Below is the plot of the muon multiplicity distribution in the TCE trigger with the Dark Higgs signal model overlaid. Note that this distribution is the sum of soft and hard muons.
The number of events with >2 muons predicted and observed are:
N(SM bg)=0.688; N(Dark Higgs)=7.6; N(data)=1
We want to compare the taggable/tagged populations obtained from absolute normalization to that obtained from the ratio scheme. Below are the met fits used for absolute normalization.
Continue reading Absolute prediction using EW scaling and heavy flavor overlap removal
Following Scott’s discovery of the discrepancy in the single lepton population between the W+jets & W+heavy samples, I below used the heavy ratios obtained from the W+jets samples to obtained the predicted background and compared to the observed yield.
TCE mu+ mu+:
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{+}_{l}=0.443923
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{+}_{h}=0.106633
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{+}_{h}=1.36741
nbg=1.91797
data=9
TCE mu+ mu-:
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{-}_{l}=3.10351
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{-}_{h}=0.461862
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{-}_{l}=0.258485
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{-}_{h}=10.282
nbg=14.1059
data=23
TCE mu- mu-:
#mu^{-}_{l}#mu^{-}_{l}=0.971373
#mu^{-}_{l}#mu^{-}_{h}=0.365418
#mu^{-}_{h}#mu^{-}_{h}=0.549428
nbg=1.88622
data=8
CMUP mu+ mu+:
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{+}_{l}=0.399164
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{+}_{h}=0.0449528
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{+}_{h}=2.32589
nbg=2.77001
data=5
CMUP mu+ mu-:
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{-}_{l}=1.91507
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{-}_{h}=0.573502
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{-}_{l}=0.173787
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{-}_{h}=4.48139
nbg=7.14375
data=16
CMUP mu- mu-:
#mu^{-}_{l}#mu^{-}_{l}=0.634605
#mu^{-}_{l}#mu^{-}_{h}=0.0522837
#mu^{-}_{h}#mu^{-}_{h}=2.67786
nbg=3.36475
data=2
CMX mu+ mu+:
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{+}_{l}=0.168544
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{+}_{h}=0.201404
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{+}_{h}=0.294008
nbg=0.663956
data=0
CMX mu+ mu-:
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{-}_{l}=1.2084
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{-}_{h}=0.0506138
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{-}_{l}=0.011716
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{-}_{h}=3.07523
nbg=4.34596
data=6
CMX mu- mu-:
#mu^{-}_{l}#mu^{-}_{l}=0.341453
#mu^{-}_{l}#mu^{-}_{h}=0.292227
#mu^{-}_{h}#mu^{-}_{h}=0.382209
nbg=1.01589
data=2
We have gone from having an observed excess everywhere to having an observed deficit almost everywhere.
We have successfully generated a test sample of Dark Higgs MC according to the prescription given by Matt Reece. The decay chain is WH->e nu chi0 chi0, where chi0 is the SUSY LSP. The chi0’s then decay through the dark sector as chi0->chiD N(aD) where chiD is the dark photon, aD is the dark pseduscalar Higgs, and N can range from 2 to 4. The dark Higgseses then decay to two electrons or two muons.
The model parameters used in this generation are as follows:
M(H)=120 GeV
M(chi0)=10 GeV
M(chiD)=1 GeV
M(aD)=300 MeV
Br(chi0->chiD aD aD)=0.333
Br(chi0->chiD aD aD aD)=0.333
Br(chi0->chiD aD aD aD aD)=0.333
Br(aD->ee)=0.525
Br(aD->mu mu)=0.466
Br(aD->pi pi)=0.009
There are other SUSY model parameters that are not listed above.
The plots below compare the shape of the electron and muon multiplicity distributions for the Dark Higgs with respect to Standard Model W+heavy jet production. These plots are normalized to unit area.
Clearly, the lepton multiplicity in this Dark Higgs model is much higher than in SM W+heavy jets.
Scott found a bug that lowered the opposite sign dilepton yield in data only. Here are the results after the bug fix.
