| 1 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\section{Acceptance systematics}
|
| 2 |
|
|
\label{sec:systematics}
|
| 3 |
|
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
This is a search for new physics contributions to
|
| 5 |
|
|
events with high \met and lots of jet activity.
|
| 6 |
|
|
As seen in Section~\ref{sec:results}, there is no
|
| 7 |
|
|
evidence for a contribution beyond SM expectations.
|
| 8 |
|
|
|
| 9 |
|
|
Strictly speaking it is impossible to talk about
|
| 10 |
|
|
``acceptance systematics'' because these kinds of
|
| 11 |
|
|
systematics only apply to a well defined final state.
|
| 12 |
claudioc |
1.2 |
Nevertheless, we can at least make some qualitative
|
| 13 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
statements.
|
| 14 |
|
|
|
| 15 |
benhoob |
1.4 |
The systematic uncertainty on the lepton acceptance consists
|
| 16 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
of two parts: the trigger efficiency uncertainty and the
|
| 17 |
|
|
ID and isolation of uncertainty. We discuss these in turn.
|
| 18 |
|
|
|
| 19 |
|
|
The trigger efficiency
|
| 20 |
|
|
for two leptons of $P_T>10$ GeV, with one lepton of
|
| 21 |
|
|
$P_T>20$ GeV is very high, except in some corners
|
| 22 |
|
|
of phase space, see Section~\ref{sec:trgEff}.
|
| 23 |
|
|
We estimate the efficiency uncertainty to be a few percent,
|
| 24 |
|
|
mostly in the low $P_T$ region.
|
| 25 |
|
|
|
| 26 |
claudioc |
1.3 |
\begin{figure}[tbh]
|
| 27 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 28 |
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{eff_11.png}
|
| 29 |
|
|
\caption{\label{fig:effttbar}\protect
|
| 30 |
|
|
Identification and isolation efficiencies for
|
| 31 |
|
|
leptons from $t \to W \to \ell$ and
|
| 32 |
|
|
$t \to W \to \tau \to \ell$ in
|
| 33 |
|
|
$t\bar{t}$ events.}
|
| 34 |
|
|
\end{center}
|
| 35 |
|
|
\end{figure}
|
| 36 |
|
|
|
| 37 |
|
|
|
| 38 |
|
|
The ID efficiencies in MC are shown in
|
| 39 |
|
|
Figures~\ref{fig:effttbar}
|
| 40 |
|
|
for the leptons from $t \to W \to \ell$ and $t \to W \to \tau \to \ell$.
|
| 41 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
Tag and probe studies show that these are correct to about
|
| 42 |
|
|
{\color{red} xx\%. (We need to do tag-and-probe on the full sample,
|
| 43 |
|
|
see what we get, and write text accordingly).}
|
| 44 |
|
|
|
| 45 |
|
|
The isolation efficiency depends on the jet activity in
|
| 46 |
|
|
the final state. For example, in MC we find that the
|
| 47 |
|
|
lepton isolation efficiency differs by $\approx 4\%$
|
| 48 |
|
|
{\bf per lepton} between $Z$ events and $t\bar{t}$ events\cite{ref:top}.
|
| 49 |
|
|
|
| 50 |
|
|
Another significant source of systematic uncertainty is
|
| 51 |
|
|
associated with the jet and $\met$ energy scale. The impact
|
| 52 |
|
|
of this uncertainty is very final-state dependent. Final
|
| 53 |
|
|
states characterized by lots of hadronic activity and \met are much
|
| 54 |
|
|
less sensitive than final states where the \met and SumJetPt
|
| 55 |
|
|
are typically close to the requirement. To be more quantitative,
|
| 56 |
|
|
we have used the method of Reference~\cite{ref:top} to evaluate
|
| 57 |
|
|
the systematic uncertainties on the acceptance for $t\bar{t}$
|
| 58 |
|
|
and two benchmark SUSY points. The uncertainties are calculated
|
| 59 |
|
|
assuming a 5\% uncertainty to the hadronic energy scale in CMS.
|
| 60 |
|
|
|
| 61 |
claudioc |
1.5 |
{\color{red} For $t\bar{t}$ we find uncertainties of 8\% (baseline
|
| 62 |
|
|
selection) and 30\% (signal region D); for LM0 and LM1 we find
|
| 63 |
|
|
14\% and 6\% respectively for signal region D.} |
