1: \chapter{Update with 2 fb$^{-1}$}
2: \label{chapter:2fb-1}
3:
4: This analysis was conducted in two rounds: first with 1 fb$^{-1}$ of data, and then with 2 fb$^{-1}$. The first round was presented in Chapter \ref{chapter:1fb-1}. This chapter summarizes the second round.
5:
6: \section{Overview}
7:
8: Four separate statistics are employed to search for evidence of new physics. These statistics are
9: \begin{itemize}
10: \item a difference between the number of observed and predicted events in individual exclusive final states;
11: \item a difference in distribution shape between data and Standard Model prediction in a variety of kinematic variables;
12: \item an excess of data in the large \SumPt\ tail of exclusive final states; and
13: \item a local excess (bump) in some invariant mass distribution, reflecting possibly a new resonance.
14: \end{itemize}
15: The next sections discus these statistics: Sec.~\ref{sec:Vista2} is about the normalization and shape statistics, Sec.~\ref{sec:Sleuth2} about the \SumPt\ statistic, and Sec.~\ref{sec:BumpHunter} about the mass bump statistic. Conclusions are provided in Sec.~\ref{sec:Conclusions2}.
16:
17:
18: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
19: %% Vista
20: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
21:
22: \section{\Vista}
23: \label{sec:Vista2}
24:
25: Conceptually, \Vista\ in the second round of analysis is the same as in the first.
26:
27: \subsection{Object identification}
28: \label{sec:particleID2}
29: The particle identification criteria used in this analysis are the same as in the first round, except for the following changes:
30:
31: \begin{itemize}
32: \item Changed previously suboptimal conversion filter to the standard one. In the previous version, we required each lepton candidate to not have within $\Delta R<0.4$ another track of opposite sign. The neighbor track was counted only if it had $p_T>2$~GeV. In this version, we make no transverse momentum requirement on the candidate neighbor tracks. This change reduces significantly the rate for jets and photons to fake electrons, since both fakings involve conversions.
33: \item For plug electrons we now require the presence of a good quality PES cluster\footnote{Variables $PES~5x9~U$ and $PES~5x9~V$ need to be defined and less than 0.65.}, and that the PHX track matches to the electromagnetic cluster to within $\Delta R < 0.01$. This reduces the rate of jets faking electrons in the region $\abs{\detEta}>1$.
34: \item For CMUP muons, we require CMU the distance between a stub and the track extrapolation ($\Delta X$) to be less than 7 cm, instead of 3 cm. This follows a change in the standard muon identification criteria used by the experiment.
35: \item For taus, the momentum is now taken from the calorimeter $E_T$ rather than visible momentum (track momentum plus $\pi^0$s). The minimum seed track $p_T$ requirement has been increased to 10.5 GeV, reflecting a change in online trigger criteria. We also added an additional muon veto cut requiring that the calorimter $E_T$ over seed track $p_T$ be greater than 0.5, inconsistent with a minimum ionizing particle.
36: \item For plug photons, we apply the fiducial cut $\abs{\detEta}>1.2$.
37: %An overlook was fixed which caused good PES requirement to be neglected in some cases.
38: %This reduces the rate of jets faking photons.
39: \end{itemize}
40:
41: Tables with identification criteria for all objects can be found in Appendix~\ref{sec:particle_id_detail}.
42:
43:
44: \subsection{Event selection}
45:
46: The following criteria are used to keep events of interest. Single-object criteria accept events containing:
47: \begin{itemize}
48: \item a central electron with $p_T>25$~GeV, or
49: \item a plug electron with $p_T>40$~GeV, or
50: \item a central muon with $p_T>25$~GeV, or
51: \item a central photon with $p_T>60$~GeV, or
52: \item a central or plug photon with $p_T>300$~GeV, or
53: \item a central jet or $b$-tagged jet with $p_T>200$~GeV, or
54: \item a central $b$-tagged jet with $p_T>60$~GeV (prescaled by the online jet20 trigger), or
55: \item a central jet or $b$-tagged jet with $p_T>40$~GeV (prescaled by 10 in addition to the online jet20 trigger prescale).
56: \end{itemize}
57: Di-object criteria keep events containing:
58: \begin{itemize}
59: \item one electron plus one electron or photon with $\abs{\eta}<2.5$ and $p_T>25$~GeV, or
60: \item a central or plug electron with $p_T>40$~GeV and a central tau with $p_T>17$~GeV, or
61: \item a central muon with $p_T>17$~GeV and a central or plug photon with $p_T>25$~GeV, or
62: \item a central muon with $p_T>25$~GeV and a central $b$-tagged jet with $p_T>17$~GeV, or
63: \item two taus with $\abs{\eta}<1.0$ and $p_T>25$~GeV, or
64: \item a central or plug photon with $p_T>40$~GeV and a central tau with $p_T>40$~GeV, or
65: \item one central photon with $p_T>25$~GeV and one other central or plug photon with $p_T>25$~GeV, or
66: \item a central photon with $p_T>40$~GeV and a central $b$-tagged jet with $p_T>25$~GeV, or
67: \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
68: \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
69: \item two central muons with $p_T>17$~GeV, or
70: \item one central electron and one central muon with $p_T>17$~GeV, or
71: \item one central electron with $p_T>20$~GeV and one central tau with $p_T>17$~GeV, or
72: \item one plug electron with $p_T>25$~GeV and one central muon with $p_T>17$~GeV, or
73: \item one central muon with $p_T>20$~GeV and one central tau with $p_T>17$~GeV.
74: \end{itemize}
75: Tri-object criteria keep events containing:
76: \begin{itemize}
77: \item a central or plug photon with $p_T>40$~GeV and two central taus with $p_T>17$~GeV, or
78: \item a central or plug photon with $p_T>40$~GeV and two central $b$-tagged jets with $p_T>25$~GeV, or
79: \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, or
80: \item one $b$-tagged jet with $p_T>90$~GeV and two more $b$-tagged jets with $p_T>60$~GeV, or
81: \item one central muon with $p_T>17$~GeV and two other central or plug muons with $p_T>17$~GeV.
82: \end{itemize}
83: Additional special criteria accept events containing:
84: \begin{itemize}
85: \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
86: \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.
87: \end{itemize}
88:
89: The above criteria are set by the requirements that the corresponding Standard Model prediction can be generated with enough Monte Carlo event to have weights $\lesssim1$, and that trigger efficiencies can be treated as roughly independent of object $p_T$, while keeping as many potentially interesting events as possible.
90:
91: Explicit online trigger paths are no longer required. CDF specific details are provided in Sec.~\ref{sec:trigger2}.
92:
93:
94:
95: \subsection{Event generation}
96: \label{sec:eventGeneration2}
97:
98: Here are summarized changes made to our Monte Carlo event generation since the first round of analysis.
99:
100: \begin{itemize}
101: \item A number of electroweak samples changed to use the newest (Gen6) \CdfSim\ version. They include (the Stntuple sample names are given in parentheses):
102: Pythia $W\rightarrow e \nu$~(we0sfe, we0sge, we0she),
103: Pythia $W\rightarrow \mu \nu$~(we0s8m, we0s9m),
104: Pythia $W\rightarrow \tau \nu$~(we0s9t, we0sat),
105: Pythia $Z\rightarrow ee$~(ze1s6d, ze1sad, ze0scd, ze0sdd, ze0sed, ze0see),
106: Pythia $Z\rightarrow \mu\mu$~(ze1s9m, ze0sbm, ze0scm, ze0sdm, ze0sem),
107: Pythia $Z\rightarrow \tau\tau$~(ze0s8t, ze0sat),
108: Pythia WW (we0sbd, we0sgd),
109: Pythia WZ (we0scd),
110: Baur $W(\rightarrow e\nu)+\gamma$~(re0s28, re0s48),
111: Baur $W(\rightarrow \mu\nu)+\gamma$~(re0s29, re0s49),
112: Baur $W(\rightarrow \tau\nu)+\gamma$~(re0s1a, re0s4a).
113: \item A low mass Drell-Yan sample was added with $M_Z$ going down to 10 GeV (zx0sde, zx0sdm)
114: \item We switched from using the Mrenna matched W+jets sample to the standard Top Group Alpgen W+jets samples:
115: $W(\rightarrow e\nu)$+jets (ptopw0, ptopw1, ptop2w, ptop3w, ptop4w),
116: $W(\rightarrow\mu\nu)$+jets (ptopw5, ptopw6, ptop7w, ptop8w, ptop9w),
117: $W(\rightarrow \tau\nu)$+jets (utopw0, utopw1, utop2w, utop3w, utop4w).
118: \item We switched from using MadEvent W+bbar to the standard Top Group W+bbar sample:
119: $W(\rightarrow e\nu)$+bb+jets (btop0w, btop1w, btop2w),
120: $W(\rightarrow \mu\nu)$+bb+jets (btop5w, btop6w, btop7w).
121: \end{itemize}
122:
123: Table~\ref{tbl:SumWeight} summarizes the contributions from each Monte Carlo sample.
124:
125: \begin{table}
126: \tiny
127: \hspace{-1.5cm}
128: \begin{minipage}{6.5in}
129: \begin{verbatim}
130: Dataset Process Weights * Number = Total weight | Dataset Process Weights * Number = Total weight
131: ----------- ---------------- ------- ------ ------------ | ----------- ---------------- ------- ------ ------------
132: pyth_jj_000 Pythia jj 0<pT<10 1700 1 1720.13 | alpgen_muvmj Alpgen W(-> mu v) j 0.3 281072 83565.2
133: pyth_jj_010 Pythia jj 10<pT<18 330 74 24368.4 | ut0s2w Alpgen W(-> tau v)+jets 0.29 5230 1537.91
134: pyth_pj_008 Pythia j gamma 8<pT<12 86 5 430.59 | mad_vtvt-a MadEvent Z(->vv) gamma 0.27 136 37.22
135: mrenna_mu+mu- MadEvent Z(-> mu mu) 29 220 6478.07 | mad_veve-a MadEvent Z(->vv) gamma 0.27 135 36.91
136: pyth_jj_090 Pythia jj 90<pT<120 22 2064 45825.1 | we0s9t Pythia W(-> tau v) 0.26 66024 17105.3
137: pyth_pj_012 Pythia j gamma 12<pT<22 21 1970 41809.2 | ut0sw1 Alpgen W(-> tau v)+jets 0.24 27785 6634.6
138: pyth_jj_018 Pythia jj 18<pT<40 18 24807 444683 | pyth_pp Pythia gamma gamma 0.23 25552 5783.53
139: alpgen_eve Alpgen W(->e v) 12 5807 68133.2 | ze1s6d Pythia Z(->ee) 0.22 484676 106397
140: mad_vtvt-j MadEvent Z(->vv) j 11 3 32.25 | mad_e+e-b-b MadEvent Z(->ee) bb 0.22 1028 224
141: mad_veve-j MadEvent Z(->vv) j 11 3 32.01 | alpgen_evejj Alpgen W(->e v) jj 0.21 175665 37470.9
142: mrenna_e+e- MadEvent Z(->ee) 10 5965 60080.4 | re0s28 Baur W(->ev) gamma 0.21 22074 4698.99
143: alpgen_muvm Alpgen W(-> mu v) 9.9 4483 44217.8 | alpgen_muvmjj Alpgen W(-> mu v) jj 0.2 112546 22201.2
144: pyth_jj_120 Pythia jj 120<pT<150 8.2 3291 27109.7 | ztopcz Pythia ZZ 0.19 588 110.12
145: pyth_bj_010 Pythia bj 10<pT<18 7.7 96 739.91 | stelzer_Zaj stelzer_Zaj 0.18 1592 288.68
146: pyth_jj_060 Pythia jj 60<pT<90 6.7 25300 170628 | mad_aajj MadEvent jj gamma gamma 0.18 7825 1406.23
147: mrenna_mu+mu-j MadEvent Z(-> mu mu) j 6.6 3209 21131 | mad_mu+mu-b-b MadEvent Z(-> mu mu) bb 0.17 624 109.01
148: pyth_jj_040 Pythia jj 40<pT<60 5 87760 440765 | mad_e+e-jj MadEvent Z(->ee) jj 0.17 775 134.36
149: pyth_jj_200 Pythia jj 200<pT<300 3.4 73024 249462 | re0s29 Baur W(-> mu v) gamma 0.17 19972 3454.5
150: mad_veve-a_f MadEvent Z(->vv) gamma 3.4 13 44.3 | re0s1a Baur W(-> tau v) gamma 0.17 2823 467.2
151: ut0sw0 Alpgen W(-> tau v)+jets 3.2 643 2065.45 | pyth_jj_300 Pythia jj 300<pT<400 0.14 103800 14883.7
152: pyth_pj_022 Pythia j gamma 22<pT<45 3 31039 93761.3 | mad_aaa_f MadEvent gamma gamma gamma 0.14 52 7.4
153: pyth_jj_150 Pythia jj 150<pT<200 2.7 59183 162311 | cosmic_j_hi Cosmic (jet100) 0.12 36674 4487.59
154: we0sfe Pythia W(->e v) 2.4 381263 921806 | pyth_bj_040 Pythia bj 40<pT<60 0.12 160713 18850
155: cosmic_j_lo Cosmic (jet20) 2.3 122 277.24 | mrenna_e+e-jjj MadEvent Z(->ee) jjj 0.11 23995 2667.48
156: cosmic_ph Cosmic (photon_25_iso) 1.9 2694 4989.53 | ze0s8t Pythia Z(-> tau tau) 0.093 15030 1400.09
157: pyth_pj_080 Pythia j gamma 80<pT 1.5 18378 28063.9 | pyth_bj_200 Pythia bj 200<pT<300 0.081 254807 20679.8
