1: \chapter{Data Analysis}
2: \label{chapter:1fb-1}
3:
4: The analysis going into this thesis was conducted in two rounds: first with 1 fb$^{-1}$ of data, and then with 2 fb$^{-1}$. The first round has been documented in \cite{prd1,prl1,susy07vista,susy07sleuth}. An updated publication is currently being prepared for the second one. This chapter is an adaptation of \cite{prd1}, while chapter \ref{chapter:2fb-1} presents material that will be in the publication of the second round.
5:
6: \section{Strategy}
7:
8: Sec.~\ref{sec:intro-motivation} motivates the goal of this analysis, viz.\ the model-independent search for new physics. The method is to obtain a satisfactory description of the Standard Model expectation in channels where high-$p_T$ data are observed, and employ an array of probes to seek for statistically significant discrepancies between data and Standard Model background.
9:
10: Crucial for model-independence is to not focus on channels sensitive to particular models, but examine data in as many channels as possible. That introduces to this analysis over two million events (in 1 fb$^{-1}$), ranging from abundant QCD to rare electroweak ones. Studying this large volume of qualitatively diverse data requires reducing the information content of each event to bare bones and characterizing each event in terms of physics objects that maintain the same meaning universally in any kind of event. In each event, the 4-momenta of any reconstructed physics objects in its final state are recorded. These objects can be leptons, photons, hadronic jets or missing energy.
11:
12: Another ingredient of model-independence is to not segregate the data into ``control'' and ``signal'' regions {\em a priori}, namely into regions where new physics is assumed to not exist or to exist respectively. In most analyses control regions are predefined, to adjust correction factors, under the assumption that there is no new physics in those regions and that the extrapolation of correction factors from the control to the signal region is valid. However, what is considered control region in one analysis is often signal region in some other, so, to be as generic as possible, one needs to treat all data as signal and control regions simultaneously, to address the question ``how well does the Standard Model implementation describe the data?'' If there is indeed detectable new physics, then it will be impossible to achieve good agreement between data and Standard Model simultaneously in all regions. More in Sec.~\ref{sec:blindOrNot}.
13:
14: The Standard Model prediction is implemented in three steps:
15: \begin{enumerate}
16: \item{Monte Carlo generation and matching \cite{CKKW:Krauss:2002up} of samples simulating the Standard Model processes.}
17: \item{CDF detector simulation, which models the detector response to the MC generated events. For that, the {\sc Geant}-based package \CdfSim\ is used.}
18: \item{Fine-tuning of the outcome of \CdfSim\ to account for theoretical and experimental correction factors.}
19: \end{enumerate}
20:
21: Structurally, the analysis contains four parts:
22: \begin{enumerate}
23: \item{The \Vista\ global fit\index{Vista@\Vista!global fit}, which adjusts and applies the correction model, providing the Standard Model background of the best possible global agreement with the data, exploiting the flexibility granted by the correction model.}
24: \item{The \Vista\ comparison\index{Vista@\Vista!comparison}, which examines the statistical significance of features in the bulk of all distributions and sorts the information in a comprehensive way.}
25: \item{The \Sleuth\ search, which focuses on the high-\sumPt\ tails searching for excesses of data.}
26: \item{The Bump Hunter search (present only for the second round of the analysis), which scans all mass variables for local excesses of data, potentially indicating a new resonance.}
27: \end{enumerate}
28: The above statistical probes are employed simultaneously, rather than sequentially. So, an effect highlighted by \Sleuth\ prompts additional investigation of the discrepancy, usually resulting in a specific hypothesis explaining the discrepancy in terms of a detector effect or adjustment to the Standard Model prediction that is then fed back and tested for global consistency.
29:
30: Statistical significance is a necessary but insufficient condition for discovery. A statistically significant discrepancy could be attributed to inaccuracy in the Standard Model implementation, or in modeling the detector response. These possibilities would need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. In the event of a significant discrepancy, the breadth of view of this analysis can be exploited to evaluate the plausibility of it being a detector effect or a problem in the Standard Model implementation.
31:
32: Forming hypotheses for the cause of specific discrepancies, implementing those hypotheses to assess their wider consequences, and testing global agreement after the implementation are emphasized as the crucial activities for the investigator throughout the process of data analysis. This process is constrained by the requirement that all adjustments be physically motivated. The investigation and resolution of discrepancies highlighted by the algorithms is {\em{the}} defining characteristic of this global analysis~\footnote{It is not possible to systematically simulate the process of constructing, implementing, and testing hypotheses motivated by particular discrepancies, since this process is carried out by individuals. The statistical interpretation of this analysis is made bearing this process in mind.}.
33:
34: This search for new physics terminates when either a compelling case for new physics is made, or there remain no statistically significant discrepancies on which a new physics case can be made. In the former case, to quantitatively assess the significance of the potential discovery, a full treatment of systematic uncertainties must be implemented. In the latter case, it is sufficient to demonstrate that all observed effects are not in significant disagreement with an appropriate global Standard Model description.
35:
36:
37: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
38: % Vista
39: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
40:
41: \section{\Vista}
42: \label{sec:Vista}
43:
44: This section describes \Vista: object identification, event selection, estimation of Standard Model backgrounds, simulation of the CDF detector response, development of a correction model, and results.
45:
46: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
47: % Vista: Object Id
48: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
49:
50:
51: \subsection{Object identification}
52:
53: Energetic and isolated electrons, muons, taus, photons, jets, and $b$-tagged jets with $\abs{\detEta}<2.5$ and $p_T>17$~GeV are identified according to CDF standard criteria. The same criteria are used for all events. The isolation criteria employed vary according to object, but roughly require less than 2~GeV of extra energy flow within a cone of $\Delta R = \sqrt{\Delta \eta^2 + \Delta \phi^2} = 0.4$ in $\eta$--$\phi$ space around each object.
54:
55: Standard CDF criteria~\cite{WandZCrossSectionPaper:Abulencia:2005ix} are used to identify electrons ($e^\pm$) in the central and plug regions of the CDF detector. Electrons are characterized by a narrow shower in the central or plug electromagnetic calorimeter and a matching isolated track in the central gas tracking chamber or a matching plug track in the silicon detector.
56:
57: Standard CDF muons ($\mu^\pm$) are identified using three separate subdetectors in the regions $\abs{\detEta}<0.6$, $0.6<\abs{\detEta}<1.0$, and $1.0<\abs{\detEta}<1.5$~\cite{WandZCrossSectionPaper:Abulencia:2005ix}. Muons are characterized by a track in the central tracking chamber matched to a track segment in the central muon detectors, with energy consistent with minimum ionizing deposition in the electromagnetic and hadronic calorimeters along the muon trajectory.
58:
59: Narrow central jets with a single charged track are identified as tau leptons ($\tau^\pm$) that have decayed hadronically~\cite{Ztautau}. Taus are distinguished from electrons by requiring a substantial fraction of their energy to be deposited in the hadron calorimeter; taus are distinguished from muons by requiring no track segment in the muon detector coinciding with the extrapolated track of the tau. Track and calorimeter isolation requirements are imposed.
60:
61: Standard CDF criteria requiring the presence of a narrow electromagnetic cluster with no associated tracks are used to identify photons ($\gamma$) in the central and plug regions of the CDF detector~\cite{CdfPhotonId:Acosta:2004sn}.
62:
63: Jets ($j$) are reconstructed using the JetClu~\cite{JetClu:Abe:1991ui} clustering algorithm with a cone of size $\Delta R = 0.4$, unless the event contains one or more jets with $p_T>200$~GeV and no leptons or photons, in which case cones of $\Delta R = 0.7$ are used.~\cdfSpecific{\footnote{Jet energies are corrected to level 7, using {\tt jetCorr04b}.}} Jet energies are appropriately corrected to the parton level~\cite{jetEnergyScale:Bhatti:2005ai}. Since uncertainties in the Standard Model prediction grow with increasing jet multiplicity, up to the four largest $p_T$ jets are used to characterize the event; any reconstructed jets with $p_T$-ordered ranking of five or greater are neglected and their energy is treated as unclustered, except in final states with small summed scalar transverse momentum containing only jets.
64:
65: A secondary vertex $b$-tagging algorithm is used to identify jets likely resulting from the fragmentation of a bottom quark ($b$) produced in the hard scattering~\cite{CdfBtagging:Neu:2006rs}.
66:
67: Momentum visible in the detector but not clustered into an electron, muon, tau, photon, jet, or $b$-tagged jet is referred to as unclustered momentum ({\tt uncl}).
68:
69: Missing momentum ($\pmiss$) is calculated as the negative vector sum of the 4-vectors of all identified objects and unclustered momentum. An event is said to contain a $\pmiss$ object if the transverse momentum of this object exceeds \pTmin~GeV, and if additional quality criteria discriminating against fake missing momentum due to jet mismeasurement are satisfied~\footnote{An additional quality criterion is applied to the significance of the missing transverse momentum $\vec{\pmiss}_T$ in an event, requiring that the energies of hadronic objects can not be adjusted within resolution to reduce the missing transverse momentum to less than 10~GeV. The transverse components of all hadronic energy clusters $\vec{p}_{Ti}$ in the event are projected onto the unit missing transverse momentum vector $\hat{\pmiss}_T=\vec{\pmiss}_T/\abs{\vec{\pmiss}_T}$, and a ``conservative'' missing transverse momentum ${\pmiss_T}'=\pmiss_T - 2.5 \sqrt{ \sum_i{ \abs{ \vec{p}_{Ti} \cdot \hat{\pmiss}_T} } }$ is defined, where the sum is over hadronic energy clusters in the event, and the hadronic energy resolution of the CDF detector has been approximated as $100\% \sqrt{{p_T}_i}$, expressed in GeV. An event is said to contain missing transverse momentum if $\pmiss_T>\pTmin$~GeV and ${\pmiss_T}'>10$~GeV.}.
70:
71: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
72: % Vista: Offline trigger (or Event Selection)
73: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
74:
75: \subsection{Event selection}
76: \label{sec:Vista:OfflineTrigger}
77:
78: Events containing an energetic and isolated electron, muon, tau, photon, or jet are selected. A set of three level online triggers requires:
79: \begin{itemize}
80: \item a central electron candidate with $p_T>18$~GeV passing level 3, with an associated track having $p_T>8$~GeV and an electromagnetic energy cluster with $p_T>16$~GeV at levels 1 and 2; or
81: \item a central muon candidate with $p_T>18$~GeV passing level 3, with an associated track having $p_T>15$~GeV and muon chamber track segments at levels 1 and 2; or
82: \item a central or plug photon candidate with $p_T>25$~GeV passing level 3, with hadronic to electromagnetic energy less than 1:8 and with energy surrounding the photon to the photon's energy less than 1:7 at levels 1 and 2; or
83: \item a central or plug jet with $p_T>20$~GeV passing level 3, with 15~GeV of transverse momentum required at levels 1 and 2, with corresponding prescales of 50 and 25, respectively; or
84: \item a central or plug jet with $p_T>100$~GeV passing level 3, with energy clusters of 20~GeV and 90~GeV required at levels 1 and 2; or
85: \item a central electron candidate with $p_T>4$~GeV and a central muon candidate with $p_T>4$~GeV passing level 3, with a muon segment, electromagnetic cluster, and two tracks with $p_T>4$~GeV required at levels 1 and 2; or
86: \item a central electron or muon candidate with $p_T>4$~GeV and a plug electron candidate with $p_T>8$~GeV, requiring a central muon segment and track or central electromagnetic energy cluster and track at levels 1 and 2, together with an isolated plug electromagnetic energy cluster; or
87: \item two central or plug electromagnetic clusters with $p_T>18$~GeV passing level 3, with hadronic to electromagnetic energy less than 1:8 at levels 1 and 2; or
88: \item two central tau candidates with $p_T>10$~GeV passing level 3, each with an associated track having $p_T>10$~GeV and a calorimeter cluster with $p_T>5$~GeV at levels 1 and 2.
89: \end{itemize}
90:
91: Events satisfying one or more of these online triggers are recorded for further study.
92: Offline event selection for this analysis uses a variety of further filters.
93: Single object requirements keep events containing:
94: \begin{itemize}
95: \item a central electron with $p_T>25$~GeV, or
96: \item a plug electron with $p_T>40$~GeV, or
97: \item a central muon with $p_T>25$~GeV, or
98: \item a central photon with $p_T>60$~GeV, or
99: \item a central jet or $b$-tagged jet with $p_T>200$~GeV, or
100: \item a central jet or $b$-tagged jet with $p_T>40$~GeV (prescaled by a factor of roughly $10^4$),
101: \end{itemize}
102: possibly with other objects present.
103: Multiple object criteria select events containing:
104: \begin{itemize}
105: \item two electromagnetic objects (electron or photon) with $\abs{\eta}<2.5$ and $p_T>25$~GeV, or
106: \item two taus with $\abs{\eta}<1.0$ and $p_T>17$~GeV, or
107: \item a central electron or muon with $p_T>17$~GeV and a central or plug electron, central muon, or central tau with $p_T>17$~GeV, or
108: \item a central photon with $p_T>40$~GeV and a central electron or muon with $p_T>17$~GeV, or
109: \item a central or plug photon with $p_T>40$~GeV and a central tau with $p_T>40$~GeV, or
110: \item a central photon with $p_T>40$~GeV and a central $b$-jet with $p_T>25$~GeV, or
111: \item a central jet or $b$-tagged jet with $p_T>40$~GeV and a central tau with $p_T>17$~GeV (prescaled by a factor of roughly $10^3$), or
112: \item a central or plug photon with $p_T>40$~GeV and two central taus with $p_T>17$~GeV, or
113: \item a central or plug photon with $p_T>40$~GeV and two central $b$-tagged jets with $p_T>25$~GeV, or
114: \item a central or plug photon with $p_T>40$~GeV, a central tau with $p_T>25$~GeV, and a central $b$-tagged jet with $p_T>25$~GeV,
115: \end{itemize}
116: possibly with other objects present.
117: Explicit online triggers feeding this offline selection are required. The $p_T$ thresholds for these criteria are chosen to be sufficiently above the online trigger turn-on curves that trigger efficiencies can be treated as roughly independent of object $p_T$.
118:
119: Good run criteria are imposed, requiring the operation of all major subdetectors. To reduce contributions from cosmic rays and events from beam halo, standard CDF cosmic ray and beam halo filters are applied~\cite{CdfCosmicFilter}.
120:
121: These selections result in a sample of roughly two million high-$p_T$ data events in an integrated luminosity of 927~pb$^{-1}$.
122:
123:
124: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
125: % Vista: Event generation
126: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
127:
128: \subsection{Event generation}
129: \label{sec:Vista:EventGeneration}
130:
131: Standard Model backgrounds are estimated by generating a large sample of Monte Carlo events, using the \Pythia~\cite{Pythia:Sjostrand:2000wi}, \MadEvent~\cite{MadEvent:Maltoni:2002qb2}, and \Herwig~\cite{Herwig:Corcella:2002jc} generators. \MadEvent\ performs a leading order matrix element calculation, and provides 4-vector information corresponding to the outgoing legs of the underlying Feynman diagrams, together with color flow information. \Pythia\ 6.218 is used to handle showering and fragmentation. The CTEQ5L~\cite{CTEQ5L:Lai:1999wy} parton distribution functions are used.
132:
133: \paragraph*{$\text{QCD jets}$.}
134: QCD dijet and multijet production are estimated using \Pythia. Samples are generated with Tune A~\cite{RickFieldPythiaTunes} with lower cuts on $\hat{p}_T$, the transverse momentum of the scattered partons in the center of momentum frame of the incoming partons, of 0, 10, 18, 40, 60, 90, 120, 150, 200, 300, and 400~GeV. These samples are combined to provide a complete estimation of QCD jet production, using the sample with greatest statistics in each range of $\hat{p}_T$.
135: \paragraph*{$\gamma\text{+jets}$.}
136: The estimation of QCD single prompt photon production comes from \Pythia. Five samples are generated with Tune A corresponding to lower cuts on $\hat{p}_T$ of 8, 12, 22, 45, and 80~GeV. These samples are combined to provide a complete estimation of single prompt photon production in association with one or more jets, placing cuts on $\hat{p}_T$ to avoid double counting.
137: \paragraph*{$\gamma\gamma\text{+jets}$.}
138: QCD diphoton production is estimated using \Pythia.
139: \paragraph*{$V\text{+jets}$.}
140: The estimation of $V$+jets processes (with $V$ denoting $W$ or $Z$), where the $W$ or $Z$ decays to first or second generation leptons, comes from \MadEvent, with \Pythia\ employed for showering. Tune AW~\cite{RickFieldPythiaTunes} is used within \Pythia\ for these samples. The CKKW matching prescription~\cite{CKKW:Krauss:2002up} with a matching scale of 15~GeV is used to combine these samples and avoid double counting. Additional statistics are generated on the high-$p_T$ tails using the MLM matching prescription~\cite{MrennaMatching:Mrenna:2003if}. The factorization scale is set to the vector boson mass; the renormalization scale for each vertex is set to the $p_T$ of the jet. $W$+4 jets are generated inclusively in the number of jets; $Z$+3 jets are generated inclusively in the number of jets.
141: \paragraph*{$VV\text{+jets}$.}
142: The estimation of $WW$, $WZ$, and $ZZ$ production with zero or more jets comes from \Pythia.
143: \paragraph*{$V\gamma\text{+jets}$.}
144: The estimation of $W\gamma$ and $Z\gamma$ production comes from \MadEvent, with showering provided by \Pythia. These samples are inclusive in the number of jets.
145: \paragraph*{$W(\rightarrow\tau\nu)\text{+jets}$.}
146: Estimation of $W\rightarrow\tau\nu$ with zero or more jets comes from \Pythia.
147: \paragraph*{$Z(\rightarrow\tau\tau)\text{+jets}$.}
148: Estimation of $Z\rightarrow\tau\tau$ with zero or more jets comes from \Pythia.
149: \paragraph*{$t\bar{t}$.}
150: Top quark pair production is estimated using \Herwig\ assuming a top quark mass of 175~GeV and NNLO cross section of $6.77\pm 0.42$~pb~\cite{Kidonakis:2003qe}.
151:
152: Remaining processes, including for example $Z(\rightarrow\nu\bar{\nu})\gamma$ and $Z(\rightarrow\ell^+\ell^-)b\bar{b}$, are generated by systematically looping over possible final state partons, using \MadGraph~\cite{MadGraph:Stelzer:1994ta} to determine all relevant diagrams, and using \MadEvent\ to perform a Monte Carlo integration over the final state phase space and to generate events. The MLM matching prescription is employed to combine samples with different numbers of final state jets.
153:
154: A higher statistics estimate of the high-$p_T$ tails is obtained by computing the thresholds in $\sum{p_T}$ corresponding to the top 10\% and 1\% of each process, where $\sum{p_T}$ denotes the scalar summed transverse momentum of all identified objects in an event. Roughly ten times as many events are generated for the top 10\%, and roughly one hundred times as many events are generated for the top 1\%.
155:
156: \paragraph*{Cosmic rays.}
157: Backgrounds from cosmic ray or beam halo muons that interact with the hadronic or electromagnetic calorimeters, producing objects that look like a photon or jet, are estimated using a sample of data events containing fewer than three reconstructed tracks. This procedure is described in more detail in Appendix~\ref{sec:CorrectionModelDetails:CosmicRays}.
158:
159: \paragraph*{Minimum bias.}
160: Minimum bias events are overlaid according to run-dependent instantaneous luminosity in some of the Monte Carlo samples, including those used for inclusive $W$ and $Z$ production. In all samples not containing overlaid minimum bias events, including those used to estimate QCD dijet production, additional unclustered momentum is added to events to mimic the effect of the majority of multiple interactions, in which a soft dijet event accompanies the rare hard scattering of interest. A random number is drawn from a Gaussian centered at 0 with width 1.5 GeV for each of the $x$ and $y$ components of the added unclustered momentum. Backgrounds due to two rare hard scatterings occurring in the same bunch crossing are estimated by forming overlaps of events, as described in Appendix~\ref{sec:Overlaps}.
161:
162: Each generated Standard Model event is assigned a weight, calculated as the cross section for the process (in units of picobarns) divided by the number of events generated for that process, representing the number of such events expected in a data sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 1~pb$^{-1}$. When multiplied by the integrated luminosity of the data sample used in this analysis, the weight gives the predicted number of such events in this analysis.
163:
164:
165: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
166: % Vista: Detector Simulation
167: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
168:
169: \subsection{Detector simulation}
170: \label{sec:Vista:DetectorSimulation}
171:
172: The response of the CDF detector is simulated using a {\sc{geant}}-based detector simulation (\CdfSim)~\cite{Gerchtein:2003ba}, with {\sc{gflash}}~\cite{GFLASH:Grindhammer:1989zg} used to simulate shower development in the calorimeter.
173:
174: In $p\bar{p}$ collisions there is an ordering of frequency with which objects of different types are produced: many more jets ($j$) are produced than $b$-jets ($b$) or photons ($\gamma$), and many more of these are produced than charged leptons ($e$, $\mu$, $\tau$). The CDF detectors and reconstruction algorithms have been designed so that the probability of misreconstructing a frequently produced object as an infrequently produced object is small. The fraction of central jets that \CdfSim\ misreconstructs as photons, electrons, and muons is $\sim 10^{-3}$, $\sim 10^{-4}$, and $\sim 10^{-5}$, respectively. Due to these small numbers, the use of \CdfSim\ to model these fake processes would require generating samples with prohibitively large statistics. Instead, the modeling of a frequently produced object faking a less frequently produced object (specifically: $j$ faking $b$, $\gamma$, $e$, $\mu$, or $\tau$; or $b$ or $\gamma$ faking $e$, $\mu$, or $\tau$) is obtained by the application of a misidentification probability, a particular type of correction factor in the \Vista\ correction model, described in the next section.
175:
176: In Monte Carlo samples passed through \CdfSim, reconstructed leptons and photons are required to match to a corresponding generator level object. This procedure removes reconstructed leptons or photons that arise from a misreconstructed quark or gluon jet.
