2017:groups:tools:contur_for_light_scalar_particles
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_for_light_scalar_particles [2017/10/01 10:53] jonathan.butterworth |
2017:groups:tools:contur_for_light_scalar_particles [2017/10/01 11:04] jonathan.butterworth |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
| ... so this looks promising. Everything excluded except the lowest mass/highest scale. This needs to be carefully checked, of course - see below. Basically 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. | ... so this looks promising. Everything excluded except the lowest mass/highest scale. This needs to be carefully checked, of course - see below. Basically 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:cl_78wzg_nso.png?200|}} $(l^+l^-) or $(l + E_T^{\rm miss}) + \gamma$ | + | {{:2017:groups:tools:cl_78wzg_nso.png?200|}} $(l^+l^-)$ or $(l + E_T^{\rm miss}) + \gamma$ |
| - | {{:2017:groups:tools:combinedcl_metg.png?200|}} | + | {{:2017:groups:tools:cl_8metg_nso.png?200|}} $E_T^{\rm miss} + \gamma$ |
| - | Missing ET + $\gamma$ | + | |
| {{:2017:groups:tools:cl_78photons_nso.png?200|}} Inclusive and di-photons | {{:2017:groups:tools:cl_78photons_nso.png?200|}} Inclusive and di-photons | ||
| Line 71: | Line 69: | ||
| A similar run for the CP-even scalar model, using the parameters sugested by Sylvain, gives the heatmap below: | A similar run for the CP-even scalar model, using the parameters sugested by Sylvain, gives the heatmap below: | ||
| - | |||
| - | {{:2017:groups:tools:combinedcl_8cpe.png?300|}} {{:2017:groups:tools:contur_8cpe.png?300|}}. | ||
| {{:2017:groups:tools:cl_78cpe.png?300|}}{{:2017:groups:tools:contur_78cpe.png?300|}} | {{:2017:groups:tools:cl_78cpe.png?300|}}{{:2017:groups:tools:contur_78cpe.png?300|}} | ||
| Line 78: | Line 74: | ||
| This is 7 and 8 TeV only, but the currently available 13 TeV results have no real impact as there are no photon measurements in Rivet yet. Again, the inclusive diphotons and the Z+jet results both have significant sensitivity. | This is 7 and 8 TeV only, but the currently available 13 TeV results have no real impact as there are no photon measurements in Rivet yet. Again, the inclusive diphotons and the Z+jet results both have significant sensitivity. | ||
| - | {{:2017:groups:tools:cl_8cpe_zg.png?200|}} $l^+l^- + \gamma$ | + | {{:2017:groups:tools:cl_78wzg_nse.png?200|}} $(l^+l^-)$ or $(l + E_T^{\rm miss}) + \gamma$ |
| - | {{:2017:groups:tools:cl_8nse_metg.png?200|}} MET + $\gamma$ | + | {{:2017:groups:tools:cl_8metg_nse.png?200|}} $E_T^{\rm miss} + \gamma$ |
| - | + | {{:2017:groups:tools:cl_78photons_nse.png?200|}} Inclusive and di-photons | |
| - | {{:2017:groups:tools:cl_8nse_photon.png?200|}} $\gamma\gamma$ | + | |
| - | Note that the sensitivity at low $M_\phi$ and $\Lambda$ is somewhat reduced. Cause to be investigated. The 7 TeV inclusive photon results are needed to fill in the lower left corner. | + | Note that the sensitivity at low $M_\phi$ and $\Lambda$ is somewhat reduced, especially for the $E_T^{\rm miss}) + \gamma$ channel. |
| Remember, big caveat on all this is the standard Contur assumption (at the moment) that the data exactly agree with the SM, which means (given we only really know that these data are //consistent// with the SM) that we are neglecting the SM theory uncertainties. | Remember, big caveat on all this is the standard Contur assumption (at the moment) that the data exactly agree with the SM, which means (given we only really know that these data are //consistent// with the SM) that we are neglecting the SM theory uncertainties. | ||
2017/groups/tools/contur_for_light_scalar_particles.txt · Last modified: 2017/10/11 23:47 by jonathan.butterworth
Page Tools
Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: Public Domain