158: mrenna_e+e-j MadEvent Z(->ee) j 1.5 28104 40784.4 | hewk03 MadEvent Z(->ee) gamma 0.081 70476 5709.75
159: pyth_pj_045 Pythia j gamma 45<pT<80 1.4 82466 117398 | mad_aaa MadEvent gamma gamma gamma 0.08 73 5.82
160: mrenna_mu+mu-jj MadEvent Z(-> mu mu) jj 1.3 4146 5503.42 | wenubb0p Alpgen W(->e v) bb 0.075 41459 3105.72
161: mad_veve-j_f MadEvent Z(->vv) j 1.2 6 7.23 | wmnubb0p Alpgen W(-> mu v) bb 0.075 26067 1952.18
162: pyth_bj_018 Pythia bj 18<pT<40 1.2 15659 18163.1 | zx0sem Pythia Z(-> mu mu) (m_Z<20) 0.075 45 3.37
163: mad_e+e- MadEvent Z(->ee) 1 520 540.85 | zx0see Pythia Z(->ee) (m_Z<20) 0.074 73 5.37
164: stelzer_l+l-j stelzer_l+l-j 0.92 668 615.62 | wenubb1p Alpgen W(->e v) bb j 0.072 14111 1021.01
165: mrenna_e+e-jj MadEvent Z(->ee) jj 0.92 11258 10307.9 | wmnubb1p Alpgen W(-> mu v) bb j 0.072 8426 609.28
166: mad_mu+mu- MadEvent Z(-> mu mu) 0.89 82 72.79 | hewk04 MadEvent Z(-> mu mu) gamma 0.072 2032 145.67
167: pyth_bj_060 Pythia bj 60<pT<90 0.87 10723 9348.26 | overlay Overlaid events 0.071 11118 794.91
168: mad_vtvt-a_f MadEvent Z(->vv) gamma 0.84 38 32 | pyth_jj_400 Pythia jj 400<pT 0.068 13153 894.13
169: pyth_bj_090 Pythia bj 90<pT<120 0.84 2374 1990.9 | alpgen_evejjj Alpgen W(->e v) jjj 0.068 92857 6284.23
170: mad_vtvt-j_f MadEvent Z(->vv) j 0.81 5 4.07 | alpgen_muvmjjj Alpgen W(-> mu v) jjj 0.066 55704 3693.97
171: stelzer_Waj MadEvent W(->l v)j gamma 0.69 1637 1124.5 | ttop0z Herwig ttbar 0.065 30518 1983.29
172: pyth_bj_120 Pythia bj 120<pT<150 0.67 2848 1903.72 | ut0s3w Alpgen W(-> tau v)+jets 0.063 4458 281.47
173: mad_aaj MadEvent j gamma gamma 0.52 559 289.03 | ze0sat Pythia Z(-> tau tau) 0.063 22882 1438.37
174: we0s8m Pythia W(-> mu v) 0.49 1.2908e+06 630955 | wmnubb2p Alpgen W(-> mu v) bb jj 0.054 3529 189.63
175: pyth_bj_150 Pythia bj 150<pT<200 0.45 28272 12593.5 | wenubb2p Alpgen W(->e v) bb jj 0.054 6075 325.2
176: mrenna_mu+mu-jjj MadEvent Z(-> mu mu) jjj 0.44 3435 1498.33 | we0scd Pythia WZ 0.053 2890 154.28
177: mad_e+e-j MadEvent Z(->ee) j 0.39 735 286.71 | we0sbd Pythia WW 0.048 2839 136.4
178: alpgen_evej Alpgen W(->e v) j 0.35 398558 140544 | we0sgd Pythia WW 0.048 2567 122.92
179: we0sat Pythia W(-> tau v) 0.35 49543 17155.3 | alpgen_evejjjj Alpgen W(->e v) jjjj 0.027 41696 1123.15
180: mad_mu+mu-j MadEvent Z(-> mu mu) j 0.34 494 166.35 | alpgen_muvmjjjj Alpgen W(-> mu v) jjjj 0.024 27099 662.36
181: mad_mu+mu-jj MadEvent Z(-> mu mu) jj 0.32 1681 532 | ut0s4w Alpgen W(-> tau v)+jets 0.022 2551 56.84
182: ze1s9m Pythia Z(-> mu mu) 0.3 370995 110522 | Total: 4.36864e+06
183: \end{verbatim}\end{minipage}
184: \caption[The number of events contributing from each Standard Model process.]{The number of events contributing from each Standard Model process, ordered according to decreasing effective weight of individual Monte Carlo events. The data set names are shown in the leftmost column, with the corresponding process shown in the second column. The typical weight of individual events from each process is shown in the third column, and the ``effective'' number of events from each process contributing to the background estimate is shown in the fourth column. The weight from each process is totaled in the rightmost column, and the total weight is provided at bottom. The total weight is equal to the roughly four million events included in this analysis.}
185: \label{tbl:SumWeight}
186: \end{table}
187:
188: \begin{table}
189: %this tex file is produced with Vista_cdf/doc/analysisSite/public/makeFudgeFactorsTable.pl
190: %\include{fudgeFactorsTable}
191: \centering
192: \footnotesize
193: \vspace{-1cm}
194: \begin{tabular}{lllllll}
195: {\bf Code } & {\bf Category } & {\bf Explanation } & {\bf Value } & {\bf Error } & {\bf Error(\%) } \\ \hline
196: 0001 & luminosity & CDF integrated luminosity & 1990 & 50 & 2.6 \\
197: 0002 & $k$-factor & cosmic\_ph & 0.83 & 0.05 & 6.0 \\
198: 0003 & $k$-factor & cosmic\_j & 0.192 & 0.006 & 3.1 \\
199: 0004 & $k$-factor & 1$\gamma$1j photon+jet(s) & 0.92 & 0.04 & 4.4 \\
200: 0005 & $k$-factor & 1$\gamma$2j & 1.26 & 0.05 & 4.0 \\
201: 0006 & $k$-factor & 1$\gamma$3j & 1.61 & 0.08 & 5.0 \\
202: 0007 & $k$-factor & 1$\gamma$4j+ & 1.94 & 0.16 & 8.3 \\
203: 0008 & $k$-factor & 2$\gamma$0j diphoton(+jets) & 1.6 & 0.08 & 5.0 \\
204: 0009 & $k$-factor & 2$\gamma$1j & 2.99 & 0.17 & 5.7 \\
205: 0010 & $k$-factor & 2$\gamma$2j+ & 1.2 & 0.09 & 7.5 \\
206: 0011 & $k$-factor & W0j W (+jets) & 1.38 & 0.03 & 2.2 \\
207: 0012 & $k$-factor & W1j & 1.33 & 0.03 & 2.3 \\
208: 0013 & $k$-factor & W2j & 1.99 & 0.05 & 2.5 \\
209: 0014 & $k$-factor & W3j+ & 2.11 & 0.09 & 4.3 \\
210: 0015 & $k$-factor & Z0j Z (+jets) & 1.39 & 0.028 & 2.0 \\
211: 0016 & $k$-factor & Z1j & 1.23 & 0.04 & 3.2 \\
212: 0017 & $k$-factor & Z2j+ & 1.02 & 0.04 & 3.9 \\
213: 0018 & $k$-factor & 2j $\hat{p}_T$$<$150 dijet & 1.003 & 0.027 & 2.7 \\
214: 0019 & $k$-factor & 2j 150$<$$\hat{p}_T$ & 1.34 & 0.03 & 2.2 \\
215: 0020 & $k$-factor & 3j $\hat{p}_T$$<$150 multijet & 0.941 & 0.025 & 2.7 \\
216: 0021 & $k$-factor & 3j 150$<$$\hat{p}_T$ & 1.48 & 0.04 & 2.7 \\
217: 0022 & $k$-factor & 4j $\hat{p}_T$$<$150 & 1.06 & 0.03 & 2.8 \\
218: 0023 & $k$-factor & 4j 150$<$$\hat{p}_T$ & 1.93 & 0.06 & 3.1 \\
219: 0024 & $k$-factor & 5j low & 1.33 & 0.05 & 3.8 \\
220: 0025 & $k$-factor & 1b2j 150$<$$\hat{p}_T$ & 2.22 & 0.11 & 5.0 \\
221: 0026 & $k$-factor & 1b3j 150$<$$\hat{p}_T$ & 2.98 & 0.15 & 5.0 \\
222: 0027 & misId & p(e$\rightarrow$e) central & 0.978 & 0.006 & 0.6 \\
223: 0028 & misId & p(e$\rightarrow$e) plug & 0.966 & 0.007 & 0.7 \\
224: 0029 & misId & p($\mu$$\rightarrow$$\mu$) CMUP+CMX & 0.888 & 0.007 & 0.8 \\
225: 0030 & misId & p($\gamma$$\rightarrow$$\gamma$) central & 0.949 & 0.018 & 1.9 \\
226: 0031 & misId & p($\gamma$$\rightarrow$$\gamma$) plug & 0.859 & 0.016 & 1.9 \\
227: 0032 & misId & p(b$\rightarrow$b) central & 0.978 & 0.021 & 2.1 \\
228: 0033 & misId & p($\gamma$$\rightarrow$e) plug & 0.06 & 0.003 & 5.0 \\
229: 0034 & misId & p(q$\rightarrow$e) central & 7.09$\times 10^{-5}$ & 1.9$\times 10^{-6}$ & 2.7 \\
230: 0035 & misId & p(q$\rightarrow$e) plug & 0.000766 & 1.2$\times 10^{-5}$ & 1.6 \\
231: 0036 & misId & p(q$\rightarrow$$\mu$) & 1.14$\times 10^{-5}$ & 6$\times 10^{-7}$ & 5.2 \\
232: 0037 & misId & p(b$\rightarrow$$\mu$) & 3.3$\times 10^{-5}$ & 1.1$\times 10^{-5}$ & 33.0 \\
233: 0038 & misId & p(j$\rightarrow$b) 25$<$$p_T$ & 0.0183 & 0.0002 & 1.1 \\
234: 0039 & misId & p(q$\rightarrow$$\tau$) & 0.0052 & 0.0001 & 1.9 \\
235: 0040 & misId & p(q$\rightarrow$$\gamma$) central & 0.000266 & 1.4$\times 10^{-5}$ & 5.3 \\
236: 0041 & misId & p(q$\rightarrow$$\gamma$) plug & 0.00048 & 6$\times 10^{-5}$ & 12.6 \\
237: 0042 & trigger & p(e$\rightarrow$trig) plug, $p_T$$>$25 & 0.86 & 0.007 & 0.8 \\
238: 0043 & trigger & p($\mu$$\rightarrow$trig) CMUP+CMX, $p_T$$>$25 & 0.916 & 0.004 & 0.4 \\
239: \end{tabular}
240: \caption[The correction factors of \Vista\ correction model.]{The correction factors of \Vista\ correction model. The best fit values ({\tt Value}) are given in the 4\th\ column. Correction factor errors ({\tt Error}) resulting from the fit are shown in the 5\th\ column. The fractional error ({\tt Error(\%)}) is listed in the 6\th\ column. All values are dimensionless except for the first one, which represents integrated luminosity and has units of pb$^{-1}$. These values and uncertainties are valid within the context of this correction model.}
241: \label{tbl:CorrectionFactorDescriptionValuesSigmas}
242: \end{table}
243:
244:
245: Specific modifications to the correction model implemented since the first round are described here.
246:
247: \begin{itemize}
248: \item The integrated luminosity of the data sample considered has increased from 927 to 1990~pb$^{-1}$. The integrated luminosity correction factor has been adjusted accordingly.
249: \item Events from more recent data have been included in the high-$p_T$ jet and photon non-collision backgrounds. For events with $\sumPt > 400$ GeV and at least two jets of $p_T > 10$ GeV and no objects of other kinds, we require the $p_T$ of the jet with the second largest $p_T$ to be greater than 75 GeV. This cut is to clean multijet samples of events where the second jet comes from the underlying event but the first jet is due to a cosmic ray. Such events are not modeled well by our cosmic background, which comprises events required to have less than three tracks; this requirement reduces the fraction of such cosmic + jet(s) events relative to the data sample, where more than three tracks are required. As a result of these changes, the {\tt cosmic\_ph} and {\tt cosmic\_j} correction factors have been readjusted.
250: \item It was recognized that in the previous version of the analysis we had been using a suboptimal filter for conversion electrons. This filter has been updated and now yields a substantially reduced rate for jets faking electrons via fragmentation to a leading $\pi^0$.
251: \item In order to accommodate the ditau trigger, which in recent data requires a seed track with $p_T>10$~GeV, and recognizing our concentration on the identification of single-prong taus, the track requirement for taus has been increased to 10.5~GeV. The fake rate $\poo{j}{\tau}$ and its dependence on $p_T$ have been adjusted accordingly.
252: \item In order to address questions regarding the fake rate $\poo{j}{\tau}$ and its consistent simultaneous application to many final states, the measurement of tau $p_T$ is now based on the energy deposited in the calorimeter.%, rather than the $p_T$ of the associated track.
253: \item In order to address questions regarding the fake rate $\poo{j}{\tau}$ and its consistent simultaneous application to multijet final states with large and small \sumPt, a monotonically decreasing dependence of the fake rate $\poo{j}{\tau}$ on the generated summed scalar transverse momentum has been imposed.
254: \item In the implementation of the fake rates $\poo{j}{e}$, $\poo{j}{\mu}$, and $\poo{j}{\tau}$, jets from a parent $u$ or $\bar{d}$ quark now only fake positively charged $\mu$ and $\tau$ leptons (and positrons rather than electrons at a ratio of 2:1), and jets from a parent $\bar{u}$ or $d$ quark now only fake negatively charged $\mu$ and $\tau$ leptons (and electrons rather than positrons at a ratio of 2:1).
255: \item The ditau trigger, which turned on roughly 300~pb$^{-1}$ into Run II, has now been live for a greater fraction of the total integrated dataset. The effective ditau trigger effeciency has been adjusted accordingly.
256: \item A fake rate $\poo{b}{\mu}$ has been introduced.
257: \item The $p_T$ dependence of the fake rate $\poo{j}{b}$ and $\poo{j}{tau}$ has been adjusted.
258: \item The \detEta\ and $\phi$ dependence of the fake rate $\poo{j}{e}$ and $\poo{j}{ph}$ has been adjusted to take into account more geometric features of the detector including the calorimeter cracks at \detEta\ of 0 and 1.1.
259: \item The efficiency for reconstructing a jet as a non-$b$-tagged jet has been reduced from 1 to 1-$\poo{j}{b}$.
260: \item Separate $k$-factors have been introduced for heavy flavor multijet production for the high-$p_T$ sample. Specifically, a new $k$-factor has been introduced for events with at least one heavy flavor jet and three jets in total, with $\hat{p_T} > 150~GeV$. Another $k$-factor has been introduced for events with at least one heavy flavor jet and four or more jets in total, with $\hat{p_T} > 150~GeV$. They are listed in the table of correction factors \ref{tbl:CorrectionFactorDescriptionValuesSigmas} as 1b2j and 1b3j.
