| 1 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\section{Application of the FR to dileptons}
|
| 2 |
|
|
\label{sec:FRapply}
|
| 3 |
|
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
\subsection{Results}
|
| 5 |
|
|
In this Section we apply the FR method to our dilepton analysis.
|
| 6 |
|
|
We repeat the selection of Section~\ref{sec:yields}, but
|
| 7 |
|
|
instead of selecting pairs of leptons passing the lepton
|
| 8 |
|
|
requirements, we select pairs of FO that fail the lepton
|
| 9 |
|
|
requirements. We then weight each event by
|
| 10 |
|
|
FR$_1$FR$_2$/(1-FR$_1$)(1-FR$_2$), sum all of the weights, and
|
| 11 |
|
|
compare with the yields of Tables~\ref{tab:yieldSS} and~\ref{tab:yieldOS}.
|
| 12 |
|
|
|
| 13 |
|
|
The procedure is performed using the FR from HLT\_Jet15U.
|
| 14 |
claudioc |
1.6 |
The results are displayed in
|
| 15 |
claudioc |
1.7 |
Tables \ref{tab:FRyieldOS},
|
| 16 |
|
|
{\color{red} \ref{tab:FRyieldSS} (old)} and
|
| 17 |
|
|
{\color{blue} \ref{tab:FRyieldSS2} (new)}
|
| 18 |
claudioc |
1.6 |
|
| 19 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
|
| 20 |
|
|
|
| 21 |
|
|
\begin{table}[htb]
|
| 22 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 23 |
|
|
\caption{\label{tab:FRyieldOS} Observed and predicted yields of OS events.
|
| 24 |
|
|
The quoted uncertainty on the FR prediction is based on the statistics
|
| 25 |
|
|
on the number of FO-FO pairs that are seen in the data. The systematic
|
| 26 |
claudioc |
1.7 |
uncertainty from the FR is not included. Luminosity = 11.5 nb$^{-1}$.}
|
| 27 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
|
| 28 |
|
|
& DY $+ \gamma$-jet & QCD prediction & QCD prediction & QCD prediction & Data \\
|
| 29 |
|
|
& MC yield & using e-V1 and $\mu$ FR & using e-V2 and $\mu$ FR & using e-V3 and $\mu$ FR & \\ \hline
|
| 30 |
claudioc |
1.4 |
$ee$ & $0.84\pm0.02$ & $0.06\pm0.01$ & $0.08\pm0.04$ & $0.30\pm0.30$ & 2 \\
|
| 31 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
$e\mu$ & $0.08\pm0.01$ & $0.26\pm0.11$ & $0.21\pm0.21$ & $1.41\pm0.82$ & 0 \\
|
| 32 |
|
|
$\mu\mu$& $1.36\pm0.03$ & $0.0\pm0.2$ & $0.0\pm0.2$ & $0.0\pm0.2$ & 3 \\
|
| 33 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 34 |
spadhi |
1.5 |
all & $2.28\pm0.04$ & $0.32\pm0.23$ & $0.29\pm0.29$ & $1.71\pm0.90$ & 5 \\
|
| 35 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\hline
|
| 36 |
|
|
\end{tabular}
|
| 37 |
|
|
\end{center}
|
| 38 |
|
|
\end{table}
|
| 39 |
|
|
|
| 40 |
|
|
\begin{table}[htb]
|
| 41 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 42 |
claudioc |
1.6 |
{\color{red}
|
| 43 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\caption{\label{tab:FRyieldSS} Observed and predicted yields of SS events.
|
| 44 |
|
|
The quoted uncertainty on the FR prediction is based on the statistics
|
| 45 |
|
|
on the number of FO-FO pairs that are seen in the data. The systematic
|
| 46 |
claudioc |
1.7 |
uncertainty from the FR is not included. Luminosity = 12.5 nb$^{-1}$.}
|
| 47 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
|
| 48 |
|
|
& DY $+ \gamma$-jet & QCD prediction & QCD prediction & QCD prediction & Data \\
|
| 49 |
|
|
& MC yield & using e-V1 and $\mu$ FR & using e-V2 and $\mu$ FR & using e-V3 and $\mu$ FR & \\ \hline
|
| 50 |
claudioc |
1.3 |
$ee$ & $0.01 \pm 0.003$ & $0.11\pm 0.02$ & $0.19\pm 0.10$ & $0.38 \pm 0.38$ & 0 \\
|
| 51 |
|
|
$e\mu$ & $0.01 \pm 0.003$ & $0.0 \pm 0.025$& $0.0 \pm 0.2$ & $0.0 \pm 0.3$ & 0 \\
|
| 52 |
|
|
$\mu\mu$& $0.001\pm 0.0008$& $0.0 \pm 0.22$ & $0.0 \pm 0.1$ & $0.0 \pm 0.2$ & 0 \\
|
| 53 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\hline
|
| 54 |
claudioc |
1.3 |
all & $0.02\pm 0.005$ & $0.11\pm 0.22$ & $0.19 \pm 0.26$& $0.38 \pm 0.52$ & 0 \\
|
| 55 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\hline
|
| 56 |
|
|
\end{tabular}
|
| 57 |
claudioc |
1.6 |
}
|
| 58 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\end{center}
|
| 59 |
|
|
\end{table}
|
| 60 |
|
|
|
| 61 |
|
|
With this small amount of luminosity, the uncertainty on the FR prediction due
|
| 62 |
|
|
to the limited statistics of the FO-FO sample is quite large. There is
|
| 63 |
|
|
good agreement between the data and the sum of the FR prediction and the
|
| 64 |
|
|
Monte Carlo DY prediction. (The Tables actually include the $\gamma +$ jet
|
| 65 |
|
|
MC prediction, but this is very small).
