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.

Here are the expected and observed numbers for the various e+e and e+mu dilepton bins.  The background estimate is too high in many of the cases, but the same-sign same-flavor categories are reasonably close.  There are some problems with the code that stacks all the background contributions together, and I believe that that is where the differences are coming from.

DILEP_TCE_eP_eP nbg=550.536 data=469
DILEP_TCE_eP_eN nbg=12044.3 data=439
DILEP_TCE_eN_eN nbg=583.46 data=428
DILEP_CMUP_eP_eP nbg=331.307 data=302
DILEP_CMUP_eP_eN nbg=6261.74 data=284
DILEP_CMUP_eN_eN nbg=342.74 data=315
DILEP_CMX_eP_eP nbg=189.794 data=170
DILEP_CMX_eP_eN nbg=3783.66 data=173
DILEP_CMX_eN_eN nbg=185.485 data=201
DILEP_TCE_eP_mP nbg=65.4135 data=19
DILEP_TCE_eP_mN nbg=63.8633 data=26
DILEP_TCE_eN_mP nbg=58.6098 data=36
DILEP_TCE_eN_mN nbg=64.9233 data=30
DILEP_CMUP_eP_mP nbg=32.5401 data=12
DILEP_CMUP_eP_mN nbg=30.2969 data=24
DILEP_CMUP_eN_mP nbg=31.4779 data=16
DILEP_CMUP_eN_mN nbg=32.2473 data=14
DILEP_CMX_eP_mP nbg=16.3119 data=14
DILEP_CMX_eP_mN nbg=20.3123 data=8
DILEP_CMX_eN_mP nbg=15.8709 data=12
DILEP_CMX_eN_mN nbg=22.3682 data=13

-Scott

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.

Continue reading Dimuon predicted and observed for 3.6 fb-1 →

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 →

Here are a couple of the new dilepton (e+mu) plots. Specifically, these are the dilepton mass plots.

e+ mu+:

Continue reading Some e+mu plots →

Here are the fits to the various background sources in pTrel and d0.  This is only the first fb^{-1}.

TCE sele negative:

Continue reading pTrel and d0 fits for electrons and muons →

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

Continue reading 1 fb-1 TCE dimuon results →

Here are some plots about the fake rate in the jet sample.  I added the cleanup cuts we talked about, and everything makes sense now.

-Scott