261: \end{itemize}
262:
263:
264: \subsection{Results}
265:
266: \begin{table*}
267: %\href{http://mit.fnal.gov/~knuteson/Quaero/quaero/doc/devel/cdf/Vista/2005_07_04_16:12:53/}
268: %\include{vista_cdf}
269: \tiny
270: \hspace{-0.5cm}
271: \begin{minipage}{9in}
272: \begin{tabular}{l@{ }r@{ }r@{ $\pm$ }l@{ }l}
273: {\bf Final State} & {\bf Data} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\bf Background} & {\bf $\sigma$} \\ \hline
274: b$e^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$ & $690$ & $817.7$ & $9.2$ & $-2.7$ \\
275: $\gamma$$\tau^\pm$ & $1371$ & $1217.6$ & $13.3$ & $+2.2$ \\
276: $\mu^\pm$$\tau^\pm$ & $63$ & $35.2$ & $2.8$ & $+1.7$ \\
277: b2j$p\!\!\!/$ high-$\Sigma p_T$ & $255$ & $327.2$ & $8.9$ & $-1.7$ \\
278: 2j$\tau^\pm$ low-$\Sigma p_T$ & $574$ & $670.3$ & $8.6$ & $-1.5$ \\
279: 3j$\tau^\pm$ low-$\Sigma p_T$ & $148$ & $199.8$ & $5.2$ & $-1.4$ \\
280: $e^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$$\tau^\pm$ & $36$ & $17.2$ & $1.7$ & $+1.4$ \\
281: 2j$\tau^\pm$$\tau^\mp$ & $33$ & $62.1$ & $4.3$ & $-1.3$ \\
282: $e^\pm$j & $741710$ & $764832$ & $6447.2$ & $-1.3$ \\
283: j$2\tau^\pm$ & $105$ & $150.8$ & $6.3$ & $-1.2$ \\
284: $e^\pm$2j & $256946$ & $249148$ & $2201.5$ & $+1.2$ \\
285: 2bj low-$\Sigma p_T$ & $279$ & $352.5$ & $11.9$ & $-1.1$ \\
286: j$\tau^\pm$ low-$\Sigma p_T$ & $1385$ & $1525.8$ & $15$ & $-1.1$ \\
287: 2b2j low-$\Sigma p_T$ & $108$ & $153.5$ & $6.8$ & $-1$ \\
288: b$\mu^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$ & $528$ & $613.5$ & $8.7$ & $-0.9$ \\
289: $\mu^\pm$$\gamma$$p\!\!\!/$ & $523$ & $611$ & $12.1$ & $-0.8$ \\
290: 2b$\gamma$ & $108$ & $70.5$ & $7.9$ & $+0.1$ \\
291: 8j & $14$ & $13.1$ & $4.4$ & $0$ \\
292: 7j & $103$ & $97.8$ & $12.2$ & $0$ \\
293: 6j & $653$ & $659.7$ & $37.3$ & $0$ \\
294: 5j & $3157$ & $3178.7$ & $67.1$ & $0$ \\
295: 4j high-$\Sigma p_T$ & $88546$ & $89096.6$ & $935.2$ & $0$ \\
296: 4j low-$\Sigma p_T$ & $14872$ & $14809.6$ & $186.3$ & $0$ \\
297: 4j$2\gamma$ & $46$ & $46.4$ & $3.9$ & $0$ \\
298: 4j$\tau^\pm$ high-$\Sigma p_T$ & $29$ & $26.6$ & $1.7$ & $0$ \\
299: 4j$\tau^\pm$ low-$\Sigma p_T$ & $43$ & $63.1$ & $3.3$ & $0$ \\
300: 4j$p\!\!\!/$ high-$\Sigma p_T$ & $1064$ & $1012$ & $62.9$ & $0$ \\
301: 4j$\gamma$$\tau^\pm$ & $19$ & $10.8$ & $2$ & $0$ \\
302: 4j$\gamma$$p\!\!\!/$ & $62$ & $104.2$ & $22.4$ & $0$ \\
303: 4j$\gamma$ & $7962$ & $8271.2$ & $245.1$ & $0$ \\
304: 4j$\mu^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$ & $574$ & $590.5$ & $13.6$ & $0$ \\
305: 4j$\mu^\pm$$\mu^\mp$ & $38$ & $48.4$ & $6.2$ & $0$ \\
306: 4j$\mu^\pm$ & $1363$ & $1350.1$ & $37.7$ & $0$ \\
307: 3j high-$\Sigma p_T$ & $159926$ & $159143$ & $1061.9$ & $0$ \\
308: 3j low-$\Sigma p_T$ & $62681$ & $64213.1$ & $496$ & $0$ \\
309: 3j$2\gamma$ & $151$ & $177.5$ & $7.1$ & $0$ \\
310: 3j$\tau^\pm$ high-$\Sigma p_T$ & $68$ & $76.9$ & $3$ & $0$ \\
311: 3j$p\!\!\!/$ high-$\Sigma p_T$ & $1706$ & $1899.4$ & $77.6$ & $0$ \\
312: 3j$p\!\!\!/$ low-$\Sigma p_T$ & $42$ & $36.2$ & $5.7$ & $0$ \\
313: 3j$\gamma$$\tau^\pm$ & $39$ & $37.8$ & $3.6$ & $0$ \\
314: 3j$\gamma$$p\!\!\!/$ & $204$ & $249.8$ & $24.4$ & $0$ \\
315: 3j$\gamma$ & $24639$ & $24899.4$ & $372.4$ & $0$ \\
316: 3j$\mu^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$ & $2884$ & $2971.5$ & $52.1$ & $0$ \\
317: 3j$\mu^\pm$$\gamma$$p\!\!\!/$ & $10$ & $3.6$ & $1.9$ & $0$ \\
318: 3j$\mu^\pm$$\gamma$ & $15$ & $7.9$ & $2.9$ & $0$ \\
319: 3j$\mu^\pm$$\mu^\mp$ & $175$ & $177.8$ & $16.2$ & $0$ \\
320: 3j$\mu^\pm$ & $5032$ & $4989.5$ & $108.9$ & $0$ \\
321: 3b2j & $23$ & $28.9$ & $4.7$ & $0$ \\
322: 3bj & $82$ & $82.6$ & $5.7$ & $0$ \\
323: 3b & $67$ & $85.6$ & $7.7$ & $0$ \\
324: $2\tau^\pm$ & $498$ & $512.7$ & $14.2$ & $0$ \\
325: $2\gamma$$p\!\!\!/$ & $128$ & $107.2$ & $6.9$ & $0$ \\
326: $2\gamma$ & $5548$ & $5562.8$ & $40.5$ & $0$ \\
327: 2j high-$\Sigma p_T$ & $190773$ & $190842$ & $781.2$ & $0$ \\
328: 2j low-$\Sigma p_T$ & $165984$ & $162530$ & $1581$ & $0$ \\
329: 2j$2\tau^\pm$ & $22$ & $40.6$ & $3.2$ & $0$ \\
330: 2j$2\gamma$$p\!\!\!/$ & $11$ & $8$ & $2.4$ & $0$ \\
331: 2j$2\gamma$ & $580$ & $581$ & $13.7$ & $0$ \\
332: 2j$\tau^\pm$ high-$\Sigma p_T$ & $96$ & $114.6$ & $3.3$ & $0$ \\
333: \end{tabular}
334: \begin{tabular}{l@{ }r@{ }r@{ $\pm$ }l@{ }l}
335: {\bf Final State} & {\bf Data} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\bf Background} & {\bf $\sigma$} \\ \hline
336: 2j$p\!\!\!/$ high-$\Sigma p_T$ & $87$ & $80.9$ & $6.8$ & $0$ \\
337: 2j$p\!\!\!/$ low-$\Sigma p_T$ & $114$ & $79.5$ & $100.8$ & $0$ \\
338: 2j$p\!\!\!/$$\tau^\pm$ & $18$ & $13.2$ & $2.2$ & $0$ \\
339: 2j$\gamma$$\tau^\pm$ & $142$ & $144.6$ & $5.7$ & $0$ \\
340: 2j$\gamma$$p\!\!\!/$ & $908$ & $980.3$ & $63.7$ & $0$ \\
341: 2j$\gamma$ & $71364$ & $73021.4$ & $595.9$ & $0$ \\
342: 2j$\mu^\pm$$\tau^\mp$ & $16$ & $19.3$ & $2.2$ & $0$ \\
343: 2j$\mu^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$ & $17927$ & $18340.6$ & $201.9$ & $0$ \\
344: 2j$\mu^\pm$$\gamma$$p\!\!\!/$ & $31$ & $27.7$ & $7.7$ & $0$ \\
345: 2j$\mu^\pm$$\gamma$ & $57$ & $58.2$ & $13$ & $0$ \\
346: 2j$\mu^\pm$$\mu^\mp$$p\!\!\!/$ & $11$ & $7.8$ & $2.7$ & $0$ \\
347: 2j$\mu^\pm$$\mu^\mp$ & $956$ & $924.9$ & $61.2$ & $0$ \\
348: 2j$\mu^\pm$ & $22461$ & $23111.4$ & $366.6$ & $0$ \\
349: $2e^\pm$j & $14$ & $13.8$ & $2.3$ & $0$ \\
350: $2e^\pm$$e^\mp$ & $20$ & $17.5$ & $1.7$ & $0$ \\
351: $2e^\pm$ & $32$ & $49.2$ & $3.4$ & $0$ \\
352: 2b high-$\Sigma p_T$ & $666$ & $689$ & $9.4$ & $0$ \\
353: 2b low-$\Sigma p_T$ & $323$ & $313.2$ & $10.3$ & $0$ \\
354: 2b3j low-$\Sigma p_T$ & $53$ & $57.4$ & $6.5$ & $0$ \\
355: 2b2j high-$\Sigma p_T$ & $718$ & $803.3$ & $12.7$ & $0$ \\
356: 2b2j$p\!\!\!/$ high-$\Sigma p_T$ & $15$ & $21.8$ & $2.8$ & $0$ \\
357: 2b2j$\gamma$ & $32$ & $39.7$ & $6.2$ & $0$ \\
358: 2b2j$\mu^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$ & $14$ & $17.3$ & $1.9$ & $0$ \\
359: 2b2j$\mu^\pm$ & $22$ & $21.8$ & $2$ & $0$ \\
360: 2b$\mu^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$ & $11$ & $14.4$ & $2.1$ & $0$ \\
361: 2bj high-$\Sigma p_T$ & $891$ & $967.1$ & $13.2$ & $0$ \\
362: 2bj$p\!\!\!/$ high-$\Sigma p_T$ & $25$ & $31.3$ & $3.1$ & $0$ \\
363: 2bj$\gamma$ & $71$ & $54.5$ & $7.1$ & $0$ \\
364: 2bj$\mu^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$ & $12$ & $10.7$ & $1.9$ & $0$ \\
365: 2b$e^\pm$2j$p\!\!\!/$ & $30$ & $27.3$ & $2.2$ & $0$ \\
366: 2b$e^\pm$2j & $72$ & $66.5$ & $2.9$ & $0$ \\
367: 2b$e^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$ & $22$ & $19.1$ & $2.2$ & $0$ \\
368: 2b$e^\pm$j$p\!\!\!/$ & $19$ & $19.4$ & $2.2$ & $0$ \\
369: 2b$e^\pm$j & $63$ & $63$ & $3.4$ & $0$ \\
370: 2b$e^\pm$ & $96$ & $92.1$ & $4.1$ & $0$ \\
371: $\tau^\pm$$\tau^\mp$ & $856$ & $872.5$ & $19$ & $0$ \\
372: $\gamma$$p\!\!\!/$ & $3793$ & $3770.7$ & $127.3$ & $0$ \\
373: $\mu^\pm$$\tau^\mp$ & $381$ & $440.9$ & $7.3$ & $0$ \\
374: $\mu^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$$\tau^\mp$ & $60$ & $75.7$ & $3.4$ & $0$ \\
375: $\mu^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$$\tau^\pm$ & $15$ & $12$ & $2$ & $0$ \\
376: $\mu^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$ & $734290$ & $734296$ & $4897.8$ & $0$ \\
377: $\mu^\pm$$\gamma$ & $475$ & $469.8$ & $12.5$ & $0$ \\
378: $\mu^\pm$$\mu^\mp$$p\!\!\!/$ & $169$ & $198.5$ & $8.2$ & $0$ \\
379: $\mu^\pm$$\mu^\mp$$\gamma$ & $83$ & $60$ & $3.1$ & $0$ \\
380: $\mu^\pm$$\mu^\mp$ & $25283$ & $25178.5$ & $86.5$ & $0$ \\
381: j$2\gamma$$p\!\!\!/$ & $36$ & $30.4$ & $4.2$ & $0$ \\
382: j$2\gamma$ & $1822$ & $1813.2$ & $27.4$ & $0$ \\
383: j$\tau^\pm$ high-$\Sigma p_T$ & $52$ & $56.2$ & $2.5$ & $0$ \\
384: j$\tau^\pm$$\tau^\mp$ & $203$ & $252.2$ & $8.7$ & $0$ \\
385: j$p\!\!\!/$ high-$\Sigma p_T$ & $4432$ & $4431.7$ & $45.2$ & $0$ \\
386: j$\gamma$$\tau^\pm$ & $526$ & $476$ & $9.3$ & $0$ \\
387: j$\gamma$$p\!\!\!/$ & $1882$ & $1791.9$ & $72.3$ & $0$ \\
388: j$\gamma$ & $103319$ & $102124$ & $570.6$ & $0$ \\
389: j$\mu^\pm$$\tau^\mp$ & $71$ & $98$ & $3.9$ & $0$ \\
390: j$\mu^\pm$$\tau^\pm$ & $15$ & $12$ & $2$ & $0$ \\
391: j$\mu^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$$\tau^\mp$ & $26$ & $30.8$ & $2.6$ & $0$ \\
392: j$\mu^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$ & $109081$ & $108323$ & $707.7$ & $0$ \\
393: j$\mu^\pm$$\gamma$$p\!\!\!/$ & $171$ & $171.1$ & $31$ & $0$ \\
394: j$\mu^\pm$$\gamma$ & $152$ & $190$ & $39.3$ & $0$ \\
395: \end{tabular}
396: \begin{tabular}{l@{ }r@{ }r@{ $\pm$ }l@{ }l}
397: {\bf Final State} & {\bf Data} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\bf Background} & {\bf $\sigma$} \\ \hline
398: j$\mu^\pm$$\mu^\mp$$p\!\!\!/$ & $32$ & $32.2$ & $10.9$ & $0$ \\
399: j$\mu^\pm$$\mu^\mp$$\gamma$ & $14$ & $11.5$ & $2.6$ & $0$ \\
400: j$\mu^\pm$$\mu^\mp$ & $4852$ & $4271.2$ & $185.4$ & $0$ \\
401: j$\mu^\pm$ & $77689$ & $76987.5$ & $930.2$ & $0$ \\
402: $e^\pm$4j$p\!\!\!/$ & $903$ & $830.6$ & $13.2$ & $0$ \\
403: $e^\pm$4j$\gamma$ & $25$ & $29.2$ & $3.6$ & $0$ \\
404: $e^\pm$4j & $15750$ & $16740.4$ & $390.5$ & $0$ \\
405: $e^\pm$3j$\tau^\mp$ & $15$ & $21.1$ & $2.2$ & $0$ \\
406: $e^\pm$3j$p\!\!\!/$ & $4054$ & $4077.2$ & $63.6$ & $0$ \\
407: $e^\pm$3j$\gamma$ & $108$ & $79.3$ & $5$ & $0$ \\
408: $e^\pm$3j & $60725$ & $60409.3$ & $723.3$ & $0$ \\
409: $e^\pm$$2\gamma$ & $41$ & $34.2$ & $2.6$ & $0$ \\
410: $e^\pm$2j$\tau^\pm$ & $37$ & $47.2$ & $2.2$ & $0$ \\
411: $e^\pm$2j$\tau^\mp$ & $109$ & $95.9$ & $6.8$ & $0$ \\
412: $e^\pm$2j$p\!\!\!/$ & $25725$ & $25403.1$ & $209.4$ & $0$ \\
413: $e^\pm$2j$\gamma$$p\!\!\!/$ & $30$ & $31.8$ & $4.8$ & $0$ \\
414: $e^\pm$2j$\gamma$ & $398$ & $342.8$ & $15.7$ & $0$ \\
415: $e^\pm$2j$\mu^\mp$$p\!\!\!/$ & $22$ & $14.8$ & $1.9$ & $0$ \\
416: $e^\pm$2j$\mu^\mp$ & $23$ & $15.8$ & $2$ & $0$ \\
417: $e^\pm$$\tau^\pm$ & $437$ & $387$ & $5.3$ & $0$ \\
418: $e^\pm$$\tau^\mp$ & $1333$ & $1266$ & $12.3$ & $0$ \\
419: $e^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$$\tau^\mp$ & $109$ & $106.1$ & $2.7$ & $0$ \\
420: $e^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$ & $960826$ & $956579$ & $3077.7$ & $0$ \\
421: $e^\pm$$\gamma$$p\!\!\!/$ & $497$ & $496.8$ & $10.3$ & $0$ \\
422: $e^\pm$$\gamma$ & $3578$ & $3589.9$ & $24.1$ & $0$ \\
423: $e^\pm$$\mu^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$ & $31$ & $29.9$ & $1.6$ & $0$ \\
424: $e^\pm$$\mu^\mp$$p\!\!\!/$ & $109$ & $99.4$ & $2.4$ & $0$ \\
425: $e^\pm$$\mu^\pm$ & $45$ & $28.5$ & $1.8$ & $0$ \\
426: $e^\pm$$\mu^\mp$ & $350$ & $313$ & $5.4$ & $0$ \\
427: $e^\pm$j$2\gamma$ & $13$ & $16.1$ & $3.9$ & $0$ \\
428: $e^\pm$j$\tau^\mp$ & $386$ & $418$ & $18.9$ & $0$ \\
429: $e^\pm$j$\tau^\pm$ & $160$ & $162.8$ & $3.5$ & $0$ \\
430: $e^\pm$j$p\!\!\!/$$\tau^\mp$ & $48$ & $44.6$ & $3.3$ & $0$ \\
431: $e^\pm$j$p\!\!\!/$$\tau^\pm$ & $11$ & $8.3$ & $1.5$ & $0$ \\
432: $e^\pm$j$p\!\!\!/$ & $121431$ & $121023$ & $747.6$ & $0$ \\
433: $e^\pm$j$\gamma$$p\!\!\!/$ & $159$ & $192.6$ & $10.9$ & $0$ \\
434: $e^\pm$j$\gamma$ & $1389$ & $1368.9$ & $38.9$ & $0$ \\
435: $e^\pm$j$\mu^\mp$$p\!\!\!/$ & $42$ & $33$ & $2.9$ & $0$ \\
436: $e^\pm$j$\mu^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$ & $16$ & $9.2$ & $1.9$ & $0$ \\
437: $e^\pm$j$\mu^\mp$ & $62$ & $63.8$ & $3.2$ & $0$ \\
438: $e^\pm$j$\mu^\pm$ & $13$ & $8.2$ & $2$ & $0$ \\
439: $e^\pm$$e^\mp$4j & $148$ & $159.1$ & $7$ & $0$ \\
440: $e^\pm$$e^\mp$3j & $717$ & $743.6$ & $24.4$ & $0$ \\
441: $e^\pm$$e^\mp$2j$p\!\!\!/$ & $32$ & $41.4$ & $5.6$ & $0$ \\
442: $e^\pm$$e^\mp$2j$\gamma$ & $10$ & $11.4$ & $2.9$ & $0$ \\
443: $e^\pm$$e^\mp$2j & $3638$ & $3566.8$ & $72$ & $0$ \\
444: $e^\pm$$e^\mp$$\tau^\pm$ & $18$ & $16.1$ & $1.7$ & $0$ \\
445: $e^\pm$$e^\mp$$p\!\!\!/$ & $822$ & $831.8$ & $13.6$ & $0$ \\
446: $e^\pm$$e^\mp$$\gamma$ & $191$ & $221.9$ & $5.1$ & $0$ \\
447: $e^\pm$$e^\mp$j$p\!\!\!/$ & $155$ & $170.8$ & $12.4$ & $0$ \\
448: $e^\pm$$e^\mp$j$\gamma$ & $48$ & $45$ & $3.9$ & $0$ \\
449: $e^\pm$$e^\mp$j & $17903$ & $18258.2$ & $204.4$ & $0$ \\
450: $e^\pm$$e^\mp$ & $98901$ & $99086.9$ & $147.8$ & $0$ \\
451: b6j & $51$ & $42.3$ & $3.8$ & $0$ \\
452: b5j & $237$ & $192.5$ & $7.1$ & $0$ \\
453: b4j high-$\Sigma p_T$ & $26$ & $23.4$ & $2.6$ & $0$ \\
454: b4j low-$\Sigma p_T$ & $836$ & $821.7$ & $15.9$ & $0$ \\
455: b3j high-$\Sigma p_T$ & $12081$ & $12071$ & $84.1$ & $0$ \\
456: b3j low-$\Sigma p_T$ & $2974$ & $2873$ & $31$ & $0$ \\
457: \end{tabular}
458: \end{minipage}
459: \caption[A subset of the populations comparison between Tevatron Run II data and Standard Model prediction.]{A subset of the comparison between Tevatron Run II data and Standard Model prediction.