177:
178:
179: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
180: % Vista: Correction Model
181: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
182:
183: \subsection{Correction model}
184: \label{sec:Vista:CorrectionModel}
185:
186: \begin{table*}
187: %\include{docs/prd1/fudgeFactorsTable}
188: \footnotesize
189: \centering
190: \begin{minipage}{9in}
191: \begin{tabular}{lllllr}
192: {\bf Code } & {\bf Category } & {\bf Explanation } & {\bf Value } & {\bf Error } & {\bf Error(\%)} \\ \hline
193: 0001 & luminosity & CDF integrated luminosity & 927 & 20 & 2.2 \\
194: 0002 & $k$-factor & cosmic $\gamma$ & 0.69 & 0.05 & 7.3 \\
195: 0003 & $k$-factor & cosmic $j$ & 0.446 & 0.014 & 3.1 \\
196: 0004 & $k$-factor & 1$\gamma$1$j$ photon+jet(s) & 0.95 & 0.04 & 4.2 \\
197: 0005 & $k$-factor & 1$\gamma$2$j$ & 1.2 & 0.05 & 4.1 \\
198: 0006 & $k$-factor & 1$\gamma$3$j$ & 1.48 & 0.07 & 4.7 \\
199: 0007 & $k$-factor & 1$\gamma$4$j$+ & 1.97 & 0.16 & 8.1 \\
200: 0008 & $k$-factor & 2$\gamma$0$j$ diphoton(+jets) & 1.81 & 0.08 & 4.4 \\
201: 0009 & $k$-factor & 2$\gamma$1$j$ & 3.42 & 0.24 & 7.0 \\
202: 0010 & $k$-factor & 2$\gamma$2$j$+ & 1.3 & 0.16 & 12.3 \\
203: 0011 & $k$-factor & $W$0$j$ $W$ (+jets) & 1.453 & 0.027 & 1.9 \\
204: 0012 & $k$-factor & $W$1$j$ & 1.06 & 0.03 & 2.8 \\
205: 0013 & $k$-factor & $W$2$j$ & 1.02 & 0.03 & 2.9 \\
206: 0014 & $k$-factor & $W$3$j$+ & 0.76 & 0.05 & 6.6 \\
207: 0015 & $k$-factor & $Z$0$j$ $Z$ (+jets) & 1.419 & 0.024 & 1.7 \\
208: 0016 & $k$-factor & $Z$1$j$ & 1.18 & 0.04 & 3.4 \\
209: 0017 & $k$-factor & $Z$2$j$+ & 1.03 & 0.05 & 4.8 \\
210: 0018 & $k$-factor & 2$j$ $\hat{p}_T<150$ & 0.96 & 0.022 & 2.3 \\
211: 0019 & $k$-factor & 2$j$ $150<\hat{p}_T$ & 1.256 & 0.028 & 2.2 \\
212: 0020 & $k$-factor & 3$j$ $\hat{p}_T<150$ & 0.921 & 0.021 & 2.3 \\
213: 0021 & $k$-factor & 3$j$ $150<\hat{p}_T$ & 1.36 & 0.03 & 2.4 \\
214: 0022 & $k$-factor & 4$j$ $\hat{p}_T<150$ & 0.989 & 0.025 & 2.5 \\
215: 0023 & $k$-factor & 4$j$ $150<\hat{p}_T$ & 1.7 & 0.04 & 2.3 \\
216: 0024 & $k$-factor & 5$j$+ & 1.25 & 0.05 & 4.0 \\
217: 0025 & ID eff & \poo{e}{e} central & 0.986 & 0.006 & 0.6 \\
218: 0026 & ID eff & \poo{e}{e} plug & 0.933 & 0.009 & 1.0 \\
219: 0027 & ID eff & \poo{\mu}{\mu} $\abs{\eta}<0.6$ & 0.845 & 0.008 & 0.9 \\
220: 0028 & ID eff & \poo{\mu}{\mu} $0.6<\abs{\eta}$ & 0.915 & 0.011 & 1.2 \\
221: 0029 & ID eff & \poo{\gamma}{\gamma} central & 0.974 & 0.018 & 1.8 \\
222: 0030 & ID eff & \poo{\gamma}{\gamma} plug & 0.913 & 0.018 & 2.0 \\
223: 0031 & ID eff & \poo{b}{b} central & 1 & 0.04 & 4.0 \\
224: 0032 & fake rate & \poo{e}{\gamma} plug & 0.045 & 0.012 & 27.0 \\
225: 0033 & fake rate & \poo{q}{e} central & 9.71$\times 10^{-5}$ & 1.9$\times 10^{-6}$ & 2.0 \\
226: 0034 & fake rate & \poo{q}{e} plug & 0.000876 & 1.8$\times 10^{-5}$ & 2.1 \\
227: 0035 & fake rate & \poo{q}{\mu} & 1.157$\times 10^{-5}$ & 2.7$\times 10^{-7}$ & 2.3 \\
228: 0036 & fake rate & \poo{j}{b} & 0.01684 & 0.00027 & 1.6 \\
229: 0037 & fake rate & \poo{q}{\tau} $p_T<60$ & 0.00341 & 0.00012 & 3.5 \\
230: 0038 & fake rate & \poo{q}{\tau} $60<p_T$ & 0.00038 & 4$\times 10^{-5}$ & 10.5 \\
231: 0039 & fake rate & \poo{q}{\gamma} central & 0.000265 & 1.5$\times 10^{-5}$ & 5.7 \\
232: 0040 & fake rate & \poo{q}{\gamma} plug & 0.00159 & 0.00013 & 8.2 \\
233: 0041 & trigger & \poo{e}{\text{trig}} central, $p_T>25$ & 0.976 & 0.007 & 0.7 \\
234: 0042 & trigger & \poo{e}{\text{trig}} plug, $p_T>25$ & 0.835 & 0.015 & 1.8 \\
235: 0043 & trigger & \poo{\mu}{\text{trig}} $\abs{\eta}<0.6$, $p_T>25$ & 0.917 & 0.007 & 0.8 \\
236: 0044 & trigger & \poo{\mu}{\text{trig}} $0.6<\abs{\eta}<1.0$, $p_T>25$ & 0.96 & 0.01 & 1.0 \\
237: \end{tabular}
238: \end{minipage}
239: %end of \include{docs/prd1/fudgeFactorsTable}
240: \caption[The 44 factors introduced in the correction model.]{The 44 factors introduced in the correction model.
241: %The leftmost column ({\tt Code}) shows correction factor codes. The second column ({\tt Category}) shows correction factor categories. The third column ({\tt Explanation}) provides a short description. The correction factor best fit value ({\tt Value}) is given in the fourth column. The correction factor error ({\tt Error}) resulting from the fit is shown in the fifth column. The fractional error ({\tt Error(\%)}) is listed in the sixth column.
242: All values are dimensionless with the exception of code {\tt 0001} (luminosity), which has units of pb$^{-1}$. The values and uncertainties of these correction factors are valid within the context of this correction model.}
243: \label{tbl:CorrectionFactorDescriptionValuesSigmas}
244: \end{table*}
245:
246: Unfortunately some numbers that can not be determined from first principles enter the comparison between data and the Standard Model prediction. These numbers are referred to as ``correction factors''. This correction model is applied to generated Monte Carlo events to obtain the Standard Model prediction across all final states.
247:
248: Correction factors must be obtained from the data themselves. These factors may be thought of as Bayesian nuisance parameters. The actual values of the correction factors are not directly of interest. Of interest is the comparison of data to Standard Model prediction, with correction factors adjusted to whatever they need to be, consistent with external constraints, to bring the Standard Model into closest agreement with the data.
249:
250: The traditional prescription for determining these correction factors is to ``measure'' them in a ``control region'' in which no signal is expected. This procedure encounters difficulty when the entire high-$p_T$ data sample is considered to be a signal region. The approach adopted instead is to ask whether a consistent set of correction factors can be chosen so that the Standard Model prediction is in agreement with the CDF high-$p_T$ data.
251:
252: The correction model is obtained by an iterative procedure informed by observed inadequacies in modeling. The process of correction model improvement, motivated by observed discrepancies, may allow a real signal to be artificially suppressed. If adjusting correction factor values within allowed bounds removes a signal, then the case for the signal disappears, since it can be explained in terms of known physics. This is true in any analysis. The stronger the constraints on the correction model, the more difficult it is to artificially suppress a real signal. By requiring a consistent interpretation of hundreds of final states, \Vista\ is less likely to mistakenly explain away new physics than analyses of more limited scope.
253:
254: %% correction factors
255: The 44 correction factors currently included in the correction model are shown in Table~\ref{tbl:CorrectionFactorDescriptionValuesSigmas}. These factors can be classified into two categories: theoretical and experimental. A more detailed description of each individual correction factor is provided in Appendix~\ref{sec:VistaCorrectionModel:CorrectionFactorValues}.
256:
257: Theoretical correction factors reflect the practical difficulty of calculating accurately within the framework of the Standard Model. These factors take the form of $k$-factors, so-called ``knowledge factors,'' representing the ratio of the unavailable all order cross section to the calculable leading order cross section. Twenty-three $k$-factors are used for Standard Model processes including QCD multijet production, W+jets, Z+jets, and (di)photon+jets production.
258:
259: Experimental correction factors include the integrated luminosity of the data, efficiencies associated with triggering on electrons and muons, efficiencies associated with the correct identification of physics objects, and fake rates associated with the mistaken identification of physics objects. Obtaining an adequate description of object misidentification has required an understanding of the underlying physical mechanisms by which objects are misreconstructed, as described in Appendix~\ref{sec:MisidentificationMatrix}.
260:
261: In the interest of simplicity, correction factors representing $k$-factors, efficiencies, and fake rates are generally taken to be constants, independent of kinematic quantities such as object $p_T$, with only five exceptions. The $p_T$ dependence of three fake rates is too large to be treated as approximately constant: the jet faking electron rate $\poo{j}{e}$ in the plug region of the CDF detector; the jet faking $b$-tagged jet rate $\poo{j}{b}$, which increases steadily with increasing $p_T$; and the jet faking tau rate $\poo{j}{\tau}$, which decreases steadily with increasing $p_T$. Two other fake rates possess geometrical features in $\eta$--$\phi$ due to the construction of the CDF detector: the jet faking electron rate $\poo{j}{e}$ in the central region, because of the fiducial tower geometry of the electromagnetic calorimeter; and the jet faking muon rate $\poo{j}{\mu}$, due to the non-trivial fiducial geometry of the muon chambers. After determining appropriate functional forms, a single overall multiplicative correction factor, determined by the global fit, is used
262:
263: Correction factor values are obtained from a global fit to the data. The procedure is outlined here, with further details relegated to Appendix~\ref{sec:CorrectionFactorFitDetails}.
264:
265: Events are first partitioned into final states according to the number and types of objects present. Each final state is then subdivided into bins according to each object's detector pseudorapidity ($\detEta$) and transverse momentum ($p_T$), as described in Appendix~\ref{sec:CorrectionFactorFitDetails:chi_k}.
266:
267: Generated Monte Carlo events, adjusted by the correction model, provide the Standard Model prediction for each bin. The Standard Model prediction in each bin is therefore a function of the correction factor values. A figure of merit is defined to quantify global agreement between the data and the Standard Model prediction, and correction factor values are chosen to maximize this agreement, consistent with external experimental constraints.
268:
269: Letting $\vec{s}$ represent a vector of correction factors, for the $k^\text{th}$ bin
270: \begin{equation}
271: \chi^2_k(\vec{s})=\frac{(\text{Data}[k]-\text{SM}[k])^2}{\sqrt{\text{SM}[k]}^2 + \delta\text{SM}[k]^2},
272: \label{eq:chi_k}
273: \end{equation}
274: where $\text{Data}[k]$ is the number of data events observed in the $k^\text{th}$ bin, $\text{SM}[k]$ is the number of events predicted by the Standard Model in the $k^\text{th}$ bin, $\delta\text{SM}[k]$ is the Monte Carlo statistical uncertainty on the Standard Model prediction in the $k^\text{th}$ bin~\footnote{Given a set of Monte Carlo events with individual weights $w_j$, so that the total Standard Model prediction from these Monte Carlo events is $\text{SM}=\sum_j{w_j}$ events, the ``effective weight'' $w_{\text{eff}}$ of these events can be taken to be the weighted average of the weights: $w_{\text{eff}}=\frac{\sum_j{w_j w_j}}{\sum_j{w_j}}$. The ``effective number of Monte Carlo events'' is $N_{\text{eff}}=\text{SM}/w_{\text{eff}}$, and the error on the Standard Model prediction is $\delta{\text{SM}}=\text{SM}/\sqrt{N_{\text{eff}}}$.}, and $\sqrt{\text{SM}[k]}$ is the statistical uncertainty on the expected data in the $k^\text{th}$ bin. The Standard Model prediction $\text{SM}[k]$ in the $k^{\text{th}}$ bin is a function of $\vec{s}$.
275:
276: Relevant information external to the \Vista\ high-$p_T$ data sample provides additional constraints in this global fit. The CDF luminosity counters measure the integrated luminosity of the sample described in this article to be 902~pb$^{-1} \pm 6\%$ by measuring the fraction of bunch crossings in which zero inelastic collisions occur~\cite{CdfLuminosityCountersCLC:Acosta:2002hx}. The integrated luminosity of the sample measured by the luminosity counters enters in the form of a Gaussian constraint on the luminosity correction factor. Higher order theoretical calculations exist for some Standard Model processes, providing constraints on corresponding $k$-factors, and some CDF experimental correction factors are also constrained from external information. In total, 26 of the 44 correction factors are constrained. The specific constraints employed are provided in Appendix~\ref{sec:CorrectionFactorFitDetails:chi_constraints}.
277:
278: The overall function to be minimized takes the form
279: \begin{equation}
280: \chi^2(\vec{s}) = \left(\sum_{k\in\text{bins}}{\chi^2_k}(\vec{s})\right) + \chi^2_{\text{constraints}}(\vec{s}),
281: \label{eqn:chiSqd}
282: \end{equation}
283: where the sum in the first term is over bins in the CDF high-$p_T$ data sample with $\chi^2_k(\vec{s})$ defined in Eq.~\ref{eq:chi_k}, and the second term is the contribution from explicit constraints.
284:
285: Minimization of $\chi^2(\vec{s})$ in Eq.~\ref{eqn:chiSqd} as a function of the vector of correction factors $\vec{s}$ results in a set of correction factor values $\vec{s}_0$ providing the best global agreement between the data and the Standard Model prediction. The best fit correction factor values are shown in Table~\ref{tbl:CorrectionFactorDescriptionValuesSigmas}, together with absolute and fractional uncertainties. The determined uncertainties are not used explicitly in the subsequent analysis, but rather provide information used implicitly to assist in appropriate adjustment to the correction model in light of observed discrepancies. The uncertainties are verified by subdividing the data into thirds, performing separate fits on each third, and noting that the correction factor values obtained with each subset are consistent within quoted uncertainties. Further details on the correlation matrix and other technical aspects of this global fit can be found in Appendix~\ref{sec:CorrectionFactorCovarianceMatrix}.
286:
287: Although the correction factors are determined from a global fit, in practice the determination of many correction factors' values are dominated by one recognizable subsample. The rate $\poo{j}{e}$ for a jet to fake an electron is determined largely by the number of events in the $ej$ final state, since the largest contribution to this final state is from dijet events with one jet misreconstructed as an electron. Similarly, the rates $\poo{j}{b}$ and $\poo{j}{\tau}$ for a jet to fake a $b$-tagged jet and tau lepton are determined largely by the number of events in the $bj$ and $\tau j$ final states, respectively. The determination of the fake rate $\poo{j}{\gamma}$, photon efficiency $\poo{\gamma}{\gamma}$, and $k$-factors for prompt photon production and prompt diphoton production are dominated by the $\gamma j$, $\gamma jj$, and $\gamma \gamma$ final states. Additional knowledge incorporated in the determination of fake rates is described in Appendix~\ref{sec:MisidentificationMatrix}.
288:
289: The global fit $\chi^2$ per number of bins is 288.1 / 133 + 27.9, where the last term is the contribution to the $\chi^2$ from the imposed constraints. A $\chi^2$ per degree of freedom larger than unity is expected, since the limited set of correction factors in this correction model is not expected to provide a complete description of all features of the data. Emphasis is placed on individual outlying discrepancies that may motivate a new physics claim, rather than overall goodness of fit.
290:
291: Corrections to object identification efficiencies are typically less than 10\%; fake rates are consistent with an understanding of the underlying physical mechanisms responsible; $k$-factors range from slightly less than unity to greater than two for some processes with multiple jets. All values obtained are physically reasonable. Further analysis is provided in Appendix~\ref{sec:VistaCorrectionModel:CorrectionFactorValues}.
