| 1 |
+ |
\clearpage |
| 2 |
+ |
|
| 3 |
|
\section{Results} |
| 4 |
|
\label{sec:results} |
| 5 |
|
|
| 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 |
– |
|
| 6 |
|
\begin{figure}[tbh] |
| 7 |
|
\begin{center} |
| 8 |
< |
\includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{abcdData.png} |
| 8 |
> |
\includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{abcd_35pb.png} |
| 9 |
|
\caption{\label{fig:abcdData}\protect Distributions of SumJetPt |
| 10 |
|
vs. MET$/\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ for SM Monte Carlo and data. Here we also |
| 11 |
|
show our choice of ABCD regions.} |
| 12 |
|
\end{center} |
| 13 |
|
\end{figure} |
| 14 |
|
|
| 18 |
– |
|
| 15 |
|
The data, together with SM expectations is presented |
| 16 |
< |
in Figure~\ref{fig:abcdData}. We see $\color{red} 0$ |
| 17 |
< |
events in the signal region (region $D$). The Standard Model |
| 18 |
< |
MC expectation is {\color{red} 0.4} events. |
| 16 |
> |
in Figure~\ref{fig:abcdData}. We see 1 event in the |
| 17 |
> |
signal region (region $D$). The Standard Model MC |
| 18 |
> |
expectation is 1.4 events. |
| 19 |
|
|
| 20 |
|
\subsection{Background estimate from the ABCD method} |
| 21 |
|
\label{sec:abcdres} |
| 22 |
|
|
| 23 |
|
The data yields in the |
| 24 |
|
four regions are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:datayield}. |
| 25 |
< |
The prediction of the ABCD method is is given by $AC/B$ and |
| 26 |
< |
is 0.5 events. |
| 27 |
< |
(see Table~\ref{tab:datayield}. |
| 25 |
> |
The prediction of the ABCD method is is given by $A\times C/B$ and |
| 26 |
> |
is 1.5 $\pm$ 0.9 events (statistical uncertainty only, assuming |
| 27 |
> |
Gaussian errors). (see Table~\ref{tab:datayield}). |
| 28 |
|
|
| 29 |
|
\begin{table}[hbt] |
| 30 |
|
\begin{center} |
| 31 |
|
\caption{\label{tab:datayield} Data yields in the four |
| 32 |
< |
regions of Figure~\ref{fig:abcdData}. We also show the |
| 33 |
< |
SM Monte Carlo expectations.} |
| 34 |
< |
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c||c|} |
| 35 |
< |
\hline |
| 36 |
< |
&A & B & C & D & AC/B \\ \hline |
| 37 |
< |
Data &3 & 6 & 1 & 0 & $0.5^{+x}_{-y}$ \\ |
| 38 |
< |
SM MC &2.5 &11.2 & 1.5 & 0.4 & 0.4 \\ |
| 32 |
> |
regions of Figure~\ref{fig:abcdData}, as well as the predicted yield in region D given |
| 33 |
> |
by A$\times$C / B. The quoted uncertainty |
| 34 |
> |
on the prediction in data is statistical only, assuming Gaussian errors. |
| 35 |
> |
We also show the SM Monte Carlo expectations, scaled to 34.85~pb$^{-1}$.} |
| 36 |
> |
\begin{tabular}{l||c|c|c|c||c} |
| 37 |
> |
\hline |
| 38 |
> |
sample & A & B & C & D & A$\times$C / B \\ |
| 39 |
> |
\hline |
| 40 |
> |
$t\bar{t}\rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ & 7.96 & 33.07 & 4.81 & 1.20 & 1.16 \\ |
| 41 |
> |
$t\bar{t}\rightarrow \mathrm{other}$ & 0.15 & 0.85 & 0.09 & 0.04 & 0.02 \\ |
| 42 |
> |
$Z^0$ + jets & 0.00 & 1.16 & 0.08 & 0.08 & 0.00 \\ |
| 43 |
> |
$W^{\pm}$ + jets & 0.00 & 0.10 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\ |
| 44 |
> |
$W^+W^-$ & 0.19 & 0.29 & 0.02 & 0.07 & 0.02 \\ |
| 45 |
> |
$W^{\pm}Z^0$ & 0.03 & 0.04 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.00 \\ |
| 46 |
> |
$Z^0Z^0$ & 0.00 & 0.03 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\ |
| 47 |
> |
single top & 0.28 & 1.00 & 0.04 & 0.01 & 0.01 \\ |
| 48 |
> |
\hline |
| 49 |
> |
total SM MC & 8.61 & 36.54 & 5.05 & 1.41 & 1.19 \\ |
| 50 |
> |
\hline |
| 51 |
> |
