| 1 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\section{Event Yields}
|
| 2 |
|
|
\label{sec:yields}
|
| 3 |
|
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
In this Section we compare the event yields in SS and OS with
|
| 5 |
|
|
the MC predictions. The MC predictions are normalized to
|
| 6 |
|
|
the data integrated luminosity (Section~\ref{sec:lumi}),
|
| 7 |
|
|
and are broken down into contributions
|
| 8 |
|
|
from QCD, $\gamma +$ jets, and Drell-Yan. The integrated
|
| 9 |
|
|
luminosity of the lowest $P_T$ QCD bin (QCDPt15) is only
|
| 10 |
|
|
$\approx$ 7 nb$^{-1}$,
|
| 11 |
|
|
which is smaller than the integrated luminosity of the data.
|
| 12 |
|
|
Thus we have ``stitched'' together the QCDPt15 and QCDPt30
|
| 13 |
|
|
MC samples by requiring $\hat{P}_T < 30$ for the
|
| 14 |
|
|
QCDPt15 sample. Even so, the QCD statistics are not sufficient
|
| 15 |
|
|
for a meaningful comparison.
|
| 16 |
|
|
|
| 17 |
|
|
|
| 18 |
|
|
The event yields in data and Monte Carlo for SS and
|
| 19 |
claudioc |
1.7 |
OS are given in
|
| 20 |
claudioc |
1.8 |
Tables~\ref{tab:yieldOS} and~{\color{red}\ref{tab:yieldSS} (old)} as well as~
|
| 21 |
|
|
{\color{blue}\ref{tab:yieldSS2} (updated).}
|
| 22 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
|
| 23 |
|
|
\begin{table}[htb]
|
| 24 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 25 |
claudioc |
1.2 |
\caption{\label{tab:yieldOS} Observed and MC-predicted yields in the OS
|
| 26 |
|
|
selection. Quoted uncertainties are MC statistics only. In case that
|
| 27 |
claudioc |
1.5 |
no QCDPt15 MC event passes the selection, we quote the uncertainty as the weight
|
| 28 |
claudioc |
1.8 |
of one QCDPt15 MC event.}
|
| 29 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
|
| 30 |
|
|
Final State & QCD & $\gamma +$ jet & DY & Total MC & Data \\
|
| 31 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 32 |
spadhi |
1.6 |
ee & 0$\pm$2 & 0.01 $\pm$ 0.004 & 0.83$\pm$0.02 & 0.84$\pm$2.0 & 2 \\
|
| 33 |
|
|
e$\mu$ & 0.17$\pm$2 & 0.000$\pm$0.004 & 0.08 $\pm$ 0.01& 0.25$\pm$2.0 & 0 \\
|
| 34 |
|
|
$\mu\mu$& 0$\pm$2 & 0 & 1.36$\pm$0.03 &1.36$\pm$2.0& 3 \\
|
| 35 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\hline
|
| 36 |
spadhi |
1.6 |
All &0.17$\pm$3 &0.01$\pm$0.004 & 2.27$\pm$0.03 & 2.44$\pm$3.0 & 5 \\
|
| 37 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\hline
|
| 38 |
|
|
\end{tabular}
|
| 39 |
|
|
\end{center}
|
| 40 |
|
|
\end{table}
|
| 41 |
|
|
|
| 42 |
|
|
|
| 43 |
claudioc |
1.2 |
|
| 44 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\begin{table}[htb]
|
| 45 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 46 |
claudioc |
1.7 |
{\color{red}
|
| 47 |
claudioc |
1.2 |
\caption{\label{tab:yieldSS} Observed and MC-predicted yields in the SS
|
| 48 |
|
|
selection. Quoted uncertainties are MC statistics only. In case that
|
| 49 |
claudioc |
1.5 |
no QCDPt15 MC event passes the selection, we quote the uncertainty as the weight
|
| 50 |
claudioc |
1.7 |
of one QCDPt15 MC event.(Old Table which is updated below)}
|
| 51 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
|
| 52 |
claudioc |
1.2 |
