Table A.1: Number of observed and expected events in thettvalidation region. The left table shows the number of events after luminosity weighting, while the right table shows the raw number of events available.
Process Scaled events ttV+ttH+tWZ 13.7± 0.3
Diboson 10.4± 3.2
Z+jets 6.7± 2.7
tt 61.2±26.3
tZq 3.3± 0.2
Total expected 95.4±26.6
Data 102
Process Raw events
ttV+ttH+tWZ 7979
Diboson 571
Z+jets 531
tt 178
tZq 320
Total expected 9579
Data 102
Table A.2: Number of observed and expected events in the diboson validation region. The left table shows the number of events after luminosity weighting, while the right table shows the raw number of events available.
Process Scaled events
ttV+ttH+tWZ 9.9± 0.3
Diboson 1778.9±533.8
Z+jets 290.8±116.6
tt +tW 36.5± 15.8
tZq 17.7± 0.5
Total expected 2133.7±546.6
Data 1984
Process Raw events
ttV+ttH+tWZ 4448
Diboson 64 082
Z+jets 1792
tt +tW 119
tZq 1760
Total expected 72 201
Data 1984
A Additional Figures
Table A.3: Number of observed and expected events in the diboson validation region. The left table shows the number of events after luminosity weighting, while the right table shows the raw number of events available.
Process Events
tZq 35.2± 0.7
ttV+ttH+tWZ 19.9± 0.4
Diboson 52.7±15.9
Z+jets 36.9±15.1
tt+tW 18.1± 8.6
Total expected 162.7±23.5
Data 141
Process Raw events
ttV+ttH+tWZ 9311
Diboson 2456
Z+jets 275
tt+tW 44
tZq 3438
Total expected 15 524
Data 141
APPENDIX B
Additional information on systematic uncertainties
A summary of the effect of systematic uncertainties was given in table7.1. The full breakdown showing the effect of the individual systematic uncertainties on the number oftZqevents is shown in tableB.1.
Only uncertainty that cause at least a±0.05 change in the signal number of events are shown.
Table B.1: Breakdown of the effect of the systematic uncertainties on the number of signal events after the fit for the data. Note that the individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up quadratically to the total uncertainty. The percentage shows the size of the uncertainty relative to the number oftZqevents.
Parameter Events Fraction [%]
Signal expectation 25.8
-Total systematic ±8.3 32.2
mu_SIG ±9.4 36.4
tZ Radiation ±2.8 10.8
JER ±1.0 3.8
bTagSF_eigenvars_B_0 ±0.7 2.6
LUMI ±0.5 2.1
JES JET_Flavor_Composition ±0.5 2.0 stat_nominal_NNOutput_bin_9 ±0.4 1.7
leptonSF_EL_SF_ID ±0.4 1.4
leptonSF_MU_SF_ID_SYST ±0.3 1.3
stat_nominal_NNOutput_bin_8 ±0.3 1.2 stat_nominal_NNOutput_bin_4 ±0.3 1.0
bTagSF_eigenvars_B_1 ±0.3 1.0
stat_nominal_NNOutput_bin_7 ±0.3 1.0
PDFWeights13 ±0.2 0.8
B Additional information on systematic uncertainties
Parameter Events Fraction [%]
JES JET_Pileup_RhoTopology ±0.2 0.8
JES JET_EtaIntercalibration_Modelling ±0.2 0.8
stat_nominal_NNOutput_bin_5 ±0.2 0.7
stat_nominal_NNOutput_bin_6 ±0.2 0.6
JES JET_Pileup_PtTerm ±0.2 0.6
JES JET_EffectiveNP_2 ±0.1 0.5
JES JET_BJES_Response ±0.1 0.5
stat_nominal_NNOutput_bin_3 ±0.1 0.5
bTagSF_eigenvars_B_2 ±0.1 0.5
PDFWeights3 ±0.1 0.5
stat_nominal_NNOutput_bin_2 ±0.1 0.4
JES JET_EtaIntercalibration_TotalStat ±0.1 0.4
leptonSF_MU_SF_Isol_SYST ±0.1 0.4
MUON_SCALE ±0.1 0.4
leptonSF_MU_SF_ID_STAT ±0.1 0.4
leptonSF_EL_SF_Reco ±0.1 0.3
leptonSF_EL_SF_Isol ±0.1 0.3
JES JET_Flavor_Response ±0.1 0.3
stat_nominal_NNOutput_bin_1 ±0.1 0.3
PDFWeights22 ±0.1 0.3
JES JET_EtaIntercalibration_NonClosure ±0.1 0.3
JES JET_EffectiveNP_1 ±0.1 0.3
EG_RESOLUTION_ALL ±0.1 0.3
PDFWeights9 ±0.1 0.3
PDFWeights17 ±0.1 0.2
MET_SoftTrk_ResoPerp ±0.1 0.2
JES JET_Pileup_OffsetNPV ±0.1 0.2
leptonSF_MU_SF_TTVA_STAT ±0.1 0.2
PDFWeights4 ±0.1 0.2
PDFWeights19 ±0.1 0.2
leptonSF_MU_SF_TTVA_SYST ±0.1 0.2
PDFWeights28 ±0.1 0.2
EG_SCALE_ALL ±0.1 0.2
PDFWeights5 ±0.1 0.2
Comparisons between the nominal and the up and down variations of significant systematic uncer-tainties templates are show in. The effect on the rate and the shape of the NN discriminant for the signal and background processes are shown. All templates are shown before the pruning and symmetrisation procedure.
