Annotation of ttbar/p20_taujets_note/Summary.tex, revision 1.1
1.1 ! uid12904 1: \section{\label{sub:xsect}Cross section}
! 2:
! 3: Having presented the preselection yelds on Section \ref{sub:Preselection} we now show the results of the
! 4: efficiencies for $\tau$ ID, b-tagging and trigger for all $t\bar{t}$ channels
! 5:
! 6:
! 7: \begin{table}[h]
! 8: %\begin{center}
! 9: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
! 10: \hline
! 11: Selection & Relative(\%) & Cumulative(\%) \\ \hline
! 12: $\tau$ ID & $ 22.20 \pm 0.24 $ & $ 22.20 \pm 0.24 $ \\
! 13: Trigger & $ 84.54 \pm 0.55 \ $ & $ 18.77 \pm 0.22\ $ \\
! 14: b-tagging & $ 61.82 \pm 0.55 \ $ & $ 11.61 \pm 0.16\ $ \\ \hline
! 15:
! 16: \end{tabular}
! 17: \caption{$t\overline{t}\rightarrow\tau+jets$ final cut flow for taus types 1 and 2}
! 18: %\end{center}
! 19: \label{taujets_final12}
! 20: \end{table}
! 21:
! 22:
! 23: \begin{table}[h]
! 24: %\begin{center}
! 25: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
! 26: \hline
! 27: Selection & Relative(\%) & Cumulative(\%) \\ \hline
! 28: $\tau$ ID & $ 12.37 \pm 0.21 $ & $ 12.37 \pm 0.21 $ \\
! 29: Trigger & $ 84.79 \pm 0.75 \ $ & $ 10.49 \pm 0.19\ $ \\
! 30: b-tagging & $ 59.63 \pm 0.75 \ $ & $ 6.26 \pm 0.13\ $ \\ \hline
! 31:
! 32: \end{tabular}
! 33: \caption{$t\overline{t}\rightarrow\tau+jets$ final cut flow for taus type 3}
! 34: %\end{center}
! 35: \label{taujets_final3}
! 36: \end{table}
! 37:
! 38:
! 39: \begin{table}[h]
! 40: %\begin{center}
! 41: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
! 42: \hline
! 43: Selection & Relative(\%) & Cumulative(\%) \\ \hline
! 44: $\tau$ ID & $ 10.81 \pm 0.20 $ & $ 10.81 \pm 0.20 $ \\
! 45: Trigger & $ 83.40 \pm 0.81 \ $ & $ 9.02 \pm 0.18\ $ \\
! 46: b-tagging & $ 61.30 \pm 0.82 \ $ & $ 5.52 \pm 0.12\ $ \\ \hline
! 47:
! 48: \end{tabular}
! 49: \caption{$t\overline{t}\rightarrow e+jets$ final cut flow for taus types 1 and 2}
! 50: %\end{center}
! 51: \label{elecjets_final12}
! 52: \end{table}
! 53:
! 54: \begin{table}[b]
! 55: %\begin{center}
! 56: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
! 57: \hline
! 58: Selection & Relative(\%) & Cumulative(\%) \\ \hline
! 59: $\tau$ ID & $ 2.25 \pm 0.11 $ & $ 2.25 \pm 0.11 $ \\
! 60: Trigger & $ 83.62 \pm 1.77 \ $ & $ 1.88 \pm 0.09 \ $ \\
! 61: b-tagging & $ 58.26 \pm 1.76 \ $ & $ 1.10 \pm 0.06\ $ \\ \hline
! 62:
! 63: \end{tabular}
! 64: \caption{$t\overline{t}\rightarrow e+jets$ final cut flow for taus type 3}
! 65: %\end{center}
! 66: \label{elecjets_final3}
! 67: \end{table}
! 68:
! 69: %\newpage
! 70:
! 71:
! 72: \begin{table}[b]
! 73: %\begin{center}
! 74: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
! 75: \hline
! 76: Selection & Relative(\%) & Cumulative(\%) \\ \hline
! 77: $\tau$ ID & $ 3.38 \pm 0.19 $ & $ 3.38 \pm 0.19 $ \\
! 78: Trigger & $ 84.44 \pm 2.13 \ $ & $ 2.86 \pm 0.17\ $ \\
! 79: b-tagging & $ 61.25 \pm 2.16 \ $ & $ 1.75 \pm 0.11\ $ \\ \hline
! 80:
! 81: \end{tabular}
