User Tools

Site Tools


2019:groups:higgs:gildener

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
2019:groups:higgs:gildener [2019/10/30 16:11]
jonathan.butterworth
2019:groups:higgs:gildener [2019/10/31 12:58] (current)
jonathan.butterworth
Line 29: Line 29:
 It would be interesting to investigate how much this mass equality can be relaxed and remain consistent with the T-parameter constraint. It would be interesting to investigate how much this mass equality can be relaxed and remain consistent with the T-parameter constraint.
  
-KL: The sum rule constraint for this model, ($M^4_{h_2} + M^4_{h_3} + 2M^4_{h^+})^{1/​4} = 540$ GeV, follows from the Higgs-mass ($M({h_1}$) formula derived by E. Gildener and S. Weinberg in PRD 13, 3333 (1976). It is determined by minimizing the one-loop approximation to the S. Coleman--E. Weinberg potential for this model. Because of this sum rule constraint, when $M(h^+) = M(h_3) \simge 400$ GeV, the mass $M(h_2)$ and various branching ratios of $h^\pm$ and $h_3$ are very sensitive to small changes in M_{h+M_h3}. Especially the BR's for h+/- -> W+/- h2 and h3 -> h2 grow rapidly and become more important than t bbar and t tbar, respectively.+KL: The sum rule constraint for this model, ($M^4_{h_2} + M^4_{h_3} + 2M^4_{h^+})^{1/​4} = 540$ GeV, follows from the Higgs-mass ($M({h_1}$) formula derived by E. Gildener and S. Weinberg in PRD 13, 3333 (1976). It is determined by minimizing the one-loop approximation to the S. Coleman--E. Weinberg potential for this model. Because of this sum rule constraint, when $M(h^+) = M(h_3) \simge 400$ GeV, the mass $M(h_2)$ and various branching ratios of $h^\pm$ and $h_3$ are very sensitive to small changes in $M(h^+M(h_3)$. Especially the BR's for $h^\pm \rightarrow ​W^\pm h_2$ and $h_3 \rightarrow ​h_2$ grow rapidly and become more important than $\bar{b}$ ​and $\bar{b}$, respectively.
 Therefore, it is interesting and important to see how much the sum rule is affected by, e.g., the two-loop correction to the effective potential. That is, how seriously we should take the 540 GeV RHS of the sum rule? Therefore, it is interesting and important to see how much the sum rule is affected by, e.g., the two-loop correction to the effective potential. That is, how seriously we should take the 540 GeV RHS of the sum rule?
  
 {{:​2019:​groups:​higgs:​combinedhybrid2hdm_lh2.png?​500|}} {{:​2019:​groups:​higgs:​combinedhybrid2hdm_lh2.png?​500|}}
  
-As you can see, the measurements disfavour $\tan\beta > 1$ regardless ​of $M = M_A$There is some increase in sensitivity ​at high $M_A$We can also plot the same data as function of $M_{H^\prime}$:​+Explanation ​of the legend:  
 +On the left, yellow means excluded at 95% c.l. or more, green at 68%-95% (ie 2 and 1 sigma). 
 +On the right, ​the same exclusions are shown but on continuous scale (indicated by the bar on the right) with 
 +1 being fully excluded, 0 being zero sensitivity.
  
-KL: The sensitivity ​plots BELOW are new (received from JB on 23 October 2019).+ 
 +As you can see, the measurements disfavour $\tan\beta > 1$ regardless of $M = M_A$. There is some increase in sensitivity ​at high $M_A$We can also plot the same data as a function of $M_{H^\prime}$:​
  
 {{:​2019:​groups:​higgs:​combinedhybrid2hdm_lh2_mh2.png?​500|}} {{:​2019:​groups:​higgs:​combinedhybrid2hdm_lh2_mh2.png?​500|}}
Line 47: Line 51:
 {{:​2019:​groups:​higgs:​atlas_8_lljetmesh_lh2_mh3.png?​200|}} {{:​2019:​groups:​higgs:​atlas_8_lljetmesh_lh2_mh3.png?​200|}}
  
-Lepton+MET+X measurements (mostly $W$+jet or top) also have their best sensitivity at quite $M$, but a bit lower than the dileptons, so at intermediate $M_{H^\prime}$,​ see below the same scan plotted against the two different masses.+Looking into the processes which might be cause this, for the point $M_A = M(h_3) = 410$ GeV and $\tan\beta=0.35$,​ 
 +we get about $2\sigma$ exclusion coming from the ATLAS and CMS $Z+$jet measurements. For these parameters,​ 
 +$H$ and $H^\prime$ decay mainly to $b\bar{b}$, but $A$ decays 90% to $H^\prime Z$, which seems to be the likely source of this sensitivity. 
 + 
 +Lepton+MET+X measurements (mostly $W$+jet or top) also have their best sensitivity at quite high $M$, but a bit lower than the dileptons, so at intermediate $M_{H^\prime}$,​ see below the same scan plotted against the two different masses.
  
 {{:​2019:​groups:​higgs:​cms_13_lmetjetmesh_lh2_mh2.png?​200|}} {{:​2019:​groups:​higgs:​cms_13_lmetjetmesh_lh2_mh2.png?​200|}}
 {{:​2019:​groups:​higgs:​cms_13_lmetjetmesh_lh2_mh3.png?​200|}} {{:​2019:​groups:​higgs:​cms_13_lmetjetmesh_lh2_mh3.png?​200|}}
 +
 +This seems to likely come from the $h^\pm \rightarrow W H^\prime$ decay (88% BF).
  
 The inclusive $\gamma$ measurements also have some sensitivity,​ which shows a sharp cutoff once $M_A > 350$ GeV. (See below.) The inclusive $\gamma$ measurements also have some sensitivity,​ which shows a sharp cutoff once $M_A > 350$ GeV. (See below.)
2019/groups/higgs/gildener.1572448267.txt.gz · Last modified: 2019/10/30 16:11 by jonathan.butterworth