|
| 66 |
|
|
|
| 67 |
claudioc |
1.6 |
\begin{table}[htb]
|
| 68 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 69 |
|
|
{\color{blue}
|
| 70 |
claudioc |
1.7 |
\caption{\label{tab:FRyieldSS2} Observed and predicted yields of SS events.
|
| 71 |
claudioc |
1.6 |
The quoted uncertainty on the FR prediction is based on the statistics
|
| 72 |
|
|
on the number of FO-FO pairs that are seen in the data. The systematic
|
| 73 |
claudioc |
1.7 |
uncertainty from the FR is not included. Luminosity = 65 nb$^{-1}$.}
|
| 74 |
claudioc |
1.6 |
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
|
| 75 |
|
|
& DY $+ \gamma$-jet & QCD prediction & QCD prediction & QCD prediction & Data \\
|
| 76 |
|
|
& MC yield & using e-V1 and $\mu$ FR & using e-V2 and $\mu$ FR & using e-V3 and $\mu$ FR & \\ \hline
|
| 77 |
claudioc |
1.9 |
$ee$ & $0.08 \pm 0.02$ & $0.45\pm 0.04$ & $0.43^{+0.18}_{-0.14}$ & $0.50^{+1.15}_{-0.42}$ & 0 \\
|
| 78 |
|
|
$e\mu$ & $0.04 \pm 0.02$ & $0.44 \pm 0.10$& $0.14^{+0.18}_{-0.09}$ & $1.10^{+0.74}_{-0.48}$ & 1 \\
|
| 79 |
|
|
$\mu\mu$& $0.01\pm 0.004$& $0.22^{+0.51}_{-0.18}$ & $0.22^{+0.51}_{-0.18}$ & $0.22^{+0.51}_{-0.18}$ & 0 \\
|
| 80 |
claudioc |
1.6 |
\hline
|
| 81 |
claudioc |
1.9 |
all & $0.13\pm 0.02$ & $1.11^{+0.52}_{-0.21}$ & $0.78^{+0.57}_{-0.25}$& $1.81^{+1.46}_{-0.66}$ & 1 \\
|
| 82 |
claudioc |
1.6 |
\hline
|
| 83 |
|
|
\end{tabular}
|
| 84 |
|
|
}
|
| 85 |
|
|
\end{center}
|
| 86 |
|
|
\end{table}
|
| 87 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
|
| 88 |
claudioc |
1.7 |
|
| 89 |
|
|
|
| 90 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
|
| 91 |
|
|
|
| 92 |
|
|
%\subsection{Relaxing the cuts some more}
|
| 93 |
|
|
%\label{sec:relax}
|
| 94 |
|
|
|
| 95 |
|
|
%As mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:intro}, one of the main goals
|
| 96 |
|
|
%of this study is to gain some confidence in the MC prediction
|
| 97 |
|
|
%that QCD events are not a serious issue for the top dilepton analysis.
|
| 98 |
|
|
%Even at low $P_T$ ($P_T > 10$ GeV) we do not have enough MC statistics
|
| 99 |
|
|
%to test the QCD prediction. As mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:yields}
|
| 100 |
|
|
%we plan to use lepton enriched MC samples.
|
| 101 |
|
|
|
| 102 |
|
|
%For now, we compare
|
| 103 |
|
|
%data and MC yields after relaxing the lepton requirements further.
|
| 104 |
|
|
%Specifically, we compare data and MC in the OS sample using the muon
|
| 105 |
|
|
%FO and the electron FO V2 definition. Effectively, this corresponds
|
| 106 |
|
|
%mostly to the relaxing of the isolation requirement. The results
|
| 107 |
|
|
%are displayed in Table~\ref{tab:relax}.
|
| 108 |
|
|
|
| 109 |
|
|
%\begin{table}[htb]
|
| 110 |
|
|
%\begin{center}
|
| 111 |
|
|
%\caption{\label{tab:relax} Observed and MC predicted yields in the OS
|
| 112 |
|
|
%FO-FO selection. The electron FO is V2.}
|
| 113 |
|
|
%\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
|
| 114 |
|
|
%Final State & QCDPt15 & QCDpt30 & $\gamma +$ jet & DY & Total MC & Data \\
|
| 115 |
|
|
%\hline
|
| 116 |
|
|
%ee & & & & & & \\
|
| 117 |
|
|
%e$\mu$ & & & & & & \\
|
| 118 |
|
|
%$\mu\mu$ & & & & & & \\
|
| 119 |
|
|
%\hline
|
| 120 |
|
|
%All & & & & & & \\
|
| 121 |
|
|
%\hline
|
| 122 |
|
|
%\end{tabular}
|
| 123 |
|
|
%\end{center}
|
| 124 |
|
|
%\end{table}
|
| 125 |
|
|
|
| 126 |
|
|
|
| 127 |
|
|
|