! 82: \caption{$t\overline{t}\rightarrow \mu +jets$ final cut flow for taus types 1 and 2.}
! 83: %\end{center}
! 84: \label{muonjets_final12}
! 85: \end{table}
! 86:
! 87:
! 88: \begin{table}[b]
! 89: %\begin{center}
! 90: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
! 91: \hline
! 92: Selection & Relative(\%) & Cumulative(\%) \\ \hline
! 93: $\tau$ ID & $ 3.88 \pm 0.21 $ & $ 3.88 \pm 0.21 $ \\
! 94: Trigger & $ 82.79 \pm 2.04 \ $ & $ 3.21 \pm 0.18\ $ \\
! 95: b-tagging & $ 58.11 \pm 2.05 \ $ & $ 1.87 \pm 0.11\ $ \\ \hline
! 96:
! 97: \end{tabular}
! 98: \caption{$t\overline{t}\rightarrow \mu +jets$ final cut flow for taus type 3}
! 99: %\end{center}
! 100: \label{muonjets_final3}
! 101: \end{table}
! 102:
! 103:
! 104: \begin{table}[b]
! 105: %\begin{center}
! 106: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
! 107: \hline
! 108: Selection & Relative(\%) & Cumulative(\%) \\ \hline
! 109: $\tau$ ID & $ 21.18 \pm 0.37 $ & $ 21.18 \pm 0.37 $ \\
! 110: Trigger & $ 79.56 \pm 0.90 \ $ & $ 16.85 \pm 0.34 \ $ \\
! 111: b-tagging & $ 62.83 \pm 0.92 \ $ & $ 10.59 \pm 0.25\ $ \\ \hline
! 112:
! 113: \end{tabular}
! 114: \caption{$t\overline{t}\rightarrow dilepton$ final cut flow for taus types 1 and 2}
! 115: %\end{center}
! 116: \label{dilep_final12}
! 117: \end{table}
! 118:
! 119:
! 120: \clearpage
! 121:
! 122: \begin{table}[t]
! 123: %\begin{center}
! 124: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
! 125: \hline
! 126: Selection & Relative(\%) & Cumulative(\%) \\ \hline
! 127: $\tau$ ID & $ 14.73 \pm 0.34 $ & $ 14.73 \pm 0.34 $ \\
! 128: Trigger & $ 78.78 \pm 1.08 \ $ & $ 11.60 \pm 0.30\ $ \\
! 129: b-tagging & $ 63.62 \pm 1.11 \ $ & $ 7.38 \pm 0.22\ $ \\ \hline
! 130:
! 131: \end{tabular}
! 132: \caption{$t\overline{t}\rightarrow dilepton$ final cut flow for taus type 3.}
! 133: %\end{center}
! 134: \label{dilep_final3}
! 135: \end{table}
! 136:
! 137: %\newpage
! 138:
! 139:
! 140:
! 141: After having computed all efficiencies it is worthy to summarize all of them (in \%) for the different tau types:
! 142:
! 143: \begin{table}[h]
! 144: %\begin{center}
! 145: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
! 146: \hline
! 147: Channel &Preselection & $\tau$ ID & Trigger & b-tag \\ \hline
! 148: $t\overline{t}\rightarrow\tau+jets$ & $ 3.70 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 22.20 \pm 0.24 $ & $ 18.77 \pm 0.22 $ & $ 11.61 \pm 0.16 $\\
! 149: $t\overline{t}\rightarrow e+jets$ & $ 3.54 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.80 \pm 0.20 $ & $ 9.02 \pm 0.18 $ & $ 5.53 \pm 0.12 $\\
! 150: $t\overline{t}\rightarrow \mu +jets$ & $ 1.67 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 3.38 \pm 0.19 $ & $ 2.86 \pm 0.17 $ & $ 1.75 \pm 0.11 $\\
! 151: $t\overline{t}\rightarrow dilepton$ & $ 1.36 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 21.18 \pm 0.37 $ & $ 16.85 \pm 0.34 $ & $ 10.59 \pm 0.25 $\\ \hline
! 152: \end{tabular}
! 153: \caption{Summary of all selections for taus type 1 \& 2.}
