| 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.}
|
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
\begin{figure}[tbh]
|
| 10 |
\begin{center}
|
| 11 |
\includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{abcdData.png}
|
| 12 |
\caption{\label{fig:abcdData}\protect Distributions of SumJetPt
|
| 13 |
vs. MET$/\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ for SM Monte Carlo and data. Here we also
|
| 14 |
show our choice of ABCD regions.}
|
| 15 |
\end{center}
|
| 16 |
\end{figure}
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The data, together with SM expectations is presented
|
| 20 |
in Figure~\ref{fig:abcdData}. We see $\color{red} 0$
|
| 21 |
events in the signal region (region $D$). The Standard Model
|
| 22 |
MC expectation is {\color{red} 0.4} events.
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
\subsection{Background estimate from the ABCD method}
|
| 25 |
\label{sec:abcdres}
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
The data yields in the
|
| 28 |
four regions are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:datayield}.
|
| 29 |
The prediction of the ABCD method is is given by $AC/B$ and
|
| 30 |
is 0.5 events.
|
| 31 |
(see Table~\ref{tab:datayield}.
|
| 32 |
|
| 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.}
|
| 38 |
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c||c|}
|
| 39 |
\hline
|
| 40 |
&A & B & C & D & AC/B \\ \hline
|
| 41 |
Data &3 & 6 & 1 & 0 & $0.5^{+x}_{-y}$ \\
|
| 42 |
SM MC &2.5 &11.2 & 1.5 & 0.4 & 0.4 \\
|
| 43 |
\hline
|
| 44 |
\end{tabular}
|
| 45 |
\end{center}
|
| 46 |
\end{table}
|
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
%As a cross-check, we can subtract from the yields in
|
| 49 |
%Table~\ref{tab:datayield} the expected DY contributions
|
| 50 |
%from Table~\ref{tab:ABCD-DY} in order to get a ``purer''
|
| 51 |
%estimate of the $t\bar{t}$ contribution. The result
|
| 52 |
%of this exercise is {\color{red} xx} events.
|
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
\subsection{Background estimate from the $P_T(\ell\ell)$ method}
|
| 55 |
\label{sec:victoryres}
|
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
{\color{red}As mentioned previously, for the 11/pb analysis
|
| 59 |
we use the $K$ factor from data and take $K_{\rm fudge}=1$.
|
| 60 |
This will change for the full dataset. We will also pay
|
| 61 |
more attention to the statistical errors.}
|
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
The number of data events in region $D'$, which is defined in
|
| 64 |
Section~\ref{sec:othBG} to be the same as region $D$ but with the
|
| 65 |
$\met/\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ requirement
|
| 66 |
replaced by a $P_T(\ell\ell)/\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ requirement
|
| 67 |
is $N_{D'}=1$. Thus the BG prediction is
|
| 68 |
$N_D = K \cdot K_{\rm fudge} \cdot N_{D'} = 1.5$
|
| 69 |
where we used $K=1.5 \pm xx$ and $K_{\rm fudge}=1.0 \pm 0.0$.
|
| 70 |
Note that if we were to subtract off from region $D'$
|
| 71 |
the {\color{red} 0.4 $\pm$ 0.4} DY events estimated from
|
| 72 |
Section~\ref{sec:othBG}, the background
|
| 73 |
prediction would change to $N_D=0.9 \pm xx$ events.
|
| 74 |
{\color{red} When we do this with a real
|
| 75 |
$K_{\rm fudge}$, the fudge factor will be different
|
| 76 |
after the DY subtraction.}
|
| 77 |
|
| 78 |
As a cross-check, we use the $P_T(\ell \ell)$
|
| 79 |
method to also predict the number of events in the
|
| 80 |
control region $120<{\rm SumJetPt}<300$ GeV and
|
| 81 |
\met/$\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt} > 8.5$. We predict
|
| 82 |
$5.6^{+x}_{-y}$ events and we observe 4.
|
| 83 |
The results of the $P_T(\ell\ell)$ method are
|
| 84 |
summarized in Figure~\ref{fig:victory}.
|
| 85 |
|
| 86 |
\begin{figure}[hbt]
|
| 87 |
\begin{center}
|
| 88 |
\includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{victory_control.png}
|
| 89 |
\includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{victory_sig.png}
|
| 90 |
\caption{\label{fig:victory}\protect Distributions of
|
| 91 |
tcMet/$\sqrt{\rm SumJetPt}$ for the control and signal region.
|
| 92 |
We show the oberved distributions in both Monte Carlo and data.
|
| 93 |
We also show the distributions predicted from
|
| 94 |
tcMet/$\sqrt{P_T(\ell\ell)}$ in both MC and data.}
|
| 95 |
\end{center}
|
| 96 |
\end{figure}
|
| 97 |
|
| 98 |
|
| 99 |
\subsection{Summary of results}
|
| 100 |
To summarize: we see no evidence for an anomalous
|
| 101 |
rate of opposite sign isolated dilepton events
|
| 102 |
at high \met and high SumJetPt. The extraction of
|
| 103 |
quantitative limits on new physics models is discussed
|
| 104 |
in Section~\ref{sec:limits}. |
