| 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 |
|
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
\begin{figure}[tbh]
|
| 11 |
\begin{center}
|
| 12 |
\includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{abcdData.png}
|
| 13 |
\caption{\label{fig:abcdData}\protect Distributions of SumJetPt
|
| 14 |
vs. MET$/\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ for SM Monte Carlo and data. Here we also
|
| 15 |
show our choice of ABCD regions.}
|
| 16 |
\end{center}
|
| 17 |
\end{figure}
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
\begin{table}[hbt]
|
| 21 |
\begin{center}
|
| 22 |
\caption{\label{tab:datayield} Data yields in the four
|
| 23 |
regions of Figure~\ref{fig:abcdData}. We also show the
|
| 24 |
SM Monte Carlo expectations.}
|
| 25 |
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c||c|}
|
| 26 |
\hline
|
| 27 |
&A & B & C & D & AC/D \\ \hline
|
| 28 |
Data &3 & 6 & 1 & 0 & $0.5^{+x}_{-y}$ \\
|
| 29 |
SM MC &2.5 &11.2 & 1.5 & 0.4 & 0.4 \\
|
| 30 |
\hline
|
| 31 |
\end{tabular}
|
| 32 |
\end{center}
|
| 33 |
\end{table}
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
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 $P_T(\ell \ell)$
|
| 46 |
method to also predict the number of events in the
|
| 47 |
control region $120<{\rm SumJetPt}<300$ GeV and
|
| 48 |
\met/$\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt} > 8.5$. We predict
|
| 49 |
$5.6^{+x}_{-y}$ events and we observe 4.
|
| 50 |
{\color{red} (We need to make sure that this prediction
|
| 51 |
includes the 1.4 fudge factor).}
|
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
To summarize: we see no evidence for an anomalous
|
| 54 |
rate of opposite sign isolated dilepton events
|
| 55 |
at high \met and high SumJetPt. The extraction of
|
| 56 |
quantitative limits on new physics models is discussed
|
| 57 |
in Section~\ref{sec:limits}. |