460: %Events are partitioned in exclusive final states. Final states are labeled in this table according to the number and types of objects present, and are ordered in decreasing discrepancy between the total number of events expected and observed. Final states that do not exhibit notable discrepancies are listed in inverted alphabetical order.
461: %An asterisk is used to mark final states or distributions in which a significant discrepancy is observed with expectation. Numbers next to names of discrepant distributions (such as {\tt deltaphi(ph1,ph2)}, near the top of the leftmost column) indicate the level of discrepancy as measured by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic, translated into units of standard deviations. In this comparison, the charge of all leptons has been taken to be positive.
462: }
463: \label{tbl:VistaCdf2}
464: \end{table*}
465:
466: \begin{figure*}
467: \centering
468: \begin{tabular}{cc}
469: \includegraphics[width=3in]{docs/prd2/vistaSummary_norm} &
470: \includegraphics[width=3in]{docs/prd2/vistaSummary_shape} \\
471: \end{tabular}
472: \caption[Distribution of discrepancy between data and Standard Model prediction.]{Distribution of discrepancy (before accounting trials factor) between data and Standard Model prediction, measured in units of standard deviation ($\sigma$). The left pane shows the distribution of discrepancies between the total number of events observed and predicted in the final states considered. Final states with data excess populate the right tail, while those with data deficit populate the left tail. The right pane shows the distribution of discrepancies between the observed and predicted shapes of roughly $2\times10^4$ kinematic distributions. Distributions in agreement correspond to small or negative $\sigma$, and distributions in disagreement correspond to large positive $\sigma$. Interest is in the entries in both tails of the distribution on the left, and in the right tail of the distribution on the right.\label{fig:VistaSummaryCdf2}}
473: \end{figure*}
474:
475: The global fit $\chi^2$, described in Sec.~\ref{sec:Vista:CorrectionModel}, was in the second round $784.43$, from 335 bins, plus a 28.4 from external constraints. It is obviously a very large $\chi^2$, even more unlikely than it was in the first round of the analysis, indicating that deviations from the fit are clearly non-statistical, but due to systematic imperfections in our Standard Model implementation. Higher statistics exacerbate systematic imperfections.
476:
477: Table~\ref{tbl:VistaCdf2} shows the comparison of CDF Run II 2~fb$^{-1}$ data to Standard Model prediction. All events have been partitioned in exclusive final states. The number of events observed is compared to the number expected from the Standard Model, taking into account the uncertainty due to finite Monte Carlo statistics, and the trials factor due to examining 399 final states. The final states are ordered in decreasing discrepancy.
478:
479: %% summary - Vista norm
480: No final state is found to have a population discrepancy that is considered significant after accounting for the trials factor. The largest population discrepancy is a 2.7$\sigma$ deficit (including trials factor) observed in final state $be^\pm\pmiss$.
481: Fig.~\ref{fig:VistaSummaryCdf2} summarizes in a histogram the distribution of discrepancies observed in final state populations. Qualitatively, shape discrepancies give us the same information we had in the first round of the analysis.
482:
483:
484: %% the top Vista final state, which is not 1e+1j any more, but 1b1e+1pmiss
485: %The most discrepant final state is $be^+\pmiss$.
486: %This is a large statistics final state, and is vital to constrain the global jet to electron fake rate. This final state is in tension with the tenth most discrepant \Vista\ final state {\tt 1e+2j} which tries to pull the jet to electron fake rate in the opposite direction.
487: %As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:1e+2j_deltaR_j1j2}, the previously-observed `3-jet $\Delta R$ effect' manifests itself also in the {\tt 1e+2j} state, where a 3-jet QCD event has faked an electron. This underlying difficulty in modeling the background is responsible for creating the tension in describing both {\tt 1e+1j} and {\tt 1e+2j} using a single fake rate for jet to fake electron.
488:
489:
490: %% \begin{figure}
491: %% \includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth,angle=270]{docs/prd2/plots_withCuts_1e+2j_deltaR_j1j2}
492: %% \caption{Distribution of $\Delta R=\sqrt{\Delta\phi^2+\Delta\eta^2}$ between the two jets in the {\tt 1e+2j} final state.}
493: %% \label{fig:1e+2j_deltaR_j1j2}
494: %% \end{figure}
495:
496: %% distributions summary
497: Discrepant distributions are flagged using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) statistic.~\footnote{The KS statistic is defined in terms of the cumulative distributions of two populations. Given a particular distribution, such as the invariant mass {\tt mass(j1,j2)} of the two jets in the {\tt 1e+2j1pmiss} final state, the Standard Model prediction and the data are both normalized to unit integral, and the cumulative distributions are drawn. The maximal separation of the two cumulative distributions is the KS statistic, a number between 0 and 1. This statistic can be translated into a probability for the data to have been pulled from the Standard Model distribution, with the translation depending only on the value of the statistic and the number of data events. This KS probability $\text{KS}_p$ can then be converted into units of standard deviations $\text{KS}_\sigma$ by solving $\int_{-\infty}^{\text{KS}_\sigma}\, \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{-\frac{x^2}{2}} dx = \text{KS}_p$.
498: }
499: Fig.~\ref{fig:VistaSummaryCdf2} shows a histogram of the disagreement seen in all kinematic distributions. 19,650 distributions are considered in 2~fb$^{-1}$, and 559 are found to have a significant disagreement. However, as in the first round with 1.0~fb$^{-1}$, no indication of new physics is found amongst these discrepant distributions; all are attributed to the ``3-jet effect'', difficulties with intrinsic $k_T$ or residual coarseness of the correction model.
500:
501:
502: \subsubsection{Evolution of the \Vista\ Global Comparison since 1~fb$^{-1}$}
503:
504:
505: \begin{table*}
506: \hspace{-0cm}
507: %\include{round2_new_vista_final_states}
508: %% /disk/user14a/conor/5.3.1/Vista/utilities/makeVistaCdfTable.pl: USING: /disk/user14a/conor/5.3.1/Vista_cdf/doc/prd2
509: \begin{minipage}{9in}
510: \tiny
511: \begin{tabular}{l@{ }r@{ }r@{ $\pm$ }l@{ }l}
512: {\bf Final State} & {\bf Data} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\bf Background} & {\bf $\sigma$} \\ \hline
513: 4j$\tau^\pm$$\tau^\mp$ & $1$ & $2.4$ & $1.5$ & $0$ \\
514: 4j$\mu^\pm$$\tau^\mp$ & $1$ & $0.7$ & $1.1$ & $0$ \\
515: 4j$\mu^\pm$$\mu^\mp$$p\!\!\!/$ & $1$ & $1.1$ & $1.5$ & $0$ \\
516: 4b4j & $1$ & $0$ & $1$ & $0$ \\
517: 4b2j & $1$ & $0.9$ & $1.3$ & $0$ \\
518: 4b & $3$ & $1.3$ & $1.3$ & $0$ \\
519: 3j$2\tau^\pm$ & $6$ & $8.1$ & $1.8$ & $0$ \\
520: 3j$2\gamma$$p\!\!\!/$ & $1$ & $2$ & $1.6$ & $0$ \\
521: 3j$\mu^\pm$$\tau^\pm$ & $3$ & $0.8$ & $1.2$ & $0$ \\
522: 3b4j & $2$ & $2.9$ & $1.5$ & $0$ \\
523: 3b3j & $8$ & $8.2$ & $2$ & $0$ \\
524: 3b2j$p\!\!\!/$ & $1$ & $0.7$ & $1.2$ & $0$ \\
525: 3b2j & $23$ & $27.2$ & $4.8$ & $0$ \\
526: 3b$\gamma$ & $1$ & $0.4$ & $1.2$ & $0$ \\
527: 3bj$p\!\!\!/$ & $1$ & $3$ & $1.6$ & $0$ \\
528: 3bj$\gamma$ & $1$ & $1.8$ & $1.5$ & $0$ \\
529: 3bj$\mu^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$ & $1$ & $1.1$ & $1.2$ & $0$ \\
530: 3b$e^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$ & $1$ & $0.4$ & $1.2$ & $0$ \\
531: $2\mu^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$ & $3$ & $0.8$ & $1.1$ & $0$ \\
532: 2j$\gamma$$p\!\!\!/$$\tau^\pm$ & $1$ & $1.1$ & $1.3$ & $0$ \\
533: 2j$\mu^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$$\tau^\pm$ & $1$ & $1.7$ & $1.4$ & $0$ \\
534: 2b6j & $2$ & $0.3$ & $1.2$ & $0$ \\
535: \end{tabular}
536: \begin{tabular}{l@{ }r@{ }r@{ $\pm$ }l@{ }l}
537: {\bf Final State} & {\bf Data} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\bf Background} & {\bf $\sigma$} \\ \hline
538: 2b$\mu^\pm$$\mu^\mp$ & $2$ & $1.1$ & $1.2$ & $0$ \\
539: 2bj$\tau^\pm$ & $1$ & $0.8$ & $1.2$ & $0$ \\
540: 2bj$\mu^\pm$$\mu^\mp$ & $3$ & $0.3$ & $1.1$ & $0$ \\
541: 2b$e^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$$\tau^\mp$ & $1$ & $0.2$ & $1.1$ & $0$ \\
542: 2b$e^\pm$$\mu^\mp$$p\!\!\!/$ & $1$ & $2.2$ & $1.3$ & $0$ \\
543: $\gamma$$2\tau^\pm$ & $2$ & $0.1$ & $1.1$ & $0$ \\
544: j$2\gamma$$\tau^\pm$ & $2$ & $1.8$ & $1.4$ & $0$ \\
545: j$2\mu^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$ & $1$ & $0.6$ & $1.2$ & $0$ \\
546: j$\mu^\pm$$2\gamma$$p\!\!\!/$ & $1$ & $0.1$ & $1.1$ & $0$ \\
547: j$\mu^\pm$$\gamma$$\tau^\mp$ & $1$ & $0.1$ & $1.1$ & $0$ \\
548: $e^\pm$4j$\tau^\pm$ & $2$ & $3.1$ & $1.2$ & $0$ \\
549: $e^\pm$4j$\mu^\mp$$p\!\!\!/$ & $1$ & $0.6$ & $1.2$ & $0$ \\
550: $e^\pm$4j$\mu^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$ & $1$ & $0$ & $1$ & $0$ \\
551: $e^\pm$4j$\mu^\mp$ & $1$ & $0.7$ & $1.2$ & $0$ \\
552: $e^\pm$3j$\mu^\mp$ & $4$ & $3$ & $1.4$ & $0$ \\
553: $e^\pm$$\gamma$$\tau^\pm$ & $1$ & $0.9$ & $1.1$ & $0$ \\
554: $e^\pm$$\gamma$$p\!\!\!/$$\tau^\mp$ & $1$ & $0.5$ & $1.2$ & $0$ \\
555: $e^\pm$$\mu^\pm$$\mu^\mp$$p\!\!\!/$ & $1$ & $0.6$ & $1.1$ & $0$ \\
556: $e^\pm$j$2\gamma$$p\!\!\!/$ & $1$ & $0.2$ & $1.1$ & $0$ \\
557: $e^\pm$j$\mu^\pm$$\mu^\mp$ & $1$ & $0.8$ & $1.1$ & $0$ \\
558: $e^\pm$$e^\mp$2j$\mu^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$ & $1$ & $0$ & $1$ & $0$ \\
559: $e^\pm$$e^\mp$j$\mu^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$ & $1$ & $0.2$ & $1$ & $0$ \\
560: \end{tabular}
561: \begin{tabular}{l@{ }r@{ }r@{ $\pm$ }l@{ }l}
562: {\bf Final State} & {\bf Data} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\bf Background} & {\bf $\sigma$} \\ \hline
563: b6j$p\!\!\!/$ & $1$ & $0.1$ & $1.1$ & $0$ \\
564: b4j$p\!\!\!/$$\ 400+$ & $3$ & $1.6$ & $1.4$ & $0$ \\
565: b3j$\mu^\pm$$\tau^\pm$ & $1$ & $0.1$ & $1$ & $0$ \\
566: b2j$\tau^\pm$$\tau^\mp$ & $1$ & $0.1$ & $1.1$ & $0$ \\
567: b2j$\mu^\pm$$\gamma$ & $1$ & $0.9$ & $1.3$ & $0$ \\
568: b$\tau^\pm$$\tau^\mp$ & $2$ & $1.6$ & $1.3$ & $0$ \\
569: b$\mu^\pm$$p\!\!\!/$$\tau^\mp$ & $1$ & $1.1$ & $1.3$ & $0$ \\
570: b$\mu^\pm$$\gamma$ & $1$ & $0.7$ & $1.2$ & $0$ \\
571: b$\mu^\pm$$\mu^\mp$$p\!\!\!/$ & $3$ & $0.7$ & $1.3$ & $0$ \\
572: bj$\tau^\pm$$\tau^\mp$ & $1$ & $0.6$ & $1.2$ & $0$ \\
573: bj$\mu^\pm$$\tau^\mp$ & $1$ & $0.5$ & $1.2$ & $0$ \\
574: b$e^\pm$3j$\gamma$ & $1$ & $1.4$ & $1.2$ & $0$ \\
575: b$e^\pm$3j$\mu^\mp$$p\!\!\!/$ & $1$ & $0.8$ & $1.2$ & $0$ \\
576: b$e^\pm$$2\gamma$ & $2$ & $0.2$ & $1.1$ & $0$ \\
577: b$e^\pm$2j$\tau^\mp$ & $2$ & $1.6$ & $1.2$ & $0$ \\
578: b$e^\pm$2j$p\!\!\!/$$\tau^\mp$ & $2$ & $0.9$ & $1.2$ & $0$ \\
579: b$e^\pm$2j$\gamma$$p\!\!\!/$ & $3$ & $0.4$ & $1.2$ & $0$ \\
580: b$e^\pm$$\tau^\pm$ & $1$ & $1.2$ & $1.1$ & $0$ \\
581: b$e^\pm$$\gamma$$p\!\!\!/$ & $3$ & $2.7$ & $1.5$ & $0$ \\
582: b$e^\pm$j$p\!\!\!/$$\tau^\mp$ & $1$ & $1.5$ & $1.3$ & $0$ \\
583: \end{tabular}
584: \end{minipage}
585: \caption{New \Vista\ final states which appeared in the analysis of 2~fb$^{-1}$.}
586: \label{tbl:VistaNewFinalStates}
587: \end{table*}
588:
589:
590: Table~\ref{tbl:VistaNewFinalStates} displays the \Vista\ final states which newly appeared in the present analysis.