data & 11 & 36 & 5 & 1 &1.53 $\pm$ 0.86 \\ |
| 52 |
|
\hline |
| 53 |
|
\end{tabular} |
| 54 |
|
\end{center} |
| 55 |
|
\end{table} |
| 56 |
|
|
| 57 |
< |
As a cross-check, we can subtract from the yields in |
| 58 |
< |
Table~\ref{tab:datayield} the expected DY contributions |
| 59 |
< |
from Table~\ref{tab:ABCD-DY} in order to get a ``purer'' |
| 60 |
< |
estimate of the $t\bar{t}$ contribution. The result |
| 61 |
< |
of this exercise is {\color{red} xx} events. |
| 57 |
> |
%As a cross-check, we can subtract from the yields in |
| 58 |
> |
%Table~\ref{tab:datayield} the expected DY contributions |
| 59 |
> |
%from Table~\ref{tab:ABCD-DY} in order to get a ``purer'' |
| 60 |
> |
%estimate of the $t\bar{t}$ contribution. The result |
| 61 |
> |
%of this exercise is {\color{red} xx} events. |
| 62 |
> |
|
| 63 |
> |
\clearpage |
| 64 |
|
|
| 65 |
|
\subsection{Background estimate from the $P_T(\ell\ell)$ method} |
| 66 |
|
\label{sec:victoryres} |
| 67 |
|
|
| 57 |
– |
|
| 58 |
– |
|
| 68 |
|
The number of data events in region $D'$, which is defined in |
| 69 |
|
Section~\ref{sec:othBG} to be the same as region $D$ but with the |
| 70 |
|
$\met/\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ requirement |
| 71 |
|
replaced by a $P_T(\ell\ell)/\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ requirement |
| 72 |
< |
is $N_{D'}=0$. Thus the BG prediction is |
| 73 |
< |
$N_D = K^{MC} \cdot K_{\rm fudge} \cdot N_{D'} = xx$ |
| 74 |
< |
where we used $K^{MC}=xx$ and $K_{\rm fudge}=xx \pm yy$. |
| 72 |
> |
is $N_{D'}=2$. Thus the BG prediction is |
| 73 |
> |
$N_D = K \cdot K_C \cdot N_{D'} = 1.5$ |
| 74 |
> |
where $K=1.5 \pm xx$ as derived in Sec.~\ref{sec:victory} and |
| 75 |
> |
$K_C = 1$. |
| 76 |
|
Note that if we were to subtract off from region $D'$ |
| 77 |
< |
the {\color{red} $xx$} DY events estimated from |
| 78 |
< |
Table~\ref{tab:ABCD-DYptll}, the background |
| 79 |
< |
prediction would change to $N_D=xx$. |
| 77 |
> |
the {\color{red} 0.8 $\pm$ 0.8} DY events estimated from |
| 78 |
> |
Section~\ref{sec:othBG}, the background |
| 79 |
> |
prediction would change to $N_D=1.8 \pm xx$ events. |
| 80 |
> |
|
| 81 |
> |
%%%TO BE REPLACED |
| 82 |
> |
%{\color{red}As mentioned previously, for the 11/pb analysis |
| 83 |
> |
%we use the $K$ factor from data and take $K=1$. |
| 84 |
> |
%This will change for the full dataset. We will also pay |
| 85 |
> |
%more attention to the statistical errors.} |
| 86 |
> |
|
| 87 |
> |
%The number of data events in region $D'$, which is defined in |
| 88 |
> |
%Section~\ref{sec:othBG} to be the same as region $D$ but with the |
| 89 |
> |
%$\met/\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ requirement |
| 90 |
> |
%replaced by a $P_T(\ell\ell)/\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ requirement |
| 91 |
> |
%is $N_{D'}=1$. Thus the BG prediction is |
| 92 |
> |
%$N_D = K \cdot K_{\rm fudge} \cdot N_{D'} = 1.5$ |
| 93 |
> |
%where we used $K=1.5 \pm xx$ and $K_{\rm fudge}=1.0 \pm 0.0$. |
| 94 |
> |
%Note that if we were to subtract off from region $D'$ |
| 95 |
> |
%the {\color{red} 0.4 $\pm$ 0.4} DY events estimated from |
| 96 |
> |
%Section~\ref{sec:othBG}, the background |
| 97 |
> |
%prediction would change to $N_D=0.9 \pm xx$ events. |
| 98 |
> |
%{\color{red} When we do this with a real |
| 99 |
> |
%$K_{\rm fudge}$, the fudge factor will be different |
| 100 |
> |
%after the DY subtraction.} |
| 101 |
|
|
| 102 |
|
As a cross-check, we use the $P_T(\ell \ell)$ |
| 103 |
|