Final State & QCD & $\gamma +$ jet & DY & Total MC & Data \\
|
| 53 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\hline
|
| 54 |
spadhi |
1.6 |
ee & $0 \pm 2$ & $0.002 \pm 0.002$ & $0.01 \pm 0.003$&$ 0.01\pm 2.0$ &0 \\
|
| 55 |
|
|
e$\mu$ & $0 \pm 2$ & $0.004 \pm 0.003$ & $0.005 \pm 0.002$&$ 0.01 \pm 2.0 $ &0 \\
|
| 56 |
|
|
$\mu\mu$ & $0 \pm 2$ & 0 & $0.001 \pm 0.001$&$ 0.001\pm 2.0 $ &0 \\
|
| 57 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\hline
|
| 58 |
spadhi |
1.6 |
All & $0 \pm 3$ & $0.006 \pm 0.003$ & $0.016 \pm 0.003$&$0.02\pm 3.0 $ &0 \\
|
| 59 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\hline
|
| 60 |
|
|
\end{tabular}
|
| 61 |
claudioc |
1.7 |
}
|
| 62 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
\end{center}
|
| 63 |
|
|
\end{table}
|
| 64 |
|
|
|
| 65 |
|
|
|
| 66 |
|
|
|
| 67 |
claudioc |
1.2 |
|
| 68 |
claudioc |
1.7 |
|
| 69 |
|
|
|
| 70 |
|
|
\begin{table}[htb]
|
| 71 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 72 |
|
|
{\color{blue}
|
| 73 |
|
|
\caption{\label{tab:yieldSS2} Observed and MC-predicted yields in the SS
|
| 74 |
|
|
selection. Quoted uncertainties are MC statistics only. In case that
|
| 75 |
|
|
no QCDPt15 MC event passes the selection, we quote the uncertainty as the weight
|
| 76 |
claudioc |
1.8 |
of one QCDPt15 MC event. (New updated Table)}
|
| 77 |
|
|
|
| 78 |
claudioc |
1.7 |
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
|
| 79 |
|
|
Final State & QCD & $\gamma +$ jet & DY & Total MC & Data \\
|
| 80 |
|
|
\hline
|
| 81 |
claudioc |
1.8 |
ee & $0 \pm 11$ & $0.01 \pm 0.01$ & $0.07 \pm 0.01$&$ 0.08\pm 11$ &0 \\
|
| 82 |
|
|
e$\mu$ & $0 \pm 11$ & $0.02 \pm 0.01$ & $0.02 \pm 0.01$&$ 0.04 \pm 11 $ &1 \\
|
| 83 |
|
|
$\mu\mu$ & $0 \pm 11$ & 0 & $0.01 \pm 0.04$&$ 0.01\pm 11 $ &0 \\
|
| 84 |
claudioc |
1.7 |
\hline
|
| 85 |
claudioc |
1.8 |
All & $0 \pm 19$ & $0.03 \pm 0.02$ & $0.10 \pm 0.02$&$0.13\pm 19 $ &1 \\
|
| 86 |
claudioc |
1.7 |
\hline
|
| 87 |
|
|
\end{tabular}
|
| 88 |
|
|
}
|
| 89 |
|
|
\end{center}
|
| 90 |
|
|
\end{table}
|
| 91 |
|
|
|
| 92 |
|
|
|
| 93 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
We find the $\gamma +$ jet MC predictions to be negligible.
|
| 94 |
|
|
The QCD statistics are so poor that we cannot make any quantitative
|
| 95 |
|
|
statement.
|
| 96 |
|
|
The OS data is dominated by Drell Yan. The agreement between
|
| 97 |
|
|
MC and data yields is good.
|
| 98 |
|
|
|
| 99 |
claudioc |
1.2 |
For now we use the MC to predict the rate of SS events from Drell-Yan
|
| 100 |
|
|
off the $Z$ peak. These events are mostly from electron charge misidentification.
|
| 101 |
claudioc |
1.1 |
We have developed techniques to measure this charge flip probability
|
| 102 |
|
|
from $Z \to ee$ data\cite{ref:SSSusy}. However, this cannot be done at the
|
| 103 |
|
|
present level of statistics. Interestingly enough, we did find one SS
|
| 104 |
|
|
$e^+e^+$ event that is removed by the $Z$-mass
|
| 105 |
|
|
cut. We believe this to be a $Z \to e^+e^-$ event with one
|
| 106 |
|
|
charge misassignment\cite{ref:HN}.
|
| 107 |
|
|
|
| 108 |
|
|
|
| 109 |
|
|
|
| 110 |
claudioc |
1.7 |
|
