_T$ and angular separation, rather than the masses of the (sub)jets in the splittings. Also, the observables are now both binned and displayed on a logarithmic scale, making any differences at large $k_T$ less pronounced. One obvious difference between the $W'$ and $t\bar{t}$ distributions in Fig.’s \[fig:wp\_l\_topics\] and \[fig:tt\_l\_topics\] is that the clusters associated with the different hard decays are more distinguishable from each other in the $W'$ case than in the $t\bar{t}$ case. This is primarily because the mass difference between the scalar boson $\phi$ and the SM $W$ bosons is much larger than the mass difference between the top quark and the SM $W$ bosons. Another difference is in the amount of soft radiation in the $t\bar{t}$ jets and the $W'$ jets, this is due to the top quark carrying color charge and the $\phi$ boson being color-neutral. The similarities in the two distributions do however suggest that any classifier selecting events with splittings in the large $k_T$ region may work reasonably well as a generic anti-QCD tagger.

Comparing classification power of different observables {#sec:classpower}
-------------------------------------------------------

There are many possible choices of observables that we could include in our analysis of di-jet events using LDA. All of the observables discussed in Sec. \[sec:probmodelling\] carry some ability to distinguish between signal events and QCD background events, and some observables will be more useful than others depending on what the signal process is. In this section we study the classification power of each of these observables, and some combinations of them, using a simple binned likelihood classifier. To construct the binned likelihood classifier we split our signal and background datasets each into ‘training’ and ‘testing’ sets. We then compile counts of how often each measurement bin occurrs in each of the signal and background training sets, and normalise these to give us a discrete probability distribution for the signal and background samples. For each event in the testing sets we then compute the likelihood ratio as defined in Eq., except with the $\beta$’s replaced with the binned likelihood multinomials. The results are summarised in Fig. \[fig:classpower\]. First thing to notice is that the observables are in general better at classifying $W'$ events than $t\bar{t}$ events,
_ T$ and angular separation, rather than the masses of the (sub)jets in the splittings. Also, the observables are nowadays both bin and displayed on a logarithmic scale, make any deviation at large $ k_T$ less pronounced. One obvious deviation between the $ W'$ and $ t\bar{t}$ distributions in Fig. ’s \[fig: wp\_l\_topics\ ] and \[fig: tt\_l\_topics\ ] is that the clusters associate with the different hard decay are more distinguishable from each other in the $ W'$ sheath than in the $ t\bar{t}$ shell. This is primarily because the mass difference between the scalar boson $ \phi$ and the SM $ W$ bosons is a lot larger than the mass difference between the top quark cheese and the SM $ W$ bosons. Another difference is in the amount of soft radiation sickness in the $ t\bar{t}$ jets and the $ W'$ jets, this is due to the top quark carrying semblance charge and the $ \phi$ boson being color - neutral. The similarities in the two distributions do however suggest that any classifier selecting events with splittings in the large $ k_T$ region may work reasonably well as a generic anti - QCD tagger. 

 Comparing classification power of different observables { # sec: classpower } 
 ------------------------------------------------------- 

 There are many potential choice of observables that we could include in our psychoanalysis of di - k consequence using LDA. All of the observables discussed in Sec. \[sec: probmodelling\ ] dribble some ability to distinguish between signal events and QCD background events, and some observables will be more utilitarian than others depending on what the signal process is. In this section we study the classification power of each of these observables, and some combinations of them, using a simple binned likelihood classifier. To construct the binned likelihood classifier we split our signal and background datasets each into ‘ education ’ and ‘ testing ’ set. We then roll up counts of how often each measurement bin occurrs in each of the signal and background training set, and normalise these to give us a discrete probability distribution for the signal and background sample. For each event in the testing sets we then compute the likelihood proportion as defined in Eq. , except with the $ \beta$ ’s replaced with the binned likelihood multinomials. The results are summarised in Fig. \[fig: classpower\ ]. First matter to notice is that the observables are in general better at classifying $ W'$ event than $ t\bar{t}$ events,
_T$ ajd angular separation, rauher than the masses of vhe (sub)nets in ghe splittings. Also, the obsecvaboes aee now both binned and displayef on a ligarmthmic scale, makmhg any differskces ct large $k_T$ less pronounceg. One obvious giwfzrence between the $W'$ and $t\bar{t}$ distrybutionx ln Fig.’s \[fig:wp\_l\_jopicx\] and \[fig:tt\_l\_topics\] is that the clusters associeted with the dofferent hard decays are mlre fistinguishable frlm each othgd ig the $W'$ case ghan in tht $c\bar{t}$ case. Jhis is primarily because the mars diyference bejcwen jhe scalar bison $\ihi$ and the SM $W$ bosots is mich larger thak the maws difference between the top quark and the SM $W$ bksons. Another difdeeence is hn tfw aoouht or soft raviation in fhe $t\bar{t}$ jwts and the $W'$ jets, uhif is due to ths top zuwrk carrying color charge and the $\phi$ bmsoh being color-neutral. Thw similarities in the two distwibutions do however suggest that any classifier velecvivg tvckts dutj splittings in the large $k_T$ region may work wsaxokably well as a neneric anti-QCD tabgfr.

Vjmparing clasrificacjoh power of differejt obsetvablew {#sec:clasfpowrr}
-------------------------------------------------------

There are many possible cyoices of obfwrvables that we cluld includz in oor anakysis of di-jet events uring LDA. All of the obsedxables discussed in Sac. \[sec:probmodelling\] carry fome abilmty tp distivguixh betreen signap evekds and QCD backgroknd erents, and some lbservables will be more useful than others dgpetditg on whct the signal procefs is. In this xection we sgudy the cmassifiration power of each of tvgse observablxs, and soie cimbibations uf them, using s simple ynnned likwlihood classifier. To donstruct the bnuntd likelihood clssskfiqr wx splyd our signal and bazlgrouvd datasets dach into ‘training’ and ‘tastihg’ sets. We then cokplle countw of how often each mrasurement bin occkrrs mn eaci of tne fignal and background training sets, and novmalise these to nive us a discxete probability distribution for the sijnal and background samples. For each event ln the testiig setf we then compute the likelihiod ratio as defiked in Eq., except with fhe $\beda$’s rfplaced with the binned likelihood multinomials. The results are summarisee in Fmg. \[fig:classposer\]. Girst tkiny to noeice ms that the obsernables are in general better at rlassifyinc $C'$ events than $t\bar{t}$ events,
_T$ and angular separation, rather than the the in the Also, the observables displayed a logarithmic scale, any differences at $k_T$ less pronounced. One obvious difference the $W'$ and $t\bar{t}$ distributions in Fig.’s \[fig:wp\_l\_topics\] and \[fig:tt\_l\_topics\] is that the associated with the different hard decays are more distinguishable from each other in $W'$ than the case. This is primarily because the mass difference between the scalar boson $\phi$ and the SM bosons is much larger than the mass difference the top quark and SM $W$ bosons. Another difference in amount of radiation the jets and the jets, this is due to the top quark carrying color charge and the $\phi$ boson being color-neutral. similarities in distributions do suggest any selecting events with the large $k_T$ region may work a generic anti-QCD tagger. Comparing classification power of observables {#sec:classpower} There are many possible choices of that we could include in our analysis of events using LDA. All of the observables discussed in Sec. \[sec:probmodelling\] carry some ability to signal events and QCD events, and some will more than depending on the signal process is. In this section we study the classification of each of these observables, and some combinations of them, simple likelihood classifier. To the binned likelihood classifier split signal and background datasets ‘training’ ‘testing’ compile of often each measurement bin in each of the signal background training sets, and a discrete probability distribution for the signal and samples. For each event in the testing we then compute the likelihood ratio as defined in Eq., except with $\beta$’s replaced binned likelihood multinomials. The results are summarised in \[fig:classpower\]. First thing to is that the observables are in general better at $W'$ than $t\bar{t}$
_T$ and angular separation, rathEr than the mAsses Of tHe (sUb)Jets In thE splittings. AlsO, The oBservables are now both biNned aNd DIsplAYeD on a lOgarithMIc SCAle, MaKiNg aNy DIfFerenCes At large $K_T$ less pronOunCeD. One obvious dIFfErence betwEen The $W'$ and $t\bar{t}$ DisTributIoNs iN fig.’s \[fIg:wP\_l\_topIcs\] and \[FIg:tt\_l\_tOpics\] is thAt THe clusTErs assoCIAtEd wiTh the different harD DeCAys are more distInguisHaBLe FROm eAch Other in the $w'$ cAse thAN in the $t\BAr{T}$ CASe. THIs is primarily Because the mASs dIffereNcE beTWeen thE scalAr BOsoN $\phi$ and the Sm $W$ boSons is mucH largeR Than the MAss diffErence BetWeeN the TOp QuArk AnD The sm $W$ BosONs. ANother diFfErEnce iS in tHE AMOunt Of sOft rAdiatIon in the $t\bar{t}$ JetS and THe $W'$ Jets, tHis is Due tO tHe top Quark cArryiNg Color charge and tHe $\phI$ boson beiNg cOlOr-nEuTral. THE similAriTieS in the tWo distrIButIoNS DO hOwever suggest that aNy CLAsSifier seLectinG EvEnTS with splItTinGs in THE largE $k_T$ rEGiOn may worK reasoNAbLy Well as a GeNeric aNtI-QCd taGger.

COMparIng claSsificatIon poWEr of different oBServables {#sec:cLAsSPOwER}
-------------------------------------------------------

TheRe aRe many possiBle cHOiceS of oBSeRvaBLes thAt we cOuLD iNClude in our analysis oF dI-jet evEnts uSing LDA. All of tHe observabLES DiscusseD in SEC. \[sEC:probmodelling\] Carry Some abilitY To distinGuish Between sIgnal evenTS And QCD baCkgRouNd eVenTS, AnD some observabLES wilL bE more usEfuL than otHerS dePenDinG oN what the sIgnal proCeSs Is. in ThiS sectIOn we studY tHe cLaSsiFicatIOn poweR of eaCh of ThEsE ObsErvableS, AnD SOme cOmBiNatiOns Of Them, uSing A SimPle binnEd likelihOod CLassIfIeR. To consTruct the binneD lIkelihood cLaSsiFier we SPLit our siGnal and background dataseTS each inTo ‘tRainiNg’ anD ‘testing’ sEts. we then ComPIle couNts of hOw oftEn EacH MEasurEMEnT biN oCcurrs in eaCH Of tHe sigNaL and BackgroUnd training sets, and NOrmAlise these to gIve Us a dISCrEte PRoBAbiLiTY diSTRibution for the sIgnal and baCkGRoUnd samples. fOr eAcH event iN the tesTing sETs we theN compute tHe likelihOoD ratIO As dEfined in Eq., Except wiTh the $\beta$’S ReplaCEd With tHe bInned lIkEliHood mUltinoMIalS. The rEsults ArE summaRised In fig. \[fig:clAsspower\]. First thing to notIce is tHat thE obServables Are IN geNeral bettEr at ClassifyinG $W'$ eVenTs thaN $t\bAR{t}$ eveNts,
_T$ and angular separation , rather t han t hemas se s of  the  (sub)jets int he s plittings. Also, the o bserv ab l es a r enow b oth bin n ed a nddi sp lay ed on  a lo gar ithmicscale, mak ing  a ny differenc e sat large $ k_T $ less prono unc ed. On eobv i ous d iff erenc e betw e en the  $W'$ and  $ t \bar{t } $ distr i b ut ions  in Fig.’s \[fig: w p\ _ l\_topics\] an d \[fi g: t t\ _ l \_t opi cs\] is th at  thec lusters as s o c iat e d with the di fferent har d  de cays a re  mo r e dist ingui sh a ble  from eachothe r in the$W'$ c a se than in the$t\bar {t} $ c ase. Th is  is  p r ima r il y b e cau se the m as sdiffe renc e b e twee n t he s calar  boson $\phi$  an d th e  SM  $W$boson s is  m uch l argerthanth e mass differen ce b etween th e t op  qu ar k and the SM  $W $ b osons.Another dif fe r e n ce  is in the amountof s of t radiat ion in th e$ t\bar{t} $jet s an d the $ W'$j et s, thisis due to  t he topqu ark ca rr yin g c olorc harg e andthe $\ph i$ bo s on being color - neutral. Thes im i l ar i ties  in  the two di stri b utio ns d o  h owe v er su ggest  t h at any classifier sele ct ing ev entswith splittin gs in thel a r ge $k_T$  reg i on may work reaso nably  well as a genericanti- QCD tagg er.

Comp a r ing clas sif ica tio n p o w er  of different o bser va bles {# sec :classp owe r}--- --- -- --------- -------- -- -- -- -- --- ----- - -------- -- --- 
The re ar e  manypossi blech oi c esof obse r va b l es t ha twe c oul dinclu de i n  ou r analy sis of di -je t  eve nt susing L DA. All of th eobservable sdis cussed i n Sec. \ [sec:probmodelling\] ca r ry some  ab ility  todistingui shbetwee n s i gnal e ventsand Q CD  ba c k groun d ev ent s,  and someo b ser vable swill  be mor e useful than othe r s d epending on w hat  the s ig nal pr o ces si s.I n  this section w e study th ec la ssificatio n  po we r of ea ch of t heseo bservab les, andsome comb in atio n s  of  them, usi ng a sim ple binne d  like l ih ood c las sifier .Toconst ruct t h e b inned  likel ih ood cl assif ie r we spl it our signal and backg rounddatas ets  each int o ‘ t rai ning’ and  ‘te sting’ set s.Wethencom p ile c ount s  o f h o w oft en e a ch measur e me ntb i noccurrs ine a c h o f the  si g nal an d ba ckground training sets, and norm alis e the set o gi ve  us a discrete  pr ob a b ility di st ribution fo r the si gn a l and  backg roundsamples . Fo r  eacheven t i n the tes tin gs ets weth en comput e th elikeli hood r a tioa s  defined in Eq.,  exce p t  with the  $\be ta $’s rep l aced  with thebinned like lihood  mul tinom ials. T he  resul tsar e summaris e d in Fig.  \[fi g:class po wer\ ].Firstthin g to no tice  i s t hat the o b s er v ab le s  ar e in  gene ra l be tter at c l assifyin g $ W '$ even ts  th a n  $t\ba r {t } $  events,
_T$ and_angular separation,_rather than the masses_of the_(sub)jets_in the_splittings._Also, the observables_are now both_binned and displayed on_a logarithmic scale,_making_any differences at large $k_T$ less pronounced. One obvious difference between the $W'$ and_$t\bar{t}$_distributions in_Fig.’s_\[fig:wp\_l\_topics\]_and \[fig:tt\_l\_topics\] is that the_clusters associated with the different_hard decays_are more distinguishable from each other in the_$W'$_case than in_the $t\bar{t}$ case. This is primarily because the mass_difference between the scalar boson $\phi$_and the SM_$W$_bosons_is much larger than_the mass difference between the top_quark and the SM $W$ bosons._Another difference is in the amount of_soft radiation in the $t\bar{t}$ jets_and the $W'$ jets, this_is due_to the top quark carrying_color charge and_the $\phi$_boson being color-neutral._The similarities in the two distributions_do however suggest_that any classifier selecting events with_splittings_in the large_$k_T$_region_may work_reasonably well as_a_generic anti-QCD_tagger.

Comparing_classification power of different observables {#sec:classpower}
-------------------------------------------------------

There_are_many possible choices of observables that we_could include in our_analysis_of di-jet events using_LDA. All of the observables_discussed in Sec. \[sec:probmodelling\] carry some_ability to_distinguish between_signal events and QCD background events, and some observables will be_more useful than others depending on_what the signal process_is. In_this_section we study_the_classification power_of each of these observables, and some_combinations of_them, using a simple binned likelihood_classifier. To construct the_binned_likelihood classifier we split our signal_and background datasets each into ‘training’_and ‘testing’ sets. We then_compile_counts_of how often each measurement_bin occurrs in each of the_signal and background_training sets, and normalise these to give_us_a discrete probability distribution for the_signal_and background samples. For each event_in_the_testing sets we then compute_the likelihood ratio as defined in_Eq., except with the $\beta$’s replaced with the binned_likelihood multinomials. The_results are summarised in Fig._\[fig:classpower\]._First_thing to notice is that the observables are in general_better at_classifying $W'$ events_than $t\bar{t}$ events,