292:
293: \begin{table*}
294: %\href{http://mit.fnal.gov/~knuteson/Quaero/quaero/doc/devel/cdf/Vista/2006_01_23_xx:xx:xx/}
295: %{\mbox{\hspace{-2.5cm}\include{docs/prd1/vista_cdf}}}
296: {\mbox{%\hspace{-2.5cm}
297: \tiny
298: \begin{minipage}{9in}
299: \begin{tabular}{l@{ }r@{ }r@{ $\pm$ }l@{ }l}
300: {\bf Final State} & {\bf Data} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\bf Background} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\bf $\sigma$} \\ \hline
301: 3j$\tau^\pm$ & $71$ & $113.7$ & $3.6$ & $-2.3$ \\
302: 5j & $1661$ & $1902.9$ & $50.8$ & $-1.7$ \\
303: 2j$\tau^\pm$ & $233$ & $296.5$ & $5.6$ & $-1.6$ \\
304: 2j$2\tau^\pm$ & $6$ & $27$ & $4.6$ & $-1.4$ \\
305: b$e^\pm$j & $2207$ & $2015.4$ & $28.7$ & $+1.4$ \\
306: 3j, high $\SumPt$ & $35436$ & $37294.6$ & $524.3$ & $-1.1$ \\
307: $e^\pm$3j$p\!\!\!/$ & $1954$ & $1751.6$ & $42$ & $+1.1$ \\
308: b$e^\pm$2j & $798$ & $695.3$ & $13.3$ & $+1.1$ \\
309: 3j$p\!\!\!/$, low $\SumPt$ & $811$ & $967.5$ & $38.4$ & $-0.8$ \\
310: $e^\pm$$\mu^\pm$ & $26$ & $11.6$ & $1.5$ & $+0.8$ \\
311: $e^\pm$$\gamma$ & $636$ & $551.2$ & $11.2$ & $+0.7$ \\
312: $e^\pm$3j & $28656$ & $27281.5$ & $405.2$ & $+0.6$ \\
313: b5j & $131$ & $95$ & $4.7$ & $+0.5$ \\
314: j$2\tau^\pm$ & $50$ & $85.6$ & $8.2$ & $-0.4$ \\
315: j$\tau^\pm$$\tau^\mp$ & $74$ & $125$ & $13.6$ & $-0.4$ \\
316: b$p\!\!\!/$, low $\SumPt$ & $10$ & $29.5$ & $4.6$ & $-0.4$ \\
317: $e^\pm$j$\gamma$ & $286$ & $369.4$ & $21.1$ & $-0.3$ \\
318: $e^\pm$j$p\!\!\!/$$\tau^\mp$ & $29$ & $14.2$ & $1.8$ & $+0.2$ \\
319: 2j, high $\SumPt$ & $96502$ & $92437.3$ & $1354.5$ & $+0.1$ \\
320: b$e^\pm$3j & $356$ & $298.6$ & $7.7$ & $+0.1$ \\ \hline
321: 8j & $11$ & $6.1$ & $2.5$ & \\
322: 7j & $57$ & $35.6$ & $4.9$ & \\
323: 6j & $335$ & $298.4$ & $14.7$ & \\
324: 4j, low $\SumPt$ & $39665$ & $40898.8$ & $649.2$ & \\
325: 4j, high $\SumPt$ & $8241$ & $8403.7$ & $144.7$ & \\
326: 4j$2\gamma$ & $38$ & $57.5$ & $11$ & \\
327: 4j$\tau^\pm$ & $20$ & $36.9$ & $2.4$ & \\
328: 4j$p\!\!\!/$, low $\SumPt$ & $516$ & $525.2$ & $34.5$ & \\
329: 4j$\gamma$$p\!\!\!/$ & $28$ & $53.8$ & $11$ & \\
330: 4j$\gamma$ & $3693$ & $3827.2$ & $112.1$ & \\
331: 4j$\mu^\pm$ & $576$ & $568.2$ & $26.1$ & \\
332: 4j$\mu^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$ & $232$ & $224.7$ & $8.5$ & \\
333: 4j$\mu^\pm$$\mu^\mp$ & $17$ & $20.1$ & $2.5$ & \\
334: $3\gamma$ & $13$ & $24.2$ & $3$ & \\
335: 3j, low $\SumPt$ & $75894$ & $75939.2$ & $1043.9$ & \\
336: 3j$2\gamma$ & $145$ & $178.1$ & $7.4$ & \\
337: 3j$p\!\!\!/$, high $\SumPt$ & $20$ & $30.9$ & $14.4$ & \\
338: 3j$\gamma$$\tau^\pm$ & $13$ & $11$ & $2$ & \\
339: 3j$\gamma$$p\!\!\!/$ & $83$ & $102.9$ & $11.1$ & \\
340: 3j$\gamma$ & $11424$ & $11506.4$ & $190.6$ & \\
341: 3j$\mu^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$ & $1114$ & $1118.7$ & $27.1$ & \\
342: 3j$\mu^\pm$$\mu^\mp$ & $61$ & $84.5$ & $9.2$ & \\
343: 3j$\mu^\pm$ & $2132$ & $2168.7$ & $64.2$ & \\
344: 3bj, low $\SumPt$ & $14$ & $9.3$ & $1.9$ & \\
345: $2\tau^\pm$ & $316$ & $290.8$ & $24.2$ & \\
346: $2\gamma$$p\!\!\!/$ & $161$ & $176$ & $9.1$ & \\
347: $2\gamma$ & $8482$ & $8349.1$ & $84.1$ & \\
348: 2j, low $\SumPt$ & $93408$ & $92789.5$ & $1138.2$ & \\
349: 2j$2\gamma$ & $645$ & $612.6$ & $18.8$ & \\
350: 2j$\tau^\pm$$\tau^\mp$ & $15$ & $25$ & $3.5$ & \\
351: 2j$p\!\!\!/$, low $\SumPt$ & $74$ & $106$ & $7.8$ & \\
352: 2j$p\!\!\!/$, high $\SumPt$ & $43$ & $37.7$ & $100.2$ & \\
353: 2j$\gamma$ & $33684$ & $33259.9$ & $397.6$ & \\
354: 2j$\gamma$$\tau^\pm$ & $48$ & $41.4$ & $3.4$ & \\
355: 2j$\gamma$$p\!\!\!/$ & $403$ & $425.2$ & $29.7$ & \\
356: 2j$\mu^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$ & $7287$ & $7320.5$ & $118.9$ & \\
357: 2j$\mu^\pm$$\gamma$$p\!\!\!/$ & $13$ & $12.6$ & $2.7$ & \\
358: 2j$\mu^\pm$$\gamma$ & $41$ & $35.7$ & $6.1$ & \\
359: 2j$\mu^\pm$$\mu^\mp$ & $374$ & $394.2$ & $24.8$ & \\
360: \end{tabular}
361: \begin{tabular}{l@{ }r@{ }r@{ $\pm$ }l@{ }}
362: {\bf Final State} & {\bf Data} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\bf Background} \\ \hline
363: 2j$\mu^\pm$ & $9513$ & $9362.3$ & $166.8$ \\
364: $2e^\pm$j & $13$ & $9.8$ & $2.2$ \\
365: $2e^\pm$$e^\mp$ & $12$ & $4.8$ & $1.2$ \\
366: $2e^\pm$ & $23$ & $36.1$ & $3.8$ \\
367: 2b, low $\SumPt$ & $327$ & $335.8$ & $7$ \\
368: 2b, high $\SumPt$ & $187$ & $173.1$ & $7.1$ \\
369: 2b3j, high $\SumPt$ & $28$ & $33.5$ & $5.5$ \\
370: 2b2j, low $\SumPt$ & $355$ & $326.3$ & $8.4$ \\
371: 2b2j, high $\SumPt$ & $56$ & $80.2$ & $5$ \\
372: 2b2j$\gamma$ & $16$ & $15.4$ & $3.6$ \\
373: 2b$\gamma$ & $37$ & $31.7$ & $4.8$ \\
374: 2bj, low $\SumPt$ & $415$ & $393.8$ & $9.1$ \\
375: 2bj, high $\SumPt$ & $161$ & $195.8$ & $8.3$ \\
376: 2bj$p\!\!\!/$, low $\SumPt$ & $28$ & $23.2$ & $2.6$ \\
377: 2bj$\gamma$ & $25$ & $24.7$ & $4.3$ \\
378: 2b$e^\pm$2j$p\!\!\!/$ & $15$ & $12.3$ & $1.6$ \\
379: 2b$e^\pm$2j & $30$ & $30.5$ & $2.5$ \\
380: 2b$e^\pm$j & $28$ & $29.1$ & $2.8$ \\
381: 2b$e^\pm$ & $48$ & $45.2$ & $3.7$ \\
382: $\tau^\pm$$\tau^\mp$ & $498$ & $428.5$ & $22.7$ \\
383: $\gamma$$\tau^\pm$ & $177$ & $204.4$ & $5.4$ \\
384: $\gamma$$p\!\!\!/$ & $1952$ & $1945.8$ & $77.1$ \\
385: $\mu^\pm$$\tau^\pm$ & $18$ & $19.8$ & $2.3$ \\
386: $\mu^\pm$$\tau^\mp$ & $151$ & $179.1$ & $4.7$ \\
387: $\mu^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$ & $321351$ & $320500$ & $3475.5$ \\
388: $\mu^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$$\tau^\mp$ & $22$ & $25.8$ & $2.7$ \\
389: $\mu^\pm$$\gamma$ & $269$ & $285.5$ & $5.9$ \\
390: $\mu^\pm$$\gamma$$p\!\!\!/$ & $269$ & $282.2$ & $6.6$ \\
391: $\mu^\pm$$\mu^\mp$$p\!\!\!/$ & $49$ & $61.4$ & $3.5$ \\
392: $\mu^\pm$$\mu^\mp$$\gamma$ & $32$ & $29.9$ & $2.6$ \\
393: $\mu^\pm$$\mu^\mp$ & $10648$ & $10845.6$ & $96$ \\
394: j$2\gamma$ & $2196$ & $2200.3$ & $35.2$ \\
395: j$2\gamma$$p\!\!\!/$ & $38$ & $27.3$ & $3.2$ \\
396: j$\tau^\pm$ & $563$ & $585.7$ & $10.2$ \\
397: j$p\!\!\!/$, low $\SumPt$ & $4183$ & $4209.1$ & $56.1$ \\
398: j$\gamma$ & $49052$ & $48743$ & $546.3$ \\
399: j$\gamma$$\tau^\pm$ & $106$ & $104$ & $4.1$ \\
400: j$\gamma$$p\!\!\!/$ & $913$ & $965.2$ & $41.5$ \\
401: j$\mu^\pm$ & $33462$ & $34026.7$ & $510.1$ \\
402: j$\mu^\pm$$\tau^\mp$ & $29$ & $37.5$ & $4.5$ \\
403: j$\mu^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$$\tau^\mp$ & $10$ & $9.6$ & $2.1$ \\
404: j$\mu^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$ & $45728$ & $46316.4$ & $568.2$ \\
405: j$\mu^\pm$$\gamma$$p\!\!\!/$ & $78$ & $69.8$ & $9.9$ \\
406: j$\mu^\pm$$\gamma$ & $70$ & $98.4$ & $12.1$ \\
407: j$\mu^\pm$$\mu^\mp$ & $1977$ & $2093.3$ & $74.7$ \\
408: $e^\pm$4j & $7144$ & $6661.9$ & $147.2$ \\
409: $e^\pm$4j$p\!\!\!/$ & $403$ & $363$ & $9.9$ \\
410: $e^\pm$3j$\tau^\mp$ & $11$ & $7.6$ & $1.6$ \\
411: $e^\pm$3j$\gamma$ & $27$ & $21.7$ & $3.4$ \\
412: $e^\pm$$2\gamma$ & $47$ & $74.5$ & $5$ \\
413: $e^\pm$2j & $126665$ & $122457$ & $1672.6$ \\
414: $e^\pm$2j$\tau^\mp$ & $53$ & $37.3$ & $3.9$ \\
415: $e^\pm$2j$\tau^\pm$ & $20$ & $24.7$ & $2.3$ \\
416: $e^\pm$2j$p\!\!\!/$ & $12451$ & $12130.1$ & $159.4$ \\
417: $e^\pm$2j$\gamma$ & $101$ & $88.9$ & $6.1$ \\
418: $e^\pm$$\tau^\mp$ & $609$ & $555.9$ & $10.2$ \\
419: $e^\pm$$\tau^\pm$ & $225$ & $211.2$ & $4.7$ \\
420: $e^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$ & $476424$ & $479572$ & $5361.2$ \\
421: $e^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$$\tau^\mp$ & $48$ & $35$ & $2.7$ \\
422: \end{tabular}
423: \begin{tabular}{l@{ }r@{ }r@{ $\pm$ }l@{ }}
424: {\bf Final State} & {\bf Data} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\bf Background} \\ \hline
425: $e^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$$\tau^\pm$ & $20$ & $18.7$ & $1.9$ \\
426: $e^\pm$$\gamma$$p\!\!\!/$ & $141$ & $144.2$ & $6$ \\
427: $e^\pm$$\mu^\mp$$p\!\!\!/$ & $54$ & $42.6$ & $2.7$ \\
428: $e^\pm$$\mu^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$ & $13$ & $10.9$ & $1.3$ \\
429: $e^\pm$$\mu^\mp$ & $153$ & $127.6$ & $4.2$ \\
430: $e^\pm$j & $386880$ & $392614$ & $5031.8$ \\
431: $e^\pm$j$2\gamma$ & $14$ & $15.9$ & $2.9$ \\
432: $e^\pm$j$\tau^\pm$ & $79$ & $79.3$ & $2.9$ \\
433: $e^\pm$j$\tau^\mp$ & $162$ & $148.8$ & $7.6$ \\
434: $e^\pm$j$p\!\!\!/$ & $58648$ & $57391.7$ & $661.6$ \\
435: $e^\pm$j$\gamma$$p\!\!\!/$ & $52$ & $76.2$ & $9$ \\
436: $e^\pm$j$\mu^\mp$$p\!\!\!/$ & $22$ & $13.1$ & $1.7$ \\
437: $e^\pm$j$\mu^\mp$ & $28$ & $26.8$ & $2.3$ \\
438: $e^\pm$$e^\mp$4j & $103$ & $113.5$ & $5.9$ \\
439: $e^\pm$$e^\mp$3j & $456$ & $473$ & $14.6$ \\
440: $e^\pm$$e^\mp$2j$p\!\!\!/$ & $30$ & $39$ & $4.6$ \\
441: $e^\pm$$e^\mp$2j & $2149$ & $2152$ & $40.1$ \\
442: $e^\pm$$e^\mp$$\tau^\pm$ & $14$ & $11.1$ & $2$ \\
443: $e^\pm$$e^\mp$$p\!\!\!/$ & $491$ & $487.9$ & $12$ \\
444: $e^\pm$$e^\mp$$\gamma$ & $127$ & $132.3$ & $4.2$ \\
445: $e^\pm$$e^\mp$j & $10726$ & $10669.3$ & $123.5$ \\
446: $e^\pm$$e^\mp$j$p\!\!\!/$ & $157$ & $144$ & $11.2$ \\
447: $e^\pm$$e^\mp$j$\gamma$ & $26$ & $45.6$ & $4.7$ \\
448: $e^\pm$$e^\mp$ & $58344$ & $58575.6$ & $603.9$ \\
449: b6j & $24$ & $15.5$ & $2.3$ \\
450: b4j, low $\SumPt$ & $13$ & $9.2$ & $1.8$ \\
451: b4j, high $\SumPt$ & $464$ & $499.2$ & $12.4$ \\
452: b3j, low $\SumPt$ & $5354$ & $5285$ & $72.4$ \\
453: b3j, high $\SumPt$ & $1639$ & $1558.9$ & $24.1$ \\
454: b3j$p\!\!\!/$, low $\SumPt$ & $111$ & $116.8$ & $11.2$ \\
455: b3j$\gamma$ & $182$ & $194.1$ & $8.8$ \\
456: b3j$\mu^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$ & $37$ & $34.1$ & $2$ \\
457: b3j$\mu^\pm$ & $47$ & $52.2$ & $3$ \\
458: b$2\gamma$ & $15$ & $14.6$ & $2.1$ \\
459: b2j, low $\SumPt$ & $8812$ & $8576.2$ & $97.9$ \\
460: b2j, high $\SumPt$ & $4691$ & $4646.2$ & $57.7$ \\
461: b2j$p\!\!\!/$, low $\SumPt$ & $198$ & $209.2$ & $8.3$ \\
462: b2j$\gamma$ & $429$ & $425.1$ & $13.1$ \\
463: b2j$\mu^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$ & $46$ & $40.1$ & $2.7$ \\
464: b2j$\mu^\pm$ & $56$ & $60.6$ & $3.4$ \\
465: b$\tau^\pm$ & $19$ & $19.9$ & $2.2$ \\
466: b$\gamma$ & $976$ & $1034.8$ & $15.6$ \\
467: b$\gamma$$p\!\!\!/$ & $18$ & $16.7$ & $3.1$ \\
468: b$\mu^\pm$ & $303$ & $263.5$ & $7.9$ \\
469: b$\mu^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$ & $204$ & $218.1$ & $6.4$ \\
470: bj, low $\SumPt$ & $9060$ & $9275.7$ & $87.8$ \\
471: bj, high $\SumPt$ & $7236$ & $7030.8$ & $74$ \\
472: bj$2\gamma$ & $13$ & $17.6$ & $3.3$ \\
473: bj$\tau^\pm$ & $13$ & $12.9$ & $1.8$ \\
474: bj$p\!\!\!/$, low $\SumPt$ & $53$ & $60.4$ & $19.9$ \\
475: bj$\gamma$ & $937$ & $989.4$ & $20.6$ \\
476: bj$\gamma$$p\!\!\!/$ & $34$ & $30.5$ & $4$ \\
477: bj$\mu^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$ & $104$ & $112.6$ & $4.4$ \\
478: bj$\mu^\pm$ & $173$ & $141.4$ & $4.8$ \\
479: b$e^\pm$3j$p\!\!\!/$ & $68$ & $52.2$ & $2.2$ \\
480: b$e^\pm$2j$p\!\!\!/$ & $87$ & $65$ & $3.3$ \\
481: b$e^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$ & $330$ & $347.2$ & $6.9$ \\
482: b$e^\pm$j$p\!\!\!/$ & $211$ & $176.6$ & $5$ \\
483: b$e^\pm$$e^\mp$j & $22$ & $34.6$ & $2.6$ \\
484: \end{tabular}
485: \end{minipage}
486: }}
487: %end of {\mbox{\hspace{-2.5cm}\include{docs/prd1/vista_cdf}}}
488: \caption[Subset of the populations comparison between data and Standard Model.]{A subset of the comparison between data and Standard Model prediction, showing the most discrepant final states and all final states populated with ten or more data events.
489: %Events are partitioned into exclusive final states based on standard CDF object identification criteria.
490: Final states are labeled according to the number and types of objects present, and whether (high $\SumPt$) or not (low $\SumPt$) the summed scalar transverse momentum of all objects in the events exceeds 400~GeV.
491: Final states are ordered according to decreasing discrepancy between the total number of events expected, taking into account the error from Monte Carlo statistics and the total number observed in the data. Final states exhibiting mild discrepancies are shown together with the significance of the discrepancy in units of standard deviations ($\sigma$) after accounting for a trials factor corresponding to the number of final states considered.
492: Final states that do not exhibit even mild discrepancies are listed below the horizontal line in inverted alphabetical order. Only Monte Carlo statistical uncertainties on the background prediction are included.
493: }
494: \label{tbl:VistaCdf}
495: \end{table*}
496:
497: \begin{figure}
498: \begin{tabular}{cc}
499: \includegraphics[width=3.2in]{docs/prd1/vistaSummary_norm_expected} & \hspace{-0.4in}
500: \includegraphics[width=3.2in]{docs/prd1/vistaSummary_shape}
501: \end{tabular}
502: \caption[Distribution of observed discrepancy between data and the Standard Model prediction.]{Distribution of observed discrepancy between data and the Standard Model prediction, measured in units of standard deviation ($\sigma$), shown as the solid (green) histogram, before accounting for the trials factor. The left pane shows the distribution of discrepancies between the total number of events observed and predicted in the 344 populated final states considered. Negative values on the horizontal axis correspond to a deficit of data compared to Standard Model prediction; positive values indicate an excess of data compared to Standard Model prediction. The right pane shows the distribution of discrepancies between the observed and predicted shapes in 16,486 kinematic distributions. Distributions in which the shapes of data and Standard Model prediction are in relative disagreement correspond to large positive $\sigma$. The solid (black) curves indicate expected distributions, if the data were truly drawn from the Standard Model background. Interest is focused on the entries in the tails of the left distribution and the high tail of the right distribution.
503: %The final state entering the left histogram at $-4.03\sigma$ is the \Vista\ $3j\,\tau$ final state, which heads Table~\ref{tbl:VistaCdf}. Most of the distributions entering the right histogram with $>4\sigma$ derive from the $3j$ $\Delta R(j_2,j_3)$ discrepancy, discussed in the text.
504: }
505: \label{fig:VistaSummaryCdf}
506: \end{figure}
507:
508: \begin{figure}
509: \centering
510: \includegraphics[width=3.6in,angle=270]{docs/prd1/3j1tau_mostDiscrepant}
511: \caption[The invariant mass of the tau lepton and two leading jets in the final state consisting of three jets and one positively or negatively charged tau.]{The invariant mass of the tau lepton and two leading jets in the final state consisting of three jets and one positively or negatively charged tau. (The \Vista\ final state naming convention gives the tau lepton a positive charge.) Data are shown as filled circles, with the Standard Model prediction shown as the shaded histogram. This is the most discrepant kinematic distribution in the final state exhibiting the largest population discrepancy.}
512: \label{fig:3j1tau_mostDiscrepant}
513: \end{figure}
514:
515: With the details of the correction model in place, the complete Standard Model prediction can be obtained. For each Monte Carlo event after detector simulation, the event weight is multiplied by the value of the luminosity correction factor and the $k$-factor for the relevant Standard Model process. The single Monte Carlo event can be misreconstructed in a number of ways, producing a set of Monte Carlo events derived from the original, with weights multiplied by the probability of each misreconstruction. The weight of each resulting event is multiplied by the probability the event satisfies trigger criteria. The resulting Standard Model prediction, corrected as just described, is referred to as ``the Standard Model prediction'' throughout the rest of this document, with ``corrected'' implied in all cases.
516:
517:
518:
519: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
520: % Vista: Results
521: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
522: \subsection{Results}
523:
524: Data and Standard Model events are partitioned into exclusive final states, depending on the combinations of reconstructed final objects. This partitioning is orthogonal, with each event ending up in one and only one final state, as shown schematically in Fig.~\ref{fig:partitioning}. Data are compared to Standard Model prediction in each final state, considering the total number of events observed and predicted, and the shapes of relevant kinematic distributions.
525:
526: \begin{figure}
527: \centering
528: \includegraphics[width=7cm,angle=0]{figures/analysis/VistaPartitioningGraphic}
529: \caption[\Vista\ partitioning in final states.]{\Vista\ partitioning in final states. Final states can be viewed as boxes, each containing events of one specific final configuration of objects. Final states have not been prescribed, but are created automatically as new types of events appear. In this way, every event, no matter how exotic, stays within the analysis, in the appropriate final state.}
530: \label{fig:partitioning}
531: \end{figure}
532:
533: In a data driven search, it is crucial to explicitly account for the {\em{trials factor}}, quantifying the number of places where we checked for an interesting signal. Purely statistical fluctuations at the level of three or more standard deviations are expected to appear, simply because a large number of regions are considered. A reasonably rigorous accounting of this trials factor is possible as long as the measures of interest and the regions to which these measures are applied are specified {\em{a priori}}, as is done here. In this analysis a discrepancy at the level of $3\sigma$ or greater after accounting for the trials factor (typically corresponding to a discrepancy at the level of $5\sigma$ or greater before accounting for the trials factor) is considered ``significant.''
534: It is worth noting that dedicated searches, checking only a small number of signal regions, typically do not account for any trials factor, simply because it is very difficult to quantify the effect of many people looking for new physics in different ways within the same experiment. For that reason, instead of a mild $3\sigma$, a strong $5\sigma$ significance is considered necessary to discover something new in our field. The assumption made silently is that if one observes a $5\sigma$ effect in just one attempt, then if one could include somehow the trials factor, the actual significance of the observation would turn out to be still greater than $3\sigma$, therefore convincing. However, in cases where the ``new physics'' is well-expected (like $t\bar{t}$ or dibosons, which are processes within the Standard Model) ``discovery'' is claimed even with just $3\sigma$ \emph{without} considering the trials factor. Certainly, for physics beyond the Standard Model, a $3\sigma$ sans trials factor should not be considered convincing proof of existence.
535:
536: Discrepancy in the total number of events in a final state ($\text{fs}$) is measured by the Poisson probability $p_{\text{fs}}$ that the number of predicted events would fluctuate up to or above (or down to or below) the number of events observed.
537: Since the expected population is known with some uncertainty, its probability density function is convoluted to obtain $p_{\rm fs}$.
538: To account for the trials factor due to the 344 \Vista\ final states examined, the quantity $p=1-(1-p_{\text{fs}})^{344}$ is calculated for each final state. The result is the probability $p$ of observing a discrepancy corresponding to a probability less than $p_{\text{fs}}$ in the total sample studied. This probability $p$ can then be converted into units of standard deviations by solving for $\sigma$ such that $\int_{\sigma}^{\infty}\, \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{-\frac{x^2}{2}} dx = p$~\footnote{Final states for which $p>0.5$ after accounting for the trials factor are not even mildly interesting, and the corresponding $\sigma$ after accounting for the trials factor is not quoted. For the mildly interesting final states with $p<0.5$ after accounting for the trials factor, $\sigma$ is quoted as positive if the number of observed data events exceeds the Standard Model prediction, and negative if the number of observed data events is less than the Standard Model prediction.}. A final state exhibiting a population discrepancy greater than 3$\sigma$ after the trials factor is thus accounted for is considered significant.
539:
540: Many kinematic distributions are considered in each final state, including the transverse momentum, pseudorapidity, detector pseudorapidity, and azimuthal angle of all objects, masses of individual jets and $b$-jets, invariant masses of all object combinations, transverse masses of object combinations including $\pmiss$, angular separation $\Delta\phi$ and $\Delta R$ of all object pairs, and several other more specialized variables. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test is used to quantify the difference in shape of each kinematic distribution between data and Standard Model prediction. As with populations, a trials factor is assessed to account for the 16,486 distributions examined, and the resulting probability is converted into units of standard deviations. A distribution with KS statistic greater than 0.02 and probability corresponding to greater than 3$\sigma$ after assessing the trials factor is considered significant.
541:
542: Table~\ref{tbl:VistaCdf} shows a subset of the \Vista\ comparison of data to Standard Model prediction. Shown are all final states containing ten or more data events, with the most discrepant final states in population heading the list. After accounting for the trials factor, no final state has a statistically significant ($>3\sigma$) population discrepancy. The most discrepant final state ($3j\,\tau^\pm$) contains 71 data events and $113.7\pm3.6$ events expected from the Standard Model. The Poisson probability for $113.7\pm3.6$ expected events to result in 71 or fewer events observed in this final state is $2.8\times10^{-5}$, corresponding to an entry at $-4.03\sigma$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:VistaSummaryCdf}. The probability for one or more of the 344 populated final states considered to display disagreement in population corresponding to a probability less than $2.8\times10^{-5}$ is 1\%. The $3j\,\tau^\pm$ population discrepancy is thus not statistically significant. The most discrepant kinematic distribution in this final state is the invariant mass of the tau lepton and the two highest transverse momentum jets, shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:3j1tau_mostDiscrepant}.
543:
544: The six final states with largest population discrepancy are $3j\,\tau$, $5j$, $2j\,\tau$, $2j\,2\tau$, $b\,e\,j$, and the low-$p_T$ $3j$ final state, with $b\,e\,j$ being the only one of these six to exhibit an excess of data. The $3j\,\tau$, $2j\,\tau$, and $2j\,2\tau$ final states appear to reflect an incomplete understanding of the rate of jets faking taus ($\poo{j}{\tau}$) as a function of the number of jets in the event, at the level of $\sim 30\%$ difference between the total number of observed and predicted events in the most populated of these final states. The value of $\poo{j}{\tau}$ is primarily determined by the $j\,\tau$ final state. Interestingly, although the underlying physical mechanism for $\poo{j}{e}$ is very similar to that for $\poo{j}{\tau}$, as discussed in Appendix~\ref{sec:MisidentificationMatrix}, a significant dependence on the presence of additional jets is not observed for $\poo{j}{e}$.
