 allowed us to use untagged data as background input for the training of [*NN*]{}, while $t\bar{t}$ MC was used for the signal. Fig. \[fig7\] shows the [*NN*]{} discriminant for $t\bar{t}$ signal and multijet background. Although the distributions for single- and double-tag events were different due to increased heavy flavor content in the double-tag sample, both samples showed a clear discrimination between signal and background.

The overwhelming background also made it possible to use the entire (tagged and untagged) sample to estimate the background. For the loose and tight SVT, we derived a tag rate function ([trf]{} — the probability for any individual jet to have a secondary vertex tag ) from the data with $N_{tags} \leq 1$. The [trf]{} was parameterized in terms of the $p_T$, $\phi$ and $y$ of the jet and the coordinate along the beam axis ($z$) of the primary vertex of the event, $z_{PV}$, in four different $H_T$ bins. To predict the number of tagged jets in the event, it was necessary to correct for a possible correlation between tagged jets. In the single-tag analysis the correlation factor was negligible, unlike in the double-tag analysis, where the presence of $b\bar{b}$+jets events in the sample enhanced the correlation correction. We corrected for correlations caused by $b\bar{b}$ background by applying a correlation factor $C_{ij}$, that was parameterized as a function of the cone distance between the tagged jets, $\Delta R$. Figure \[fig8\] shows the number of double-tagged events versus $\Delta R$ as observed in data, and the distribution as modeled by the [trf]{} with and without including $C_{ij}$. We considered significantly different functional forms for the parameterization of $C_{ij}$ and found that the choice of parameterization had little effect on the shape of the modeled background distribution.

![\[fig8\] The performance of the [trf]{} prediction on double-tag events (points), without including the correlation factor $C_{ij}$ (dashed histogram), and including $C_{ij}$ for two different functional parameterizations (solid histograms).](./fig8.eps){width="\linewidth"}

The probabilities $p_i$ were used to assign a weight, the probability that the event could have a given number of tags, to
allowed us to use untagged data as setting stimulation for the training of [ * NN * ] { }, while $ t\bar{t}$ MC was used for the signal. Fig.   \[fig7\ ] shows the [ * NN * ] { } discriminant for $ t\bar{t}$ signal and multijet backdrop. Although the distributions for single- and double - rag events were different due to increased fleshy flavor content in the bivalent - tag sample, both samples showed a clean discrimination between signal and background. 

 The overwhelming background also made it potential to use the entire (tagged and unlabeled) sample to estimate the background. For the loose and tight SVT, we deduce a tag rate function ([ trf ] { } — the probability for any individual jet to have a junior-grade vertex tag) from the data with $ N_{tags } \leq 1$. The [ trf ] { } was parameterized in terms of the $ p_T$, $ \phi$ and $ y$ of the jet and the coordinate along the beam axis ($ z$) of the basal vertex of the event, $ z_{PV}$, in four different $ H_T$ bins. To predict the number of tagged jets in the event, it was necessary to correct for a possible correlation coefficient between tag jets. In the individual - tag analysis the correlation factor was negligible, unlike in the bivalent - tag psychoanalysis, where the presence of $ b\bar{b}$+jets events in the sample enhance the correlation correction. We corrected for correlations caused by $ b\bar{b}$ background by applying a correlation factor $ C_{ij}$, that was parameterized as a function of the cone distance between the tagged jet, $ \Delta R$. Figure   \[fig8\ ] testify the numeral of double - tagged events versus $ \Delta R$ as watch in data, and the distribution as modeled by the [ trf ] { } with and without including $ C_{ij}$. We consider importantly different functional forms for the parameterization of $ C_{ij}$ and found that the choice of parameterization have little consequence on the shape of the model background distribution. 

! [ \[fig8\ ] The operation of the [ trf ] { } prediction on double - tag event (points), without including the correlation coefficient factor $ C_{ij}$ (dashed histogram), and including $ C_{ij}$ for two different functional parameterizations (solid histograms).](./fig8.eps){width="\linewidth " } 

 The probabilities $ p_i$ were used to assign a weight, the probability that the event could have a yield number of tag, to
 alpowed us to use untagged data as background in'ut for the trakning of [*NN*]{}, while $t\bar{t}$ MC wes uwed fir the signal. Fig. \[fig7\] sfows the [*JN*]{} discruminent for $t\bar{t}$ sijhal and multinct baekjround. Although the distrhbutions for shnelz- and double-tag events were differene due tp lncreased heavi flanow cohnekt in the double-tag sample, both aamples showed a clesr discrimination between dignwl and background.