! 154: %\end{center}
! 155: \label{summary12}
! 156: \end{table}
! 157:
! 158:
! 159: \begin{table}[h]
! 160: %\begin{center}
! 161: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
! 162: \hline
! 163: Channel &Preselection & $\tau$ ID & Trigger & b-tag \\ \hline
! 164: $t\overline{t}\rightarrow\tau+jets$ & $ 3.70 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 12.37 \pm 0.21 $ & $ 10.49 \pm 0.19 $ & $ 6.26 \pm 0.13 $\\
! 165: $t\overline{t}\rightarrow e+jets$ & $ 3.54 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 2.25 \pm 0.11 $ & $ 1.88 \pm 0.09 $ & $ 1.10 \pm 0.06 $\\
! 166: $t\overline{t}\rightarrow \mu +jets$ & $ 1.67 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 3.88 \pm 0.21 $ & $ 3.21 \pm 0.18 $ & $ 1.87 \pm 0.11 $\\
! 167: $t\overline{t}\rightarrow dilepton$ & $ 1.36 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 14.73 \pm 0.34 $ & $ 11.60 \pm 0.30 $ & $ 7.38 \pm 0.22 $\\ \hline
! 168: \end{tabular}
! 169: \caption{Summary of all selections for taus type 3.}
! 170: %\end{center}
! 171: \label{summary3}
! 172: \end{table}
! 173:
! 174: %\clearpage
! 175:
! 176: Table below summarizes the number of events in each channel after final selection.
! 177:
! 178:
! 179: \begin{table}[h]
! 180: \caption{Final number of events in the two analysis channels.}
! 181: %\begin{ruledtabular}
! 182: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}
! 183: \hline
! 184: &$\tau$ type I,II
! 185: &$\tau$ type I,II (fitted)
! 186: &$\tau$ type III
! 187: &$\tau$ type III (fitted)&\\
! 188: \hline
! 189: data&
! 190: 386 &
! 191: &
! 192: 459 &
! 193: &\\
! 194: $t\overline{t}\rightarrow\tau+jets$&
! 195: 72.04 $\pm$ 0.53&
! 196: &
! 197: 38.82 $\pm$ 0.39&\\
! 198: $t\overline{t}\rightarrow e+jets$&
! 199: 38.35 $\pm$ 0.36&
! 200: &
! 201: 6.52 $\pm$ 0.16&
! 202: &\\
! 203: $t\overline{t}\rightarrow\mu+jets$&
! 204: 4.81 $\pm$ 0.14&
! 205: &
! 206: 5.14 $\pm$ 0.14&
! 207: &\\
! 208: $t\overline{t}\rightarrow l+l$&
! 209: 6.02 $\pm$ 0.07&
! 210: &
! 211: 4.20 $\pm$ 0.06&
! 212: &\\
! 213: $t\overline{t}$ total MC&
! 214: &
! 215: 121.22 $\pm$ 0.43&
! 216: &
! 217: 54.68 $\pm$ 0.20&\\
! 218: $t\overline{t}$ total fitted&
! 219: &
! 220: 133.04 $\pm$ 17.09&
! 221: &
! 222: 33.12 $\pm$ 15.04&\\
! 223: $W$+jets&
! 224: 17.82 $\pm$ 0.33&
! 225: &
! 226: 11.26 $\pm$ 0.23&
! 227: &\\
! 228: $Z$+jets&
! 229: 2.78 $\pm$ 0.14&
! 230: &
! 231: 2.39 $\pm$ 0.12&
! 232: &\\
! 233: QCD&
! 234: &
! 235: 232.35 $\pm$ 17.09&
! 236: &
! 237: 412.22 $\pm$ 15.04\\
! 238: Signal significance&
! 239: &
! 240: 6.77&
! 241: &
! 242: 1.54
! 243: &\\
! 244: S/B ratio&
! 245: &
! 246: 0.52&
! 247: &
! 248: 0.08\\
! 249: \end{tabular}
! 250: %\end{ruledtabular}
! 251: \label{event yeild summary}
! 252: \end{table}
! 253: %
! 254:
! 255: \clearpage
! 256:
! 257: %The cross section is defined as
! 258: %$\sigma=\frac{Number\, of\, signal\, events}{\varepsilon(t\bar{t})\cdot BR(t\bar{t}\rightarrow \tau+jets)\cdot Luminosity}$.
