| 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 $A\times C/B$ and |
| 26 |
< |
is 1.5 events. (see Table~\ref{tab:datayield}. |
| 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} |
| 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 |
|
|
| 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 $N_{D'}=1$. Thus the BG prediction is |
| 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} 0.4 $\pm$ 0.4} DY events estimated from |
| 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 $N_D=0.9 \pm xx$ events. |
| 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 |
| 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 |
|
The results of the $P_T(\ell\ell)$ method are |
| 109 |
|
|
| 110 |
|
\begin{figure}[hbt] |
| 111 |
|
\begin{center} |
| 112 |
< |
\includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{victory_control.png} |
| 113 |
< |
\includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{victory_sig.png} |
| 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. |
| 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 |