Tje overwhelning vackground auso made iu 'ossible to use the entire (tagged and untaeged) xample to gsfildte the bacjgrougd. For the loose and tight XVT, we derived a vag eate function ([trf]{} — thx probability for ani individudl jet to have a sexobdary verdex gqg ) frkm tge datw wmth $N_{tags} \lsq 1$. The [trf]{} was parameterized on nrrms of the $l_T$, $\phi$ agd $y$ of the jet and the coordinate alonc tge beam axis ($z$) of the peimary vertex of the gvent, $z_{PV}$, yn four different $H_T$ bins. To predict the number ox tagjea jttw in gye event, it was necessary to correct for a possyglt cprrelation betceen tagged jets. Ij yre single-tag xnalysna fhe correlation faftor waf negoigible, uglikr in the double-tag analysis, where the pgesebce of $b\bar{b}$+jets erents in the samkle ennanced the correlation eorrecfion. We corgected fod correlations cajsec ty $b\bar{b}$ background by appjying a cirrekation wactpr $C_{ij}$, that was oaramcderized as a functlon oy the cone distwnce between the tagged jets, $\Delta R$. Figure \[fib8\] vhofs the nbmber pf double-taggqd events versos $\Delta X$ as ocserved in data, aid the distrybution as moggled by the [tcf]{} with agd wuthoyt incljaing $C_{ij}$. We comsidered significanrly different funcbionau forms for the 'crqmeterization og $C_{kj}$ wnf hound dhat the chohce uf osramegerization mad lityle effect on the shdpe kf the modeled baclgvound disjribution.

![\[sig8\] The perfotmance of the [trf]{} kredicvion oi doubke-twg events (points), without inclusing the forvelation factjr $C_{lj}$ (dwshed histpgram), and including $C_{ij}$ for two differeit functional parametetizations (solid histoyrsms).](./fig8.eps){wivth="\linqwidth"}

The probabilities $p_i$ weee used to assign a weight, the probabimity tvat tje event could have a given number of tags, to
allowed us to use untagged data as for training of while $t\bar{t}$ MC Fig. shows the [*NN*]{} for $t\bar{t}$ signal multijet background. Although the distributions for and double-tag events were different due to increased heavy flavor content in the sample, both samples showed a clear discrimination between signal and background. The overwhelming also it to the entire (tagged and untagged) sample to estimate the background. For the loose and tight SVT, derived a tag rate function ([trf]{} — the for any individual jet have a secondary vertex tag from data with \leq The was parameterized in of the $p_T$, $\phi$ and $y$ of the jet and the coordinate along the beam axis ($z$) the primary the event, in different bins. To predict of tagged jets in the event, to correct for a possible correlation between tagged In the analysis the correlation factor was negligible, in the double-tag analysis, where the presence of events in the sample enhanced the correlation correction. We corrected for correlations caused by $b\bar{b}$ applying a correlation factor that was parameterized a of cone between the jets, $\Delta R$. Figure \[fig8\] shows the number of double-tagged events $\Delta R$ as observed in data, and the distribution as the with and without $C_{ij}$. We considered significantly functional for the parameterization of found the had effect the shape of the background distribution. ![\[fig8\] The performance the [trf]{} prediction on the correlation factor $C_{ij}$ (dashed histogram), and including for two different functional parameterizations (solid histograms).](./fig8.eps){width="\linewidth"} probabilities $p_i$ were used to assign a weight, the probability that the could have number of tags, to
 allowed us to use untagged datA as backgroUnd inPut For ThE traIninG of [*NN*]{}, while $t\bar{T}$ mC waS used for the signal. Fig. \[fiG7\] showS tHE [*NN*]{} dIScRiminAnt for $t\BAr{T}$ SIgnAl AnD muLtIJeT backGroUnd. AlthOugh the disTriBuTions for singLE- aNd double-taG evEnts were diffEreNt due tO iNcrEAsed hEavY flavOr contENt in thE double-taG sAMple, boTH sampleS SHoWed a Clear discriminatiON bETween signal and BackgrOuND.