545:
546: The $5j$ discrepancy results from a tension with the $e\,4j$ final state, whose dominant contribution comes from $5j$ production convoluted with $\poo{j}{e}$. The low-$p_T$ $3j$ discrepancy results from a tension with the $e\,2j$ final state, whose dominant contribution comes from $3j$ production convoluted with $\poo{j}{e}$. The $b\,e\,j$ final state is predominantly $3j$ production convoluted with $\poo{j}{b}$ and $\poo{j}{e}$; this discrepancy also arises from a tension with the low-$p_T$ $3j$ and $e\,2j$ final states. The $b\,e\,j$ final state is the \Vista\ final state in which the largest excess of data over Standard Model prediction is seen. The fraction of hypothetical similar CDF experiments that would produce a \Vista\ normalization excess as significant as the excess observed in this final state is $8\%$. The $5j$, $b\,e\,j$, and low-$p_T$ $3j$ discrepancies correspond to a difference of $\sim 10\%$ between the total number of observed and predicted events in these final states.
547:
548: Figure~\ref{fig:VistaSummaryCdf} summarizes in a histogram the measured discrepancies between data and the Standard Model prediction for CDF high-$p_T$ final state populations and kinematic distributions. Values in this figure represent individual discrepancies, and do not account for the trials factor associated with examining many possibilities.
549:
550: \begin{figure}
551: \centering
552: \includegraphics[width=3.6in,angle=270]{docs/prd1/3j_deltaR_j2j3}
553: \caption[A shape discrepancy highlighted by \Vista\ in the final state consisting of exactly three reconstructed jets with $\abs{\eta}<2.5$ and $p_T>17$~GeV, and with one of the jets satisfying $\abs{\eta}<1$ and $p_T>40$~GeV.]{A shape discrepancy highlighted by \Vista\ in the final state consisting of exactly three reconstructed jets with $\abs{\eta}<2.5$ and $p_T>17$~GeV, and with one of the jets satisfying $\abs{\eta}<1$ and $p_T>40$~GeV. This distribution illustrates the effect underlying most of the \Vista\ shape discrepancies. Filled circles show CDF data, with the shaded histogram showing the prediction of \Pythia. The discrepancy is clearly statistically significant, with statistical error bars smaller than the size of the data points. The vertical axis shows the number of events per bin, with the horizontal axis showing the angular separation ($\Delta R=\sqrt{\Delta\eta^2+\delta\phi^2}$) between the second and third jets, where the jets are ordered according to decreasing transverse momentum. In the region $\Delta R(j_2,j_3)\gtrsim2$, populated primarily by initial state radiation, the Standard Model prediction can to some extent be adjusted. The region $\Delta R(j_2,j_3)\lesssim2$ is dominated by final state radiation, the description of which is constrained by data from LEP\,1.}
554: \label{fig:3j_deltaR_j2j3}
555: \end{figure}
556:
557: \begin{figure}
558: \centering
559: \includegraphics[width=3in,angle=270]{docs/prd1/plots_1b1j_sumPt400+_mass_j}
560: \caption[The jet mass distribution in the $bj$ final state with $\SumPt>400$~GeV.]{The jet mass distribution in the $bj$ final state with $\SumPt>400$~GeV. The $3j$ $\Delta R(j_2,j_3)$ discrepancy illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:3j_deltaR_j2j3} manifests itself also by producing jets more massive in data than predicted by \Pythia's showering algorithm. The mass of a jet is determined by treating energy deposited in each calorimeter tower as a massless 4-vector, summing the 4-vectors of all towers within the jet, and computing the mass of the resulting (massive) 4-vector.}
561: \label{fig:plots_1b1j_sumPt400+_mass_j}
562: \end{figure}
563:
564: \begin{figure}
565: \centering
566: \includegraphics[width=3in,angle=270]{docs/prd1/1b1e+1j_deltaR_jb}
567: \caption[The distribution of $\Delta R$ between the jet and $b$-tagged jet in the final state $b\,e\,j$.]{The distribution of $\Delta R$ between the jet and $b$-tagged jet in the final state $b\,e\,j$. The primary Standard Model contribution to this final state is QCD three jet production with one jet misreconstructed as an electron. The similarity to the $3j$ $\Delta R(j_2,j_3)$ discrepancy illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:3j_deltaR_j2j3} in the region $\Delta R(j,b)<2$ is clear. Less clear is the underlying explanation for the difference with respect to Fig.~\ref{fig:3j_deltaR_j2j3} in the region $\Delta R(j,b)>2$.}
568: \label{fig:1b1e+1j_deltaR_jb}
569: \end{figure}
570:
571: Of the 16,484 kinematic distributions considered, \numberOfVistaDiscrepantDistributions\ distributions are found to correspond to a discrepancy greater than 3$\sigma$ after accounting for the trials factor, entering with a KS probability of roughly $5\sigma$ or greater in Fig.~\ref{fig:VistaSummaryCdf}. Of these \numberOfVistaDiscrepantDistributions\ discrepant distributions, 312 are attributed to modeling parton radiation, deriving from the $3j$ $\Delta R(j_2,j_3)$ discrepancy shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:3j_deltaR_j2j3}, with 186 of these 312 shape discrepancies pointing out that individual jet masses are larger in data than in the prediction, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:plots_1b1j_sumPt400+_mass_j}. In the literature, that the same effect was observed (but not emphasized) by both CDF~\cite{Geer:CdfJetMass:Abe:1996nn,Geer:CdfJetMass:Abe:1997yb} and \DZero~\cite{D0JetMass:Abachi:1995zw} in Tevatron Run I. The $3j$ $\Delta R(j_2,j_3)$ and jet mass discrepancies appear to be two different views of a single underlying discrepancy, noting that two sufficiently nearby distinct jets correspond to a pattern of calorimetric energy deposits similar to a single massive jet. The underlying $3j$ $\Delta R(j_2,j_3)$ discrepancy is manifest in many other final states. The final state $b\,e\,j$, arising primarily from QCD production of three jets with one misreconstructed as an electron, shows a similar discrepancy in $\Delta R(j,b)$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:1b1e+1j_deltaR_jb}.
572:
573: While these discrepancies are clearly statistically significant, basing a new physics claim on them would be premature. In the kinematic regime of the discrepancy, different algorithms to match exact leading order calculations with a parton shower lead to different predictions~\cite{MadEventAlpgenComparison:Alwall:2007fs}. Newer predictions have not been systematically compared to LEP\,1 data, which provide constraints on parton showering reflected in \Pythia's tuning. Further investigation into obtaining an adequate QCD-based description of this discrepancy continues.
574:
575: An additional 59 discrepant distributions reflect an inadequate modeling of the overall transverse boost of the system. The overall transverse boost of the primary physics objects in the event is attributed to two sources: the intrinsic Fermi motion of the colliding partons within the proton, and soft or collinear radiation of the colliding partons as they approach collision. Together these effects are here referred to as ``intrinsic $k_T$,'' representing an overall momentum kick to the hard scattering. Further discussion appears in Appendix~\ref{sec:CorrectionModelDetails:IntrinsicKt}.
576:
577: The remaining 13 discrepant distributions are seen to be due to the coarseness of the \Vista\ correction model. Most of these discrepancies, which are at the level of 10\% or less when expressed as $({\text{data}}-{\text{theory}})/{\text{theory}}$, arise from modeling most fake rates as independent of transverse momentum.
578:
579: In summary, this global analysis of the bulk features of the high-$p_T$ data has not yielded a discrepancy motivating a new physics claim. There are no statistically significant population discrepancies in the 344 populated final states considered, and although there are several statistically significant discrepancies among the 16,486 kinematic distributions investigated, the nature of these discrepancies makes it difficult to use them to support a new physics claim.
580:
581: This global analysis of course can not conclude with certainty that there is no new physics hiding in the CDF data. The \Vista\ population and shape statistics may be insensitive to a small excess of events appearing at large $\SumPt$ in a highly populated final state. For such signals, different probes are required. \Sleuth, and the Bump Hunter, which was added in the second round of this analysis, serve this purpose.
582:
583:
584:
585: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
586: % Sleuth
587: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
588:
589: \section{\Sleuth}
590: \label{sec:Sleuth}
591:
592: Taking a broad view of proposed models that might extend the Standard Model, something common is noted: nearly all predict an excess of events at high $p_T$, concentrated in a particular final state. This feature is exploited by \Sleuth~\cite{KnutesonThesis}. \Sleuth\ is quasi model independent, where ``quasi'' refers to the assumption that the first sign of new physics will appear as an excess of events in some final state at large summed scalar transverse momentum ($\SumPt$).
593:
594: The first version of \Sleuth\ was essentially developed by \DZero\ in Tevatron Run I~\cite{SleuthPRD1:Abbott:2000fb, SleuthPRD2:Abbott:2000gx, SleuthPRL:Abbott:2001ke}, and subsequently improved by H1 in HERA Run I~\cite{H1GeneralSearch:Aktas:2004pz}, with small modifications.
595:
596: \Sleuth\ relies on the following assumptions for new physics:
597: \begin{enumerate}
598: \item The data can be categorized into exclusive final states in such a way that any signature of new physics is apt to appear predominantly in one of these final states.
599: \item New physics will appear with objects at high summed transverse momentum ($\SumPt$) relative to Standard Model and instrumental background.
600: \item New physics will appear as an excess of data over Standard Model and instrumental background.
601: \end{enumerate}
602: To the extent that the above are true, \Sleuth\ would be more sensitive to a new physics signal.
603:
604: \subsection{Algorithm}
605: \label{sec:SleuthAlgorithm}
606: The \Sleuth\ algorithm consists of three steps, following the above three assumptions.
607:
608: \subsubsection{Final states}
609: \label{sec:finalStateDefinitions}
610:
611: In the first step of the algorithm, all events are placed into exclusive final states as in \Vista, with the following modifications.
612:
613: \begin{itemize}
614:
615: \item
616: Jets are identified as pairs, rather than individually, to reduce the total number of final states and to keep signal events with one additional radiated gluon within the same final state. Final state names include ``$n$ $jj$'' if $n$ jet pairs are identified, with possibly one unpaired jet assumed to have originated from a radiated gluon.
617:
618: \item
619: The present understanding of quark flavor suggests that $b$ quarks should be produced in pairs. Bottom quarks are identified as pairs, rather than individually, to increase the robustness of identification and to reduce the total number of final states. Final state names include ``$n$ $bb$'' if $n$ $b$ pairs are identified.
620:
621: \item
622: Final states related through global charge conjugation are considered to be equivalent. Thus $e^+e^-\gamma$ is a different final state than $e^+e^+\gamma$, but $e^+e^+\gamma$ and $e^-e^-\gamma$ together make up a single \Sleuth\ final state.
623:
624: \item
625: Final states related through global interchange of the first and second generation are considered to be equivalent. Thus $e^+\pmiss\gamma$ and $\mu^+\pmiss\gamma$ together make up a single \Sleuth\ final state. The decision to treat third generation objects ($b$ quarks and $\tau$ leptons) differently from first and second generation objects reflects theoretical prejudice that the third generation may be special, and the experimental ability (in the case of $b$ quarks) and experimental challenge (in the case of $\tau$ leptons) in the identification of third generation objects.
626:
627: \end{itemize}
628:
629: The symbol $\ell$ is used to denote electron or muon. The symbol $W$ is used in naming final states containing one electron or muon, significant missing momentum, and perhaps other non-leptonic objects. Thus the final states $e^+\pmiss\gamma$, $e^-\pmiss\gamma$, $\mu^+\pmiss\gamma$, and $\mu^-\pmiss\gamma$ are combined into the \Sleuth\ final state $W\gamma$. A table showing the relationship between \Vista\ and \Sleuth\ final states is provided in Appendix~\ref{sec:Sleuth:Partitioning}.
630:
631:
632: \subsubsection{Summed Transverse Momentum Variable}
633:
634: The second step of the algorithm considers a single variable in each exclusive final state: the summed scalar transverse momentum of all objects in the event ($\sum{p_T}$). Assuming momentum conservation in the plane transverse to the axis of the colliding beams,
635: \begin{equation}
636: \sum_i{\vec{p}_i} + \overrightarrow{\text{uncl}} + \vec{\pmiss} = \vec{0},
637: \end{equation}
638: where the sum over $i$ represents a sum over all identified objects in the event, the $i^\text{th}$ object has momentum $\vec{p}_i$, $\overrightarrow{\text{uncl}}$ denotes the vector sum of all momentum visible in the detector but not clustered into an identified object, $\vec{\pmiss}$ denotes the missing momentum, and the equation is a two-component vector equality for the components of the momentum along the two spatial directions transverse to the axis of the colliding beams. The \Sleuth\ variable \SumPt\ is then defined by
639: \begin{equation}
640: \SumPt \equiv \sum_i{\abs{\vec{p}_i}} + \abs{\overrightarrow{\text{uncl}}} + \abs{\vec{\pmiss}},
641: \end{equation}
642: where only the momentum components transverse to the axis of the colliding beams are considered when computing magnitudes.
643:
644: \subsubsection{Regions}
645: \label{sec:Sleuth:Regions}
646:
647: The algorithm's third step involves searching for regions in which more events are seen in the data than expected from Standard Model and instrumental background. This search is performed in the variable \SumPt\ defined in the second step of the algorithm, for each of the exclusive final states defined in the first step.
648:
649: The steps of the search can be sketched as follows.
650: \begin{itemize}
651: \item In each final state, the regions considered are the one dimensional intervals in $\sum{p_T}$ extending from each data point up to infinity. A region is required to contain at least three data events, as described in Appendix~\ref{sec:Sleuth:MinimumNumberOfEvents}.
652:
653: \item
654: In a particular final state, the data point with the $d^{\text{th}}$ largest value of $\SumPt$ defines an interval in the variable $\SumPt$ extending from this data point up to infinity. This semi-infinite interval contains $d$ data events. The Standard Model prediction in this interval, estimated from the \Vista\ comparison, integrates to $b$ predicted events. In this final state, the interest of the $d^{\text{th}}$ region is defined as the Poisson probability $\pval = \sum_{i=d}^{\infty}\frac{b^i}{i!}e^{-b}$ that the Standard Model background $b$ would fluctuate up to or above the observed number of data events $d$ in this region. The most interesting region in this final state is the one with smallest Poisson probability (\pvalmin).
655: \item For this final state, pseudo experiments are generated, with pseudo data pulled from the Standard Model background. For each pseudo experiment, the interest of the most interesting region is calculated. An ensemble of pseudo experiments determines the fraction $\scriptP$ of pseudo experiments in this final state in which the most interesting region is more interesting than the most interesting region in this final state observed in the data. Namely, for each final state, \scriptP\ is the fraction of pseudo-data distributions, pulled from the Standard Model expectation, where \pvalmin\ was smaller than the \pvalmin\ observed in the actual data distribution. If there is no new physics in this final state, $\scriptP$ is expected to be a random number pulled from a uniform distribution in the unit interval\footnote{
656: \label{footnote:scriptPdistribution}
657: There is a small caveat, for final states with small expected population: We require at least 3 data in a \sumPt\ tail. If $d<3$, then $\pval=1$ by convention, i.e.\ the tail is totally uninteresting by definition. Apart from $\pval=1$, the most uninteresting a tail can possibly be is to have exactly $d=3$ and as big a background $b$ as possible.
658: %, as any $d>3$ and any smaller $b$ would make \pval\ smaller, and the tail more interesting.
659: So, the largest \pval\ attainable for a final state with total background $b_{\rm tot}$, before we run into $\pval=1$, is $\pval_{\max}=\sum_{i=3}^{\infty}\frac{b_{\rm tot}^i}{i!}e^{-b_{\rm tot}}$. I will show now that \scriptP\ can not assume values between $\pval_{\max}$ and 1, therefore its distribution is not exactly uniform, but has a gap: If the actual $\pvalmin$ were equal to $\pval_{\max}$, then the fraction of pseudo-data distributions which would have $\pvalmin > \pval_{\max}$ would be $\sum_{i=0}^{2}\frac{b_{\rm tot}^i}{i!}e^{-b_{\rm tot}}$, because they would be given $\pvalmin=1$ by convention. The rest of the pseudo-data distributions would have $\pvalmin \le \pval_{\max}$, therefore $\scriptP=1-\sum_{i=0}^{2}\frac{b_{\rm tot}^i}{i!}e^{-b_{\rm tot}}=\pval_{\max}$. For any actual $\pvalmin < \pval_{\max}$, \scriptP\ will be even smaller than $\pval_{\max}$, as it will be more challenging for a pseudo-data distribution to exceed that \pvalmin. If $\pvalmin=1$, which has probability $\sum_{i=0}^{2}\frac{b_{\rm tot}^i}{i!}e^{-b_{\rm tot}}$, then all pseudo-data distributions would be at least as interesting, therefore $\scriptP=1$. Therefore, the distribution of \scriptP\ has a Kronecker $\delta$ term at 1, multiplied by $\sum_{i=0}^{2}\frac{b_{\rm tot}^i}{i!}e^{-b_{\rm tot}}$, and the rest is spread at values $\scriptP \le \pval_{\max}$. This gap in possible \scriptP\ values shrinks as $b_{\rm tot} \gg 3$, and practically vanishes for $b_{\rm tot} \gtrsim 10$.}. %end of footnote
660: If there is new physics in this final state, $\scriptP$ is expected to be small.
661: \item Looping over all final states, $\scriptP$ is computed for each final state. The minimum of these values is denoted $\scriptP_{\text{min}}$. Let ${\cal R}$ be the most interesting region in the final state with the smallest $\scriptP$.
662: \item The interest of the most interesting region ${\cal R}$ in the most interesting final state is defined as $\tildeScriptP = 1-\prod_a(1-\hat{p}_a)$, where the product is over all \Sleuth\ final states $a$, and $\hat{p}_a$ is the lesser of $\scriptP_{\text{min}}$ and the probability for the total number of events predicted by the Standard Model in the final state $a$ to fluctuate up to or above three data events. The quantity $\tildeScriptP$ is the fraction of hypothetical similar CDF experiments that would produce a final state with $\scriptP < \scriptP_{\text{min}}$\footnote{
663: \label{footnote:tildeScriptPdefinition}
664: This point deserves some explanation to become more obvious. We have $N$ final states, and we want to find the probability that one or more of them would give a \scriptP\ smaller than the observed $\scriptP_{\min}$. If the expectated distribution of \scriptP\ were exactly uniform for all $N$ final states, without the gap discussed in footnote \ref{footnote:scriptPdistribution}, then each final state would have equal probability $\scriptP_{\min}$ to give $\scriptP \le \scriptP_{\min}$. In that simple case, we would just need to define $\tildeScriptP \equiv 1-\prod_a(1-\scriptP_{\min})=1-(1-\scriptP_{\min})^N$. However, depending on the total background $b_{\rm tot}$, \scriptP\ is not distributed exactly uniformly for small final states, which gives rise to two possibilities: If for a final state the gap starts at a $\pval_{\max} \ge \scriptP_{\min}$, then the probability that this final state would give $\scriptP \le \scriptP_{\min}$ is simply $\scriptP_{\min}$. If, however, $b_{\rm tot}$ is such that $\pval_{\max} \le \scriptP_{\min}$, then $\scriptP_{\min}$ falls in the gap, and then that final state has probability $\sum_{i=3}^{\infty}\frac{b_{\rm tot}^i}{i!}e^{-b_{\rm tot}}$ to return $\scriptP \le \pval_{\max} < \scriptP_{\min}$, as explained in footnote \ref{footnote:scriptPdistribution}. This complication necessitates the introduction of $\hat{p}_a$ in \tildeScriptP, to treat appropriately the two possible cases.}.%end of footnote
665: The range of $\tildeScriptP$ is the unit interval. If the data are distributed according to our Standard Model prediction, $\tildeScriptP$ is expected to be a random number pulled from a uniform distribution in the unit interval, as was also demonstrated experimentally (see Fig.~\ref{fig:tildeScriptPdistribution}). If new physics is present, $\tildeScriptP$ is expected to be small.
666: \end{itemize}
667:
668: \begin{figure}
669: \begin{tabular}{cc}
670: \includegraphics[height=3.0in,angle=-90]{figures/analysis/tildeScriptPsPlotsPseudo_1} & \hspace{0in}
671: \includegraphics[height=3.0in,angle=-90]{figures/analysis/tildeScriptPsPlotsPseudo_2}
672: \end{tabular}
673: \caption[Distribution of expected values of \tildeScriptP\ in $\sim 1000$ pseudo-experiments, where pseudo-data are pulled from the Standard Model \SumPt\ distributions.]{Distribution of expected values of \tildeScriptP\ in $\sim 1000$ pseudo-experiments, where pseudo-data are pulled from the Standard Model \SumPt\ distributions. On the right is shown the distribution of the same values of \tildeScriptP\ translated into standard deviations ($\sigma$) through the transformation: $\tildeScriptP = \int_{\sigma}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{-\frac{x^2}{2}}$. The expected distribution is consistent with a uniform distribution in the interval $[0,1]$, represented by the black curve.}
674: \label{fig:tildeScriptPdistribution}
675: \end{figure}
676:
677: An alternative statistic to \tildeScriptP\ was first implemented in this analysis. The new measure of significance, \tildePval, is the probability that, in a pseudo-experiment, at least one \sumPt\ tail, in any final state, would have a \pval\ smaller than the smallest \pval\ found among all tails and all final states in the data. In other words, \tildePval\ is the probability that in a pseudo-experiment some \sumPt\ tail would be more significant than the globally most significant tail found in the data. The definition of \tildePval\ is
678: \begin{equation}
679: \tildePval \equiv 1 - \prod_{a}\left(1-\scriptP_{(a,\pvalmin)}\right),
680: \end{equation}
681: where $a$ denotes a final state, $\scriptP_{(a,\pvalmin)}$ is the probability for final state $a$ to have (in a pseudo-experiment) a \sumPt\ tail of $\pval \le \pvalmin$, and \pvalmin\ is the smallest \pval\ found among all tails in all final states using data. Note that, unlike when defining \scriptP\ for a final state $a$, where \pvalmin\ was the smallest \pval\ within that final state, this \pvalmin\ going into $\scriptP_{(a,\pvalmin)}$ is the global smallest \pval. Therefore, for a final state $a$, $\scriptP_{(a,\pvalmin)}$ is not the same as the \scriptP\ defined earlier for each final state, because there \scriptP\ was the probability for a final state to exceed in significance its own most interesting tail, while $\scriptP_{(a,\pvalmin)}$ is the probability for final state $a$ to exceed in significance the {\em globally} most interesting tail, which may or may not be within $a$.