! 259: %However, we are not simply doing a `counting experiment`, but want to utilize the entire range of NN output.
! 260: The cross section was measured by minimizing the sum of
! 261: the negative log-likelihood functions for each bin of both the types 1 and 2 channel and the type 3 $\tau$ channel.
! 262: These are functions used by MINUIT to perform fits shown in Figs \ref{fig:nnout_type2} and \ref{fig:nnout_type3}
! 263: in Section \ref{sub:NN-variables}. But there $L$ was function of $f(QCD)$ and now we want to use it to measure the cross
! 264: section, so we must express it in terms of $\sigma(\ttbar)$:
! 265: \begin{center}
! 266: \begin{equation}
! 267: L(\sigma, \tilde{N}_{i}, N^{obs}_{i}) \equiv -log(\prod_{i} \frac{\tilde{N}^{N^{obs}_{i}}_{i}}{N^{obs}_{i}!} e^{-\tilde{N}_{i}})
! 268: \end{equation}
! 269: \end{center}
! 270:
! 271: \noindent where \(\tilde{N}_{i} = \sigma \times BR \times \mathcal{L} \times \epsilon(t\bar{t})_{i} + N_{bkg}\) is number
! 272: events predicted in bin i of the data NN distribution and \(N^{obs}_{i}\) is the actual count observed in that bin.
! 273: The cross-section is then the minimum value of each function. But, as stressed out in Section \ref{sub:Results-of-the},
! 274: we have to take
! 275: into account both signal ($\ttbar$) and electroweak contamination in the loose-tight sample we
! 276: use to model QCD in the high NN region used for
! 277: the measurement. The electroweak component is small and therefore it is kept fixed during the fit and
! 278: subtracted from the loose-tight sample.
! 279: However, as dicussed before, the numbers for signal contamination are 5.4\% and 3.0\% for taus types
! 280: 1 and 2 and type 3 respectively
! 281: when we assumed a $t\bar{t}$ cross section of 7.46 pb. This means that 5.4\% (12.55 events) of 232.35 QCD
! 282: events for taus types 1 and 2 are actually $\ttbar$ events and 3.0\% (12.37 events) of 412.22 QCD events
! 283: for taus type 3 are actually $\ttbar$
! 284: events. 12.55 and 12.37 events represent increases of 9.43\% and 37.35\% on the number of signal events for types 1 and 2
! 285: and type 3 respectively. However this is not the final measurement yet since the cross-section
! 286: measurement only makes sense if the cross-section we measure in the and is the same as the one we have assumed
! 287: to normalize $t\bar{t}$ MC samples. This means that we had to iterate back
! 288: by normalizing the signal samples until we found a convergence of the cross-section. Table XXIII summarizes
! 289: the iteration process.