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Events
_JET_21NP_JET_Flavor_Composition__1: ttWZH
σ + Nominal
σ -
= 13 TeV, 36.1 fb-1
s
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
ONN
0.6 0.81.0 1.2 1.4
Ratio
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Events
_JET_21NP_JET_Flavor_Composition__1: other
σ + Nominal
σ -
= 13 TeV, 36.1 fb-1
s
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
ONN
0.6 0.81.0 1.2 1.4
Ratio
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Events
_JET_21NP_JET_Flavor_Composition__1: diboson
σ + Nominal
σ -
= 13 TeV, 36.1 fb-1
s
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
ONN
0.6 0.8 1.01.2 1.4
Ratio
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Events
_JET_21NP_JET_Flavor_Composition__1: tZ
σ + Nominal
σ -
= 13 TeV, 36.1 fb-1
s
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
ONN
0.6 0.8 1.01.2 1.4
Ratio
Figure B.1: Comparison between nominal (in black) and the+1σ(in blue) and−1σ(in red) variations of the JES flavour composition uncertainty for thettV+ttH+tWZandtttemplate (top row) and the diboson andtZq, bottom row.
B Additional information on systematic uncertainties
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Events
_JET_JER_SINGLE_NP__1: ttWZH
σ + Nominal
σ -
= 13 TeV, 36.1 fb-1
s
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
ONN
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Ratio
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Events
_JET_JER_SINGLE_NP__1: other
σ + Nominal
σ -
= 13 TeV, 36.1 fb-1
s
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
ONN
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Ratio
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Events
_JET_JER_SINGLE_NP__1: diboson
σ + Nominal
σ -
= 13 TeV, 36.1 fb-1
s
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
ONN
0.60.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Ratio
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Events
_JET_JER_SINGLE_NP__1: tZ
σ + Nominal
σ -
= 13 TeV, 36.1 fb-1
s
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
ONN
0.60.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Ratio
Figure B.2: Comparison between nominal (in black) and the+1σ(in blue) and−1σ(in red) variations of the JER uncertainty for thettV+ttH+tWZandtttemplate (top row) and the diboson andtZq, bottom row.
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Events
_JET_21NP_JET_Flavor_Composition__1: ttWZH
σ + Nominal
σ -
= 13 TeV, 36.1 fb-1
s
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
ONN
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Ratio
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Events
_JET_21NP_JET_Flavor_Composition__1: other
σ + Nominal
σ -
= 13 TeV, 36.1 fb-1
s
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
ONN
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Ratio
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Events
_JET_21NP_JET_Flavor_Composition__1: diboson
σ + Nominal
σ -
= 13 TeV, 36.1 fb-1
s
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
ONN
0.60.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Ratio
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Events
_JET_21NP_JET_Flavor_Composition__1: tZ
σ + Nominal
σ -
= 13 TeV, 36.1 fb-1
s
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
ONN
0.60.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Ratio
Figure B.3: Comparison between nominal (in black) and the+1σ(in blue) and−1σ(in red) variations of the JES flavour composition uncertainty for thettV+ttH+tWZandtttemplate (top row) and the diboson andtZq, bottom row.
B Additional information on systematic uncertainties
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Events
_JET_21NP_JET_EtaIntercalibration_Modelling__1: ttWZH
σ + Nominal
σ -
= 13 TeV, 36.1 fb-1
s
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
ONN
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Ratio
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Events
_JET_21NP_JET_EtaIntercalibration_Modelling__1: other
σ + Nominal
σ -
= 13 TeV, 36.1 fb-1
s
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
ONN
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Ratio
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Events
_JET_21NP_JET_EtaIntercalibration_Modelling__1: diboson
σ + Nominal
σ -
= 13 TeV, 36.1 fb-1
s
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
ONN
0.60.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Ratio
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Events
_JET_21NP_JET_EtaIntercalibration_Modelling__1: tZ
σ + Nominal
σ -
= 13 TeV, 36.1 fb-1
s
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
ONN
0.60.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Ratio
Figure B.4: Comparison between nominal (in black) and the+1σ(in blue) and−1σ(in red) variations of the JES ηinteracalibration modelling uncertainty for thettV+ttH+tWZandtttemplate (top row) and the diboson and tZq, bottom row.