682:
683: The qualitative difference between \tildePval\ and traditional \tildeScriptP\ is that \tildeScriptP\ focusses on fluctuations producing a smaller \scriptP\ than the $\scriptP_{\min}$ observed in the data, while \tildePval\ focusses on fluctuations producing a smaller \pval. The \scriptP\ of a final state depends not only on the significance (\pvalmin) of the most interesting tail therein, but also on the total expected population of the final state where that tail is: A \sumPt\ tail of numerically identical \pvalmin, but found in a final state with larger expected background, results into larger \scriptP, because bigger population means more pseudo-data, hence more \sumPt\ tails, hence more chances to have $\pval \le \pvalmin$. So, \scriptP\ is not a measure of the significance of a tail {\em per se}, but rather of a whole \sumPt\ distribution. Whether to use \tildeScriptP\ or \tildePval\ is a matter of preference. \tildePval\ is more intuitive, because it quantifies the significance of \sumPt\ tails, which are fundamentally the features \Sleuth\ detects, while \tildeScriptP\ quantifies the significance of whole \sumPt\ distributions from the view-point of their own \sumPt\ excesses. Since \tildeScriptP\ was invented first and has been part of \Sleuth\ since its conception, its use was continued in this analysis.
684:
685:
686: \subsubsection{Output}
687: \label{sec:Sleuth:Output}
688:
689: The output of the algorithm is the most interesting region ${\cal R}$ observed in the final state with the smallest \scriptP, and a number $\tildeScriptP$ quantifying the interest of ${\cal R}$\footnote{If \Sleuth\ used \tildePval\ instead of \tildeScriptP, then the most interesting tail ${\cal R}$ would be the one with the globally smallest \pval. That region may happen to be the same with the most interesting region within the final state with of smallest \scriptP, but it doesn't have to.}. A reasonable threshold for discovery is $\tildeScriptP \lesssim 0.001$, which corresponds loosely to a local $5\sigma$ effect after the trials factor is accounted for\footnote{That is empirically confirmed in sensitivity tests (Sec.~\ref{sec:sleuthSensitivity}), where it was observed that the $\tildeScriptP$ discovery threshold is met approximately at the same time when $\pvalmin\simeq \int_{5}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{-\frac{x^2}{2}}$.}.
690:
691: Although no integration over systematic errors is performed in computing $\tildeScriptP$, systematic uncertainties do affect the final \Sleuth\ result. If \Sleuth\ highlights a discrepancy in a particular final state, explanations in terms of a correction to the background estimate are considered. This process necessarily requires physics judgement. A reasonable explanation of a \Sleuth\ discrepancy in terms of an inadequacy in the modeling of the detector response or Standard Model prediction that is consistent with external information is fed back into the \Vista\ correction model and tested for global consistency. In this way, plausible explanations for discrepancies observed by \Sleuth\ are incorporated into the \Vista\ correction model. This iteration continues until either all reasonable explanations for a significant \Sleuth\ discrepancy are exhausted, resulting in a possible new physics claim, or no significant \Sleuth\ discrepancy remains.
692:
693:
694: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
695: % Sleuth: Sensitivity
696: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
697:
698: \begin{figure*}
699: \hspace{-2cm}
700: \begin{tabular}{cc}
701: \includegraphics[width=2.75in,angle=270]{docs/prd1/sleuthPlots_1bb1e+1mu-1pmiss} &
702: \hspace{-1cm}\includegraphics[width=2.75in,angle=270]{docs/prd1/sleuthPlots_topless_1bb1e+1mu-1pmiss} \\
703: \includegraphics[width=2.75in,angle=270]{docs/prd1/sleuthPlots_1bb1e+1jj1pmiss} &
704: \hspace{-1cm}\includegraphics[width=2.75in,angle=270]{docs/prd1/sleuthPlots_topless_1bb1e+1jj1pmiss}
705: \end{tabular}
706: \caption[$\ttbar$ Sensitivity test]{(Top left) The \Sleuth\ final state $b\bar{b}\ell^+\ell'^-\pmiss$, consisting of events with one electron and one muon of opposite sign, missing momentum, and two or three jets, one or two of which are $b$-tagged. Data corresponding to 927~pb$^{-1}$ are shown as filled circles; the Standard Model prediction is shown as the shaded histogram. (Top right) The same final state with $t\bar t$ subtracted from the Standard Model prediction. (Bottom row) The \Sleuth\ final state $Wb\bar{b}jj$, with the Standard Model $t\bar t$ contribution included (lower left) and removed (lower right). Significant discrepancies far surpassing \Sleuth's discovery threshold are observed in these final states with $t\bar{t}$ removed from the Standard Model background estimate.
707: %If the top quark had not been predicted, \Sleuth\ would have discovered it.
708: %When $t\bar t$ is removed from the Standard Model prediction, \Sleuth\ quantifies the fraction of hypothetical similar experiments that would have produced a region more interesting than the region chosen in these final states, and finds $\scriptP_{b\bar{b}\ell^+\ell'^-\pmiss}<1.5\times10^{-8}$ and $\scriptP_{Wb\bar{b}jj}<8.3\times10^{-7}$, corresponding to a value of $\twiddleScriptP$ that surpasses \Sleuth's discovery threshold of $\twiddleScriptP < 0.001$.
709: }
710: \label{fig:topless_SM_sensitivityTest}
711: \end{figure*}
712:
713: \begin{figure}
714: \centering
715: \includegraphics[width=5.2in,angle=0]{docs/prd1/tildeScriptPvsLuminosityTtbar}
716: \caption[\Sleuth's $\tildeScriptP$ as a function of assumed integrated luminosity, with $\ttbar$ removed.]{\Sleuth's $\tildeScriptP$ as a function of assumed integrated luminosity, with top quark pair production removed from the Standard Model background estimate. The horizontal axis shows integrated luminosity, in units of pb$^{-1}$. The vertical axis shows \Sleuth's $\tildeScriptP$.
717: %, representing the fraction of hypothetical similar experiments producing a region more interesting than the most interesting region observed in the data.
718: With Standard Model $t\bar{t}$ production omitted from the background estimate and actual data including $t\bar{t}$ production, \Sleuth's $\tildeScriptP$ decreases with increasing integrated luminosity, shown as the solid (green) line, crossing at roughly 80~pb$^{-1}$ the discovery threshold of $\tildeScriptP<0.001$, shown as the horizontal dashed (gray) line. The shaded (yellow) band shows the range of values of $\tildeScriptP$ obtained in a number of trials, with the width of the band resulting from the statistical fluctuations of individual top quark events.}
719: \label{fig:tildeScriptPvsLuminosityTtbar}
720: \end{figure}
721:
722: \begin{figure*}
723: \centering
724: \begin{tabular}{cc}
725: \includegraphics[width=2.3in,angle=270]{docs/prd1/VVless_sensitivity_before1} & \hspace*{0cm}
726: \includegraphics[width=2.3in,angle=270]{docs/prd1/VVless_sensitivity_after1} \\
727: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in,angle=270]{docs/prd1/VVless_sensitivity_before2} & \hspace*{0cm}
728: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in,angle=270]{docs/prd1/VVless_sensitivity_after2} \\
729: \end{tabular}
730: \caption[\Sleuth\ diboson sensitivity test.]{(Left) The final state $\ell^+{\ell'}^-\pmiss$, consisting of events with an electron and muon of opposite sign and missing transverse momentum, in 927~pb$^{-1}$ of CDF data. (Right) The same final state with Standard Model $WW$, $WZ$, and $ZZ$ contributions subtracted, and with the correction factors re-fit in the absence of these contributions. %(Lower row) The same comparison (with $VV$ included in the background estimate at left, and with $VV$ excluded from the background estimate at right) for the final state with opposite sign electrons or muons and \pmiss.
731: \Sleuth\ finds the final state $\ell^+{\ell'}^-\pmiss$ to contain a discrepancy surpassing the discovery threshold of $\tildeScriptP<0.001$ with the processes $WW$, $WZ$, and $ZZ$ removed from the Standard Model background.}
732: \label{fig:VVless_SM_sensitivityTest}
733: \end{figure*}
734:
735: \begin{table*}
736: \begin{minipage}{7in}
737: %%\input{sensitivitySummary}
738: \begin{tabular}{cp{5cm}c}
739: {\bf Model} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{{\bf Description}} & {\bf Sensitivity} \\
740: \hline
741: {1}
742: & GMSB, $\Lambda=82.6$~GeV, $\tan{\beta}=15$, $\mu>0$, with one messenger of $M=2\Lambda$.
743: & \raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{docs/prd1/comparativeSensitivity_model01}} \\
744: {2}
745: & $Z'\to \ell^+\ell^-$, $m_{Z'}=250$~GeV, with standard model couplings to leptons.
746: & \raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{docs/prd1/comparativeSensitivity_model02}} \\
747: {3}
748: & $Z' \to q\bar{q}$, $m_{Z'}=700$~GeV, with standard model couplings to quarks.
749: & \raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{docs/prd1/comparativeSensitivity_model03}} \\
750: {4}
751: & $Z'\to q\bar{q}$, $m_{Z'}=1$~TeV, with standard model couplings to quarks.
752: & \raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{docs/prd1/comparativeSensitivity_model04}} \\
753: {5}
754: & $Z'\to t\bar{t}$, $m_{Z'}=500$~GeV, with standard model couplings to $t\bar{t}$.
755: & \raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{docs/prd1/comparativeSensitivity_model11}} \\
756: \end{tabular}
757: \end{minipage}
758: \caption[Summary of \Sleuth's sensitivity to several new physics models.]{Summary of \Sleuth's sensitivity to several new physics models, expressed in terms of the minimum production cross section needed for discovery with 927~pb$^{-1}$. Where available, a comparison is made to the sensitivity of a dedicated search for this model. The solid (red) box represents \Sleuth's sensitivity, and the open (white) box represents the sensitivity of the dedicated analysis. Systematic uncertainties are not included in the sensitivity calculation. The width of each box shows typical variation under fluctuation of data statistics. In Models 3 and 4, there is no targeted analysis available for comparison. %\Sleuth\ is seen to perform comparably to the targeted analyses on models satisfying the assumptions on which \Sleuth\ is based.
759: }
760: \label{tab:sensitivitySummary}
761: \end{table*}
762:
763: \subsection{Sensitivity}
764: \label{sec:sleuthSensitivity}
765:
766: Two important questions must be asked:
767: \begin{itemize}
768: \item Will \Sleuth\ find nothing if there is nothing to be found?
769: \item Will \Sleuth\ find something if there is something to be found?
770: \end{itemize}
771:
772: If there is nothing to be found, \Sleuth\ will find nothing 999 times out of 1000, given a uniform distribution of $\twiddleScriptP$ and a discovery threshold of $\twiddleScriptP \lesssim 0.001$. The uniform distribution of $\twiddleScriptP$ in the absence of new physics is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:tildeScriptPdistribution}. \Sleuth\ will of course return spurious signals if provided improperly modeled backgrounds. The algorithm directly addresses the issue of whether an observed hint is due to a statistical fluctuation. \Sleuth\ itself is unable to address systematic mismeasurement or incorrect modeling, but is useful in bringing these to attention.
773:
774: The answer to the second question depends on the degree to which the new physics satisfies the three assumptions on which \Sleuth\ is based: new physics will appear predominantly in one final state, at high summed scalar transverse momentum, and as an excess of data over Standard Model prediction.
775: % \Sleuth's sensitivity to any particular new phenomenon depends on the extent to which this new phenomenon satisfies these assumptions.
776:
777: \subsubsection{Known Standard Model processes}
778:
779: Consideration of specific Standard Model processes can provide intuition for \Sleuth's sensitivity to new physics. This section tests \Sleuth's sensitivity to the production of top quark pairs, $W$ boson pairs, single top, and the Higgs boson.
780:
781: \paragraph{Top quark pairs.}
782: Top quark pair production results in two $b$ jets and two $W$ bosons, each of which may decay leptonically or hadronically. The $W$ branching ratios are such that this signal predominantly populates the \Sleuth\ final state $Wb\bar{b}jj$, where ``$W$'' denotes an electron or muon and significant missing momentum. Although the final states $\ell^+\ell^-\pmiss b\bar{b}$ were important in verifying the top quark pair production hypothesis in the initial observation by CDF~\cite{CDFTopDiscovery:Abe:1995hr} and \DZero~\cite{D0TopDiscovery:Abachi:1995iq} in 1995, most of the statistical power came from the final state $Wb\bar{b}jj$. The fully hadronic decay into $b\bar{b}\,4j$ has only convincingly been seen after integrating substantial Run II luminosity~\cite{TopAllHadronic:Aaltonen:2006xc}. \Sleuth's first assumption that new physics will appear predominantly in one final state is thus reasonably well satisfied. Since the top quark has a mass of $170.9\pm1.8$~GeV~\cite{TopQuarkMass:unknown:2007bx}, the production of two such objects leads to a signal at large \SumPt\ relative to the Standard Model background of $W$ bosons produced in association with jets, satisfying \Sleuth's second and third assumptions. \Sleuth\ is expected to perform reasonably well on this example.
783:
784: To quantitatively test \Sleuth's sensitivity to top quark pair production, this process is removed from the Standard Model prediction, and the correction factors are re-obtained from a global fit assuming ignorance of $t\bar{t}$ production. \Sleuth\ easily discovers $t\bar{t}$ production in 927~pb$^{-1}$ in the final states $b\bar{b}\ell^+\ell'^-\pmiss$ and $Wb\bar{b}jj$, shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:topless_SM_sensitivityTest}. \Sleuth\ finds $\scriptP_{b\bar{b}\ell^+\ell'^-\pmiss}<1.5\times10^{-8}$ and $\scriptP_{Wb\bar{b}jj}<8.3\times10^{-7}$, far surpassing the discovery threshold of $\twiddleScriptP \lesssim 0.001$.
785:
786: The test is repeated as a function of assumed integrated luminosity (Fig.~\ref{fig:tildeScriptPvsLuminosityTtbar}), and \Sleuth\ is found to highlight the top quark signal at an integrated luminosity of roughly $80\pm60$~pb$^{-1}$, where the large variation arises from statistical fluctuations in the $t\bar{t}$ signal events. Weaker constraints on the \Vista\ correction factors at lower integrated luminosity marginally increase the integrated luminosity required to claim a discovery.
787:
788: \paragraph{$W$ boson pairs.}
789:
790: The sensitivity to Standard Model $WW$ production is tested by removing this process from the Standard Model background prediction and allowing the \Vista\ correction factors to be re-fit. \highlight{In 927~pb$^{-1}$ of Tevatron Run II data, \Sleuth\ identifies an excess in the final state $\ell^+{\ell'}^-\pmiss$, consisting of an electron and muon of opposite sign and missing momentum.} This excess corresponds to $\twiddleScriptP < 2 \times 10 ^{-4}$, sufficient for the discovery of $WW$, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:VVless_SM_sensitivityTest}.
791:
792: \paragraph{Single top.}
793: %Single top quarks are produced weakly, and predominantly decay to populate the \Sleuth\ final state $Wb\bar{b}$, satisfying \Sleuth's first assumption.
794: Single top quarks are produced weakly, either through a $t$-channel process like $b u \to t d \to Wb+jet$, or through a $s$-channel, such as $u\bar{d}\to W^+ \to t \bar{b} \to Wb\bar{b}$. Both of these final states are merged into \Sleuth's $Wb\bar{b}$ final state, satisfying \Sleuth's first assumption.
795: Single top production will appear as an excess of events, satisfying \Sleuth's third assumption. \Sleuth's second assumption is not well satisfied for this example, since single top production does not lie at large \SumPt\ relative to other Standard Model processes. \Sleuth\ is thus expected to be outperformed by a targeted search in this example.
796:
797: \paragraph{Higgs boson.}
798: Assuming a Standard Model Higgs boson of mass $m_h=115$~GeV, the dominant observable production mechanism is $p\bar{p}\rightarrow Wh$ and $p\bar{p}\rightarrow Zh$, populating the final states $Wb\bar{b}$, $\ell^+\ell^- b\bar{b}$, and $\pmiss\,b\bar{b}$. The signal is thus spread over three \Sleuth\ final states. Events in the last of these ($\pmiss\,b\bar{b}$) do not pass the \Vista\ event selection, which does not use $\pmiss$ as a trigger object. \Sleuth's first assumption is thus poorly satisfied for this example.
799: The Standard Model Higgs boson signal will appear as an excess, but as in the case of single top production it does not appear at particularly large \SumPt\ relative to other Standard Model processes. Since the Standard Model Higgs boson poorly satisfies \Sleuth's first and second assumptions, a targeted search for this specific signal is expected to outperform \Sleuth.
800:
801: \subsubsection{Specific models of new physics}
802: \label{sec:SleuthSensitivity:SpecificModels}
803:
804: To build intuition for \Sleuth's sensitivity to new physics signals, several sensitivity tests are conducted for a variety of new physics possibilities. Some of the new physics models chosen have already been considered by more specialized analyses within CDF, making possible a comparison between \Sleuth's sensitivity and the sensitivity of these previous analyses.
805:
806: \Sleuth's sensitivity can be compared to that of a dedicated search by determining the minimum new physics cross section $\sigma_\text{min}$ required for a discovery by each. The discovery for \Sleuth\ occurs when $\tildeScriptP < 0.001$. \highlight{In most \Sleuth\ regions satisfying the discovery threshold of $\tildeScriptP < 0.001$, the probability for the predicted number of events to fluctuate up to or above the number of events observed corresponds to greater than $5\sigma$.} The discovery for the dedicated search occurs when the observed excess of data corresponds to a $5\sigma$ effect. Smaller $\sigma_\text{min}$ corresponds to greater sensitivity.
807:
808: The sensitivity tests are performed by first generating pseudo data from the Standard Model background prediction. Signal events for the new physics model are generated, passed through the chain of CDF detector simulation and event reconstruction, and consecutively added to the pseudo data until \Sleuth\ finds $\tildeScriptP<0.001$. The number of signal events needed to trigger discovery is used to calculate $\sigma_\text{min}$.
809:
810: For each dedicated analysis to which \Sleuth\ is compared, the number of Standard Model events expected in 927~pb$^{-1}$ within the region targeted is used to calculate the number of signal events required in that region to produce a discrepancy corresponding to $5\sigma$. Using the signal efficiency determined in the dedicated analysis, $\sigma_\text{min}$ is calculated. The effect of systematic uncertainties is not included in \Sleuth, so it is also removed from the dedicated analyses.
811: %The inclusion of systematic uncertainties will reduce the sensitivity of both \Sleuth\ and the dedicated analysis to the extent that the systematic parameters are allowed to vary. \Vista\ and \Sleuth\ have the advantage of using a large data set to constrain them.
812:
813: The results of five such sensitivity tests are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:sensitivitySummary}. \Sleuth\ is seen to perform comparably to targeted analyses on models satisfying the assumptions on which \Sleuth\ is based. For models in which \Sleuth's simple use of $\SumPt$ can be improved upon by optimizing for a specific feature, a targeted search may be expected to achieve greater sensitivity. One of the important features of \Sleuth\ is that it not only performs reasonably well, but that it does so broadly. In Model 1, a search for a particular model point in a gauge mediated supersymmetry breaking (GMSB) scenario, \Sleuth\ gains an advantage by exploiting a final state not considered in the targeted analysis~\cite{Acosta:2004sb}. In Model 2, a search for a $Z'$ decaying to lepton pairs, the targeted analysis~\cite{SamHarper:Abulencia:2006iv} exploits the narrow resonance in the $e^+e^-$ invariant mass. In Models 3 and 4, which are searches for a hadronically decaying $Z'$ of different masses, there is no targeted analysis against which to compare. In Model 5, a search for a $Z'\to t\bar{t}$ resonance, the signal appears at large summed scalar transverse momentum in a particular final state, resulting in comparable sensitivity between \Sleuth\ and the targeted analysis~\cite{JacoZprimettbar2}.
814:
815: \begin{figure}
816: \centering
817: \begin{tabular}{c}
818: %\includegraphics[width=2.1in,angle=270]{docs/prd1/scriptPsPlots_1} \\
819: \includegraphics[width=2.5in,angle=270]{docs/prd1/scriptPs_expected_observed_analytic3_cutOutOnes} \\
820: \end{tabular}
821: \caption[Distribution of \scriptP.]{
822: % This is the misleading initial caption:
823: %The distribution of \scriptP\ in the data, with one entry for each final state considered by \Sleuth.
824: {\em Blue points:} The \scriptP\ distribution observed in 927~pb$^{-1}$, with one entry for each of the 72 \Sleuth\ final states with at least 3 data. There are 131 \Sleuth\ final states with non-zero background and less than 3 data, which are assigned $\scriptP=1$.
825: %the following is to explain the non-uniformity, if we show scriptPs_expected_observed_analytic3_cutOutOnes:
826: {\em Black histogram:} The expected \scriptP\ distribution from all 203 \Sleuth\ final states with non-zero background, if instead of actual data we use pseudo-data pulled from the expected \sumPt\ distribution of each final state, and omit the final states where pseudo-data are less than 3 and therefore have $\scriptP=1$. As explained in Sec.~\ref{sec:Sleuth:Regions}, footnote~\ref{footnote:scriptPdistribution}, the \scriptP\ of final states with expected population $\lesssim 10$ is not uniformly distributed. Of the 203 final states \Sleuth\ considers in 927~pb$^{-1}$, 150 have Standard Model background of less than 10 events, which causes the expected \scriptP\ distribution to slightly favor smaller values.
827: }
828: \label{fig:scriptPsPlots}
829: \end{figure}
830:
831: \begin{figure*}
832: \centering
833: \begin{tabular}{cc}
834: \includegraphics[width=2.2in,angle=270]{docs/prd1/sleuthPlots_1} &
835: \includegraphics[width=2.2in,angle=270]{docs/prd1/sleuthPlots_2} \\
836: \includegraphics[width=2.2in,angle=270]{docs/prd1/sleuthPlots_3} &
837: \includegraphics[width=2.2in,angle=270]{docs/prd1/sleuthPlots_4} \\
838: \includegraphics[width=2.2in,angle=270]{docs/prd1/sleuthPlots_5} &
839: \includegraphics[width=2.2in,angle=270]{docs/prd1/sleuthPlots_6} \\
840: \end{tabular}
841: \caption[The most interesting final states identified by \Sleuth.]{The most interesting final states identified by \Sleuth. The region chosen by \Sleuth, extending up to infinity, is shown by the (blue) arrow just below the horizontal axis. Data are shown as filled circles, and the Standard Model prediction is shown as the shaded histogram. The \Sleuth\ final state is labeled in the upper left corner of each panel, with $\ell$ denoting $e$ or $\mu$, and $\ell^+\ell'^+$ denoting an electron and muon with the same electric charge. The number at upper right in each panel shows \scriptP, defined in Sec.~\ref{sec:Sleuth:Regions}. The inset in each panel shows an enlargement of the region selected by \Sleuth, together with the number of events (${\text{SM}}$) predicted by the Standard Model in this region, and the number of data events ($d$) observed in this region.
