User Tools

Site Tools


2017:groups:tools:contur_for_light_scalar_particles

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

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 10:55]
jonathan.butterworth
2017:groups:tools:contur_for_light_scalar_particles [2017/10/01 11:25]
jonathan.butterworth
Line 56: Line 56:
 == $M_\phi = 10$ GeV, $\Lambda = 3.5$ TeV == == $M_\phi = 10$ GeV, $\Lambda = 3.5$ TeV ==
  
-> [[http://​www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/​~jmb/​Work/​LH/​NSCPO/​8TeV/​mP_10_f0_3500/​contur-plots/​|Page of plots]]: The most powerful exclusion comes from the $\gamma + E_T^{\rm miss}$ channel, specifically the $E_T^\gamma$ differential cross section for events with no jets, in [[http://​www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/​~jmb/​Work/​LH/​NSCPO/​8TeV/​mP_10_f0_3500/​contur-plots/​ATLAS_2016_I1448301_NU/​index.html|this paper]]. There is also some exclusion from the $\tau$ distribution in the $H \rightarrow \gamma\gamma$ paper - see below for more on that.+> [[http://​www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/​~jmb/​Work/​LH/​NSCPO/​8TeV/​mP_10_f0_3500/​contur-plots/​|Page of plots]]: The most powerful exclusion ​in the 8 TeV data comes from the $\gamma + E_T^{\rm miss}$ channel, specifically the $E_T^\gamma$ differential cross section for events with no jets, in [[http://​www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/​~jmb/​Work/​LH/​NSCPO/​8TeV/​mP_10_f0_3500/​contur-plots/​ATLAS_2016_I1448301_NU/​index.html|this paper]]. There is also some exclusion from the $\tau$ distribution in the $H \rightarrow \gamma\gamma$ paper - see below for more on that. Also once the 7 TeV data are included, the inclusive and diphotons cover much of the parameter space on their own.
  
 == $M_\phi = 20$ GeV, $\Lambda = 3.5$ TeV == == $M_\phi = 20$ GeV, $\Lambda = 3.5$ TeV ==
Line 69: 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 76: 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, especially for the $E_T^{\rm miss} + \gamma$ channel. Presumably something to do with the angular distributions of the decay photons of the $\phi$, but to be studied...
  
-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. 
  
-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