591: A large number involve b-jets; this is a result of changes in our offline event selection criteria, which now accept more events containing b-tagged jets (previously events with a leading b-jet with $p_T<200$ were prescaled offline by a factor of 10; we also introduced a new tri-b offline selection).
592: %% We also notice a couple of events which look like WZ candidates
593:
594: There are also 11 final states which were populated in the 1.0~fb$^{-1}$ analysis, but are not now:
595: {\tt
596: 1b1e+3j1tau-
597: 1b3j2ph
598: 1e+
599: 1e+1e-1ph1tau+
600: 1e+3j2ph
601: 1j1pmiss2tau+
602: 1j3ph
603: 2b2ph
604: 3j1mu+1pmiss1tau+
605: 3j1pmiss1tau+1tau-
606: 1b1e+3j1ph1pmiss
607: }
608: These events were generally found to contain an object (usually a $\tau$ or plug photon) which now fails our tighter identification requirements.
609:
610: A final reason for the increase of \Vista\ final states from 344 in 1.0~fb$^{-1}$ to 399, is that jet-tau final states have been divided into high-$p_T$ and low-$p_T$ states. %% and that some bj states were 'unpartitioned'
611:
612: The 3j$\tau^\pm$ and 2j$\tau^\pm$ final states remain among the `top ten' most discrepant states, but their significance has decreased compared to the first round. The improvement in agreement was achieved after slight changes in modeling jets faking taus in events with large activity.
613: Other final states from the first round's top ten now exhibit zero discrepancy (after accounting for the trials factor). We attribute this to a combination of general improvements in modeling and statistical fluctutations.
614:
615:
616:
617: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
618: %% Sleuth
619: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
620:
621: \section{\Sleuth}
622: \label{sec:Sleuth2}
623:
624: \Sleuth\ algorithm was not modified in the second round.
625:
626: \subsection{Results}
627: \label{sec:Sleuth:Results2}
628:
629: \begin{figure*}
630: \begin{tabular}{cc}
631: %\input{sleuthPlots}
632: \includegraphics[width=2.2in,angle=270]{docs/prd2/sleuthPlots_1}
633: &
634: \includegraphics[width=2.2in,angle=270]{docs/prd2/sleuthPlots_2}
635: \\
636: \includegraphics[width=2.2in,angle=270]{docs/prd2/sleuthPlots_3}
637: &
638: \includegraphics[width=2.2in,angle=270]{docs/prd2/sleuthPlots_4}
639: \\
640: \includegraphics[width=2.2in,angle=270]{docs/prd2/sleuthPlots_5}
641: &
642: \includegraphics[width=2.2in,angle=270]{docs/prd2/sleuthPlots_6}
643: \\
644: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in,angle=270]{sleuthPlots_1} &
645: \end{tabular}
646: \caption{The most interesting final states identified by \Sleuth\ in 2~fb$^{-1}$.\label{fig:SleuthPlots2}}
647: \end{figure*}
648:
649: \begin{figure}
650: %\input{scriptPsPlots}
651: \centering
652: \includegraphics[width=2.5in,angle=270]{docs/prd2/scriptPs_expected_observed_analytic3_cutOutOnes} \\
653: \caption[\scriptP\ distribution]{
654: % This is the misleading initial caption:
655: %The distribution of \scriptP\ in the data, with one entry for each final state considered by \Sleuth.
656: {\em Blue points:} The \scriptP\ distribution observed in 1990~pb$^{-1}$, with one entry for each of the 87 \Sleuth\ final states with at least 3 data. There are 153 \Sleuth\ final states with non-zero background and less than 3 data, which are assigned $\scriptP=1$.
657: %the following is to explain the non-uniformity, if we show scriptPs_expected_observed_analytic3_cutOutOnes:
658: {\em Black histogram:} The expected \scriptP\ distribution from all 240 \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 240 final states \Sleuth\ considers in 1990~pb$^{-1}$, 171 have Standard Model background of less than 10 events, which causes the expected \scriptP\ distribution to slightly favor smaller values.
659: }
660: \label{fig:scriptPsPlots2}
661: \end{figure}
662:
663: The most interesting final states highlighted by \Sleuth\ are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:SleuthPlots2}. The region chosen by \Sleuth\ is shown by the (blue) arrow, extending up to infinity.
664: CDF Run II data are shown as filled circles; Standard Model prediction is shown as a histogram. \Sleuth\ final state labels are in the upper left corner of each panel. The number at upper right in each panel is \scriptP, the fraction of hypothetical similar experiments in which something as interesting as the region shown would be seen in this final state. 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 that region.
665:
666: The distribution of \scriptP\ for the final states considered by \Sleuth\ in the CDF Run II data is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:scriptPsPlots2}.
667: %The curvature of this distribution reflects the degree to which the correction model has been tuned. A crude correction model tends to produce a distribution that curves upwards, as seen in this figure, while an overly tuned correction model produces a distribution that curves downwards, with more final states than expected having $\scriptP$ near the midpoint of the unit interval.
668:
669: In these CDF data, \Sleuth\ finds
670: $
671: \twiddleScriptP = 0.085
672: $.
673: This is sufficiently far above the \Sleuth\ discovery threshold of \tildeScriptP$<0.001$ that no discovery claim can be made on the basis of \Sleuth\ for 2~fb$^{-1}$.
674:
675:
676:
677: \subsubsection{Study of Same-Sign \Sleuth\ States}
678:
679: The top \Sleuth\ final states appear a common trend to involve same-sign leptons.
680: We first consider the 2\nd\ and 3\rd\ \Sleuth\ final states, which both contain same-sign electron and muon, significant missing energy, and varying numbers of jets. The relevant \Vista\ final states are:
681:
682: \begin{center}
683: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
684: Final State & data & background \\\hline
685: $e^+\mu^+\pmiss$ & 31 & 29.9 $\pm$ 1.6 \\
686: $e^+j\mu^+\pmiss$ & 16 & 9.2 $\pm$ 1.9 \\
687: $e^+2j\mu^+\pmiss$ & 6 & 1.7 $\pm$ 1.2 \\
688: $e^+3j\mu^+\pmiss$ & 0 & 0.26 $\pm$ 0.07 \\
689: \end{tabular}
690: \end{center}
691:
692: %% \Sleuth\ final state $#1$ groups entry 1 and 2 together
693:
694: The primary backgrounds for all these final states are similar, although the relative proportions vary with the number of reconstructed jets.
695: The three main backgrounds are: $W(\rightarrow\mu\nu)$+jets, with a jet faking the electron; $Z(\rightarrow\mu^+ \mu^-)$+jets, where 1 $\mu$ is not reconstructed, creating missing energy, and a jet fakes the electron; and $W\gamma$(+jets), where the photon fakes the electron.
696:
697: All these processes involve real muons -- there is no significant Standard Model contribution to these final states from fake muons. Therefore we can discard any explanation for the excess in data which involves charge assignment to muons faked by jets.
698:
699: We can be confident that the charge-sign of a real muon is well-measured by the CDF tracking system. The curvature resolution of the chamber is $\sigma_C = 3.6\times10^{-6}$~cm$^{-1}$. The curvature corresponding to a track with momentum of 100~GeV/$c$ is $2.1 \times 10^{-5}$~cm$^{-1}$. The sign of the curvature of such a track, and hence the charge of such a particle, is thus typically determined with a significance of better than five standard deviations \cite{CDF8643}.
700: \Vista\ supports this conclusion, since we reconstruct $\sim$25,000 $\mu^{+} \mu^-$ events but only a single $\mu^+ \mu^+$ event (and even then, the $\mu^+ \mu^+$ invariant mass is $\sim$150~GeV, making it unlikely to be a $Z$ decay with wrong charge-reconstruction).
701:
702: We can assume the muon charge is correct therefore, and focus on the electron. This is a fake electron from a jet. This fake rate is well-determined from the electron+jet(s) events, and similarly the $k$-factors for the boson+jets processes are well-determined from other final states. We expect the contribution from these processes to these particular final states to therefore be accurate.
703: Indeed, the most populous state {\tt 1e+1mu+1pmiss} is well described, and the mild excesses seen by \Sleuth\ arise from the {\tt 1e+1j1mu+1pmiss} and {\tt 1e+2j1mu+1pmiss} final states. Examination of the kinematic distributions from thse final states yields nothing further (the electron $\detEta$ distributions for these final states are shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:1e+1mu+1pmiss_edeteta} and \ref{fig:1e+1j1mu+1pmiss_edeteta}), so, following the above reasoning and given that the effect is not statistically very signficant, we ascribe the presence of these two states towards the top of \Sleuth's list as likely just due to a fluctuation.
704:
705: %% note that there are no 'real' electrons in the above final states...
706:
707: \begin{figure}
708: \centering
709: \includegraphics[width=0.4\columnwidth,angle=270]{docs/prd2/plots_withCuts_1e+1mu+1pmiss_edeteta}
710: \caption{Detector $\eta$ distribution for the electron in {\tt 1e+1mu+1pmiss}.}
711: \label{fig:1e+1mu+1pmiss_edeteta}
712: \end{figure}
713:
714:
715: \begin{figure}
716: \centering
717: \includegraphics[width=0.4\columnwidth,angle=270]{docs/prd2/plots_withCuts_1e+1j1mu+1pmiss_edeteta}
718: \caption{Detector $\eta$ distribution for the electron in {\tt 1e+1j1mu+1pmiss}.}
719: \label{fig:1e+1j1mu+1pmiss_edeteta}
720: \end{figure}
721:
722: The 1\st\ \Sleuth\ final state {\tt 1e+1mu+} also has same sign electron and muon, but no missing energy, and 0 or 1 jets.
723: The potentially relevant \Vista\ final states are:
724: \begin{center}
725: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
726: Final State & data & background \\ \hline
727: $e^+\mu^+$ & 45 & 28.5 $\pm$ 1.8 \\
728: $e^+j\mu^+$ & 13 & 8.2 $\pm$ 2 \\
729: $e^+2j\mu^+$ & 2 & 2.6 $\pm$ 1.6 \\
730: $e^+3j\mu^+$ & 2 & 0.6 $\pm$ 1.2 \\
731: \end{tabular}
732: \end{center}
733: So only the data excess in $e^+\mu^+$ needs any potential investigation for evidence of Standard Model background mismodeling.
734: The largest background is from $Z\rightarrow(\mu^+\mu^-)$+jets, with one muon lost and a jet faking an electron. As explained earlier, this process is well-constrained and cannot explain the excess in data.
735:
736: The next largest background is $Z\rightarrow\tau^+\tau^-$, with one $\tau$ decaying to an electron and the other to a muon. As discussed above, we trust the muon charge, so the electron must be reconstructed with the wrong charge.
737: For central electrons, this occurs at a rate on the order of 1 in $10^{-4}$, through electron bremstrahlung to a photon with an asymmetric conversion that half the time results in an opposite charge electron, and therefore is too small to play a role here. For plug electrons, however, the track charge has a false-reconstruction rate of order 10\% \cite{CDF8614}. Fig.~\ref{fig:1e+1mu+_edeteta} shows the $\detEta$ of the electron, and we indeed observe that the $Z\rightarrow \tau \tau$ contribution is almost entirely in the plug. However, Fig.~\ref{fig:2e+_edeteta}, which shows electron $\detEta$ for the {\tt 2e+} final state (dominated by real electrons from $Z$ with phoenix track charge mis-assignment), demonstrates that this charge misidentification is quite well modeled -- there is certainly no room for the factor of two increase that would be needed to explain the data excess.
738: The only other large background is from QCD dijet events where both electron and muon are fakes. Both of these total fake rates are very well constrained from the electron+jets(s) and muon+jet(s) final states, so the only possible flexibility is in the charge assignment to the fakes, which would shift background events between the {\tt 1e+1mu+} and {\tt 1e+1mu-} final states.