842: \label{fig:SleuthPlots}}
843: \end{figure*}
844:
845:
846:
847: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
848: % Sleuth: Results
849: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
850:
851: \subsection{Results}
852: \label{sec:Sleuth:Results}
853:
854: The distribution of \scriptP\ for the final states considered by \Sleuth\ in the data is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:scriptPsPlots}. The concavity of this distribution reflects the degree to which the correction model described in Sec.~\ref{sec:Vista:CorrectionModel} has been tuned. A crude correction model tends to produce a distribution that is concave upwards, as seen in this figure, while an overly tuned correction model produces a distribution that is concave downwards, with more final states than expected having $\scriptP$ near the midpoint of the unit interval.
855:
856: The most interesting final states identified by \Sleuth\ are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:SleuthPlots}, together with a quantitative measure (\scriptP) of the interest of the most interesting region in each final state, determined as described in Sec.~\ref{sec:Sleuth:Regions}. The legends of Fig.~\ref{fig:SleuthPlots} show the primary contributing Standard Model processes in each of these final states, together with the fractional contribution of each. The top six final states, which correspond to entries in the leftmost bin in Fig.~\ref{fig:scriptPsPlots}. span a range of populations, relevant physics objects, and important background contributions. This picture is suggestive of statistical fluctuations, spread among unrelated final states.
857:
858: The final state $b\bar{b}$, consisting of two or three reconstructed jets, one or two of which are $b$-tagged, heads the list. These events enter the analysis by satisfying the \Vista\ offline selection requiring one or more jets or $b$-jets with $p_T>200$~GeV. The definition of \Sleuth's \SumPt\ variable is such that all events in this final state consequently have $\SumPt>400$~GeV. \Sleuth\ chooses the region $\SumPt>469$~GeV, which includes nearly $10^4$ data events. \highlight{The Standard Model prediction in this region is sensitive to the $b$-tagging efficiency $\poo{b}{b}$ and the fake rate $\poo{j}{b}$, which have few strong constraints on their values for jets with $p_T>200$~GeV other than those imposed by other \Vista\ kinematic distributions within this and a few other related final states.} For this region \Sleuth\ finds $\scriptP_{b\bar{b}}=0.0055$, which is unfortunately not statistically significant after accounting for the trials factor associated with looking in many different final states, as discussed below.
859:
860: The final state $j\pmiss$, consisting of events with one reconstructed jet and significant missing transverse momentum, is the second final state identified by \Sleuth. The primary background is due to non-collision processes, including cosmic rays and beam halo backgrounds, whose estimation is discussed in Appendix~\ref{sec:CorrectionModelDetails:CosmicRays}. Since the hadronic energy is not required to be deposited in time with the beam crossing, \Sleuth's analysis of this final state is sensitive to particles with a lifetime between 1~ns and 1~$\mu$s that lodge temporarily in the hadronic calorimeter, complementing Ref.~\cite{Hugo:Abulencia:2006kk}.
861:
862: The final states $\ell^+ {\ell'}^{+} \pmiss jj$, $\ell^+ {\ell'}^{+} \pmiss$, and $\ell^+ {\ell'}^{+}$ all contain an electron ($\ell$) and muon ($\ell'$) with identical reconstructed charge (either both positive or both negative). The final states with and without missing transverse momentum are qualitatively different in terms of the Standard Model processes contributing to the background estimate, with the final state $\ell^+ {\ell'}^{-}$ composed mostly of dijets where one jet is misreconstructed as an electron and a second jet is misreconstructed as a muon; $Z\rightarrow \tau^+\tau^-$, where one tau decays to a muon and the other to a leading $\pi^0$, one of the two photons from which converts while traveling through the silicon support structure to result in an electron reconstructed with the same sign as the muon, as described in Appendix~\ref{sec:MisidentificationMatrix}; and $Z\rightarrow\mu^+\mu^-$, in which a photon is produced, converts, and is misreconstructed as an electron. The final states containing missing transverse momentum are dominated by the production of $W(\rightarrow\mu\nu)$ in association with one or more jets, with one of the jets misreconstructed as an electron. The muon is significantly more likely than the electron to have been produced in the hard interaction, since the fake rate $\poo{j}{\mu}$ is roughly an order of magnitude smaller than the fake rate $\poo{j}{e}$, as observed in Table~\ref{tbl:CorrectionFactorDescriptionValuesSigmas}. The final state $\ell^+ {\ell'}^{-} \pmiss jj$, which contains two or three reconstructed jets in addition to the electron, muon, and missing transverse momentum, also has some contribution from $WZ$ and top quark pair production.
863:
864: The final state $\tau\pmiss$ contains one reconstructed tau, significant missing transverse momentum, and one reconstructed jet with $p_T>200$~GeV. This final state in principle also contains events with one reconstructed tau, significant missing transverse momentum, and zero reconstructed jets, but such events do not satisfy the offline selection criteria described in Sec.~\ref{sec:Vista:OfflineTrigger}. Roughly half of the background is non-collision, in which two different cosmic ray muons (presumably from the same cosmic ray shower) leave two distinct energy deposits in the CDF hadronic calorimeter, one with $p_T>200$~GeV, and one with a single associated track from a $p\bar{p}$ collision occurring during the same bunch crossing. Less than a single event is predicted from this non-collision source (using techniques described in Appendix~\ref{sec:CorrectionModelDetails:CosmicRays}) over the past five years of Tevatron running.
865:
866: In these CDF data, \Sleuth\ finds $\twiddleScriptP = 0.46$. The fraction of hypothetical similar CDF experiments (assuming a fixed Standard Model prediction, detector simulation, and correction model) that would exhibit a final state with \scriptP\ smaller than the smallest \scriptP\ observed in the CDF Run II data is approximately 46\%. The actual value obtained for $\tildeScriptP$ is not of particular interest, except to note that this value is significantly greater than the threshold of $\lesssim 0.001$ required to claim an effect of statistical significance. \Sleuth\ has not revealed a discrepancy of sufficient statistical significance to justify a new physics claim.\footnote{The alternative statistic, \tildePval, was found to be 22\%. The region with the smallest \pval\ is in the final state $b\bar{b}$, which also has the smallest \scriptP. Therefore, the most interesting region pointed by both statistics is the same: $\sumPt \ge 469$ in $b\bar{b}$.}
867: %in 2007-07/TildeScriptPalaPval/
868: %###############START##############
869: %finalState = 1bb
870: %pvalmin_min = 0.000114473
871: %tildePval = 0.215541
872: %##############END#################
873:
874:
875: Systematics are incorporated into \Sleuth\ in the form of the flexibility in the \Vista\ correction model, as described previously. This flexibility is significantly more important in practice than the uncertainties on particular correction factor values obtained from the fit.
876: %, although the latter are easier to discuss.
877: %The relative importance of correction factor value uncertainties on \Sleuth's result depends on the number of predicted Standard Model events ($b$) in \Sleuth's high \SumPt\ tail. The uncertainties on the correction factors of Table~\ref{tbl:CorrectionFactorDescriptionValuesSigmas} are such that the appropriate addition in quadrature gives a typical uncertainty of $\approx 10\%$ on the total background prediction in each final state. Using $\sigma_{\text{sys}}\approx 10\% \times b$ and $\sigma_{\text{stat}}\approx \sqrt{b}$, the relative importance of systematic uncertainty and statistical uncertainty is estimated to be $\sigma_{\text{sys}}/\sigma_{\text{stat}}=10\% \times b/\sqrt{b}$. The importance of systematic and statistical uncertainties are thus comparable for high \SumPt\ tails containing $b\sim 100$ predicted events. The effect of systematic uncertainties is provided in this approximation rather than through a rigorous integration over these uncertainties as nuisance parameters due to the high computational cost of performing the integration. This estimate of systematic uncertainty is valid only within the particular correction model resulting in the list of correction factors shown in Table~\ref{tbl:CorrectionFactorDescriptionValuesSigmas}; additional changes to the correction model may result in larger variation.
878: %The inclusion of additional systematic uncertainties does not qualitatively change the conclusion that \Sleuth\ has not revealed a discrepancy of sufficient statistical significance to justify a new physics claim.
879: The inclusion of additional systematic uncertainties would not qualitatively change the conclusion that \Sleuth\ has not revealed a discrepancy of sufficient statistical significance to justify a new physics claim.
880:
881: %Due to the large number of final states considered, there are regions (such as those shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:SleuthPlots}) in which the probability for the Standard Model prediction to fluctuate up to or above the number of events observed in the data corresponds to a significance exceeding $3\sigma$ if the appropriate trials factor is not accounted for. A doubling of data may therefore result in discovery. In particular, although the excesses in Fig.~\ref{fig:SleuthPlots} are currently consistent with simple statistical fluctuations, if any of them are genuinely due to new physics, \Sleuth\ will find they pass the discovery threshold of $\twiddleScriptP<0.001$ with roughly a doubling of data.
882:
883: Starting from the current result of \Sleuth\ in 927~pb$^{-1}$, a projection (Fig.~\ref{fig:tildeScriptPvsLuminosity}) shows that, if the dataset roughly doubles and nothing changes in the Standard Model implementation, then \tildeScriptP\ will likely be smaller than discovery threshold. This implies that, either we are on the verge of a discovery that will happen with more data, or a doubling of data will likely enforce some more accurate modeling of Standard Model backgrounds, which will possibly increase \tildeScriptP\ away from its predicted small value. This clue was the main motivation to repeat and improve this search with more data, as will be described in a later chapter.
884:
885:
886: \begin{figure}
887: \centering
888: \includegraphics[width=4in,angle=0]{figures/analysis/tildeScriptPvsLuminosity}
889: \caption[Projection of \tildeScriptP\ towards lower and higher luminosities.]{Projection of \tildeScriptP\ towards lower and higher luminosities, starting from 927~pb$^{-1}$. Values were obtained by scaling down or up both data and backgrounds. The yellow band reflects uncertainty due to randomness in which of the present data events would have appeared in less data, or would recur in more. The Standard Model implementation is assumed invariant in all except total populations.}
890: \label{fig:tildeScriptPvsLuminosity}
891: \end{figure}
892:
893:
894: \section{Summary of first round with 1~fb$^{-1}$}
895: \label{sec:Conclusions}
896:
897: In the first round of this analysis, with 927~pb$^{-1}$, a complete Standard Model background estimate has been obtained and compared with data in 344 populated exclusive final states and 16,486 relevant kinematic distributions. Consideration of exclusive final state populations yields no statistically significant ($>3\sigma$) discrepancy after the trials factor is accounted for. Quantifying the difference in shape of kinematic distributions using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic, significant discrepancies are observed between data and Standard Model prediction. These discrepancies are believed to arise from mismodeling of the parton shower and intrinsic $k_T$, and represent observables for which a QCD-based understanding is highly motivated. None of the shape discrepancies highlighted motivates a new physics claim.
898:
899: A further systematic search (\Sleuth) for regions of excess on the high-$\SumPt$ tails of exclusive final states has been performed, representing a quasi-model-independent search for new electroweak scale physics. A measure of interest rigorously accounting for the trials factor associated with looking in many regions with few events is defined, and used to quantify the most interesting region observed in the CDF Run II data. No region of excess on the high-$\SumPt$ tail of any of the \Sleuth\ exclusive final states surpasses the discovery threshold.
900:
901: %Most targeted searches for new physics ultimately end up focusing on a single distribution in a single final state. Roughly $10^2$ such analyses have been performed so far in Tevatron Run II. Lacking a compelling reason to prefer any of roughly $10^4$ kinematic distributions in which new physics could appear to any other, the sensitivity of a search to surprising new physics grows roughly proportionally to the number of such distributions explicitly considered. This global search thus increases CDF's sensitivity to surprising new physics by roughly a factor of $10^2$ compared to all searches preformed so far at Tevatron Run II.
902:
903: Although this result of course can not prove that no new physics is hiding in the studied data, this search is the most encompassing test of the Standard Model at the energy frontier.
904:
905:
906:
907:
908: \cdfSpecific{
909:
910: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% OLD ATTEMPT %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
911: \memo{OLD ATTEMPT}
912: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
913: %% In 2 fb^-1 we don't cut on online triggers.
914: %% \section{Online Triggers}
915:
916: %% As mentioned in Section \ref{sec:CDFdetector}, each event may pass several online triggers. It is necessary to decide which online triggers are useful to this analysis.
917:
918: %% Generally, new physics is expected in the high-$p_T$ region, as result of the presence of some EWK scale new resonance. In hadron colliders the dominant collision product is high-$p_T$ hadronic jets. They are present in most events and are responsible for most fakes\index{fakes}\footnote{That means that if an object has been accidentally misidentified as a lepton or photon or \pmiss, it most likely was initially a quark or gluon. Even though the absolute probability of this happening is not big, the large production rate of jets makes the effect significant.}. Therefore, jets are indispensable, not only because their anomalous production may signify new physics, but also because through their faking mechanisms they influence rarer final states. So, triggers dedicated to jets\index{trigger!jets} are used: One ({\tt jet20}) selecting events with a jet of $p_T>20$~GeV and one ({\tt jet100}) selecting events with a jet of $p_T>100$~GeV.
919:
920: %% After jets, photons are the second most abundant object produced, either directly or by bremsstrahlung. They often fake electrons, mostly by conversion\index{conversion} in the silicon detector, and may couple to new electrically charged particles. Including them to the analysis through trigger {\tt photon\_25\_iso} that keeps events with an isolated photon\index{trigger!photon} of $p_T>25$~GeV is important.
921:
922: %% In contrast with jets, high-$p_T$ leptons --- especially electrons and muons that do not decay hadronically --- provide very clean signatures, carry electric charge of easy-to-measure sign, their energy and momentum are measured quiet precisely, and in the Standard Model they are produced in EWK processes that are very well described perturbatively. Therefore they are sensitive probes to new physics. There are four online triggers selecting events with leptons\index{trigger!lepton} that contribute to this analysis\footnote{{\tt electron\_central\_18}, {\tt muon\_central\_18}, {\tt SUSY\_dilepton} and {\tt ditau}.}.
923:
924:
925:
926:
927:
928:
929:
930:
931: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
932: \section{MC Production and Detector Simulation}
933: %Samples, generator used, matching prescription. Populations generated policy. How many have we generated roughly?
934:
935: %cat sumWeight.txt | awk 'a=a+$(NF-1) {print $(NF-1)"\t "a}'
936: %3630352 %1fb^-1
937: %wc -l ~highpt/cvs/current/Vista_cdf/files/mc/[2-5]/*.txt
938: %35736254 %1fb^-1
939: %44540157 %2fb^-1
940: About $4.5\times10^{7}$ MC events of different weights compose the Standard Model background. The weight\index{weight!uncorrected} of each MC event before the implementation of the correction model is equal to $\sigma_{{\rm proc}}(1{\rm pb}^{-1})/N_{{\rm MC}}$, where $\sigma_{{\rm proc}}$ is the cross section of the process and $N_{{\rm MC}}$ the population of events generated.
941: %The high \sumPt\ tails are populated with more MC events to achieve lower statistical uncertainty in regions where new physics may appear and \Sleuth\ investigates.
942: %Roughly ten times more events are generated in the tail containing the top 10\%, and one hundred times more are devoted to the region with the top 1\% of highest \sumPt\ events.
943:
944: The MC event generators used for the production of these events are \Pythia~\cite{Pythia}, \MadEvent~\cite{MadEvent}, \Alpgen~\cite{ALPGEN}, and \Herwig~\cite{Herwig}. \MadEvent\ and \Alpgen\ perform an exact leading order matrix element calculation, and provide 4-vector information corresponding to the outgoing legs of the underlying Feynman diagrams, together with color flow information. \Pythia\ 6.218 is used to handle showering and fragmentation. The CTEQ5L~\cite{CTEQ5L} parton distribution functions are used.
945:
946: All MC events must pass through \CdfSim, which costs about 10 seconds per event. Certain MC samples that the Collaboration has already generated and passed through \CdfSim\ are used. These samples include:
947: \begin{itemize}
948: \item QCD jets: QCD dijet and multijet production are estimated using \Pythia. Samples are generated with Tune A~\cite{RickFieldPythiaTunes} with lower cuts on $\hat{p}_T$, the transverse momentum of the scattered partons in the center of momentum frame of the incoming partons, of 0, 10, 18, 40, 60, 90, 120, 150, 200, 300, and 400~GeV. These samples are combined to provide a complete estimation of QCD jet production, using the sample with greatest statistics in each range of $\hat{p}_T$.
949: \item $\gamma$+jets: The estimation of QCD single prompt photon production comes from \Pythia. Five samples are generated with Tune A corresponding to lower cuts on $\hat{p}_T$ of 8, 12, 22, 45, and 80~GeV. These samples are combined to provide a complete estimation of single prompt photon production in association with one or more jets, placing cuts on $\hat{p}_T$ to avoid double counting.
950: \item $\gamma\gamma$+jets: QCD diphoton production is estimated using \Pythia.
951: \item $V$+jets: The estimation of $V$+jets processes (with $V$ denoting $W$ or $Z$), where the $W$ or $Z$ decays to first or second generation leptons, comes from \Alpgen, with \Pythia\ employed for showering. Tune AW~\cite{RickFieldPythiaTunes} is used within \Pythia\ for these samples.
952: \item $VV$+jets: The estimation of $WW$, $WZ$, and $ZZ$ production with zero or more jets comes from \Pythia.
953: \item $V\gamma$+jets: The estimation of $W\gamma$ and $Z\gamma$ production comes from \MadEvent, with showering provided by \Pythia. These samples are inclusive in the number of jets.
954: \item $W\rightarrow\tau\nu$ and $Z\rightarrow\tau\tau$ with zero or more jets come from \Pythia.
955: \item $t\bar{t}$: Top quark pair production is estimated using \Herwig, assuming a top quark of mass 175~GeV and NNLO theoretical cross section $6.77\pm 0.42$~pb~\cite{Kidonakis:2003qe}.
956: \end{itemize}
957:
958: Backgrounds from cosmic rays or beam halo that interacts with the hadronic or electromagnetic calorimeter, producing objects that look like a photon or jet, are estimated using a sample of data events containing fewer than three reconstructed tracks. This procedure is described in more detail in Sec.~\ref{sec:CosmicRays}.
959:
960: In each bunch crossing it can happen to have multiple $p\bar{p}$ collisions, appart from the one(s) that produce high-$p_T$ objects that make the event interesting. This experimental complication needs to be modelled. Minimum bias events\footnote{Minimum bias events can mean different things in different contexts. Here, they are the kind of events we would be typically recording if we didn't have to impose online selection, but instead recorded all events produced. Minimum bias events consist of low-$p_T$ jets.} are overlaid according to run-dependent instantaneous luminosity in some of the Monte Carlo samples, including those used for inclusive $W$ and $Z$ production. In MC samples not containing overlaid minimum bias events, additional unclustered momentum is added to events to mimic the effect of the majority of multiple interactions, in which a soft dijet event accompanies the rare hard scattering of interest. A random number is drawn from a Gaussian with mean 0 and standard deviation 1.5 GeV for each of the $x$ and $y$ components of the added unclustered momentum.
961:
962: Small backgrounds due to two rare hard scatterings occurring in the same bunch crossing are estimated by forming overlaps of events, as described in Appendix~\ref{sec:Overlaps}.
963:
964:
965: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
966: \section{Object Identification}
967: %\memo{Object ID for each kind of object and some justification.}
968:
969: In \Stntuple\ format each event contains blocks\index{Stntuple@\Stntuple!blocks} of information. These blocks contain candidate electrons, muons, jets etc., and additional information such as reconstructed tracks, secondary decay vertices, multiple interaction vertices etc. One needs to loop through these blocks and keep any candidates that pass quality cuts. A qualitative description of object ID criteria is given here, while exact criteria are listed in Appendix~\ref{sec:objectID}.
970:
971: \paragraph{Central electrons} Energy deposited in the CEM and one associated COT track. The CHA energy is required to be much less than the CEM in the same tower, to distinguish from charged hadrons. The EM shower profile at the CES is required to be consistent with that of an electron. Isolation\footnote{The calorimetric energy around a track.} has to be less than an upper limit, to reduce the influence from electrons that are produced inside jets\footnote{Or in processes such as $q\xrightarrow{\rm hadr.}\pi^0\to\gamma\gamma\to e^+e^-\gamma \to$ reconstructed $e^\pm$ if one of the two electrons is missed and the other is near the photon in the calorimeter.}.
972: \paragraph{Plug electrons} Similar to central electrons, except that the Phoenix algorithm\cite{phoenixElectrons} is required to have reconstructed a track associated with the PEM tower, and PES is used instead of CES.
973: \paragraph{Central photons} Similar to central electron, but the CEM tower must have no tracks of significant $p_T$ around it, or if there is one track near it it is required to be very soft. The CES EM shower profile is required to be consistent with photon.
974: \paragraph{Plug photons} Similar to central photon, but using PEM and PES.
975: \paragraph{Muons} A COT track is required, with upper cuts in the impact parameter ($d_0$) and in the track reconstruction $\chi^2$ to eliminate ``kinks'' resulting presumably from $\pi^\pm \rightarrow \mu^\pm\nu$. The calorimetric energy is required to be small, consistent with a MIP. Upper cut in isolation is applied to avoid muons produced within jets, mostly as $q\xrightarrow{\rm hadr.}\pi^\pm\to\mu^\pm\nu$. Hits aligned with the extrapolated track are required in the muon system. For muons of $\abs{\eta}<0.6$, hits are required both in CMU and CMP, hence the characterization ``CMUP'' for passing muons. CMX is used for muons of $0.6<\abs{\eta}<1.0$ and BMU for $1.0<\abs{\eta}<1.5$.
976: \paragraph{Central taus} Only one-prong taus are identified, to keep the object identification and fakes modeling simple and uniform across the three lepton generations. Narrow central jets with a single charged track are identified as taus. Electrons are discriminated against by requiring substantial fraction of the energy in the CHA; muons are vetoed by requiring to have no muon stub coinciding with the extrapolated track. Track and calorimeter isolation requirements are imposed.
977: \paragraph{$b$-jets} The identification of a jet originating from a $b$ quark is made using the SecVtx algorithm\cite{SecVtx}, which identifies the displaced secondary vertex\index{vertex!secondary} from the decay of the formed $B$ meson.