TCE mu+ mu+:
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{+}_{l}=0.444913
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{+}_{h}=2.11369
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{+}_{h}=8.5773
nbg=11.1359
data=9
TCE mu+ mu-:
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{-}_{l}=3.11457
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{-}_{h}=2.00324
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{-}_{l}=2.43758
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{-}_{h}=36.3629
nbg=43.9183
data=23
TCE mu- mu-:
#mu^{-}_{l}#mu^{-}_{l}=0.974833
#mu^{-}_{l}#mu^{-}_{h}=1.68548
#mu^{-}_{h}#mu^{-}_{h}=8.6342
nbg=11.2945
data=8
CMUP mu+ mu+:
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{+}_{l}=0.400243
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{+}_{h}=0.972838
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{+}_{h}=5.16716
nbg=6.54024
data=5
CMUP mu+ mu-:
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{-}_{l}=1.93365
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{-}_{h}=1.10496
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{-}_{l}=1.33868
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{-}_{h}=19.3514
nbg=23.7287
data=16
CMUP mu- mu-:
#mu^{-}_{l}#mu^{-}_{l}=0.639936
#mu^{-}_{l}#mu^{-}_{h}=1.08228
#mu^{-}_{h}#mu^{-}_{h}=4.81011
nbg=6.53233
data=2
CMX mu+ mu+:
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{+}_{l}=0.169355
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{+}_{h}=0.564945
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{+}_{h}=3.43739
nbg=4.17169
data=0
CMX mu+ mu-:
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{-}_{l}=1.20664
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{-}_{h}=0.816829
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{-}_{l}=0.768016
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{-}_{h}=11.7364
nbg=14.5279
data=6
CMX mu- mu-:
#mu^{-}_{l}#mu^{-}_{l}=0.344287
#mu^{-}_{l}#mu^{-}_{h}=0.460449
#mu^{-}_{h}#mu^{-}_{h}=3.38036
nbg=4.1851
data=2
The background prediction is still above the data in all regions.
To check whether the prediction excess in the dimuon results below is due to mismodelling of the response of less pure muon categories, I reran the analysis using only CMUP soft muons. The results are below:
TCE mu+ mu+:
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{+}_{l}=0.0361493
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{+}_{h}=0.397905
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{+}_{h}=3.08399
nbg=3.51804
data=1
TCE mu+ mu-:
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{-}_{l}=1.26696
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{-}_{h}=0.268673
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{-}_{l}=0.537769
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{-}_{h}=13.4515
nbg=15.5249
data=4
TCE mu- mu-:
#mu^{-}_{l}#mu^{-}_{l}=0
#mu^{-}_{l}#mu^{-}_{h}=0.536577
#mu^{-}_{h}#mu^{-}_{h}=2.40745
nbg=2.94403
data=2
CMUP mu+ mu+:
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{+}_{l}=0.173812
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{+}_{h}=0.341771
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{+}_{h}=1.98673
nbg=2.50231
data=0
CMUP mu+ mu-:
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{-}_{l}=0.862434
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{-}_{h}=0.316661
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{-}_{l}=0.258145
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{-}_{h}=8.18717
nbg=9.62441
data=2
CMUP mu- mu-:
mu^{-}_{l}#mu^{-}_{l}=0.0179424
#mu^{-}_{l}#mu^{-}_{h}=0.3091
#mu^{-}_{h}#mu^{-}_{h}=1.55873
nbg=1.88577
data=2
CMX mu+ mu+:
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{+}_{l}=0.00847829
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{+}_{h}=0.139921
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{+}_{h}=0.884786
nbg=1.03319
data=0
CMX mu+ mu-:
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{-}_{l}=0.406995
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{-}_{h}=0.270739
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{-}_{l}=0.198187
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{-}_{h}=5.45729
nbg=6.33321
data=1
CMX mu- mu-:
#mu^{-}_{l}#mu^{-}_{l}=0.0243713
#mu^{-}_{l}#mu^{-}_{h}=0.2176
#mu^{-}_{h}#mu^{-}_{h}=1.30038
nbg=1.54235
data=0
The background prediction is still high everywhere and is very high in the opposite sign. The problem does not appear to be related to the soft muon type.