739: However, with our current modeling, this process contributes an approximately equal number of expected events ($\sim5$) to each of these states. It is implausible to argue that the combination of QCD Feynman diagrams and faking mechanisms could be such as to significantly {\it anti-correlate} the fake electron and muon charge signs, so this cannot contribute to the data excess.
740: In conclusion, after examining the possibilities and reminding ourselves that the similar final states but with additional jets are actually well described, we have no explanation for this excess other than a statistical fluctuation.
741:
742:
743: \begin{figure}
744: \centering
745: \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth,angle=270]{docs/prd2/plots_withCuts_1e+1mu+_edeteta}
746: \caption{$\detEta$ distribution for the electron in {\tt 1e+mu+}}
747: \label{fig:1e+1mu+_edeteta}
748: \end{figure}
749:
750:
751: \begin{figure}
752: \centering
753: \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth,angle=270]{docs/prd2/plots_withCuts_2e+_edeteta}
754: \caption{$\detEta$ distribution for the electron in {\tt 2e+}}
755: \label{fig:2e+_edeteta}
756: \end{figure}
757:
758:
759: The 5\th\ most discrepant state in \Sleuth\ is $\ell^+ \tau^+$. Since \Sleuth\ combines electrons and muons, the relevant \Vista\ final states are:
760: \begin{center}
761: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
762: Final State & data & background \\ \hline
763: $e^+\pmiss \tau^+$ & 36 & 17.2 $\pm$ 1.7 \\
764: $e^+j\pmiss \tau^+$ & 11 & 8.3 $\pm$ 1.5 \\
765: $\mu^+\pmiss \tau^+$ & 15 & 12 $\pm$ 2 \\
766: $j\mu^+\pmiss \tau^+$ & 8 & 9.4 $\pm$ 3.1 \\
767: \end{tabular}
768: \end{center}
769:
770: One sees that the excess comes only from $e^+\pmiss \tau^+$. This is actually among most discrepant final states in \Vista, with a significance of 1.4$\sigma$ after accounting for the trials factor.
771: The primary background is $W\rightarrow e \nu$+jet, where the jet ends up faking a $\tau$ with the same charge as the electron. This is rarer than the other case where the fake $\tau$ has opposite sign to the electron.
772: However, we appear to be modeling this process quite well, because it equally applies in the case when the $W$ decays to muon and neutrino, and \Vista\ predicts those final states correctly. We believe the excess in $e^+\pmiss \tau^+$ is therefore likely just a fluctuation.
773:
774: In conclusion, although the top \Sleuth\ states all involve same-sign leptons, we find no explanation that can simultaneously account for all. More data would help us see to what extent this is mismodeling, and to what statistical fluctuation.
775:
776:
777:
778: \subsubsection{Evolution of the Top \Sleuth\ Final States from 1~fb$^{-1}$}
779:
780: %% \begin{table}
781: %% \include{round1_sleuth_top_ten_states}
782: %% \caption{The ten final states at the top of the \Sleuth\ list from 1~fb$^{-1}$.}
783: %% \label{tbl:round1_sleuth_top_ten}
784: %% \end{table}
785: %% Table~\ref{tbl:round1_sleuth_top_ten} displays the ten final states that were at the top of the \Sleuth\ discrepancy list from 1~fb$^{-1}$.
786:
787: The {\tt 1bb} final state which was at the top of the list of \Sleuth\ discrepancies has now gone down the list. The reason is that the region selected previously had been selected based on a relatively small excess in a particular region of \sumPt. Doubling the data caused that region to exceed the upper limit of 10,000 events. This upper limit is designed to reject excesses found in regions of high statistics where even a small systematic error would cause \Sleuth\ to give a large discrepancy. %The 1bb discrepancy falls exactly under this category.
788:
789: The discrepancy in the $j\pmiss$ final state, which is dominated by cosmic events, has been corrected by the additional quality criteria cuts on the cosmic background.
790:
791: The 3\rd, 4\th\ and 6\th\ most discrepant \Sleuth\ final states from the first round were same sign dilepton final states. These final states have become more discrepant in this round of the analysis as discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:Sleuth:Results2}.
792:
793: The 5\th\ most discrepant \Sleuth\ final state from the first round of the analysis was the $\pmiss\tau^+$. Then, we a major background contribution was missing, $W(\rightarrow \tau\nu)+jets$, which has been added. %That explains why it is not discrepant anymore. %This change also improved the 1jj1pmiss1tau+ final state slightly, although that final state still suffers from a slight excess.
794:
795: The remaining discrepancies were all corrected either by improving the background modelling, or were simply fluctuations.
796:
797:
798: \subsection{Sensitivity}
799: \label{sec:Sleuth:Sensitivity2}
800:
801: For the 2~fb$^{-1}$ analysis, we have performed an additional test of the sensitivity of \Sleuth\ to Standard Model single top production.
802:
803: %% figures and tables are contained in this auto-generated file
804: %\input{sensitivityTest_model13}
805:
806: % Table with partitioning of events into final states
807: \begin{table}[hbt]
808: \centering
809: \begin{tabular}{lll}
810: \centering
811: Final State & Events & Acceptance (\%) \\ \hline
812: $W jj$ & 5149 & 5.1 \\
813: $W b\bar{b}$ & 3231 & 3.2 \\
814: $W $ & 1977 & 2.0 \\
815: $W 4j$ & 298 & 0.3 \\
816: $W b\bar{b} jj$ & 219 & 0.2 \\
817: $b \bar{b} \pmiss$ & 128 & 0.1 \\
818: $jj$ & 109 & 0.1 \\
819: $b \bar{b}$ & 96 & 0.1 \\
820: $jj \pmiss$ & 59 & 0.1 \\
821: $b \bar{b} 2j$ & 41 & 0.0 \\
822: \end{tabular}
823: \caption[Partitioning of events in Single Top into \Sleuth\ final states]{Partitioning of events in Single Top into \Sleuth\ final states. The most populous final states are shown. The offline selection filter accepts \% of the pseudo-signal events. The acceptance is shown for each individual final state.}
824: \label{tbl:modelPartitioning_model13}
825: \end{table}
826:
827: % Table with summary of pseudo-discoveries
828: \begin{table}[hbt]
829: \centering
830: \begin{tabular}{r|c|l}
831: cost & Final state & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\tildeScriptP} \\ \hline
832: 3600 & $W b\bar{b}$ & $=$0.0009669 \\
833: 4800 & $W b\bar{b}$ & $=$0.0003004 \\
834: 3800 & $W b\bar{b}$ & $=$0.0002808 \\
835: 3600 & $W jj$ & $=$0.0008754 \\
836: 3600 & $W b\bar{b}$ & $=$0.0002843 \\
837: 3800 & $W b\bar{b}$ & $=$0.0007113 \\
838: 5000 & $W b\bar{b}$ & $=$0.0007072 \\
839: 3800 & $W b\bar{b}$ & $=$0.0003327 \\
840: 5400 & $W b\bar{b}$ & $=$0.0003309 \\
841: 2800 & $W b\bar{b}$ & $=$0.0004739 \\
842: \end{tabular}
843: \caption[Summary of ``discoveries'' for single top.]{Summary of ``discoveries'' for single top. Cost is the number of pseudo-signal events required to obtain $\tildeScriptP < 0.001$. The second column contains the final state in which the most interesting region is found at the point of discovery. The third column contains \tildeScriptP\ at discovery.}
844: \label{tbl:discoveries_model13}
845: \end{table}
846: % Figure of the first pseudo-discovery
847: \begin{figure}
848: \hspace{-1.5cm}
849: \begin{tabular}{cc}
850: \includegraphics[width=0.42\columnwidth,angle=270]{docs/prd2/initial_model13} &
851: \includegraphics[width=0.42\columnwidth,angle=270]{docs/prd2/final_model13}
852: \end{tabular}
853: \caption[Pseudo-discovery of single top quark]{{\em (Left)} The final state in which single top first appears, as it is before the addition of any pseudo signal. {\em (Right)} The same final state, after the addition of pseudo signal required for its discovery by \Sleuth. For this discovery, 3600 pseudo signal events yields $\tilde{\cal P} = 0.0009669$.}
854: \label{fig:pseudoDiscovery_model13}
855: \end{figure}
856:
857: This sensitivity test is performed by injecting `signal' single top events into pseudo-data generated from the background.
858: Single top events are obtained from the CDF Top Group Monte Carlo samples {\tt stop00} and {\tt stop01} ($s$-channel and $t$-channel production respectively), run through our standard event reconstruction.
859: %% branching ratio
860: The acceptance for the signal events into \Sleuth\ final states is shown in Table~\ref{tbl:modelPartitioning_model13}.
861:
862: Signal events are added to the pseudo-data in chunks, until \Sleuth's discovery threshold of \tildeScriptP$< 0.001$ is reached. To account for random fluctuations, ten such trials are performed and the final result is averaged from all trials. Table~\ref{tbl:discoveries_model13} summarizes the result of each trial.
863:
864: As expected, \Sleuth's `golden' final state for discovering single top is $Wb\bar{b}$. The $\sim4$\% acceptance into this final state is consistent with the numbers obtained for dedicated single top searches \cite{CDF8286}.
865: Note that due to the definition of final states in \Sleuth, $Wb\bar{b}$ contains events with 2 or 3 jets, with at least 1 $b$-tag. This merges somewhat the standard single top separation into distinct 2-jet and 3-jet bins, and this is why the $t\bar{t}$ background contribution is relatively large.
866:
867: An example `discovery' is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:pseudoDiscovery_model13}.
868: This shows the combined background prediction in the absence of signal, and the \SumPt\ distribution after adding sufficient signal to trigger \Sleuth's discovery threshold. Fig.~\ref{fig:singletop_bkg_sumpt} illustrates the \SumPt\ distribution from single top signal relative to the combined background prediction.
869:
870: %% home-made signal vs bkg plot of sumPt
871: \begin{figure}
872: \centering
873: \includegraphics[width=0.6\columnwidth]{docs/prd2/singletop_bkg_sumpt}
874: \caption{Relative \SumPt\ distributions from single top signal and combined background prediction.}
875: \label{fig:singletop_bkg_sumpt}
876: \end{figure}
877:
878:
879: %% result of test: cross-section needed; lumi expected
880: The result of this sensitivity test is that \Sleuth\ would be expected to discover single top at the $5\sigma$~level in 2~fb$^{-1}$ if it had a cross-section of $5.9\pm1.1$~pb.
881: The Standard Model expected cross-section is 2.86~pb (combined $s$- and $t$-channel). A naive extrapolation therefore leads to an expected luminosity for \Sleuth\ discovery of $2.0\times(5.9/2.86)^2=8.5\pm3.1$~fb$^{-1}$.
882:
883: %% discussion
884: This conclusion seems perhaps surprising given the effort devoted to sophisticated tools such as Matrix Elements and Neural Networks for dedicated single top searches.
885: The apparent sensitivity of \Sleuth\ stems from the fact that it treats the background as being absolutely fixed. Any addition is therefore considered pure signal, allowing `discovery' of single top with relatively few extra events.
886: In practice this is unrealistic, since \SumPt\ alone would find it hard to distinguish between single top production and excess $W$+heavy flavour relative to \Alpgen\ predictions, which have a large uncertainty.
887: In a realistic test, we would probably have to introduce a separate $k$-factor for $W$+heavy flavour, which would swallow up much of the single top signal, since there is no other populous final state that could constrain the W+heavy flavor $k$-factor independently of possible single top contributions.
888: For the dedicated single top searches, the total backgrounds are generally allowed to float, and more sophisticated purely `shape-based' variables are used to discriminate signal from background.
889:
890:
891:
892: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
893: %% Bump Hunter
894: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
895:
896: \section{Bump Hunter}
897: \label{sec:BumpHunter}
898:
899: The bump hunter is a new feature added in the second round of this analysis, to enhance the sensitivity of the search to new physics involving narrow mass resonances.
900:
901: \subsection{Strategy}
902: \label{sec:BumpHunterStrategy}
903:
904: The idea is to scan the spectrum of most mass variables with a sliding window. The window needs to vary in width to follow the changing detector resolution. As the window drifts accross a mass distribution, it evaluates the probability that the amount of data therein, or even more, could have emerged by fluctuation from the predicted population. The window where this probability is smallest contains the most interesting local excess of data.
905:
906: In each final state there are typically several mass variables to scan. On average there are $5036/399 \simeq 13$. They include masses of all combinations of reconstructed objects, such as pairs, triplets, or bigger ensembles.
907: %Exceptions, which are not scanned, are masses of single jets as they are expected to be dominated by systematic uncertainties coming from inaccuracies in the Monte Carlo parton showering.
908:
909: The width of the sliding window equals two times the characteristic mass resolution for the given combination of objects and at the given mass value.
910: Mass uncertainty results from uncertainties about the specific energies and momenta of all objects involved.
911: It is possible to have combinations of four-momenta that result in the same mass, but different mass uncertainties.
912: For example, if a $Z^0$ decays to $e^+e^-$, the mass of that pair will always be close to the nominal $m_Z \simeq 91$ GeV, though its resolution will depend on the boost of the decaying $Z^0$.
913: Obviously, each event has a different mass uncertainty, so we need to estimate the characteristic mass resolution at each value of mass and for each mass variable. That characteristic mass resolution will be representative of the mass resolution of the events there.
914: To estimate it, we assume that all objects in the ensemble have equal momentum, negligible mass, and their momenta balance on a plane\footnote{If the (equal) momenta are two, to balance they have to be back-to-back. If they are three, they have to be on the same plane, each separated by $120^\circ$ from its first neighbors. If we have $N\ge 4$ equal, balancing momenta in 3 dimensions, then their angular configurations can be significantly more complicated, as there are many possible arrangements that satisfy the condition of ballance. To avoid such complexity, we choose to constrain all $N$ vectors in one plane, and assume the solution where all vectors have separation $\frac{2\pi}{N}$ from their nearest neighbors.}.
915: Then, we assign to each involved individual energy the appropriate uncertainty, depending on what object it belongs to, since different objects are measured with different energy resolutions.
916: For electrons and photons, the uncertainty is assumed to be $\Delta E_{\rm EM} = 0.14 \sqrt{E} + 0.015 E$, determined by the electromagnetic calorimeter.
917: For jets and $\tau$s it is taken to be $\Delta E_{\rm HAD} = E \sqrt{ 0.457/E + 20.3/E^2 + 0.00834 }$, determined by the hadronic calorimeter.
918: For (beam constrained) muons it is $\Delta E_{\mu} = 0.0005 E^2$, determined by the COT track curvature resolution.
919: In cases of transverse mass involving \pmiss, we assume roughly $\Delta E_{MET} = 3\sqrt{\pmiss}$.
920: We propagate those $\Delta E$s corresponding to the members of the ensemble into the system's total mass.
921: For example, if we want to find the characteristic mass resolution for a $(e^+,\mu^-,j)$ triplet at system mass 90 GeV, we have $m = \sqrt{(E_e+E_\mu+E_j)^2-(\vec{p_e}+\vec{p_\mu}+\vec{p_j})^2}$.
922: We assume $E_e=E_\mu=E_j\equiv E$ and the planar configuration with zero net momentum, to obtain that $m=3E$, hence $E=30$ GeV for each object.