method to also predict the number of events in the |
| 104 |
< |
control region $120<{\rm SumJetPt}<300$ GeV and |
| 104 |
> |
control region $125<{\rm SumJetPt}<300$ GeV and |
| 105 |
|
\met/$\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt} > 8.5$. We predict |
| 106 |
|
$5.6^{+x}_{-y}$ events and we observe 4. |
| 107 |
< |
{\color{red} Note: when we do this more carefully |
| 108 |
< |
we will need to use a different $K$ and a different $K_{fudge}$>} |
| 107 |
> |
The results of the $P_T(\ell\ell)$ method are |
| 108 |
> |
summarized in Figure~\ref{fig:victory}. |
| 109 |
> |
|
| 110 |
> |
\begin{figure}[hbt] |
| 111 |
> |
\begin{center} |
| 112 |
> |
\includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{victory_control_35pb.png} |
| 113 |
> |
\includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{victory_signal_35pb.png} |
| 114 |
> |
\caption{\label{fig:victory}\protect Distributions of |
| 115 |
> |
tcMet/$\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ for the control and signal region. |
| 116 |
> |
We show the oberved distributions in both Monte Carlo and data. |
| 117 |
> |
We also show the distributions predicted from |
| 118 |
> |
${P_T(\ell\ell)}/\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ in both MC and data.} |
| 119 |
> |
\end{center} |
| 120 |
> |
\end{figure} |
| 121 |
> |
|
| 122 |
> |
|
| 123 |
> |
\begin{table}[hbt] |
| 124 |
> |
\begin{center} |
| 125 |
> |
\label{tab:victory_control} |
| 126 |
> |
\caption{Results of the dilepton $p_{T}$ template method in the control region |
| 127 |
> |
$125 < \mathrm{sumJetPt} < 300$~GeV. The predicted and observed yields for |
| 128 |
> |
the region $\mathrm{tcmet}/\sqrt{\mathrm{sumJetPt}}>$~8.5 are shown for data |
| 129 |
> |
and MC. The error on the prediction for data is statistical only, assuming |
| 130 |
> |
Gaussian errors.} |
| 131 |
> |
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c} |
| 132 |
> |
\hline |
| 133 |
> |
& Predicted & Observed & Obs/Pred \\ |
| 134 |
> |
\hline |
| 135 |
> |
total SM MC & 7.10 & 8.61 & 1.21 \\ |
| 136 |
> |
data & 10.38 $\pm$ 4.24 & 11 & 1.06 \\ |
| 137 |
> |
\hline |
| 138 |
> |
\end{tabular} |
| 139 |
> |
\end{center} |
| 140 |
> |
\end{table} |
| 141 |
> |
|
| 142 |
> |
\begin{table}[hbt] |
| 143 |
> |
\begin{center} |
| 144 |
> |
\label{tab:victory_control} |
| 145 |
> |
\caption{Results of the dilepton $p_{T}$ template method in the signal region |
| 146 |
> |
$125 < \mathrm{sumJetPt} < 300$~GeV. The predicted and observed yields for |
| 147 |
> |
the region $\mathrm{tcmet}/\sqrt{\mathrm{sumJetPt}}>$~8.5 are shown for data |
| 148 |
> |
and MC. The error on the prediction for data is statistical only, assuming |
| 149 |
> |
Gaussian errors.} |
| 150 |
> |
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c} |
| 151 |
> |
\hline |
| 152 |
> |
& Predicted & Observed & Obs/Pred \\ |
| 153 |
> |
\hline |
| 154 |
> |
total SM MC & 0.96 & 1.41 & 1.46 \\ |
| 155 |
> |
data & 3.07 $\pm$ 2.17 & 1 & 0.33 \\ |
| 156 |
> |
\hline |
| 157 |
> |
\end{tabular} |
| 158 |
> |
\end{center} |
| 159 |
> |
\end{table} |
| 160 |
> |
|
| 161 |
|
|
| 162 |
+ |
\subsection{Summary of results} |
| 163 |
|
To summarize: we see no evidence for an anomalous |
| 164 |
|
rate of opposite sign isolated dilepton events |
| 165 |
|
at high \met and high SumJetPt. The extraction of |
| 166 |
|
quantitative limits on new physics models is discussed |
| 167 |
< |
in Section~\ref{sec:limits}. |
| 167 |
> |
in Section~\ref{sec:limit}. |
