| 151 |
|
\end{table} |
| 152 |
|
|
| 153 |
|
|
| 154 |
+ |
\clearpage |
| 155 |
|
\subsection{Summary of results} |
| 156 |
< |
To summarize: we see no evidence for an anomalous |
| 156 |
> |
|
| 157 |
> |
In summary, in the signal region defined as $\mathrm{SumJetPt}>300$~GeV and $\met/\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt} > 8.5$~GeV$^{1/2}$:\\ |
| 158 |
> |
We observe 1 event. \\ |
| 159 |
> |
We expect 1.4 events from Standard Model MC prediction. \\ |
| 160 |
> |
The ABCD data driven method predicts $1.5 \pm 0.9(stat) \pm 0.2(syst)$ events. \\ |
| 161 |
> |
The $P_T(\ell\ell)$ method predicts $2.5 \pm 2.2$ events. |
| 162 |
> |
|
| 163 |
> |
All three background estimates are consistent within their uncertainties. |
| 164 |
> |
We thus take as our best estimate of the Standard Model yield in |
| 165 |
> |
the signal region the MC prediction and assign as an uncertainty the |
| 166 |
> |
maximal deviation with either of the data-driven methods, $N_{BG}=1.4 \pm 1.1$. |
| 167 |
> |
|
| 168 |
> |
We conclude that we see no evidence for an anomalous |
| 169 |
|
rate of opposite sign isolated dilepton events |
| 170 |
|
at high \met and high SumJetPt. The extraction of |
| 171 |
|
quantitative limits on new physics models is discussed |