THE OveRwhElming backGrOund aLSo made iT PoSSIBle TO use the entire (Tagged and unTAggEd) sampLe To eSTimate The baCkGRouNd. For the looSe anD tight SVT, We deriVEd a tag rATe functIon ([trf]{} — The ProBabiLItY fOr aNy INdiVIdUal JEt tO have a seCoNdAry veRtex TAG ) FRom tHe dAta wIth $N_{tAgs} \leq 1$. The [trf]{} wAs pAramETerIzed iN termS of tHe $P_T$, $\phi$ And $y$ of The jeT aNd the coordinate AlonG the beam aXis ($Z$) oF thE pRimarY Vertex Of tHe eVent, $z_{PV}$, In four dIFfeReNT $h_t$ bIns. To predict the numBeR OF tAgged jetS in the EVeNt, IT was neceSsAry To coRREct foR a poSSiBle correLation BEtWeEn taggeD jEts. In tHe SinGle-Tag anALysiS the coRrelatioN factOR was negligible, UNlike in the douBLe-TAG aNAlysIs, wHere the presEnce OF $b\baR{b}$+jeTS eVenTS in thE sampLe ENhANced the correlation cOrRectioN. We coRrected for corRelations cAUSEd by $b\bar{B}$ bacKGrOUnd by applying a CorreLation factOR $C_{ij}$, that Was paRameteriZed as a funCTIon of the ConE diStaNce BETwEen the tagged jETS, $\DelTa r$. Figure \[Fig8\] Shows thE nuMbeR of DouBlE-tagged evEnts versUs $\deLtA R$ As oBservED in data, aNd The DiStrIbutiON as modEled bY the [TrF]{} wITh aNd withoUT iNCLudiNg $c_{iJ}$. We cOnsIdEred sIgniFIcaNtly difFerent funCtiONal fOrMs For the pArameterizatiOn Of $C_{ij}$ and foUnD thAt the cHOIce of parAmeterization had little eFFect on tHe sHape oF the Modeled baCkgRound dIstRIbutioN.

![\[fig8\] ThE perfOrManCE Of the [TRF]{} pRedIcTion on doubLE-Tag EventS (pOintS), withouT including the correLAtiOn factor $C_{ij}$ (daSheD hisTOGrAm), aND iNCluDiNG $C_{iJ}$ FOr two different fUnctional pArAMeTerizationS (SolId HistogrAms).](./fig8.ePs){widTH="\linewiDth"}

The proBabilitieS $p_I$ werE USed To assign a wEight, the ProbabiliTY that THe Event CouLd have A gIveN numbEr of taGS, to
 allowed us to use untagge d data asbackg rou ndin putforthe training o f  [*N N*]{}, while $t\bar{t} $ MCwa s  use d  f or th e signa l .F i g.\[ fi g7\ ]s ho ws th e [ *NN*]{}  discrimin ant  f or $t\bar{t} $  s ignal andmul tijet backgr oun d. Alt ho ugh the d ist ribut ions f o r sing le- and d ou b le-tag eventsw e re  dif ferent due to inc r ea s ed heavy flavo r cont en t  i n the  do uble-tag s am ple,b oth sam p le s s how e d a clear dis crimination bet ween s ig nal and ba ckgro un d .
The overwhe lmin g backgro und al s o madei t possi ble to  us e t he e n ti re  (t ag g eda nd  un t agg ed) samp le  t o est imat e t h e ba ckg roun d. Fo r the loose a ndtigh t  SV T, we  deri vedatag r ate fu nctio n([trf]{} — theprob ability f oran y i nd ividu a l jettohav e a sec ondaryv ert ex t a g) from the data wi th $ N_ {tags} \ leq 1$ .  T he [trf]{}wa s p aram e t erize d in te rms of t he $p_ T $,  $ \phi$ a nd  $y$ o fthe  je t and thecoordi nate alo ng th e  beam axis ($z $ ) of the prim a ry v er t ex o f t he event, $ z_{P V }$,in f o ur  di f feren t $H_ T$ bi n s. To predict the n um ber of  tagg ed jets in th e event, i t w as neces sary to correct for apossi ble correl a tion bet weentagged j ets. In t h e  single- tag  an aly sis t he  correlationf a ctor  w as negl igi ble, un lik e i n t hedo uble-taganalysis ,wh er ethe  pres e nce of $ b\ bar {b }$+ jetse ventsin th e sa mp le enh anced t h ec o rrel at io n co rre ct ion.We c o rre cted fo r correla tio n s ca us ed  by $b\ bar{b}$ backg ro und by app ly ing  a cor r e lation f actor $C_{ij}$, that wa s  parame ter izedas a  function  of  the c one distan ce bet weenth e t a g ged j e t s,  $\ De lta R$. Fi g u re\[fig 8\ ] sh ows the  number of double- t agg ed events ver sus  $\D e l ta  R$ as obs er v edi n  data, and thedistributi on as  modeled b y  th e[trf]{}  with a nd wi t hout in cluding $ C_{ij}$.We  con s i der ed signifi cantly d ifferentf uncti o na l for msfor th epar amete rizati o n o f $C_ {ij}$an d foun d tha tthe choi ce of parameterizationhad li ttleeff ect on th e s h ape  of the m odel ed backgro und  di strib uti o n.

! [\[f i g8 \]T he pe rfor m ance of t h e[tr f ] {}  prediction o n  do uble- tag events  (po ints), without in c luding the cor rela t i onfac t or $ C_ {ij}$ (dashedhis to g r am), and  i ncluding $C _{ij}$ f or two d iffere nt fun ctional p ar a meteri zati ons  (solid h ist og r ams).]( ./ fi g 8.eps) {wid th ="\lin ewidth " }

T h e  probabilities $ p_i$w e re us e d t o ass ig n a wei g ht,the probab ility thatthe ev entcould  have a  g iven n umb er  of tags,t o
 allowed_us to_use untagged data as_background input_for_the training_of_[*NN*]{}, while $t\bar{t}$_MC was used_for the signal. Fig. \[fig7\]_shows the [*NN*]{}_discriminant_for $t\bar{t}$ signal and multijet background. Although the distributions for single- and double-tag events_were_different due_to_increased_heavy flavor content in the_double-tag sample, both samples showed_a clear_discrimination between signal and background.

The overwhelming background also_made_it possible to_use the entire (tagged and untagged) sample to estimate_the background. For the loose and_tight SVT, we_derived_a_tag rate function ([trf]{}_— the probability for any individual_jet to have a secondary vertex_tag ) from the data with $N_{tags}_\leq 1$. The [trf]{} was parameterized_in terms of the $p_T$,_$\phi$ and_$y$ of the jet and_the coordinate along_the beam_axis ($z$) of_the primary vertex of the event,_$z_{PV}$, in four_different $H_T$ bins. To predict the_number_of tagged jets_in_the_event, it_was necessary to_correct_for a_possible_correlation between tagged jets. In the_single-tag_analysis the correlation factor was negligible, unlike_in the double-tag analysis,_where_the presence of $b\bar{b}$+jets_events in the sample enhanced_the correlation correction. We corrected for_correlations caused_by $b\bar{b}$_background by applying a correlation factor $C_{ij}$, that was parameterized as_a function of the cone distance_between the tagged jets,_$\Delta R$._Figure \[fig8\]_shows the number_of_double-tagged events_versus $\Delta R$ as observed in data,_and the_distribution as modeled by the [trf]{}_with and without including_$C_{ij}$._We considered significantly different functional forms_for the parameterization of $C_{ij}$ and_found that the choice of_parameterization_had_little effect on the shape_of the modeled background distribution.

![\[fig8\] The_performance of the_[trf]{} prediction on double-tag events (points), without_including_the correlation factor $C_{ij}$ (dashed histogram),_and_including $C_{ij}$ for two different functional_parameterizations_(solid_histograms).](./fig8.eps){width="\linewidth"}

The probabilities $p_i$ were used_to assign a weight, the probability_that the event could have a given number of_tags, to