This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revision Both sides next revision | ||
2015:groups:higgs:diff [2015/06/07 00:05] kerstin.tackmann |
2015:groups:higgs:diff [2015/06/09 11:52] josh.bendavid |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
====== Discussion on Differential Higgs Cross Section Measurements ====== | ====== Discussion on Differential Higgs Cross Section Measurements ====== | ||
- | * Discussion focused on H->gammagamma and H->4leptons (and maybe H->WW) | + | //If you are interested in contributing please [[2015:groups:topicsignup:Higgsdiff|sign up here]].// |
+ | |||
+ | * Discussion focused on H->gammagamma and H->4leptons (and H->WW) | ||
* Currently available measurements: | * Currently available measurements: | ||
Line 17: | Line 19: | ||
* Tau(C)j (lower pTj cut important) | * Tau(C)j (lower pTj cut important) | ||
* Tau0 | * Tau0 | ||
- | * 1-jet resolution variables | + | * 1-jet resolution variables for pTj1/pT(H)/Tauj1 > cut for different cuts (30, 50, 100) |
* pTj1/pTj2 more differentially | * pTj1/pTj2 more differentially | ||
- | * pT(Hj)-system for pTj1 > cut or pT > cut for different cuts | + | * pT(Hj-system) |
* phi(H-j) | * phi(H-j) | ||
* Tau1, jetmass | * Tau1, jetmass | ||
Line 25: | Line 27: | ||
* Delta phijj mapped to full [0, 2pi] (see arXiv:1006.0986) | * Delta phijj mapped to full [0, 2pi] (see arXiv:1006.0986) | ||
* for CP studies in ggH: use loose delta eta_jj cut (some separation between jets, but looser than one would use for VBF studies) | * for CP studies in ggH: use loose delta eta_jj cut (some separation between jets, but looser than one would use for VBF studies) | ||
- | * While statistics is limited, measurement of the moments is useful (binning effects should be investigated). | + | * While statistics is limited, measurement of the 1st, 2nd moments of distributions is useful\\ (binning effects should be investigated). |
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | * H->WW(->lnulnu) | ||
+ | * Most promising: 0-jet (smaller uncertainties from ttbar backgrounds) | ||
+ | * Definition of fiducial region should include cuts on mll and mT | ||
+ | *mT<mH reduces off-shell component to avoid associated uncertainties (~10%) | ||
+ | * Interesting measurement: 0-jet cross section as a function of the pT cut in the jet veto, going as low as possible | ||
+ | * Do not subtract pp->WW contribution to avoid associated uncertainties (quote estimated contribution) | ||
+ | * Harmonized fiducial cross section measurements between Higgs and SM would be nice | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | * Possibility of a measurement of VH? | ||
+ | * high pT(V) (easier experimentally) or m(VH) (more direct from the theory perspective) would be interesting from the BSM perspective | ||
+ | * H->bbbar 0-jet selection is likely the most promising, large uncertainties with the present statistics | ||
+ | * NB: pT(V) and m(VH) very correlated in 0-jet selection | ||
- | * Information that is useful to include in publications to allow making good use of the results | + | * Isolation for photons and leptons |
- | * cross correlations between different spectra | + | * Some measurements include an isolation requirement for the photons or leptons into the definition of the fiducial region as the isolation efficiency depends on the production mode. |
- | * provide contributions of non-ggF (for convenience) | + | * Provide corrections from isolated to full phase space in publications, preferably by production mode. |
- | * provide acceptance corrections to allow extrapolation from fiducial region to full phase space (for convenience) | + | |
+ | * Normalized or non-normalized measurements? | ||
+ | * Potential advantage: reduction of some experimental uncertainties, which will become more relevant when we are no longer dominated by statistical uncertainties. | ||
+ | * As theoretical predictions are for cross sections, non-normalized cross sections are preferred in general. They also contain more information. | ||
+ | * If the full experimental covariance matrix is provided, the normalization can be done easily. | ||
- | Points for further discussion: | ||
- | * Background subtraction for H->ZZ should be done or not? | ||
- | * More details to be discussed for gamma gamma? | ||
- | * How to deal with interference? | ||
- | * Should spectra be measured normalized or not normalized? | ||
- | * not normalized (normalization can always be done later)? | ||
- | * What is possible for H->WW? | ||
+ | * Information that is useful to include in publications to allow making maximal use of the results | ||
+ | * cross correlations between different spectra. In addition, it would also be useful to provide the correlation between the differential distributions and the measured total (fiducial) cross section. | ||
+ | * estimated nonperturbative effects | ||
+ | * estimated contributions of non-ggH modes | ||
+ | * acceptance corrections to allow extrapolation from fiducial region to full phase space (for convenience) | ||
+ | * Background subtraction? | ||
+ | * Experimentally H->gammma gamma makes more sense fully background subtracted | ||
+ | * H->ZZ->4l or H->WW->2l2nu could give measurements including irreducible background (with appropriate fiducial phase space definition including eg suitable m4l window in that case) | ||
+ | * In that case prediction for irreducible background should also be provided to allow theorists to easily subtract it if desired |