978: \paragraph{jets} Hadronic jets are reconstructed in $\abs{\eta}<2.5$ using calorimeter information with the JetClu clustering algorithm\cite{JetClu:Abe:1991ui}, using $\Delta R<0.4$.%, unless jet $p_T>200$~GeV, when $\Delta R<0.7$ is used, to ensure all of the energy is taken into account.
979:
980: %Why this 0.7? Bruce's answer:
981: %Good question (hence including the list for reference purposes). For events with high-pT jets only, we obtain a more accurate measurement of the jet energies using a larger cone. (We first check each event to see whether it contains a lepton or photon, and if so, we want to use smaller cones in order to pick out these objects.) Secondary considerations include wanting to be able to compare the Vista [2-4] j_sumPt400+ final states to QCD analyses (almost all of which use cones of 0.7 or 1.0) and wanting to eventually cluster the jets into at most 4 jets per event, so as not to have to argue about how well Pythia models 5 or more high-pT jets.
982:
983: %JETCLU details: Every tower with E_T>1GeV is a seed. Pre-clusters are formed by clustering together seeds that are adjacent and within a R radius. Each Pre-cluster is extended into a cluster by adding all towers of E_T>0.1GeV that are withing a radius R from the ET-weighted eta-phi center of the cluster... as more small towers are added, the center is recalculated and that is repeated until the cluster doesn't change any more. That causes ratcheting, which means that the cluster may scan long regions that will all eventually be kept withing the cluster. Finally, if a cluster has more than 75% of its energy within an another cluster it gets merged. Otherwise, they are kept separate and the common towers go with the cluster that has its center closest to each.
984: \paragraph{Missing energy} The negative vector sum of the transverse momentum is used to calculate \pmissvector, as described in Sec.~\ref{sec:pmiss}.
985:
986:
987:
988: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
989: \section{Event Selection Cuts}
990: %\memo{Idea, List criteria, clean-up cuts. (Full status report talk)}
991:
992: Selection criteria are imposed to keep potentially interesting events. Effort is made to keep high-$p_T$ events of as many final states as possible, with the requirement that they have at least one high-$pT$ object or specific combinations of objects. Offline selection $p_T$ thresholds are safely higher than the turn-on region of online triggers, so that trigger efficiencies can be treated as roughly independent of object $p_T$.
993:
994: Specifically, events enter the analysis if they have any of the following:
995: %from prd2:
996: \begin{itemize}
997: \item a central $e$ of $p_T>25$~GeV
998: \item a plug $e$ of $p_T>40$~GeV
999: \item a central $\mu$ of $p_T>25$~GeV
1000: \item a central $\gamma$ of $p_T>60$~GeV, or
1001: %\item a central plug $\gamma$ of $p_T>300$~GeV, or %I don't see what that is taken from
1002: \item a central jet (regular or $b$-tagged) of $p_T>200$~GeV, or
1003: \item a central $b$-tagged jet of $p_T>60$~GeV (prescaled like the online trigger), or
1004: \item a central jet or $b$-tagged jet of $p_T>40$~GeV (prescaled to one tenth of the online trigger prescale).
1005:
1006: %Di-object selections keep events containing
1007:
1008: \item one $e$ plus another electromagnetic object ($e$ or $\gamma$) of $\abs{\eta}<2.5$ and $p_T>25$~GeV, or
1009: \memo{bookmark}
1010: \item a central or plug electron with $p_T>40$~GeV and a central tau with $p_T>17$~GeV, or
1011: \item a central muon with $p_T>17$~GeV and a central or plug photon with $p_T>25$~GeV, or
1012: \item a central muon with $p_T>25$~GeV and a central $b$-tagged jet with $p_T>17$~GeV, or
1013: \item two taus with $\abs{\eta}<1.0$ and $p_T>25$~GeV, or
1014: \item a central or plug photon with $p_T>40$~GeV and a central tau with $p_T>40$~GeV, or
1015: \item one central photon with $p_T>25$~GeV and one other central or plug photon with $p_T>25$~GeV, or
1016: \item a central photon with $p_T>40$~GeV and a central $b$-tagged jet with $p_T>25$~GeV, or\item a central jet or $b$-tagged jet with $p_T>40$~GeV and a central tau with $p_T>17$~GeV (prescaled by the online jet20 trigger), or
1017: \item a central jet with $p_T>60$~GeV and a central $b$-tagged jet with $p_T>25$~GeV (prescaled by the online jet20 trigger), or
1018: \item two central muons with $p_T>17$~GeV, or
1019: \item one central electron and one central muon with $p_T>17$~GeV, or
1020: \item one central electron with $p_T>20$~GeV and one central tau with $p_T>17$~GeV, or
1021: \item one plug electron with $p_T>25$~GeV and one central muon with $p_T>17$~GeV, or
1022: \item one central muon with $p_T>20$~GeV and one central tau with $p_T>17$~GeV.
1023: \end{itemize}
1024: Tri-object selections keep events containing
1025: \begin{itemize}
1026: \item a central or plug photon with $p_T>40$~GeV and two central taus with $p_T>17$~GeV, or
1027: \item a central or plug photon with $p_T>40$~GeV and two central $b$-tagged jets with $p_T>25$~GeV, or
1028: \item a central or plug photon with $p_T>40$~GeV, a central tau with $p_T>25$~GeV, and a central $b$-tagged jet with $p_T>25$~GeV.
1029: \item one $b$-tagged jet with $p_T>90$~GeV and two other $b$-tagged jets with $p_T>60$~GeV
1030: \item one central muon with $p_T>17$~GeV and two other central or plug muons with $p_T>17$~GeV.
1031: \end{itemize}
1032: Additional special selections keep events containing
1033: \begin{itemize}
1034: \item one central or plug electron with $p_T>40$~GeV, missing transverse momentum greater than $17$~GeV, and two or more jets or central $b$-tagged jets with $p_T>17$~GeV, or
1035: \item one central muon with $p_T>25$~GeV, missing transverse momentum greater than $17$~GeV, and two or more jets or central $b$-tagged jets with $p_T>17$~GeV.
1036: \end{itemize}
1037: %from prd1:
1038: %% \begin{itemize}
1039: %% \item{a central electron with $p_T>25$~GeV}
1040: %% \item{a plug electron with $p_T>40$~GeV}
1041: %% \item{a central muon with $p_T>25$~GeV}
1042: %% \item{a central photon with $p_T>60$~GeV}
1043: %% %\item{a central plug photon with $p_T>300$~GeV}
1044: %% \item{a central jet or $b$-tagged jet with $p_T>200$~GeV}
1045: %% \item{a central jet or $b$-tagged jet with $p_T>40$~GeV (prescaled)}
1046: %% \item{two electromagnetic objects (electron or photon) with $\abs{\eta}<2.5$ and $p_T>25$~GeV}
1047: %% \item{two taus with $\abs{\eta}<1.0$ and $p_T>17$~GeV}
1048: %% \item{a central photon with $p_T>40$~GeV and a central electron or muon with $p_T>17$~GeV}
1049: %% \item{a central or plug photon with $p_T>40$~GeV and a central tau with $p_T>40$~GeV}
1050: %% \item{a central electron or muon with $p_T>17$~GeV and a central or plug electron, central muon central tau with $p_T>17$~GeV}
1051: %% \item{a central photon with $p_T>40$~GeV and a central $b$-jet with $p_T>25$~GeV}
1052: %% \item{a central jet or $b$-tagged jet with $p_T>40$~GeV and a central tau with $p_T>17$~GeV (prescaled)}
1053: %% \item{a central or plug photon with $p_T>40$~GeV and two central taus with $p_T>17$~GeV}
1054: %% \item{a central or plug photon with $p_T>40$~GeV and two central $b$-tagged jets with $p_T>25$~GeV}
1055: %% \item{a central or plug photon with $p_T>40$~GeV, a central tau with $p_T>25$~GeV, and a central $b$-tagged jet with $p_T>25$~GeV.}
1056: %% \end{itemize}
1057:
1058: After the above selection cuts, some further clean-up cuts are imposed:
1059: \begin{itemize}
1060: \item{Duplicate events making it into more than one datasets are removed, so that only one instance of each event is kept.}
1061: \item{Events are kept only from periods when all subdetectors are active.}
1062: \item{Remove cosmic ray events by requiring at least one primary vertex and 3 tracks above 500~MeV.}
1063: \item{Remove beam halo events, in the same way cosmics are removed, but by also exploiting geometric characteristics particular to beam halo events \cite{beamHaloCuts}.}
1064: \end{itemize}
1065:
1066: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1067: \section{Event Partitioning}
1068: \label{sec:Partitioning}
1069: %\memo{Any partitioning would be legitimate, but we want to be sensitive, physically well-motivated. Vista uses this, sleuth uses that......}
1070:
1071: Partition rules can be arbitrary; as long as both data and Standard Model background are partitioned alike, their comparison is legitimate. However, the partition rule influences the sensitivity to specific signatures. If one has a specific signature in mind, he tries to define a partition into bins that accumulate as much signal and less background as possible. In this anlysis, though, no specific signature is targeted, therefore the partition rule is chosen as generic and model-independent as possible.
1072:
1073: Two different --- but related --- partition rules are applied, one before the \Vista\ comparison and one before the \Sleuth\ search.
1074:
1075: \subsection{\Vista\ Partition Rule}
1076: \label{sec:vistaPartitionRule}
1077:
1078: \begin{figure}
1079: \centering
1080: \includegraphics[width=7cm,angle=0]{figures/analysis/VistaPartitioningGraphic}
1081: \caption{\Vista\ partitioning in final states.}
1082: \label{fig:VistaPartitioning}
1083: \end{figure}
1084:
1085: For \Vista, the events are partitioned according to their reconstructed final objects. The idea is depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:VistaPartitioning}. Each final state is exclusive and each event can belong to one and only one final state, characterized by the identity of its reconstructed final objects.
1086:
1087: The \Vista\ final states are not predetermined, but are dynamically formed to accommodate the data. Namely, if a unique datum appears with an unprecedented combination of reconstructed final objects, then it will create its own final state, which will then be available to accomodate any further such events that may be found.\footnote{Exceptional treatment applies to events that have more than 4 jets: If an event has only jets and $\sumPt < 400$~GeV it is treated as described, like any other event. Those events are not considered by \Sleuth\ later. If however an event has more than 4 jets and at least one non-jet object, or it has more than 4 jets with $\sumPt > 400$~GeV, then the $k_T$ algorithm\cite{kTclustering} is used to cluster reconstructed jets until only 4 jets are left.}
1088:
1089: The impartial and unbiased character of the \Vista\ partition rule, which discards no events and groups together no unlike events, gives \Vista\ much of its model-independence.
1090:
1091:
1092: \subsection{\Sleuth\ Partition Rule}
1093: \label{sec:sleuthPartitionRule}
1094: For \Sleuth, a different partition rule is used, which is not as model-independent as the one used for \Vista, which makes \Sleuth\ a quasi model-independent search algorithm. It relies on \Vista\ partition, as it groups \Vista\ exclusive final states into \Sleuth\ final states. Each \Vista\ final state can be part of one and only one \Sleuth\ final state, therefore each event can belong to only one \Sleuth\ final state. So, the \Sleuth\ final states are non-overlapping sets of \Vista\ exclusive ones.
1095:
1096: Model-dependence is introduced to improve \Sleuth's sensitivity to any new physics that would satisfy the following assumptions\index{Sleuth@\Sleuth!assumptions}:
1097: \begin{itemize}
1098: \item{Would appear as an excess of high-\sumPt\ data, which is what \Sleuth\ seeks.}
1099: \item{Would treat equivalently the first two generations of leptons.}
1100: \item{Would be symmetric under global charge conjugation.}
1101: \item{Would produce jets in pairs.}
1102: \item{Would conserve lepton number.}
1103: \end{itemize}
1104:
1105: The above assumptions are exploited by applying the following partition rules:
1106: \begin{enumerate}
1107: \item If two events transform into each other by a global $e\leftrightarrow\mu$ interchange, they are grouped in the same \Sleuth\ final state. E.g.\ $\mu^+\mu^-e^+j$ and $e^+e^-\mu^+j$.
1108: \item If two events are global charge conjugates of each other, they are put in the same \Sleuth\ final state. E.g.\ $\mu^+\mu^+j$ and $\mu^-\mu^-j$.
1109: \item If an event has $2N+1$ non $b$-tagged jets, where $N \geq 0$, then it is grouped in the same final state as events that have the same final objects, but $2N$ non $b$-tagged jets. The assumption is that the odd-numbered jet is due to radiation. E.g.\ $2j\pslash$ and $3j\pslash$.
1110: \item If an event has $2N+1$ $b$-jets, where $N\geq 0$, and $M\geq1$ non-$b$ jets, then it is put in the same final state as events that have the same final objects, but $2N+2$ $b$-jets and $M-1$ non-$b$ jets. E.g.\ $3b3j$ and $4b2j$. The assumption is that one of the $M$ non-$b$ jets was actually a $b$-jet that was not tagged.
1111: \item If there are three leptons and no \pslash, then the event is grouped together with the events having the same composition and also \pslash. The assumption is that a neutrino was produced but the \pslash\ was not resolved.
1112: \item{If there is one lepton and no \pslash, then discard the event.}
1113: \end{enumerate}
1114:
1115: The result of the \Sleuth\ partition rules are shown in Table \ref{tab:sleuthFinalStatesContent}.
1116: \begin{table}
1117: \tiny
1118: \begin{minipage}{7.0in}
1119: \hspace{-0.0in}
1120: \input{figures/analysis/sleuthFinalStateContentIndex}
1121: \end{minipage}
1122: \caption{Result of the \Sleuth\ parition rule. On the left column are the \Sleuth\ final states and on the rigth are the populated \Vista\ exclusive final states that were merged into each. Every \Vista\ final state written also implies its charge conjugate. }
1123: \label{tab:sleuthFinalStatesContent}
1124: \end{table}
1125:
1126:
1127: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1128: \section{\Vista\ Algorithm}
1129:
1130: \Vista\ is conceptually simple, though its practical implementation is more complicated. Its intermediate goal --- at the global fit stage --- is to adjust the parameters of the correction model, called correction factors, to obtain the Standard Model background that best matches the data. Its ultimate goal --- at the \Vista\ comparison stage --- is to compare the Standard Model background to the data globally and point out any discrepancies in the final state populations, or in kinematic variable distribution shapes.
1131:
1132: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1133: \subsection{Correction Factors}
1134: \label{sec:correctionFactors}
1135: If the detector and the Standard Model were modeled at infinite precision, corrections to the output of \CdfSim\ would not be necessary. However, developing the correction model and applying it is an integral part of this analysis. The accuracy of the Standard Model implementation depends on the correction model used, namely the degree of sophistication introduced in fine-tuning the outcome of \CdfSim\ to represent the Standard Model more faithfully.
1136:
1137: In developing the correction model, one needs guidance from the data. Starting with no corrections, one observes significant and widespread discrepancies. Since the Standard Model is expected to describe the data well, that indicates that some corrections are needed to bring our implemented model closer to the Standard Model. After implementing the first set of corrections, another comparison may lead to another level of improvement by introducing richer corrections. As the correction model is developed, prudence is required to not introduce corrections that would {\em ad hoc} conceal potential signs of new physics. This takes intuition and understanding of the physical mechanisms that are not perfectly modeled. More on this issue is in Appendix \ref{sec:blindOrNot}.
1138:
1139: \begin{table}
1140: \label{tab:fudgeFactorDescriptions}
1141: \begin{minipage}{6in}
1142: \hspace{-0.5in}
1143: \input{figures/analysis/fudgeFactorDescription}
1144: \end{minipage}
1145: \caption{Description of correction factors\index{correction!factors}.}
1146: \end{table}
1147:
1148: Table~\ref{tab:fudgeFactorDescriptions} lists all used correction factors. Each has a 4-digit reference code. They are of four kinds:
1149: \begin{itemize}
1150: \item the integrated luminosity,
1151: \item $k$-factors representing the physical cross section of processes divided by their LO cross section,
1152: \item identification probability scale factors and misidentification probabilities,
1153: \item online trigger efficiency scale factors.
1154: \end{itemize}
1155: There are cases in which a correction factor is specific to a region of $p_T$ or $\abs{\eta}$. Typically, that happens because having a single correction factor for the whole $p_T$ and $\abs{\eta}$ range proves to be an oversimplification leading to discrepancies. In principle one could divide the $(p_T,\abs{\eta})$ space in an arbitrarily large number of regions, and define a different set of correction factors in each. That, however, would be the opposite of crude, i.e.\ too flexible, with enough degrees of freedom to fit almost anything, including potential signals of new physics. The current choice of correction factors was found to balance satisfactorily between the two extremes.
1156:
1157: The set of correction factors of Table.~\ref{tab:fudgeFactorDescriptions} includes all the degrees of freedom the global fit can adjust (Sec.~\ref{sec:globalFit}). However, the Standard Model implementation can be adjusted in more ways, that are not subject to a fit, and are discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:correctionModel}.
1158:
1159: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1160: \subsection{Global Fit}
1161: \label{sec:globalFit}
1162:
1163: The global fit\index{Vista@\Vista!global fit} is a binned $\chi^2$ minimization procedure. Its free parameters ($\vec{s}$) are the correction factors (Sec.~\ref{sec:correctionFactors}), which are adjusted to minimize the quantity
1164: \begin{equation}
1165: \chi^2(\vec{s}) = \left(\sum_{k\in{\rm bins}}{\!\!\!\chi^2_k}(\vec{s})\right) + \chi^2_{{\rm constraints}}(\vec{s})\ .
1166: \end{equation}
1167:
1168: Each of the bins\index{Vista@\Vista!bins} used in defining $\chi^2$ contains events of specificied final reconstructed objects. However, what distinguishes it from a \Vista\ final state --- described in Sec.~\ref{sec:vistaPartitionRule} --- is that it is also characterized by specific object locations in $p_T$ and $\abs{\eta}$. The $(p_T,\abs{\eta})$ space is divided in large regions motivated by the detector geometry, with edges at $\abs{\eta}=\{0.6,1.0\}$ and $p_T=\{25,40,60,200\}$~GeV. So, events that have the same objects in the same $(p_T,\abs{\eta})$ regions are accounted in the same bin. Some sparcely populated bins are merged together to obtain better statistics.
1169:
1170: The $\chi^2_{{\rm constraints}}$ term introduces to the global fit constraints from external information. For example, the CLC provides a measurement\cite{CLC} of the integrated luminosity of the data sample ($L$), therefore if the correction factor corresponding to $L$ (code {\tt 5001}) drifts far from the CLC measurement, a penalty is imposed to the $\chi^2$. For details on the constraints, see Appendix \ref{sec:CorrectionModelDetails}.
1171:
1172: The term reflecting the agreement between data and Standard Model background in bin $k$ is
1173: \begin{equation}
1174: \chi^2_k(\vec{s})=\frac{({\rm Data}[k]-{\rm Standard Model}[k])^2}{\delta{\rm Standard Model}[k]^2 + \sqrt{{\rm Standard Model}[k]}^2}\ ,
1175: \label{eq:chi_k}
1176: \end{equation}
1177: where ${\rm Data}[k]$ is the number of data and ${\rm Standard Model}[k]$ is the amount of Standard Model background expected in bin $k$.
1178: $\delta{\rm Standard Model}[k]$ is the statistical uncertainty in ${\rm Standard Model}[k]$ due to limited MC statistics.
1179:
1180: $\chi^2_k$ depends on $\vec{s}$ because the term ${\rm Standard Model}[k]$ does, which is how by adjusting $\vec{s}$ the Standard Model comes to better agreement with the data and $\chi^2$ reaches minimum. The explicit relation between the Standard Model background expected in bin $k$ and $\vec{s}$ must take into account the different kinds of correction factors (luminosity, efficiencies, fake rates, $k$-factors) and which of them are relevant to the objects in the events of $k$ in the $(p_T,\abs{\eta})$ regions. Specifically, that relation is
1181: \begin{eqnarray}
1182: \label{eq:Standard Modelk}
1183: {\rm Standard Model}[k] = {\rm Standard Model}[(k_1,k_2)] &=& \left(\int{{\cal L}\,dt}\right) \cdot P_{{\rm trigger}}[(k_1,k_2)] \cdot \nonumber \\
1184: & & \textstyle \sum_{{k_2}'\in\,{\rm obj.\ comb.}} P_{{\rm ID}}[(k_1,{k_2}')][k_2] \cdot \nonumber \\
1185: & & \textstyle \sum_{l\in\,{\rm proc.}} ({\rm kFactor}[l])\cdot ({\rm Standard Model}_0[(k_1,{k_2}')][l]) \ ,
1186: \end{eqnarray}
1187: where the bin index $k$ is analyzed into two indices $k_1$ and $k_2$. $k_1$ labels the $(p_T,\abs{\eta})$ regions in which there are energy clusters and $k_2$ represents the combination of reconstructed objects --- the two elements defining each bin $k$.
1188: ${k_2}'$ is a dummy summation index representing different combinations of reconstructed objects.
1189: $l$ traverses Standard Model background processes, such as dijet production, $W$+1~jet production etc.
1190: The term ${\rm Standard Model}_0[(k_1,{k_2}')][l]$ is the sum of the uncorrected weights of all MC events generated by process $l$ and after passing through \CdfSim\ were reconstructed in the bin $(k_1,{k_2}')$.
1191: $P_{{\rm ID}}[(k_1,{k_2}')][k_2]$ is the probability that an event produced with energy clusters in the detector regions labeled $k_1$ and with identified objects labeled ${k_2}'$ would be identified as having objects labeled $k_2$.
1192: $P_{{\rm trigger}}[(k_1,k_2)]$ represents the probability that an event produced with energy clusters in the detector regions labeled by $k_1$ and contains identified objects labeled by $k_2$ would pass the online trigger.
1193: The terms $\int{{\cal L}\,dt}$, $P_{{\rm trigger}}[(k_1,k_2)]$, $P_{{\rm ID}}[(k_1,{k_2}')][k_2]$ and ${\rm kFactor}[l]$ are the correction factors $\vec{s}$ and operate multiplicatively.
