ViewVC Help
View File | Revision Log | Show Annotations | Root Listing
root/cvsroot/UserCode/claudioc/OSNote2010/results.tex
(Generate patch)

Comparing UserCode/claudioc/OSNote2010/results.tex (file contents):
Revision 1.2 by claudioc, Fri Nov 5 23:07:43 2010 UTC vs.
Revision 1.6 by benhoob, Mon Nov 8 13:10:39 2010 UTC

# Line 1 | Line 1
1   \section{Results}
2   \label{sec:results}
3  
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.}
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}
# Line 33 | Line 33 | is 0.5 events.
33   \begin{table}[hbt]
34   \begin{center}
35   \caption{\label{tab:datayield} Data yields in the four
36 < regions of Figure~\ref{fig:abcdData}.  We also show the
37 < SM Monte Carlo expectations.}
36 > regions of Figure~\ref{fig:abcdData}.  The quoted uncertainty
37 > on the prediction in data is statistical only, assuming Gaussian errors.
38 > We also show the SM Monte Carlo expectations.}
39   \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c||c|}
40   \hline
41        &A   & B    & C   & D   & AC/B \\ \hline
42 < Data  &3   & 6    & 1   & 0   & $0.5^{+x}_{-y}$ \\
42 > Data  &3   & 6    & 1   & 0   & $0.5^{+0.6}_{-0.5}$ \\
43   SM MC &2.5 &11.2  & 1.5 & 0.4 & 0.4 \\
44   \hline
45   \end{tabular}
46   \end{center}
47   \end{table}
48  
49 < As a cross-check, we can subtract from the yields in
50 < Table~\ref{tab:datayield} the expected DY contributions
51 < from Table~\ref{tab:ABCD-DY} in order to get a ``purer''
52 < estimate of the $t\bar{t}$ contribution.  The result
53 < of this exercise is {\color{red} xx} events.
49 > %As a cross-check, we can subtract from the yields in
50 > %Table~\ref{tab:datayield} the expected DY contributions
51 > %from Table~\ref{tab:ABCD-DY} in order to get a ``purer''
52 > %estimate of the $t\bar{t}$ contribution.  The result
53 > %of this exercise is {\color{red} xx} events.
54  
55   \subsection{Background estimate from the $P_T(\ell\ell)$ method}
56   \label{sec:victoryres}
57  
57
58
58   The number of data events in region $D'$, which is defined in
59   Section~\ref{sec:othBG} to be the same as region $D$ but with the
60   $\met/\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ requirement
61   replaced by a $P_T(\ell\ell)/\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ requirement
62 < is $N_{D'}=0$.  Thus the BG prediction is
63 < $N_D = K^{MC} \cdot K_{\rm fudge} \cdot N_{D'} = xx$
64 < where we used $K^{MC}=xx$ and $K_{\rm fudge}=xx \pm yy$.
62 > is $N_{D'}=1$.  Thus the BG prediction is
63 > $N_D = K \cdot K_C \cdot N_{D'} = 1.5$
64 > where $K=1.5 \pm xx$ as derived in Sec.~\ref{sec:victory} and
65 > $K_C = 1$.
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 $N_D=xx$.
67 > the {\color{red} 0.4 $\pm$ 0.4} DY events estimated from
68 > Section~\ref{sec:othBG}, the background
69 > prediction would change to $N_D=0.9 \pm xx$ events.
70 >
71 > %%%TO BE REPLACED
72 > %{\color{red}As mentioned previously, for the 11/pb analysis
73 > %we use the $K$ factor from data and take $K=1$.
74 > %This will change for the full dataset.  We will also pay
75 > %more attention to the statistical errors.}
76 >
77 > %The number of data events in region $D'$, which is defined in
78 > %Section~\ref{sec:othBG} to be the same as region $D$ but with the
79 > %$\met/\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ requirement
80 > %replaced by a $P_T(\ell\ell)/\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ requirement
81 > %is $N_{D'}=1$.  Thus the BG prediction is
82 > %$N_D = K \cdot K_{\rm fudge} \cdot N_{D'} = 1.5$
83 > %where we used $K=1.5 \pm xx$ and $K_{\rm fudge}=1.0 \pm 0.0$.
84 > %Note that if we were to subtract off from region $D'$
85 > %the {\color{red} 0.4 $\pm$ 0.4} DY events estimated from
86 > %Section~\ref{sec:othBG}, the background
87 > %prediction would change to $N_D=0.9 \pm xx$ events.
88 > %{\color{red} When we do this with a real
89 > %$K_{\rm fudge}$, the fudge factor will be different
90 > %after the DY subtraction.}
91  
92   As a cross-check, we use the $P_T(\ell \ell)$
93   method to also predict the number of events in the
94   control region $120<{\rm SumJetPt}<300$ GeV and
95   \met/$\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt} > 8.5$.  We predict
96   $5.6^{+x}_{-y}$ events and we observe 4.
97 < {\color{red} Note: when we do this more carefully
98 < we will need to use a different $K$ and a different $K_{fudge}$>}
97 > The results of the $P_T(\ell\ell)$ method are
98 > summarized in Figure~\ref{fig:victory}.
99 >
100 > \begin{figure}[hbt]
101 > \begin{center}
102 > \includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{victory_control.png}
103 > \includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{victory_sig.png}
104 > \caption{\label{fig:victory}\protect Distributions of
105 > tcMet/$\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ for the control and signal region.
106 > We show the oberved distributions in both Monte Carlo and data.
107 > We also show the distributions predicted from
108 > ${P_T(\ell\ell)}/\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ in both MC and data.}
109 > \end{center}
110 > \end{figure}
111 >
112  
113 + \subsection{Summary of results}
114   To summarize: we see no evidence for an anomalous
115   rate of opposite sign isolated dilepton events
116   at high \met and high SumJetPt.  The extraction of
117   quantitative limits on new physics models is discussed
118 < in Section~\ref{sec:limits}.
118 > in Section~\ref{sec:limit}.

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines