This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision | Next revision Both sides next revision | ||
2019:tools:searchmeas:2dhma [2019/07/03 12:06] jonathan.butterworth |
2019:tools:searchmeas:2dhma [2019/07/03 12:06] jonathan.butterworth |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
Checking through the other $WW$ analyses currently being used by Contur, several have jet vetoes and background subtraction, but all have the jet veto applied in the fiducial phase space and in the Rivet routine; in addition the background subtractions are much smaller and generally use the SM predictions rather than data. This presumably explains their lower //apparent// sensitivity, but means the sensitivity that remains is reliable. | Checking through the other $WW$ analyses currently being used by Contur, several have jet vetoes and background subtraction, but all have the jet veto applied in the fiducial phase space and in the Rivet routine; in addition the background subtractions are much smaller and generally use the SM predictions rather than data. This presumably explains their lower //apparent// sensitivity, but means the sensitivity that remains is reliable. | ||
- | The ATLAS $H \rightarrow WW$ is not used in Contur to date, but is actually a bit more useable than the CMS paper, since the jets are included in the fiducial definition. However, there is still a large data-driven background | + | The ATLAS $H \rightarrow WW$ [[https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.02997|1604.02997]] is not used in Contur to date, but is actually a bit more useable than the CMS paper, since the jets are included in the fiducial definition. However, there is still a large data-driven background |
subtraction, based upon a b-tagged control region. | subtraction, based upon a b-tagged control region. | ||