1194:
1195: \subsubsection{Event weights}
1196: \label{sec:eventWeights}
1197:
1198: Each generated MC event of a process $l$ amounts to uncorrected weight $\tilde{w}_l = \frac{\sigma_l}{N_l \cdot (1{\rm pb})}$, where $\sigma_l$ is the LO cross section of $l$ and $N_l$ is the number of MC events generated of $l$. The term ${\rm Standard Model}_0[(k_1,{k_2}')][l]$ in eq.~\ref{eq:Standard Modelk} can be rewritten as
1199: \begin{equation}
1200: \label{eq:Standard Model0}
1201: {\rm Standard Model}_0[(k_1,{k_2}')][l]=N_{[(k_1,{k_2}')][l]} \tilde{w}_l\ ,
1202: \end{equation}
1203: where $N_{[(k_1,{k_2}')][l]}$ is the number of MC events from process $l$ that after passing through \CdfSim\ were reconstructed as belonging to bin $(k_1,{k_2}')$. Using eq.~\ref{eq:Standard Model0}, eq.~\ref{eq:Standard Modelk} can be rewritten as a sum of as many terms as the total number ($N$) of generaged MC events:
1204: \begin{eqnarray}
1205: \label{eq:smk2}
1206: {\rm Standard Model}[k](\vec{s})&=&\sum_{i=1}^{N} c_{k,\vec{s}}^{i}\,\tilde{w}_{l_i}\ ,\ {\rm with} \\
1207: \label{eq:smk3}
1208: c_{k,\vec{s}}^{i}=c_{(k_1,k_2),\vec{s}}^{i}&=&\int{{\cal L}\,dt}\cdot {\rm kFactor}[l_i] \cdot P_{{\rm trigger}}[(k_1,k_2)] \nonumber \\
1209: & & {} \cdot P_{{\rm ID}}[(k_1,{k_2}'_i)][k_2],
1210: \end{eqnarray}
1211: where $l_i$ is the process as an instance of which the MC event $i$ was generaged, and ${k_2}'_i$ denotes the combination of reconstructed objects in the MC event $i$ after passing through \CdfSim.
1212:
1213: The corrected weight\index{weight!corrected} of the $i\th$ MC event, defined for a bin $k$ and a set of correction factors $\vec{s}$ as
1214: \begin{equation}
1215: w_i = c_{k,\vec{s}}^{i}\,\tilde{w}_{l_i},
1216: \label{eq:correctedWeight}
1217: \end{equation}
1218: can be used to rewrite eq.~\ref{eq:smk2} as ${\rm Standard Model}[k](\vec{s})=\sum_{i=1}^{N} w_i$, from which follows that the term $\delta{\rm Standard Model}[k]$ in eq.~\ref{eq:chi_k} is\footnote{Proof: $N_{\tiny{\rm eff}}=\frac{\sum w_i}{w_{\tiny{\rm eff}}}=\frac{\sum w_i}{{\sum w_i^2}\big/{\sum w_i}} \Rightarrow \sqrt{N_{\tiny{\rm eff}}}\,w_{\tiny{\rm eff}}=\sqrt{\sum w_i^2}$ }
1219: \begin{equation}
1220: \label{eq:deltaStandard Modelk}
1221: \delta{\rm Standard Model}[k]=\delta\left(\sum w_i\right) = \sqrt{\sum{w_i^2}}\ .
1222: \end{equation}
1223:
1224: \subsubsection{Error matrix}
1225: \label{sec:errorMatrix}
1226: %\memo{ Pullapart and influence tables. Mention here, and show in the next chapter with all results. }
1227:
1228: As a result of fitting all the correction factors simultaneously, the complete error matrix\index{error matrix} $(\Sigma)$ can be estimated, by approximating $\chi^2(\vec{s})$ with a multi-dimensional parabola around its minimum at $\vec{s}_0$:
1229: \begin{eqnarray}
1230: \chi^2(\vec{s}) &\simeq& \chi^2_{\min}+(\vec{s}-\vec{s}_0)^T \Sigma^{-1} (\vec{s}-\vec{s}_0) \Rightarrow \\
1231: \Sigma^{-1}_{ij} &\simeq& \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2\chi^2(\vec{s})}{\partial s_i \partial s_j}\Big|_{\vec{s}_0} \\
1232: {} &\simeq& \frac{\chi^2(\vec{s}_0+\delta s_i\,\hat{i} + \delta s_j\,\hat{j}) - \chi^2(\vec{s}_0+\delta s_i\,\hat{i}) - \chi^2(\vec{s}_0 + \delta s_j\,\hat{j}) + \chi^2(\vec{s}_0)}{2\,\delta s_i\,\delta s_j}
1233: \end{eqnarray}
1234: where $\delta s_i\,\hat{i}$ and $\delta s_j\,\hat{j}$ are small displacements in the direction of the $i\th$ and $j\th$ correction factor respectively.
1235:
1236: Then, $\Sigma$ is the inverse matrix of $\Sigma^{-1}$ and the variance of correction factor $s_i$ is
1237: \begin{equation}
1238: \sigma^2_i \simeq \Sigma_{ii}
1239: \end{equation}
1240: and the correlation between $s_i$ and $s_j$ is
1241: \begin{equation}
1242: \rho_{ij}=\rho_{ji}=\frac{{\rm cov}(s_i,s_j)}{\sigma_i \sigma_j} \simeq \frac{\Sigma_{ij}}{\sigma_i \sigma_j}
1243: \end{equation}
1244:
1245: \subsubsection{Pull-apart and Influence tables}
1246:
1247: Visualizing the $\chi^2(\vec{s})$ in the multi-dimensional space of correction factors $\vec{s}$ is very difficult, but one can gain intuition about the global fit by knowing for the $k\th$ bin how much $\chi^2_k(\vec{s})$ changes with small variations of the $i\th$ correction factor $s_i$ around the minimum $\vec{s}_0$. The quantity of interest is
1248: \begin{equation}
1249: {{\rm pull}}_{ki} \equiv \frac{\partial \chi^2_k(\vec{s})}{\partial s_i}\Big|_{\vec{s}_0}\,.
1250: \end{equation}
1251:
1252: The elements of the $N_{{\rm bins}}\times N_{{\rm final\ states}}$ matrix pull$_{ki}$ can be sorted to rigorously answer two questions:
1253: \begin{itemize}
1254: \item For the $k\th$ bin, how much is the total absolute pull $\sum_i \abs{{\rm pull}_{ki}}$ and which correction factors exert the absolutely biggest pulls? The answer for each bin is given in the {\em influence} table\index{influence table} (Table \ref{tab:}).
1255:
1256: \memo{Complete references to tables, that will be in the results section, or in some appendix.}
1257:
1258: \item For the $i\th$ correction factor $s_i$, how much in total does it pull apart the bins ($\sum_k \abs{{\rm pull}_{ki}}$), and which bins does it pull most? The answer for each $s_i$ is given in the {\em pull apart}\index{pull apart table} table (Table \ref{tab:}).
1259:
1260: \memo{Complete references to tables, that will be in the results section, or in some appendix.}
1261:
1262: \end{itemize}
1263:
1264: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1265: \subsection{Correction Model}
1266: \label{sec:correctionModel}
1267:
1268: In this section, the implementation of the Standard Model will be described, i.e.~how after the global fit the Standard Model background expected in each \Vista\ final state is actually constructed. More details are in Appendix~\ref{sec:CorrectionModelDetails}.
1269:
1270: The MC events available are coming from various sources, having some initial uncorrected weight, as described in Sec.~\ref{sec:eventWeights}. Each MC event, however, needs to enter the analysis with its corrected weight, representing the effect of the correction factors on it. The corrected weight is given by eq.~\ref{eq:correctedWeight}, which applies to any $k$ and $i$. In principle all MC events contribute to all bins, each time with a different weight. Therefore, it helps to think of the MC events not as events that are reweighted, stored in some bin and not used again\footnote{Which, apart from the reweighting step, is exactly how data events are treated.}, but rather as prototypes that are all reflected to all the bins with the appropriate weight each time (Fig.~\ref{fig:mirrorsVsBoxes}). When an event contributes to a final state by misreconstruction of one or more of its objects, the object's identity changes accordingly, along with the weight of the event.
1271:
1272: \begin{figure}
1273: \centering
1274: \begin{tabular}{rl}
1275: \includegraphics[width=7cm,angle=0]{figures/analysis/mirrors} &
1276: \includegraphics[width=7cm,angle=0]{figures/analysis/boxes}
1277: \end{tabular}
1278: \caption{The idea of MC events contributing in principle to all bins (mirrors) and not being used up, versus contributing to only one bin (box) each.}
1279: \label{fig:mirrorsVsBoxes}
1280: \end{figure}
1281:
1282: Though it may seem unnatural to have events contributing to unrelated bins, with completely different reconstructed objects, this scheme is valid because for unnatural combinations of $i$ and $k$ the factor $c_{k,\vec{s}}^i$ is $\sim 0$, for the bin where the event would typically be expected $c_{k,\vec{s}}^i$ is $\sim \int{{\cal L}\,dt}$, and for bins where the event could only be found by some misreconstruction of probability $p_{\small{{\rm misID}}}$, $c_{k,\vec{s}}^i$ is $\sim \int{{\cal L}\,dt} \cdot p_{{\rm misID}}$. The exact $c_{k,\vec{s}}^i$ factor is found each time according to eq.~\ref{eq:smk3}.
1283:
1284: \subsubsection{Treatment of fakes}
1285: \label{sec:treatmentOfFakes}
1286:
1287: When events pass through \CdfSim\ they are smeared by the limited detector resolution and sometimes may be misreconstructed, as would also happen in reality. By construction, the uncorrected weight of those ``fake'' events is proportional to the LO cross section of the generated process.
1288:
1289: The LO cross sections for $p\bar{p}$ collisions at $1.96$~TeV are such that the generated objects are most often jets, less frequently $b$-jets and photons, and much less frequently leptons. So, if an event contained a generated high-$p_T$ quark that after \CdfSim\ was reconstructed as a lepton, the resulting fake\index{fakes} event would have a very big uncorrected weight, characteristic of jet production cross section, whose largeness would be propagated to the corrected weight too. That would affect final states with contributions from such fakes, because events with large weights appear like spikes and distort the actual shape of the Standard Model background distributions.\footnote{Practically, it would take too long to collect enough such fakes through \CdfSim\ because they occur rarely and each even takes about 10 seconds to pass through \CdfSim.}
1290:
1291: Instead of relying on \CdfSim\ for such fakes from abundant to rare objects, what is done is to reflect the abundant, non-faking events into the bin where misreconstruction could divert them, accounting in their corrected weights for the probability of that happening. Any such fakes that come out of \CdfSim\ are stripped away, to avoid spikes in the Standard Model background. This allows for well-populated Standard Model backgrounds in those final states containing fakes.
1292:
1293: The other category of fakes, namely where a rarely generated object fakes a frequently generated one, e.g.\ $\tau \to j$, is left for \CdfSim\ to take care of. The reason is obviously that it does not result in spikes, and generally is a small effect, since it is suppressed by both the fake rate and the small generation cross section. Not modeling it with correction factors saves a great number of correction factors and unnecessary complexity.\footnote{The only exception is the correction factor {\tt 5245}, which is used in addition to the \CdfSim\ fakes to better model the electron faking photon effect in the plug region.}
1294:
1295: \section{\Vista\ Comparison}
1296: \label{sec:VistaComparison}
1297: %\memo{Just the method, not the results yet.......}
1298: Once the Standard Model background in each \Vista\ final state has been constructed, as described in Sec.\ \ref{sec:correctionModel} and \ref{sec:vistaPartitionRule}, the task of \Vista\ comparison is
1299: \begin{itemize}
1300: \item to evaluate how well the populations of data and Standard Model agree in each final state,
1301: \item to evaluate how well the shapes of all potentially interesting kinematic distributions of data and Standard Model agree,
1302: \item to search for statistically significant localized excesses (``bumps'')\index{bumps} of data in mass distributions in all final states,
1303: \item to sort and present the above information in a way that makes it easy to browse and understand.
1304: \end{itemize}
1305:
1306: \subsubsection{Populations Comparison}
1307: \label{sec:populationsStatistic}
1308:
1309: In testing the null hypothesis that the data population is consistent to the expected Standard Model population, the statistic used is the probability that the expected population $b=\sum w_i$ would randomly fluctuate to or beyond the observed data population $d$. Namely, if $n$ is a random number pulled from a Poisson distribution with mean $b$, the statistic is the probability that $n\ge d$ if $d>b$ or $n\le d$ if $d<b$. Actually, $b$ is determined with some uncertainty $\delta b$, which is partly from limited MC statistics, and partly from uncertainty in the correction factors. The latter part is ignored due to practical limitations and $\delta b=\sqrt{\sum w_i^2}$ is purely statistical uncertainty, like in eq.~\ref{eq:deltaStandard Modelk}. Assuming that the PDF of $b$ is Gaussian and $b>0$, the statistic $p$ is defined as
1310: \begin{eqnarray}
1311: \label{eq:vistaP}
1312: p&=&\sum_{n=\alpha}^{\Omega} \int_0^\infty \frac{1}{K}\,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\,\delta b}\,e^{-\frac{({b'}-b)^2}{2\,{\delta b}^2}}\,\frac{{b'}^n}{n!}\,e^{-b'}\,d{b'}\, , \\
1313: \nonumber {\rm where}&{}&\left\{\alpha = 0\ ,\ \Omega = d\right\} \ \ {\rm\ if}\ d<b \\
1314: \nonumber {}&{}&\left\{\alpha = d\ ,\ \Omega = \infty\right\} \ \ {\rm\ if}\ d\ge b \\
1315: \nonumber {}&{}&K=\int_0^\infty \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\,\delta b}\,e^{-\frac{({b'}-b)^2}{2\,{\delta b}^2}} d{b'}\ .
1316: \end{eqnarray}
1317: The smaller the $p$, the more significant the discrepancy.
1318:
1319: In the definition of the statistical significance of a population difference \abs{d-b}, the trials factor\index{trials factor} due to checking many final states needs to be accounted for, since this increases the probability that at least one final state would yield a $p$ as small as the observed one. For a given $p$, this probability is
1320: \begin{equation}
1321: \label{eq:vistaTildeP}
1322: \tilde{p}=1-(1-p)^N\ ,
1323: \end{equation}
1324: where $N$ is the number of final states examined, which is about 350 in 1 fb$^{-1}$ of data.
1325: %\footnote{The assumption made is that the final states are trials independent of each other. That is not entirely true, but is a good approximation. Due to the final states sharing common MC events, as described in Sec.~\ref{sec:treatmentOfFakes}, if $b'$ in one final state were to fluctuate in an unusual way within $b\pm \delta b$, then other final states would be bound to fluctuate too by some proportional amount, unlike what should happen if they were all independent. NO, THAT IS NONSENSE BECAUSE WE INTEGRATE b' SO IT IS NOT A STATISTICALLY VARYING QUANTITY ANY MORE. IT HAS BEEN INTEGRATED OUT. However, the assumption of independence is not bad, as the dependence is introduced only through the $\delta b$ terms accross the final states, and is not due to them sharing data. and is also conservative, since it makes $\tilde{p}$ bigger and thus less prone to signal a false discovery.}
1326:
1327: \subsubsection{Shapes Comparison}
1328: \label{sec:shapesStatistic}
1329: %\memo{Relevant shapes, plots, KS and shap discrepancies}
1330:
1331: For each final state there is a number of relevant kinematic variables that can be defined, depending on the objects in the final state. For example, some of them are the $\eta$, $\phi$ and $p_T$ of all the objects, the invariant mass of the system of groups of objects, or more specific variables, indicative of some work hypothesis.
1332:
1333: The distributions of all relevant variables are automatically made for the data and the background in each final state. Then, for each variable, the shapes of the distributions of data and background are compared, using KS test, which, loosely speaking,\footnote{It actually returns the probability that the maximum difference between the cumulative distributions of the two compared distributions would randomly appear to be bigger than observed, assuming the null hypothesis that the two distributions are just statistical variations of the same distribution.} returns the probability that the two distributions are consistent. The smaller the returned probability, the bigger the shape discrepancy.
1334:
1335: Given that approximately $17\times 10^3$ kinematic variables are plotted and examined in this way, the statistical significance of each discrepancy needs to account for the trials factor\index{trials factor}, as described in eq.~\ref{eq:vistaTildeP}.
1336:
1337: \subsubsection{Bump statistic}
1338: \label{sec:bumpStatistic}
1339:
1340: A bump\index{bumps} statistic measures the extent to which a localized excess of data exists in a mass window. For each invariant mass distribution in each final state, windows of widths varying from 5 to 100~GeV are defined, in steps of 5~GeV. Within each window, the Poisson probability for the Standard Model prediction to fluctuate up to or above the number of events observed is calculated. For each mass distribution, the window for which this probability is smallest is noted.
1341:
1342: The statistical significance of this most interesting window must be reduced by a trials factor\index{trials factor} equal to the number of windows considered. The counting is obscured by the overlaps of windows of different size, but reasonably estimated to be twice the number of 5 GeV windows considered.\footnote{A window is not considered if it contains zero Standard Model events.} An additional trials factor is applied to account for the total number of mass distributions ($\sim 4\times10^3$) considered in all final states.
1343:
1344: \subsubsection{Information Organization}
1345:
1346: The volume of the \Vista\ output\index{Vista@\Vista!output} is large, as it contains hundreds of final states and thousands of kinematic distributions, probed with the statistics described above.
1347:
1348: The organization of this output is such that the biggest discrepancies between data and Standard Model background appear first. This proves particularly helpful at the stage of development of the correction model, as it reveals what requires better modelling.
1349:
1350: Employing an Internet-based interface, the final states are listed in order of decreasing population discrepancy. For each final state, the most discrepant shapes are listed in order of decreasing significance, and the same is done for any bumps found in it. The distributions of all kinematic variables are available following a hyperlink corresponding to each final state.
1351:
1352:
1353: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1354: \section{\Sleuth\ Algorithm}
1355: %\memo{Just the method, not the results yet.......}
1356:
1357: \Sleuth\ uses the same Standard Model background and data as \Vista, thus could be viewed as another probe of \Vista. It stands, though, as an algorithm on its own because it uses the quasi model-independent partition rule of Sec.~\ref{sec:sleuthPartitionRule} and, instead of analytic calculation, it uses multiple trials to estimate the significance of the effects it targets.
1358:
1359: \Sleuth\ considers a single variable\index{Sleuth@\Sleuth!\SumPt} in each exclusive final state: the summed scalar transverse momentum of all objects in the event \SumPt:
1360: \begin{equation}
1361: \SumPt \equiv \sum_i{\abs{\vec{p}_{Ti}}} + \abs{\puncl} + \abs{\pmissvector},
1362: \end{equation}
1363: where only the momentum components transverse to the axis of the colliding beams are considered when computing magnitudes.
1364:
1365: For each \Sleuth\ final state, the \sumPt\ disribution is made for data and Standard Model background. Then \Sleuth\ searches for regions in which more events are seen in the data than expected. The steps of the search can be sketched as follows:
1366: \begin{itemize}
1367: \item In each final state, the regions\index{Sleuth@\Sleuth!regions} considered are the semi-infinite intervals in \sumPt\ extending from each data point up to infinity.
1368: \item In each specific final state, the region defined by the $d\th$ highest \sumPt\ datum contains $d$ data events. The Standard Model prediction in this region integrates to $b$ predicted events. In this final state, the interestingness of the $d\th$ region is defined as the Poisson probability (or ``$p$-value'') $p_d = \sum_{n=d}^{\infty}\frac{b^n}{n!}e^{-b}$ that the Standard Model background $b$ would fluctuate up to or above the observed number of data events $d$ in this region. The most interesting region in the final state is the one with smallest $p_d$.
1369: \item For this final state, pseudo experiments are generated, with pseudo data pulled from the Standard Model background. For each pseudo experiment, the interestingness of the most interesting region is calculated. The fraction $\scriptP$ (also written ``scriptP'')\index{Sleuth@\Sleuth!\scriptP} of pseudo experiments in this final state in which the most interesting region is more interesting than the most interesting region in this final state observed in the data is calculated. If the null hypothesis holds, namely the data is consistent with the Standard Model background, $\scriptP$ is expected to be a random number pulled from a uniform distribution in the unit interval.
1370: \item The above are repeated to determine $\scriptP$ for each final state. The smallest of these values is denoted by $\scriptP_{\rm min}$.
1371: \item $\twiddleScriptP = 1-\prod_{a=1}^{N_{\rm FS}}(1-\hat{p}_a)$ is defined (also written ``tildeScriptP'')\index{Sleuth@\Sleuth!\tildeScriptP}, where the product is over all $N_{\rm FS}$ \Sleuth\ final states $a$, and $\hat{p}_a$ is the lesser of $\scriptP_{\rm min}$ and the probability for the total number of events predicted by the Standard Model in the final state $a$ to fluctuate up to or above three data events, as discussed in Appendix~\ref{sec:sleuth:details}.\footnote{In the simple case where in all final states the background is more likely to fluctuate up to three than $\scriptP_{\rm min}$, $\twiddleScriptP = 1 - (1-\scriptP_{\rm min})^{N_{\rm FS}}$, in analogy with eq.~\ref{eq:vistaTildeP}.}
1372: $\twiddleScriptP$ represents the fraction of hypothetical experiments, following the Standard Model implementation, that would produce by chance a region in any final state as interesting as the most interesting region observed in the most interesting final state in the data.
1373: % The range of $\twiddleScriptP$ is the unit interval. If the null hypothesis is correct, i.e.\ the data are distributed according to Standard Model prediction, $\twiddleScriptP$ is expected to be a random number uniformly distributed in the unit interval.
1374: \end{itemize}
1375:
1376: The output\index{Sleuth@\Sleuth!output} is the most interesting region ${\cal R}$ observed in the data and a number $\twiddleScriptP$ that quantifies the interestingness of ${\cal R}$. $\twiddleScriptP$ is pulled from a uniform distribution on the unit interval if the null hypothesis holds, i.e.\ the data come from the Standard Model background alone, and is expected to be small if the data contain a hint of new physics (Appendix~\ref{sec:sleuth:details}).
1377:
1378: In addition to \tildeScriptP\ and the most interesting region, all \Sleuth\ final states are listed as part of the output, each with its \sumPt\ distribution, the most interesting region in it and the corresponding \scriptP. Like in \Vista, the list of \Sleuth\ final states is ordered in increasing \scriptP, namely from the most interesting to the least.
1379:
1380: A reasonable threshold for discovery\index{Sleuth@\Sleuth!discovery threshold} is $\twiddleScriptP \lesssim 0.001$, which would mean that less than one in a thousand CDF experiments following just the Standard Model implementation would by fluctuation yield anything as significant as the most significant effect observed in \Sleuth. As shown in Appendix~\ref{sec:sleuth:details}, the significance --- before accounting for the trials factor --- of the individual effect that would result in $\twiddleScriptP \lesssim 0.001$ corresponds loosely to the $5\sigma$ significance that is commonly recognized in the field as ``discovery level''.
1381:
1382: }
1383: