{\color{red} (If we find 1 event this will need to be adjusted)}.
|
| 59 |
|
|
|
| 60 |
|
|
As discussed in Section~\ref{sec:victory}, residual Drell-Yan
|
| 61 |
|
|
events can have a significant effect on the data driven background
|
| 62 |
|
|
prediction based on $P_T(\ell\ell)$. This is taken into account,
|
| 63 |
|
|
based on MC expectations,
|
| 64 |
|
|
by the $K_{\rm{fudge}}$ factor describes in that Section.
|
| 65 |
|
|
As a cross-check, we use the same Drell Yan background
|
| 66 |
|
|
estimation method described above to estimated the
|
| 67 |
|
|
number of DY events in the regions $A'B'C'D'$.
|
| 68 |
|
|
The region $A'$ is defined in the same way as the region $A$
|
| 69 |
|
|
except that the $\met/\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ requirement is
|
| 70 |
|
|
replaced by a $P_T(\ell\ell)/\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ requirement.
|
| 71 |
|
|
The regions B',
|
| 72 |
|
|
C', and D' are defined in a similar way. The results are
|
| 73 |
|
|
summarized in Table~\ref{tab:ABCD-DYptll}.
|
| 74 |
|
|
|
| 75 |
|
|
\begin{table}[hbt]
|
| 76 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 77 |
|
|
\caption{\label{tab:ABCD-DYptll} Drell-Yan estimations
|
| 78 |
|
|
in the four
|
| 79 |
|
|
regions $A'B'C'D'$ defined in the text. The yields are
|
| 80 |
|
|
for dileptons with invariant mass consistent with the $Z$.
|
| 81 |
|
|
The factor
|
| 82 |
|
|
$R_{out/in}$ is from MC. All uncertainties
|
| 83 |
|
|
are statistical only.}
|
| 84 |
|
|
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c||c|}
|
| 85 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 86 |
|
|
Region & $N(ee)+N(\mu\mu)$ & $N(e\mu)$ & $R_{out/in}$ & Estimated DY BG \\
|
| 87 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 88 |
|
|
$A'$ & xx & xx & xx$\pm$xx & xx$\pm$xx \\
|
| 89 |
|
|
$B'$ & xx & xx & xx$\pm$xx & xx$\pm$xx \\
|
| 90 |
|
|
$C'$ & xx & xx & xx$\pm$xx & xx$\pm$xx \\
|
| 91 |
|
|
$D'$ & xx & xx & xx$\pm$xx & xx$\pm$xx \\
|
| 92 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 93 |
|
|
\end{tabular}
|
| 94 |
|
|
\end{center}
|
| 95 |
|
|
\end{table}
|
| 96 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
|
| 97 |
|
|
|
| 98 |
|
|
Finally, we can use the ``Fake Rate'' method\cite{ref:FR}
|
| 99 |
|
|
to predict
|
| 100 |
|
|
the number of events with one fake lepton. We select
|
| 101 |
|
|
events where one of the leptons passes the full selection and
|
| 102 |
|
|
the other one fails the full selection but passes the
|
| 103 |
|
|
``Fakeable Object'' selection of
|
| 104 |
|
|
Reference~\cite{ref:FR}.\footnote{For electrons we use
|
| 105 |
|
|
the V3 fakeable object definition to avoid complications
|
| 106 |
|
|
associated with electron ID cuts applied in the trigger.}
|
| 107 |
|
|
We then weight each event passing the full selection
|
| 108 |
|
|
by FR/(1-FR) where FR is the ``fake rate'' for the
|
| 109 |
|
|
fakeable object. {\color{red} The results are...} |