! 290:
! 291: \begin{table}[htbp]
! 292: \label{est}
! 293: \begin{center}
! 294: \begin{tabular}{|c|r|r|r|} \hline
! 295: Assumed $\sigma(\ttbar)$ (pb) & signal contamination for types 1 \& 2 (\%) & signal contamination for type
! 296: 3 (\%) & measured $\sigma(\ttbar)$ (pb) \\ \hline
! 297:
! 298: \hline
! 299:
! 300: \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{7.46} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{5.4} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{3.0} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{8.37} \\ \hline
! 301:
! 302: %$t\bar{t} \rightarrow \mbox{dilepton}$ & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{1.4} \\ \hline
! 303:
! 304: \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{8.37} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{6.1} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{3.3} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{8.42} \\ \hline
! 305:
! 306: \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{8.42} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{6.2} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{3.4} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{8.46} \\ \hline
! 307:
! 308:
! 309: \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{8.46} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{6.2} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{3.4} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{8.46} \\ \hline
! 310:
! 311: \end{tabular}
! 312: \caption{Cross-section iteration process.}
! 313: \end{center}
! 314: \label{iteration1}
! 315: \end{table}
! 316:
! 317: Table above shows that when we assumed a cross-section of 8.46 pb we measured the exact same value, which means that we had to take
! 318: into account signal contaminations of 6.2\% (14.40 events) and 3.4\% (14.02 events) for taus types 1 and 2 and 3 respectively.
! 319: This represents an increase in the number of signal events of 10.82\% for types 1 and 2 and 42.33\% for type 3.
! 320: By considering such events as part of the signal $\ttbar$ sample we measure for the cross-sections:
! 321:
! 322: %\newpage
! 323:
! 324:
! 325: \begin{center}$\tau$+jets types 1 and 2 cross section: \[\sigma (t\overline{t}) =
! 326: 8.83\;\;_{-1.12}^{+1.14}\;\;({\textrm{stat}})\;\;_{-0.94}^{+0.89}\;\;({\textrm{syst}})\;\;\pm 0.3\;\;({\textrm{lumi}})\;\; \rm{pb,}\]
! 327: \par\end{center}
! 328:
! 329: \begin{center}$\tau$+jets type 3 cross section: \[\sigma (t\overline{t}) =
! 330: 6.06\;\;_{-2.62}^{+2.77}\;\;({\textrm{stat}})\;\;_{-0.99}^{+0.94}\;\;({\textrm{syst}})\;\;\pm 0.3\;\;({\textrm{lumi}})\;\; \rm{pb,}\]
! 331: \par\end{center}
! 332:
! 333:
! 334:
! 335: \begin{center}Combined cross section: \[\sigma (t\overline{t}) =
! 336: 8.46\;\;_{-1.04}^{+1.06}\;\;({\textrm{stat}})\;\;_{-0.88}^{+0.92}\;\;({\textrm{syst}})\;\;\pm 0.3\;\;({\textrm{lumi}})\;\; \rm{pb.}\]
! 337: \par\end{center}
! 338:
! 339: \noindent The correspondent likelihoods of these measurements are shown in Figures \ref{fig:type2_llhood}, \ref{fig:type3_llhood}
! 340: and \ref{fig:type123_llhood}. Figures \ref{fig:xsec_pres2_llhood}, \ref{fig:xsec_pres3_llhood}
! 341: and \ref{fig:xsec_pres123_llhood} show zoomed in graphs of the same likelihood functions described above.
! 342:
! 343:
! 344: All associated systematics concerning this measurement can be seen in Table \ref{cap:Syst1}.