Using the results of the (pTrel,d0Significance) fit below, we obtain the background prediction for the 3.6 fb-1 sample. They are:
TCE mu+ mu+:
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{+}_{l}=0.443923
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{+}_{h}=2.1214
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{+}_{h}=8.60857
nbg=11.1739
data=9
TCE mu+ mu-:
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{-}_{l}=3.10351
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{-}_{h}=2.01054
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{-}_{l}=2.4465
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{-}_{h}=36.4959
nbg=44.0564
data=15
TCE mu- mu-:
#mu^{-}_{l}#mu^{-}_{l}=0.971373
#mu^{-}_{l}#mu^{-}_{h}=1.69165
#mu^{-}_{h}#mu^{-}_{h}=8.66579
nbg=11.3288
data=8
CMUP mu+ mu+:
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{+}_{l}=0.403686
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{+}_{h}=0.972838
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{+}_{h}=5.16716
nbg=6.54368
data=5
CMUP mu+ mu-:
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{-}_{l}=1.87454
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{-}_{h}=1.10496
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{-}_{l}=1.34186
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{-}_{h}=19.3975
nbg=23.7189
data=5
CMUP mu- mu-:
#mu^{-}_{l}#mu^{-}_{l}=0.603845
#mu^{-}_{l}#mu^{-}_{h}=1.08485
#mu^{-}_{h}#mu^{-}_{h}=4.82156
nbg=6.51025
data=2
CMX mu+ mu+:
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{+}_{l}=0.169583
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{+}_{h}=0.564945
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{+}_{h}=3.43739
nbg=4.17192
data=0
CMX mu+ mu-:
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{-}_{l}=1.22732
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{-}_{h}=0.816829
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{-}_{l}=0.768016
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{-}_{h}=11.7364
nbg=14.5486
data=3
CMX mu- mu-:
#mu^{-}_{l}#mu^{-}_{l}=0.305322
#mu^{-}_{l}#mu^{-}_{h}=0.460449
#mu^{-}_{h}#mu^{-}_{h}=3.38036
nbg=4.14613
data=2
The background prediction is generally higher and is much higher for the opposite sign final states.
Ratio tables used to get the prediction and some representative kinematic plots after the break.
I have changed the simultaneous fit used for the single lepton bin from (pTrel,d0) to (pTrel,d0Significance). The difference in yield is as follows:
TCE mu+:
N(h,d0Sig)=826.10983 +- 40.54608 ; N(h,d0)=954.24392 +- 48.73117
N(l,d0Sig)=896.89017 +- 40.54608; N(l,d0)=823.75608 +- 48.73117
TCE mu-:
N(h,d0Sig)=822.96071 +- 39.92599; N(h,d0)=901.60498 +- 47.26403
N(l,d0Sig)=842.03929 +- 39.92599; N(l,d0)=810.39502 +- 47.26403
CMUP mu+:
N(h,d0Sig)=438.87866 +- 30.63642; N(h,d0)=483.55751 +- 37.35530
N(DY,d0Sig)=215.57069 +- 65.82153; N(DY,d0)=183.67719 +- 67.78331
N(l,d0Sig)=297.55065 +- 66.95095; N(l,d0)=329.76530 +- 70.65134
CMUP mu-:
N(h,d0Sig)=421.02463 +- 29.85818; N(h,d0)=472.16470 +- 36.33199
N(DY,d0Sig)=181.33300 +- 56.34368; N(DY,d0)=151.93117 +- 56.44550
N(l,d0Sig)=328.64236 +- 58.58437; N(l,d0)=343.90413 +- 60.80432
CMX mu+:
N(h,d0Sig)=279.32750 +- 24.66394; N(h,d0)=306.06473 +- 30.01228
N(DY,d0Sig)=140.98705 +- 54.15454; N(DY,d0)=117.97464 +- 56.86518
N(l,d0Sig)=198.68545 +- 55.10031; N(l,d0)=213.96063 +- 59.11105
CMX mu-:
N(h,d0Sig)=272.94005 +- 24.27593; N(h,d0)=281.98879 +- 28.44901
N(DY,d0Sig)=231.44420 +- 55.78777; N(DY,d0)=229.34208 +- 58.18416
N(l,d0Sig)=93.61575 +- 53.50138; N(l,d0)=111.66913 +- 55.73253
Notice that the error on the fit using the impact parameter significance is always smaller, suggesting that the shapes are better separated in this variable. All plots are below the break.
Continue reading Single Muon Fits Using Impact Parameter Significance
There appears to be an unphysical feature in the background prediction for opposite sign muons in the CMUP and CMX triggered sample. Below is the plot of the delta R distribution between pairs of opposite sign soft muons in the 1 fb-1 CMUP triggered sample.
The strange feature is the spike in the background prediction below dR=0.1 for the light/light background.
Continue reading Excess in bg prediction for collinear OS soft muons
We ignore soft electrons for the purpose of counting for the following 1fb-1 results. First the numbers from the log file.
TCE mu+ mu+:
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{+}_{l}=0.00910789
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{+}_{h}=0.264145
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{+}_{h}=2.1901
nbg=2.46335 data=4
TCE mu+ mu-:
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{-}_{l}=1.48163
#mu^{+}_{l}#mu^{-}_{h}=0.313964
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{-}_{l}=0.130022
#mu^{+}_{h}#mu^{-}_{h}=9.18099
nbg=11.1066 data=5
TCE mu- mu-:
#mu^{-}_{l}#mu^{-}_{l}=0.0390801
#mu^{-}_{l}#mu^{-}_{h}=0.23924
#mu^{-}_{h}#mu^{-}_{h}=2.26042
nbg=2.53874 data=4