| 1 |
|
\section{Results} |
| 2 |
|
\label{sec:results} |
| 3 |
|
|
| 4 |
< |
The data, together with SM expectations is presented |
| 5 |
< |
in Figure~\ref{fig:abcdData}. The data yields in the |
| 6 |
< |
four regions are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:datayield}. |
| 7 |
< |
|
| 8 |
< |
|
| 4 |
> |
\noindent {\color{red} In the 11 pb everything is very |
| 5 |
> |
simple because there are a few zeros. This text is written |
| 6 |
> |
for the full dataset under the assumption that some of these |
| 7 |
> |
numbers will not be zero anymore.} |
| 8 |
|
|
| 9 |
|
\begin{figure}[tbh] |
| 10 |
|
\begin{center} |
| 16 |
|
\end{figure} |
| 17 |
|
|
| 18 |
|
|
| 19 |
+ |
The data, together with SM expectations is presented |
| 20 |
+ |
in Figure~\ref{fig:abcdData}. We see $\color{red} 0$ |
| 21 |
+ |
events in the signal region (region $D$). The Standard Model |
| 22 |
+ |
MC expectation is {\color{red} 0.4} events. |
| 23 |
+ |
|
| 24 |
+ |
\subsection{Background estimate from the ABCD method} |
| 25 |
+ |
\label{sec:abcdres} |
| 26 |
+ |
|
| 27 |
+ |
The data yields in the |
| 28 |
+ |
four regions are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:datayield}. |
| 29 |
+ |
The prediction of the ABCD method is is given by $AC/B$ and |
| 30 |
+ |
is 0.5 events. |
| 31 |
+ |
(see Table~\ref{tab:datayield}. |
| 32 |
+ |
|
| 33 |
|
\begin{table}[hbt] |
| 34 |
|
\begin{center} |
| 35 |
|
\caption{\label{tab:datayield} Data yields in the four |
| 37 |
|
SM Monte Carlo expectations.} |
| 38 |
|
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c||c|} |
| 39 |
|
\hline |
| 40 |
< |
&A & B & C & D & AC/D \\ \hline |
| 40 |
> |
&A & B & C & D & AC/B \\ \hline |
| 41 |
|
Data &3 & 6 & 1 & 0 & $0.5^{+x}_{-y}$ \\ |
| 42 |
|
SM MC &2.5 &11.2 & 1.5 & 0.4 & 0.4 \\ |
| 43 |
|
\hline |
| 45 |
|
\end{center} |
| 46 |
|
\end{table} |
| 47 |
|
|
| 48 |
+ |
As a cross-check, we can subtract from the yields in |
| 49 |
+ |
Table~\ref{tab:datayield} the expected DY contributions |
| 50 |
+ |
from Table~\ref{tab:ABCD-DY} in order to get a ``purer'' |
| 51 |
+ |
estimate of the $t\bar{t}$ contribution. The result |
| 52 |
+ |
of this exercise is {\color{red} xx} events. |
| 53 |
+ |
|
| 54 |
+ |
\subsection{Background estimate from the $P_T(\ell\ell)$ method} |
| 55 |
+ |
\label{sec:victoryres} |
| 56 |
+ |
|
| 57 |
+ |
|
| 58 |
+ |
|
| 59 |
+ |
The number of data events in region $D'$, which is defined in |
| 60 |
+ |
Section~\ref{sec:othBG} to be the same as region $D$ but with the |
| 61 |
+ |
$\met/\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ requirement |
| 62 |
+ |
replaced by a $P_T(\ell\ell)/\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ requirement |
| 63 |
+ |
is $N_{D'}=0$. Thus the BG prediction is |
| 64 |
+ |
$N_D = K^{MC} \cdot K_{\rm fudge} \cdot N_{D'} = xx$ |
| 65 |
+ |
where we used $K^{MC}=xx$ and $K_{\rm fudge}=xx \pm yy$. |
| 66 |
+ |
Note that if we were to subtract off from region $D'$ |
| 67 |
+ |
the {\color{red} $xx$} DY events estimated from |
| 68 |
+ |
Table~\ref{tab:ABCD-DYptll}, the background |
| 69 |
+ |
prediction would change to $N_D=xx$. |
| 70 |
|
|
| 71 |
< |
There are |
| 37 |
< |
zero events in the signal region (region D). |
| 38 |
< |
As mentioned in Section~\ref{sec}, the number |
| 39 |
< |
of SM events expected events from Monte Carlo is 0.4. |
| 40 |
< |
The prediction of the ABCD method is 0.5 |
| 41 |
< |
(see Table~\ref{tab:datayield}. There are no events |
| 42 |
< |
in the data in region D when $P_T(\ell \ell)$ is |
| 43 |
< |
substituted for \met; thus the $P_T(\ell \ell)$ |
| 44 |
< |
method predicts a background of $0^{+x.x}_{-0.0}$ |
| 45 |
< |
events. As a cross-check, we use the $P_T(\ell \ell)$ |
| 71 |
> |
As a cross-check, we use the $P_T(\ell \ell)$ |
| 72 |
|
method to also predict the number of events in the |
| 73 |
|
control region $120<{\rm SumJetPt}<300$ GeV and |
| 74 |
|
\met/$\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt} > 8.5$. We predict |
| 75 |
|
$5.6^{+x}_{-y}$ events and we observe 4. |
| 76 |
< |
{\color{red} (We need to make sure that this prediction |
| 77 |
< |
includes the 1.4 fudge factor).} |
| 76 |
> |
{\color{red} Note: when we do this more carefully |
| 77 |
> |
we will need to use a different $K$ and a different $K_{fudge}$>} |
| 78 |
|
|
| 79 |
|
To summarize: we see no evidence for an anomalous |
| 80 |
|
rate of opposite sign isolated dilepton events |