! 345:
! 346: %\newpage
! 347:
! 348: \begin{figure}[h]
! 349: \includegraphics[scale=0.38]{plots2/type2_llhood.eps}
! 350: \caption{The log likelihood function for type 1 and 2 $\tau$ channel}
! 351: \label{fig:type2_llhood}
! 352: \end{figure}
! 353:
! 354: %\newpage
! 355:
! 356: \begin{figure}[h]
! 357: \includegraphics[scale=0.38]{plots2/type3_llhood.eps}
! 358: \caption{The log likelihood function for type 3 $\tau$ channel}
! 359: \label{fig:type3_llhood}
! 360: \end{figure}
! 361:
! 362:
! 363: \begin{figure}[b]
! 364: \includegraphics[scale=0.38]{plots2/type123_llhood.eps}
! 365: \caption{The log likelihood function for all three types combined}
! 366: \label{fig:type123_llhood}
! 367: \end{figure}
! 368:
! 369: \clearpage
! 370:
! 371: \begin{figure}[h]
! 372: \includegraphics[scale=0.38]{plots2/xsec12_pres.eps}
! 373: \caption{Zoom in of the log likelihood function for type 1 and 2 $\tau$ channel}
! 374: \label{fig:xsec_pres2_llhood}
! 375: \end{figure}
! 376:
! 377: %\newpage
! 378:
! 379: \begin{figure}[h]
! 380: \includegraphics[scale=0.38]{plots2/xsec3_pres.eps}
! 381: \caption{Zoom in of the log likelihood function for type 3 $\tau$ channel}
! 382: \label{fig:xsec_pres3_llhood}
! 383: \end{figure}
! 384:
! 385:
! 386: \begin{figure}[b]
! 387: \includegraphics[scale=0.38]{plots2/xsecall_pres.eps}
! 388: \caption{Zoom in of the log likelihood function for all three types combined}
! 389: \label{fig:xsec_pres123_llhood}
! 390: \end{figure}
! 391:
! 392: \clearpage
! 393:
! 394:
! 395: After measuring the combined cross section we observed a significant higher statistical uncertainty value if
! 396: compared to the one we expected to see based on the fact that we have approximately 5 times more
! 397: data than in p17, where the signal contamination was not taken into account (see Appendix \ref{app:xsec_nocont}).
! 398: Further investigation showed that the cut NNelec $>$ 0.9 applied to taus type 2 only was responsible for such
! 399: discrepancy. Below we show the same measurement as done above but now with no NNelec cut applied.
! 400:
! 401:
! 402: Table below summarizes the number of events in each channel after final selection.
! 403:
! 404:
! 405: \begin{table}[h]
! 406: \caption{Final number of events in the two analysis channels.}
! 407: %\begin{ruledtabular}
! 408: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}
! 409: \hline
! 410: &$\tau$ type I,II
! 411: &$\tau$ type I,II (fitted)
! 412: &$\tau$ type III
! 413: &$\tau$ type III (fitted)&\\
! 414: \hline
! 415: data&
! 416: 583 &
! 417: &
! 418: 459 &
! 419: &\\
! 420: $t\overline{t}\rightarrow\tau+jets$&
! 421: 85.46 $\pm$ 0.58&
! 422: &
! 423: 38.82 $\pm$ 0.39&\\
! 424: $t\overline{t}\rightarrow e+jets$&
! 425: 175.23 $\pm$ 0.85&
! 426: &
! 427: 6.52 $\pm$ 0.16&
! 428: &\\
! 429: $t\overline{t}\rightarrow\mu+jets$&
! 430: 8.98 $\pm$ 0.19&
! 431: &
! 432: 5.14 $\pm$ 0.14&
! 433: &\\
! 434: $t\overline{t}\rightarrow l+l$&
! 435: 12.62 $\pm$ 0.10&
! 436: &
! 437: 4.18 $\pm$ 0.06&
! 438: &\\
! 439: $t\overline{t}$ total MC&
! 440: &
! 441: 282.27 $\pm$ 1.05&
! 442: &
! 443: 54.67 $\pm$ 0.41&\\
! 444: $t\overline{t}$ total fitted&
! 445: &
! 446: 260.71 $\pm$ 20.74&
! 447: &
! 448: 35.73 $\pm$ 15.28&\\
! 449: $W$+jets&
! 450: 39.65 $\pm$ 0.50&
! 451: &
! 452: 11.26 $\pm$ 0.25&
! 453: &\\
! 454: $Z$+jets&
! 455: 4.56 $\pm$ 0.10&
! 456: &
! 457: 2.38 $\pm$ 0.11&
! 458: &\\
! 459: QCD&
! 460: &
! 461: 278.04 $\pm$ 20.74&
! 462: &
! 463: 409.62 $\pm$ 15.28\\
! 464: Signal significance&
