| 1 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\section{Information for model testing}
|
| 2 |
|
|
\label{sec:outreach}
|
| 3 |
|
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
Our
|
| 5 |
|
|
results can be used to confront models of new physics
|
| 6 |
|
|
in an approximate way by generator-level studies
|
| 7 |
|
|
that compare the expected number of events with the
|
| 8 |
|
|
upper limits from Table~\ref{tab:SR}.
|
| 9 |
|
|
The ``receipe'' to be used is given
|
| 10 |
|
|
in Ref.~\cite{Chatrchyan:2012qka}, and will not
|
| 11 |
|
|
be repeated here. The \MET~~and $H_T$ turn on curves
|
| 12 |
|
|
in this analysis are consistent with those of Ref.~\cite{Chatrchyan:2012qka}.
|
| 13 |
|
|
On the other hand the lepton and btag efficiency curves
|
| 14 |
|
|
of Fig.~\ref{fig:efficiencies} are slightly different because
|
| 15 |
|
|
of changes in the underlying selections.
|
| 16 |
|
|
|
| 17 |
|
|
Lepton efficiencies in Fig.~\ref{fig:efficiencies}
|
| 18 |
|
|
are parametrized as
|
| 19 |
|
|
|
| 20 |
|
|
\begin{eqnarray}
|
| 21 |
|
|
\epsilon = \epsilon_{\rm \infty} {\rm erf}\left ( \frac{\pt - 20~{\rm GeV}}{\sigma} \right)
|
| 22 |
|
|
+ \epsilon_{20} \left( 1.- {\rm erf}\left ( \frac{\pt - 20~{\rm GeV}}{\sigma} \right) \right),
|
| 23 |
|
|
\label{eq:lepeffFitF}
|
| 24 |
|
|
\end{eqnarray}
|
| 25 |
|
|
|
| 26 |
|
|
\noindent with $\epsilon_{\rm \infty} = 0.58$ (0.66),
|
| 27 |
|
|
$\epsilon_{20} = 0.22$ (0.47), $\sigma = 12$ GeV (26 GeV) for electrons
|
| 28 |
|
|
(muons).
|
| 29 |
|
|
|
| 30 |
|
|
The parametrization of the simulated b-tagging efficiency,
|
| 31 |
|
|
also shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:efficiencies},
|
| 32 |
|
|
is $\epsilon = 0.65$ for $90 < \pt < 170$ GeV; at higher
|
| 33 |
|
|
(lower) $\pt$ it decreases linearly with a slope of 0.0007 (0.0038) GeV$^{-1}$.
|
| 34 |
|
|
|
| 35 |
|
|
|
| 36 |
|
|
|
| 37 |
|
|
|
