If you are interested in contributing, please sign up here.

Define “pseudo-cross sections” as general framework for Higgs measurements and combination of decay channels.

• Provide “measurement interface” between raw experimental categories and final interpretation.
• Can think of these as “differential/fiducial mu” per production channel, but normalized as cross sections (i.e., without dividing by SM predictions)
• Ensure long shelf life of experimental measurements
• Minimize theory dependence (theory systematics and model dependence) in measurements.
• Can then be interpreted in SM (analogous to current mu fits) or different BSM scenarios (Higgs-EFTs or specific models)

• Should be reasonably well constrained/measured
• Important to think which phase-space regions are important to separate out from the theory side
  • where are largest theory systematics (e.g. ggF 0jet bin)
  • BSM sensitivity/interpretation (e.g. EFT breaks down at high energy).

• Does not replace measurement of fiducial/differential cross sections in gammagamma and
• Allows maximizing experimental sensitivity, e.g. can still use MVA-based selections, …
  • Still important to ensure that MVAs do not introduce uncontrolled theory systematics (e.g. check which phase space regions get selected)
• Some of the observables might also be
  • limits
  • asymmetries
  • continuous parameters for kinematic deviations (e.g. CP odd admixture)
• Definition can evolve
  • Can split into more fine-grained pseudo-cross sections once statistics allows (previous measurements remain useful)

• Experiments will have to give correlations, need to define how to do the exact “information transfer”
  • in some cases covariance matrix may not be enough and need full likelihood?

of possible pseudo-cross sections (in the following “bins”), to be continued …

For 2nd iteration: Reduce number of bins, classify according to importance/feasibility

Note: “ggF”, “VBF”, … describe the kinematics/topology, not necessarily only the SM production mode. (Can think of it as “simplified kinematic model”.)

• everything is meant schematically, all numbers are just for illustration
• In the future, can add additional non-SM-like kinematic templates (e.g. CP-odd ggF)

=0j
=1j, separate bin for pTj>~100 GeV (or pTH>~100 GeV)
=2j, separate bin with VBF cuts
>=3j

• inputs: gammagamma, ZZ, WW, tautau (for 1j > 100 GeV, 2j VBF and >=3j)

main: mjj >~ 300 GeV (and have some rest 120-300 to not lose any region)
more possibilities: mjj, pTj, Deltaetajj
pTj1 = [0, 100, 200, 300, inf]
some jet-veto-like selection (e.g. pTHjj)

+ kinematics measure for non-SM-like continuous shape changes (O(<5) parameters)

• inputs: gammagamma, ZZ, WW, tautau, bbbar

mjj 70 - 120 GeV
m(VH) = [0, 300, 600, inf] (more ideal from theory side)
or pT(V) = [0, 100, 200, inf] (matches analysis more closely)
and split everything by =0j, >=1j (at first only for high pT(V) or m(VH))

• inputs: gammagamma, ZZ
• Need to think about how to best deal with the overlap between VBF and VHhad

keep the Z and W separately: Z→ll, Z→nunu, W→lnu
same bins as for VHhad (need to see how well this works with neutrinos)

* inputs: bbbar, gamgam, ZZ, WW, tautau

as for VH, likely fewer bins (more relevant for higher pT(V), m(VH))

2j, 3j, 4, 5j, 6j
+ continuous CP-odd parameter

single inclusive cross section bin

inclusive and then as few kinematic parameters as possible