! 465: &
! 466: 10.80&
! 467: &
! 468: 1.67
! 469: &\\
! 470: S/B ratio&
! 471: &
! 472: 0.80&
! 473: &
! 474: 0.08\\
! 475: \end{tabular}
! 476: %\end{ruledtabular}
! 477: \label{event yeild summary}
! 478: \end{table}
! 479: %
! 480:
! 481: Table below shows the iteration process in this case and and the cross section measurement follows:
! 482:
! 483: \begin{table}[htbp]
! 484: \label{est}
! 485: \begin{center}
! 486: \begin{tabular}{|c|r|r|r|} \hline
! 487: Assumed $\sigma(\ttbar)$ (pb) & signal contamination for types 1 \& 2 (\%) & signal contamination for type
! 488: 3 (\%) & measured $\sigma(\ttbar)$ (pb) \\ \hline
! 489:
! 490: \hline
! 491:
! 492: \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{7.46} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{6.0} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{3.0} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{6.84} \\ \hline
! 493:
! 494: %$t\bar{t} \rightarrow \mbox{dilepton}$ & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{1.4} \\ \hline
! 495:
! 496: \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{6.84} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{5.4} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{2.7} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{6.91} \\ \hline
! 497:
! 498: \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{6.91} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{5.5} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{2.8} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{6.92} \\ \hline
! 499:
! 500:
! 501: \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{6.92} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{5.5} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{2.8} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{6.92} \\ \hline
! 502:
! 503: \end{tabular}
! 504: \caption{Cross-section iteration process.}
! 505: \end{center}
! 506: \label{iteration}
! 507: \end{table}
! 508:
! 509:
! 510: %\newpage
! 511:
! 512:
! 513: \begin{center}$\tau$+jets types 1 and 2 cross section: \[\sigma (t\overline{t}) =
! 514: 7.03\;\;_{-0.56}^{+0.54}\;\;({\textrm{stat}})\;\;_{-0.61}^{+0.65}\;\;({\textrm{syst}})\;\;\pm 0.3\;\;({\textrm{lumi}})\;\; \rm{pb,}\]
! 515: \par\end{center}
! 516:
! 517: \begin{center}$\tau$+jets type 3 cross section: \[\sigma (t\overline{t}) =
! 518: 4.36\;\;_{-2.50}^{+2.62}\;\;({\textrm{stat}})\;\;_{-0.61}^{+0.62}\;\;({\textrm{syst}})\;\;\pm 0.3\;\;({\textrm{lumi}})\;\; \rm{pb,}\]
! 519: \par\end{center}
! 520:
! 521:
! 522:
! 523: \begin{center}Combined cross section: \[\sigma (t\overline{t}) =
! 524: 6.92\;\;_{-0.54}^{+0.54}\;\;({\textrm{stat}})\;\;_{-0.60}^{+0.62}\;\;({\textrm{syst}})\;\;\pm 0.3\;\;({\textrm{lumi}})\;\; \rm{pb,}\]
! 525: \par\end{center}
! 526:
! 527:
! 528: As we can see the statistical uncertainty decreases to 0.54 pb which is in a good agreement to what we would expect if compared
! 529: to 1.2 pb measured in p17. Appendix \ref{app:xsec_nocont} shows cross sections measurements when signal contamination is not
! 530: taken into account for both NNelec $>$ 0.9 and no NNelec cut applied. Once again we observed a discrepancy when NNelec is applied
! 531: and the expected value when NNelec is not applied.
FreeBSD-CVSweb <freebsd-cvsweb@FreeBSD.org>
![[BACK]](/icons/small/back.gif){kind=icon}
Return to Summary.tex CVS log ![[TXT]](/icons/small/text.gif){kind=icon}
![[DIR]](/icons/small/dir.gif){kind=icon}
Up to [Nicadd] / ttbar / p20_taujets_note