923: We use the above formulas for the three different $\Delta E$s, keeping in mind the different resolutions for electrons, muons and jets, and then we propagate those uncorrelated uncertainties to the mass, to find $\Delta m = \sqrt{(\Delta E_e)^2 + (\Delta E_\mu)^2 + (\Delta E_j)^2}=6.57$ GeV.
924:
925: The step size by which the window drifts equals half a characteristic mass resolution, therefore it varies along the mass spectrum, as the width does too. That way there are no gaps left between consecutive windows. Instead, consecutive windows partly overlap.
926:
927: Each window comes with two sidebands, extending on each side as far as the window's width. The region of the spectrum that is scanned is slightly narrower than the whole spectrum's span (defined as the interval between the highest-mass and the lowest-mass event in both data and background), so that all considered windows have sidebands lying within the spectrum.
928:
929: As the window drifts along a mass spectrum, its \pval\ is calculated at each location. That is defined as the Poisson probability that the Standard Model events expected in the window ($b$) would fluctuate up to or above the observed data ($d$), i.e.\ $\pval=\sum_{i=d}^{\infty}\frac{b^i}{i!}e^{-b}$.
930:
931: A window qualifies as a bump if it satisfies the following criteria:
932: \begin{itemize}
933: \item The central region must contain at least 5 data events.
934: \item Both sidebands must be less discrepant than the central region, i.e.\ both must have larger \pval.
935: \item If the background in a sideband is non-zero, then it must have $\pval > \int_{5}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{-x^2/2}\, dx$, namely it must not exhibit a significant ($5\sigma$) discrepancy. If the background is zero, then it must have less than 5 data\footnote{This special treatment of the zero-background case is to be able to spot excesses of data that may be isolated at mass values where there is no Standard Model background at all. If we had, for example, 6 events in the central window and 1 event in the sideband, we wouldn't like this band to disqualify due to having a discrepant sideband.}.
936: \item The above criteria need to hold even when we consider the possible effects of low Monte Carlo statistics in the background. This is explained next.
937: \end{itemize}
938:
939: It can happen to have a great excess of data in the central window, and simultaneously non-discrepant sidebands, but realize that the sidebands contain only a couple of very large-weight events in the Standard Model background. These large-weight events are called ``spikes'', and are the result of limited Monte Carlo statistics. That bump would potentially pass all quality criteria, and appear to be statistically significant, but it would be prudent to treat conservatively the presence of spikes in the sidebands, and consider that these Monte Carlo events could easily have been in the central window instead. In that case, the \pval\ of the central window would be larger (less significant) and the sidebands would have a higher probability to be discrepant, hence the bump could disqualify. Since limited Monte Carlo statistics are a practical limitation, we have to be conservative and eliminate, if necessary, this bump. To do that, we first need to define what we consider as a spike in each sideband, and reevaluate the \pval\ and the quality of the bump, assuming the spikes from both sidebands transfered into the central window. To define the weight of spikes in a sideband, we look for outliers among the Monte Carlo events, namely for events with significantly larger weights than the average weight of the events in the sideband. We find the average weight and the standard deviation of weights in the sideband, including in the calculation all Monte Carlo events therein. If there is an event whose weight lies beyond 3 standard deviations from the average, then we gradually reduce its weight. As we reduce it, we reevaluate the average and standard deviation of weights. If along its path towards smaller weight it meets another event of same weight, then their weights are bound to be equal from then on, and keep being gradually reduced together. To visualize this process, imagine the axis of weights as an horizontal stretched string, and the weight of each event represented by the position of a tiny bead along this string; the larger the weight, the farther on the right the bead is located. If there are significant outliers, namely beads very far on the right, we start pushing the rightmost bead slowly from right to left, to bring it closer to the others. On its way, the rightmost bead drags with it any beads it meets, since beads can not pass through each other. We stop this reduction of weights when they are all within 3 standard deviations from their average. Then, we compare the total initial weight to the total final weight in the sideband. The difference is weight attributed to spikes. If this difference turns out to be smaller than the largest single weight in the sideband, then we define the latter as spike instead. For the sake of saving time, we do not apply the anti-spike treatment described above, unless the p-value of a qualifying bump candidate is smaller than $\int_{5}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{-x^2/2}\, dx$, since it is not crucial to be conservative, when a bump is not significant to begin with. A demonstration of the effect of the anti-spike treatment is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:bumpsReport2j0-400_withSpikeTreatment}.
940:
941: \begin{figure}
942: \centering
943: \begin{tabular}{cc}
944: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.45\columnwidth]{docs/prd2/bumpsReport_2j_sumPt0-400} &
945: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.45\columnwidth]{docs/prd2/bumpsReport_2j_sumPt0-400_spikesConsideredEverywhere}
946: \end{tabular}
947: \caption[\pval\ of all bumps in mass($j1,j2$) in final state $2j\;\SumPt<400$~GeV]{{\em (Left)} The \pval\ of each bump candidate, as a function of the location of each window's center, along mass($j1,j2$) in final state $2j\;\SumPt<400$~GeV. Bump candidates failing quality criteria have \pval=1. The most significant bump has $\pval \sim 10^{-6}$, which translates to $P_a\sim 3\times10^{-5}$ and $P_b \sim 0.15$, therefore all local excesses are insignificant. {\rm(Right)} For demonstration, we apply the conservative anti-spike treatment to all bump candidates. The result of anti-spike treatment is to have larger $p$-values and the reduction of significance is greater in regions like around 400 GeV, where Monte Carlo statistics are poorer, therefore spikes contribute more.}
948: \label{fig:bumpsReport2j0-400_withSpikeTreatment}
949: \end{figure}
950:
951:
952: When a variable's spectrum is scanned from one end to the other, the qualifying bump with the smallest \pval\ is the most interesting within that variable. Its statistical significance is quantified on first level by its \pval; the smaller the more significant. It is crucial, though, to account for the trials factor due to examining many windows within that spectrum. We need, therefore, to estimate the probability that a qualifying bump candidate of such a small (or smaller) \pval\ would appear anywhere along the spectrum, if instead of the actual data we had pseudo-data pulled from the Standard Model distribution. We denote this probability $P_a$, and it can be estimated either experimentally (by producing many sets of pseudo-data and scanning them for more interesting bumps), or using a semi-analytic calculation.
953: %The latter has been tested to give compatible results with the experimental method.
954:
955: The semi-analytic method, whose goal is to save the enormous time-cost of using Monte Carlo to experimentally evaluate $P_a$ for all mass variables, proceeds as follows: For each window and its sidebands, we estimate with Monte Carlo the probability that it would satisfy quality criteria ($P(Q)$), if the data populations in the center and in the sidebands were pulled randomly from the respective expected populations therein. Let's denote the \pval\ of the most interesting bump in the actual data \pvalmin. Denote the probability that a window would have $\pval \le \pvalmin$ as $P(S)$. The probability that a window would qualify and simultaneously have $\pval \le \pvalmin$ is $P(Q \land S) \simeq P(Q) \; P(S)$, where we assumed that $Q$ and $S$ are independent. This is not generally true, but holds approximately in most cases. In fact $P(Q|S) = \frac{P(Q\land S)}{P(S)} \ge P(Q)$, because if $S$ is true then we have a significant excess of data in the central window, which makes it somewhat less likely for the sidebands to exhibit a bigger discrepancy than the center, hence it's more likely that quality standards ($Q$) will also be met. So, $P(Q)\;P(S)\le P(Q|S)\;P(S)=P(Q\land S)$, i.e.\ we slightly underestimate $P(Q\land S)$ by approximating it with $P(Q)\;P(S)$.
956: $P(S)$ is approximately $pval_{\min}$, but that is exactly correct only as long as there is an {\em integer} number of data that, given the background in the window, would result in a \pval\ of {\em exactly} \pvalmin. If that is not the case, then $P(S) \le pval_{\min}$, because to exceed in significance the most interesting bump, this window would need to exhibit a \pval\ not just equal to \pvalmin, but smaller. For example, if $\pvalmin=0.01$ and the background is $b=3.2$, then to exceed \pvalmin\ in significance we need the data to be at least $d=9$. If $d=8$ then $\pval=0.016 > 0.01$. However, if $d=9$ then $\pval=0.0057$, which means that the true $P(S)$ in this example would be $0.0057$ instead of $0.01$. This difference becomes negligible for large backgrounds, where one event more or less changes \pval\ negligibly.
957:
958: We find, as described, $P(Q \land S)$ for all windows considered along the spectrum, and set $P_a=1-\prod(1-P(Q\land S))$, namely the probability that at least one window would qualify and surpass in significance the most interesting bump in the actual data. Here, another assumption is implicit: that windows are independent.
959: %If their mutual overlaps were taken into account, then the effective trials factor would be reduced, hence our assumption of window independence causes an overestimation of $P_a$, i.e.\ it apperas less significant than it really is.
960:
961: %It has been tested that the semi-analytic (fast) and the Monte Calro trials method (slow) give very similar results for the $P_a$ of individual bumps, within $1\sigma$ from each other. The test also shows that the distribution of $P_a$s obtained from all mass variables is uniform, if the data are pseudo-data pulled from the Standard Model background.
962:
963: A comparison between the semi-analytic (fast) and the experimental method to estimate $P_a$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:compareFastVsSlow}. Pseudo-data were pulled from all mass distributions, and then both the slow and the fast methods were used to estimate $P_a$. The comparison shows that, for pseudo-data, the fast method returns a $P_a$ which is, when translated into units of standard deviation, within about 1$\sigma$ from the $P_a$ determined by the slow method. This difference reflects on the expected distributions of $P_a$ from all mass variables when using the two methods. While the slow method returns a $P_a$ with uniform expected distribution, the fast method's $P_a$ is distributed as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:expectedDistributionsOfPa}.
964:
965: The slow method does not rely on any approximation, therefore its answer is more representative of the true $P_a$. It is only limited by the number of pseudo-data sets that we can generate. Its disadvantage is that even when applied on just one mass variable to estimate the significance of its most interesting bump, it can take prohibitively long. How long depends on the number of expected events in the final state where the mass variable belongs, but more importantly on the smallness of \pvalmin. For really significant bumps ($\pvalmin \lessapprox 10^{-8}$) it may take millions of sets of pseudo-data to start resolving $P_a$ experimentally. The slow method returns the best estimate of $P_a$ it could obtain within the amount of time it was allowed to run. If during this amount of time it is clear at 95\% confidence level that $P_a$ is either greater or smaller than what corresponds to a 5$\sigma$ effect ($\int_{5}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{-x^2/2}\, dx=2.87\times10^{-7}$), then the slow method returns the estimated value of $P_a$ at that time, since the conclusion is clear and additional accuracy would be of no use.
966: Due to its great time cost, we employ the slow method only if the fast (semi-analytic) method has returned a significant enough $P_a$, i.e. smaller than what corresponds to a $4.5\sigma$ effect. The final significance of a bump is not quantified by $P_a$, but by $P_b$ (defined later), which includes the whole trials factor. For $P_a$ equivalent to $4.5\sigma$, $P_b$ is 2.1$\sigma$, safely away from the discovery threshold of 3$\sigma$ in $P_b$, which corresponds to $P_a$ of 5$\sigma$. This is mentioned to explain that the slow and more accurate estimator for $P_a$ is employed not just beyond the discovery threshold, but safely earlier, when a bump starts being mildly significant.
967:
968: \begin{figure}
969: \centering
970: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.8\columnwidth]{docs/prd2/compareTvsETF_graph}
971: \caption[Comparison of fast versus slow method to estimate $P_a$.]{Comparison of fast versus slow method to estimate $P_a$. Each point corresponds to a mass variable with at least one qualifying bump in pseudo-data. The three lines indicate the locus where the fast estimate of $P_a$ is equal to, or $\pm1\sigma$ away from the slow estimate of $P_a$. Slow $P_a$ can be only a rational number, since it is the fraction of two integers, namely the number of pseudo-data distributions with a more interesting bump and the total number of tried pseudo-data distributions. That is why the slow $P_a$ appears to assume a discrete spectrum of values.}
972: \label{fig:compareFastVsSlow}
973: \end{figure}
974:
975: \begin{figure}
976: \begin{tabular}{cc}
977: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.45\columnwidth]{docs/prd2/sigmasT} &
978: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.45\columnwidth]{docs/prd2/sigmasETF}
979: \end{tabular}
980: \caption[Expected distribution of the fast and the slow estimator of $P_a$]{Expected distribution of the fast and the slow estimator of $P_a$, when applied on pseudo-data. The slow estimator {\em (left)} is distributed according to a normal distribution (except for some recurrent values which reflect that the slow estimator can only be a rational number), while the fast one {\em (right)} follows a Gaussian probability density function with mean 0.2204 and standard deviation 1.453. In the right plot, the Normal distribution has been drawn for comparison.}
981: \label{fig:expectedDistributionsOfPa}
982: \end{figure}
983:
984: Since $P_a$ encompasses the trials factor from examining multiple windows within the mass variable, it characterizes the significance of the mass viariable in terms of its most interesting bump. The next question is what the probability is that in a pseudo-experiment, where data are pulled from the Standard Model epxectation, any mass variable would appear with a $P_a$ smaller than the actual $P_a$ of the mass variable. We denote this probability as $P_b$. We estimate it assuming all mass viariables are statistically independent trials, therefore $P_b = 1 - (1-P_a)^N$, where $N$ is the total population of scanned mass variables from all \Vista\ final states.
985:
986: In summary, for each mass variable the most interesting bump is the one with the smallest \pval, and with all trials factor accounted for, its significance is approximately given by $P_b$. Then $P_b$ is converted to units of standard deviations, and if it corresponds to a 3$\sigma$ effect or more, then we consider it a discrepancy worth pursuing.
987:
988:
989: \subsection{Results}
990: \label{sec:BumpHunter:Results}
991:
992: The summary of the most interesting bump in each mass variable is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:vistaSummary_bump}.
993:
994: \begin{figure}
995: \centering
996: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.8\columnwidth]{docs/prd2/vistaSummary_bump}
997: \caption[Significance of the most interesting bump in each mass variable.]{Significance of the most interesting bump in each mass variable. Each entry corresponds to one mass distribution found to contain at least one bump satisfying quality criteria. The quantity distributed is $P_a$, transformed to units of standard deviation ($\sigma$), using the formula $P_a=\int_{\sigma}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{-x^2/2}\;dx$. Large $P_a$ translates to a small number of $\sigma$ and signifies an insignificant effect. The discovery threshold corresponds to 5$\sigma$. The entries under 4.5$\sigma$ have been estimated using the semi-analytic (fast) method, which yields values distributed according to the black curve when applied on pseudo-data agreeing with the Standard Model background. Values above 4.5$\sigma$ are estimated using the slow, more accurate method. Therefore, values of $P_a$ corresponding to more than 4.5$\sigma$ can be translated directly to significance, since their expected values follow the Normal distribution. About 5000 mass distributions are considered, which means that to have an effect of significance 3$\sigma$ after trials factor, it needs to have a significance of 5$\sigma$ or more in this scale of Pa. Only one mass distribution has its most significant bump exceed this discovery threshold. More details in the text.}
998: \label{fig:vistaSummary_bump}
999: \end{figure}
1000:
1001: The only mass variable with its most significant bump exceeding the discovery threshold is the mass of all four jets in the final states with four jets of $\sumPt < 400$ GeV, shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:4j_sumPt0-400:mass(j1,j2,j3,j4)}. This is attributed to the ``3-jet'' effect, the main cause of all shape discrepancies in this analysis. Fig.~\ref{fig:4j_sumPt0-400:3jEffect} shows another instance of the same effect in that final state. The same effect is observed in final states of different jet multiplicity, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:3jand5jmasses}.
