2017:groups:tools:contur
Differences
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 | ||
|
2017:groups:tools:contur [2017/09/20 22:58] jonathan.butterworth |
2017:groups:tools:contur [2017/09/20 23:38] jonathan.butterworth [Light Scalar Particles] |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
| === Some (preliminary!) results with Contur === | === Some (preliminary!) results with Contur === | ||
| + | Suggested parameter ranges from Sylvain: | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | CP-even scalar: | ||
| + | mphi in [10, 100] GeV | ||
| + | f0B in [1, 10] TeV | ||
| + | f0W in [1, 10] TeV | ||
| + | f0H in [1, 10] TeV | ||
| + | |||
| + | CP-odd scalar: | ||
| + | mphi in [10, 100] GeV | ||
| + | f0B in [1, 10] TeV | ||
| + | f0W in [1, 10] TeV | ||
| + | |||
| + | For each case, all the other f's should be set to very large values. | ||
| + | |||
| + | So, here is a scan using these ranges for the CP-odd scalar model (f0 value labelled $\Lambda$ on the vertical axis, $M_\phi$ on the horizontal. | ||
| + | {{2017:groups:tools:colorbarkey.png}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{:2017:groups:tools:combinedcl_.png?400|}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | ... so this is looking pretty promising. Everything excluded except the lowest mass/highest scale. This needs to be carefully checked, of course. All the yellow region above is excluded by the ATLAS diphoton cross sections: [[http://inspirehep.net/record/1591327|arXiv:1704.03839]]. If those are not included, the [[http://inspirehep.net/record/1448301|ATLAS $Z+\gamma$ measurements]] (in dilepton+photon and MET+photon) have quite some power on their own, see below. | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{:2017:groups:tools:combinedcl_zg.png?400|}} | ||
| + | Z+photon | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{:2017:groups:tools:combinedcl_metg.png?400|}} | ||
| + | Missing ET + photon | ||
| + | |||
| + | Remember, big caveat on this is that the data is assumed to exactly agree with the SM, which means (given we only really know that these data are //consistent// with the SM) that we are neglected the SM theory uncertainties. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Older Stuff == | ||
| - | <!-- | ||
| Not really sure of what sensible parameter ranges would be at the moment, but here is an example run for CP-Odd scalar with some 8 TeV data. I (Jon) set $m_\phi = 80$ GeV, and setting the mass scales for the effective couplings at 50 or 100 TeV as follows: $f0B, f0W, f0H, f0gam, f0Z = 50$ TeV, $f0G, f0u, f0d, f0l = 100$ TeV. Total cross section is $4.4 pb^{-1}$. | Not really sure of what sensible parameter ranges would be at the moment, but here is an example run for CP-Odd scalar with some 8 TeV data. I (Jon) set $m_\phi = 80$ GeV, and setting the mass scales for the effective couplings at 50 or 100 TeV as follows: $f0B, f0W, f0H, f0gam, f0Z = 50$ TeV, $f0G, f0u, f0d, f0l = 100$ TeV. Total cross section is $4.4 pb^{-1}$. | ||
| Line 93: | Line 124: | ||
| Next step? Agree some sensible parameter ranges to scan, presumably mass and some subset of couplings; I can combine 7, 8 and 13 TeV limits, of course. | Next step? Agree some sensible parameter ranges to scan, presumably mass and some subset of couplings; I can combine 7, 8 and 13 TeV limits, of course. | ||
| - | --> | + | |
2017/groups/tools/contur.txt ยท Last modified: 2017/10/02 10:44 by jonathan.butterworth
Page Tools
Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: Public Domain