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Events
_JET_21NP_JET_Pileup_RhoTopology__1: ttWZH
σ + Nominal
σ -
= 13 TeV, 36.1 fb-1
s
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
ONN
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Ratio
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Events
_JET_21NP_JET_Pileup_RhoTopology__1: other
σ + Nominal
σ -
= 13 TeV, 36.1 fb-1
s
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
ONN
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Ratio
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Events
_JET_21NP_JET_Pileup_RhoTopology__1: diboson
σ + Nominal
σ -
= 13 TeV, 36.1 fb-1
s
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
ONN
0.60.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Ratio
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Events
_JET_21NP_JET_Pileup_RhoTopology__1: tZ
σ + Nominal
σ -
= 13 TeV, 36.1 fb-1
s
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
ONN
0.60.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Ratio
Figure B.5: Comparison between nominal (in black) and the+1σ(in blue) and−1σ(in red) variations of the JES pile-upρtopology uncertainty for thettV+ttH+tWZandtttemplate (top row) and the diboson andtZq, bottom row.
B Additional information on systematic uncertainties
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Events
_MUON_ID__1: ttWZH
σ + Nominal
σ -
= 13 TeV, 36.1 fb-1
s
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
ONN
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Ratio
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Events
_MUON_ID__1: other
σ + Nominal
σ -
= 13 TeV, 36.1 fb-1
s
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
ONN
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Ratio
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Events
_MUON_ID__1: diboson
σ + Nominal
σ -
= 13 TeV, 36.1 fb-1
s
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
ONN
0.60.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Ratio
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Events
_MUON_ID__1: tZ
σ + Nominal
σ -
= 13 TeV, 36.1 fb-1
s
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
ONN
0.60.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Ratio
Figure B.6: Comparison between nominal (in black) and the+1σ(in blue) and−1σ(in red) variations of the Muon ID uncertainty for thettV+ttH+tWZandtttemplate (top row) and the diboson andtZq, bottom row.
APPENDIX C
Additional Studies on non-prompt lepton background estimation
C.1 Additional Studies on t t background estimation
In order to cross-check the stability of the default approach (namely the use of a single scale factor), two different alternative methods are tested and presented. These include calculating a pT-dependent SFdata/MC or separate factors depending on the flavour of the fake lepton. A drawback for both of these approaches is that the statistics will be very low. All these strategies were investigated using the Version 14 single-top ntuples and yield results that are consistent with each other within the considered uncertainties. Comparisons between these methods and the default, previously presented approach are shown in the following.
The possibility of deriving a flavour dependent SF relies on the fact that, because of the applied selection, one can clearly separate between events where the fake lepton is a muon or an electron.
Namely, events of the typeµ±µ±e∓have a fake muon, since the opposite sign electron–muon pair must come from the tt pair. Similarly, events with e±e±µ∓ contain two real leptons and one fake electron.
As mentioned above, a drawback of separating events into these two categories will be the very low statistics in each of them.
The corresponding number of events and calculated scale factors are listed in TableC.1. Again, the errors on the scale factors include the statistical errors on the observed and predicted number of events.
Table C.1: Number of expected and observed events in thett OSOF CR. The channels separate between events that have a fake electron (top row) and fake muon (bottom row). The error on the calculated SF includes statistical errors on data and MC predictions.
Channel tt MC All-tt MC Total MC Data SFdata/MC
e±e±µ∓ 5.80±1.40 1.02±0.11 6.83±1.40 7 1.03±0.52 µ±µ±e∓ 3.05±0.90 0.99±0.06 4.03±0.90 7 1.97±1.05
In order to obtain the finaltt estimation using this strategy, the scale factors are applied according to whether the MC event had a fake electron or muon.
For completeness, we can calculate the final number oftt events in the SR, after applying the
previ-C Additional Studies on non-prompt lepton background estimation
ously derived SF. The results are shown in TableC.2.
Table C.2: Numbers ofttexpected events in thetZqsignal region, after applying the lepton flavoured dependent SFdata/MCderived in the fake-lepton-dominatedttregion.
Channel Event numbers
tt ×SFµ-fake 6.9± 3.5
tt ×SFe-fake 19.3± 11.0 tt total 26.2± 11.5
As a second cross-check, the same procedure was applied in bins of pT of the softest lepton that is associated to theZboson. This parametrisation was chosen because, as seen from the truth level studies, this lepton is the one that is most often a non-prompt lepton.
The same definition for thett control region is used and the corresponding pT distribution is shown in FigureC.1. TableC.3shows the derived scale factors for the different bins in transverse momentum.
Figure C.1: Control plot for thepTof the softest lepton associated to theZboson in thettcontrol region used for calculating the data MC scale factor. The uncertainty band includes only statistical uncertainties.
In order to compare to the unbinned estimation, these scale factors have been applied to thett MC prediction in both the signal and the validation region. These results are summarised in TableC.4. Note that in thepTbinned estimation the error on the individual scale factors is not yet propagated to the fake contribution estimation. For completeness, the numbers obtained from the unbinned estimation were added in the last columns. The two agree within the corresponding uncertainties. For a fair comparison however, an unbinned estimation without separating into flavour-dependent factors is also considered.
When looking at all the calculated scale factors, one sees the MC prediction does well in predicting the number oftt events. The scale factors for both the electron and muon contributions are consistent with 1, within the computed uncertainties.