1002:
1003: \begin{figure}
1004: \centering
1005: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.8\columnwidth]{docs/prd2/bump_zoomOut_4j_sumPt0-400_mass_j1_j2_j3_j4_}
1006: \caption{The most significant bump found in the $4j\;\SumPt < 400$ GeV final state, indicated by the blue lines. Its $P_b$ translates to 4.1$\sigma$.}
1007: \label{fig:4j_sumPt0-400:mass(j1,j2,j3,j4)}
1008: \end{figure}
1009:
1010: \begin{figure}
1011: \centering
1012: \begin{tabular}{c}
1013: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.5\columnwidth]{docs/prd2/vista_4j_sumPt0-400_deltaR_j2_j3_}\\
1014: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.5\columnwidth]{docs/prd2/vista_4j_sumPt0-400_j3_pt}\\
1015: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.5\columnwidth]{docs/prd2/vista_4j_sumPt0-400_j4_pt}
1016: \end{tabular}
1017: \caption[Interpretation of the only significant mass bump found]{{\em(Upper)} The ``3-jet'' effect appearing in the angular separation between the second ($j2$) and the third ($j3$) leading jets, in final state $4j\;\sumPt < 400$ GeV. There is an excess of soft final state radiated jets emitted at small angles. The {\em lower two} distributions from the same final state demonstrate exactly this excess, which is not present in the $p_T$ of the first and second leading jets.}
1018: \label{fig:4j_sumPt0-400:3jEffect}
1019: \end{figure}
1020:
1021: \begin{figure}
1022: \centering
1023: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1024: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.45\columnwidth]{docs/prd2/vista_3j_sumPt0-400_mass_j1_j2_j3_} &
1025: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.45\columnwidth]{docs/prd2/vista_5j_mass_j1_j2_j3_j4_j5_}
1026: \end{tabular}
1027: \caption[The ``3-jet'' effect appearing in the mass of all jets in the final state with three {\em (left)} and five {\em (right)} jets.]{The ``3-jet'' effect appearing in the mass of all jets in the final state with three {\em (left)} and five {\em (right)} jets. The excess is similar to the one identified as a bump in the $4j\;\sumPt<400$ GeV final state. The difference in the case of $3j\;\sumPt<400$ GeV is that the excess is wide and the sidebands are discrepant, making this bump candidate disqualify, while in the case of $5j$ the excess satisfies bump quality criteria, but has $P_b$ corresponding to only 1.5$\sigma$.}
1028: \label{fig:3jand5jmasses}
1029: \end{figure}
1030:
1031:
1032: %%%% other bumps %%%%
1033:
1034: Although no discovery-level bumps were found in other mass variables, it is interesting to present the most interesting bumps found in some mass distributions.
1035:
1036: In the mass of the $(e^+,e^-)$ pair in the final state with two opposite sign electrons ($e^+e^-$) the most significant bump corresponds to a 2.7$\sigma$ effect, which is though exactly at the $Z$ boson resonance. The number of expected events there is so high, that even the slightest systematic mismodeling would appear as very statistically significant. From Fig.~\ref{fig:bump1e+1e-} it is clear that this ``bump'' is not due to new physics, but a tiny systematic mismodelling of the $Z$-peak, with no visible effect anywhere else.
1037:
1038: \begin{figure}
1039: \centering
1040: \begin{tabular}{c}
1041: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.5\columnwidth]{docs/prd2/bump_zoomOut_1e+1e-_mass_e+_e-_}\\
1042: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.5\columnwidth]{docs/prd2/bump_zoomIn_1e+1e-_mass_e+_e-_}\\
1043: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.5\columnwidth]{docs/prd2/bumpsReport_1e+1e-_mass_e+_e-_}
1044: \end{tabular}
1045: \caption[Bumps found in $e^+e^-$.]{{\em (Upper two)} The most interesting bump found in final state $e^+e^-$. {\em (Bottom)} The \pval\ of all bumps accross the mass spectrum of the two leptons. Apart from this discrepancy at the $Z$-peak, which corresponds to a 2.7$\sigma$ effect after trials factor and reflects only a tiny mismodeling in a region with very high statistics, no other significant bump was found.}
1046: \label{fig:bump1e+1e-}
1047: \end{figure}
1048:
1049: The mass of the two muons in the $\mu^+\mu^-$ final state does not have any significant bump either, not even of the mundane kind found in $e^+e^-$. That is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:bump1mu+1mu-}.
1050:
1051: \begin{figure}
1052: \centering
1053: \begin{tabular}{c}
1054: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.5\columnwidth]{docs/prd2/bump_zoomOut_1mu+1mu-_mass_mu+_mu-_}\\
1055: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.5\columnwidth]{docs/prd2/bump_zoomIn_1mu+1mu-_mass_mu+_mu-_}\\
1056: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.5\columnwidth]{docs/prd2/bumpsReport_1mu+1mu-_mass_mu+_mu-_}
1057: \end{tabular}
1058: \caption[Bumps found in $\mu^+\mu^-$]{{\em (Upper two)} The most interesting bump found in final state $\mu^+\mu^-$. {\em (Bottom)} The \pval\ of all bumps accross the mass spectrum of the two leptons. Even the most significant bump, at the $Z$-peak, has $P_b \simeq 0.74$, therefore is completely insignificant.}
1059: \label{fig:bump1mu+1mu-}
1060: \end{figure}
1061:
1062: Another potentially interesting mass variable is the dijet mass in the final state with two high \sumPt\ jets. That is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:bump2j_sumPt400+}. Unfortunately, no high-mass di-jet resonance was observed.
1063:
1064: \begin{figure}
1065: \centering
1066: \begin{tabular}{c}
1067: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.5\columnwidth]{docs/prd2/bump_zoomOut_2j_sumPt400+_mass_j1_j2_}\\
1068: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.5\columnwidth]{docs/prd2/bump_zoomIn_2j_sumPt400+_mass_j1_j2_}\\
1069: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.5\columnwidth]{docs/prd2/bumpsReport_2j_sumPt400+_mass_j1_j2_}
1070: \end{tabular}
1071: \caption[Dijet bumps found]{{\em (Upper two)} The most interesting bump found in final state $2j\;\sumPt > 400$ GeV. {\em (Bottom)} The \pval\ of all bumps accross the di-jet mass spectrum. Even the most significant bump, yields $P_b \simeq 0.99$, therefore is completely insignificant.}
1072: \label{fig:bump2j_sumPt400+}
1073: \end{figure}
1074:
1075:
1076: \subsection{Sensitivity}
1077: \label{sec:BumpHunterSensitivity}
1078:
1079: To test the sensitivity of the Bump Hunter, we generate some specific new physics signal, pass it through the full CDF detector simulation, and inject it gradually on top of pseudo-data pulled from the Standard Model background, until the Bump Hunter identifies a discovery-level bump.
1080:
1081: \subsubsection{120 GeV Higgs in association with $W$}
1082:
1083: The pseudo-signal use for this test contains a Standard Model Higgs of mass 120 GeV, allowed to decay to $b\bar{b}$, which has branching ratio 68\% \cite{Djouadi:1997yw}. The associated $W$ decays to $e$ or $\mu$ or $\tau$ plus neutrino, with total branching ratio $\sim \frac{1}{3}$.
1084: %Used sample chgs1c
1085:
1086: About 6500 signal events are required to obtain the first bump beyond discovery threshold. Events passing selection criteria are distributed in several final states, and 15 of them make it to the $2be^+\pmiss$ final state, producing the bump in Fig.~\ref{fig:bumpSensitivityModel14}.
1087: \begin{figure}
1088: \centering
1089: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.7\columnwidth]{docs/prd2/pseudo-discovery_model14_1}
1090: \caption[Example of a pseudo-discovery of the Standard Model Higgs boson ($m_H=120$ GeV)]{Example of a pseudo-discovery of the Standard Model Higgs boson ($m_H=120$ GeV), produced in association with a $W$ boson. Out of 7000 generated $WH(\to \ell\nu b\bar{b})$ events, 15 populate the $2be^+\pmiss$ final state. They cause this local excess which is identified by the Bump Hunter algorithm and its significance is estimated a 3.4$\sigma$ after trials factor.}
1091: \label{fig:bumpSensitivityModel14}
1092: \end{figure}
1093: Compensating for the branching ratio, we find that the required cross section of $WH_{120 {\rm GeV}}$ to have this 5$\sigma$ level discovery would be about 14.4 pb, which is $\sim$90 times larger than the predicted Standard Model cross section.
1094:
1095: \subsubsection{$Z'\to\ell^+\ell^-$ at mass 250 GeV}
1096:
1097: Pseudo-signal of a 250 GeV $Z'$ boson was generated, where $Z'$ may decay to $\ell^+\ell^-$, where $\ell$ can be $e$, $\mu$, or $\tau$. The first discovery-level bump caused after injecting about 700 events of this pseudo-signal. 55 events end up in the 1e+1e- final state, and form the bump shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:bumpSensitivityModel02}.
1098: \begin{figure}
1099: \centering
1100: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.7\columnwidth]{docs/prd2/pseudo-discovery_model02}
1101: \caption[Example of a pseudo-discovery of a 250 GeV $Z'$ decaying to charged leptons.]{Example of a pseudo-discovery of a 250 GeV $Z'$ decaying to charged leptons. Out of 700 generated events, 55 populate the $e^+e^-$ final state, where the most significant bump appears. The significance of this bump is estimated at 3.7$\sigma$ after trials factor.}
1102: \label{fig:bumpSensitivityModel02}
1103: \end{figure}
1104:
1105: With 700 injected events the significance found is 3.7$\sigma$, which is higher than the discovery threshold of 3$\sigma$. That is because the pseudo-signal is injected in bunches of 100 events, so the actual requirement is between 600 and 700 events. Dividing this number of generated events by our integrated luminosity shows that we would need the cross section times branching ratio of this signal to be approximately 0.325 pb.
1106:
1107: \subsubsection{$Z'\to t\bar{t}$ at mass 500 GeV}
1108:
1109: For this test we generated $Z'$ events of mass 500 GeV, where the heavy boson decays to a $t\bar{t}$ pair. Injecting 5000 such events causes simultaneously two significant bumps in the $be^+3j\pmiss$ final state; one is in the transverse mass between \pmiss\ and the second highest $p_T$ jet ($j2$), with significance 3$\sigma$; the other is in the transverse mass of the third highest $p_T$ ($j3$) and \pmiss, with significance 3.2$\sigma$. The latter is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:bumpSensitivityModel11_mTj3pmiss}.
1110:
1111: In another instance, after injecting 4600 different pseudo-signal events, a 3.3$\sigma$ effect after trials factor was created in the same final state ($be^+3j\pmiss$), but this time in the variable $m_{t\bar{t}}$, where one would more easily interpret the excess as due to resonant production of $t\bar{t}$. That is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:bumpSensitivityModel11_mTj3pmiss} as well.
1112:
1113: %%%the next is referring to the file plots_results_1_1b1e+3j1pmiss_mttbar.eps:
1114: %
1115: %The same figure shows the most significant bump found in the mass of the reconstructed $t\bar{t}$ pair. The latter is not more significant than 2.2$\sigma$ after trials factor, at the same time that transverse mass of $j3$ and \pmiss\ exceeds 3$\sigma$. That happens because the two variables, as well as transverse mass of the second leading jet and \pmiss, are approximately equally sensitive to this particular signal, therefore which one will exceed discovery threshold first in a sensitivity test depends on random fluctuations of the pseudo-data. In this particular test, the pseudo-data fluctuated high in the bump region in transverse mass ($j3$,\pmiss), making it appear significant before $m_{t\bar{t}}$.
1116: \begin{figure}
1117: \centering
1118: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1119: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.45\columnwidth]{docs/prd2/pseudo-discovery_model11_1_1b1e+3j1pmiss_mTj3pmiss} &
1120: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.45\columnwidth]{docs/prd2/plots_results_model11_2_1b1e+3j1pmiss_mass_ttbar}
1121: \end{tabular}
1122: \caption[Pseudo-discovery of $Z'_{500 GeV}\to t\bar{t}$]{{\em (Left)} Most significant bump after injecting 5000 $Z'_{500 GeV}\to t\bar{t}$ events. 47 signal events make it to the $be^+3j\pmiss$ final state, which cause this bump of significance 3.2$\sigma$ after trials factor in transverse mass of the third highest $p_T$ jet and \pmiss. {\em (Right)} Most significant bump after injecting a different 4600 $Z'_{500 GeV}\to t\bar{t}$ events, on a background that was allowed to fluctuate anew. 41 signal events make it to the $be^+3j\pmiss$ final state, which cause this bump of significance 3.3$\sigma$ after trials factor in $m_{t\bar{t}}$, consistent naturally with the mass of the introduced $Z'$.}
1123: \label{fig:bumpSensitivityModel11_mTj3pmiss}
1124: \end{figure}
1125: With discovery cost of approximately 4800 events, the required cross section is approximately 2.4 pb.
1126:
1127:
1128:
1129:
1130:
1131:
1132:
1133: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1134: %% CONCLUSIONS
1135: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1136:
1137: \section{Summary of second round with 2 fb$^{-1}$}
1138: \label{sec:Conclusions2}
1139:
1140: \Vista\ and \Sleuth\ search for outliers, representing significant discrepancies between data and Standard Model prediction. Unfortunately, the result obtained is that no signficant outliers have been found either in the total number of events in the \Vista\ exclusive final states, or in \Sleuth's search of the \SumPt\ tails. Disregarding effects from tuning corrections to the data, \Sleuth's $\tildeScriptP$ provides a rigorous statistical calculation of the likelihood that the most discrepant \Sleuth\ final state seen would have arisen purely by chance from the Standard Model prediction and correction model constructed within \Vista.
1141:
1142: \Vista's correction model does not explicitly include some sources of systematic uncertainty, including those associated with parton distribution functions and showering parameters in the event generators used; these sources of uncertainty are included implicitly, in that they would be considered if necessary in the event of a possible discovery. Other uncertainties related to the modeling of the CDF detector response and object identification criteria are determined as part of \Vista\ but are not included in the calculation of $\tildeScriptP$. For the correction model used, \Sleuth\ finds $\twiddleScriptP = 0.085$.
1143:
1144: The Bump Hunter, a new algorithm for identification of mass resonances, did not find any significant mass bumps either, except for one that is attributed to \Pythia\ not modeling perfectly parton showering.
1145:
1146: Although the \Vista\ correction model could presumably be improved further to show even better agreement with Standard Model prediction, finding $\tildeScriptP \gg 0.001$ indicates that even the most discrepant \SumPt\ tail is not of statistical interest. The correction model used is thus good enough (even without considering effect of systematic uncertainties on the \Sleuth\ final states) to conclude this search for outliers using \Vista\ and \Sleuth\ in 2~fb$^{-1}$.
1147:
1148: This analysis does not prove that there is no new hint of physics buried in these data; merely that this search does not find any.
1149:
1150: