# Les Houches

### Site Tools

2019:tools:searchmeas:2dhma

# Differences

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

 2019:tools:searchmeas:2dhma [2019/07/03 12:06]jonathan.butterworth 2019:tools:searchmeas:2dhma [2019/07/08 13:51]jonathan.butterworth Both sides previous revision Previous revision 2019/07/08 13:51 jonathan.butterworth 2019/07/08 13:51 jonathan.butterworth 2019/07/03 12:08 jonathan.butterworth 2019/07/03 12:08 jonathan.butterworth 2019/07/03 12:06 jonathan.butterworth 2019/07/03 12:06 jonathan.butterworth 2019/07/03 09:31 jonathan.butterworth 2019/07/03 09:24 jonathan.butterworth 2019/07/03 09:23 jonathan.butterworth 2019/07/03 09:23 jonathan.butterworth 2019/07/03 09:20 jonathan.butterworth 2019/07/03 09:17 jonathan.butterworth 2019/07/03 09:16 jonathan.butterworth 2019/07/03 09:16 jonathan.butterworth 2019/07/03 09:12 jonathan.butterworth 2019/06/25 23:30 jonathan.butterworth 2019/06/25 17:38 jonathan.butterworth 2019/06/25 17:01 jonathan.butterworth 2019/06/25 17:00 jonathan.butterworth 2019/06/25 16:56 jonathan.butterworth 2019/06/25 16:56 jonathan.butterworth 2019/06/25 16:56 jonathan.butterworth 2019/06/25 16:52 jonathan.butterworth 2019/06/25 11:17 jonathan.butterworth 2019/06/25 11:16 jonathan.butterworth created Next revision Previous revision 2019/07/08 13:51 jonathan.butterworth 2019/07/08 13:51 jonathan.butterworth 2019/07/03 12:08 jonathan.butterworth 2019/07/03 12:08 jonathan.butterworth 2019/07/03 12:06 jonathan.butterworth 2019/07/03 12:06 jonathan.butterworth 2019/07/03 09:31 jonathan.butterworth 2019/07/03 09:24 jonathan.butterworth 2019/07/03 09:23 jonathan.butterworth 2019/07/03 09:23 jonathan.butterworth 2019/07/03 09:20 jonathan.butterworth 2019/07/03 09:17 jonathan.butterworth 2019/07/03 09:16 jonathan.butterworth 2019/07/03 09:16 jonathan.butterworth 2019/07/03 09:12 jonathan.butterworth 2019/06/25 23:30 jonathan.butterworth 2019/06/25 17:38 jonathan.butterworth 2019/06/25 17:01 jonathan.butterworth 2019/06/25 17:00 jonathan.butterworth 2019/06/25 16:56 jonathan.butterworth 2019/06/25 16:56 jonathan.butterworth 2019/06/25 16:56 jonathan.butterworth 2019/06/25 16:52 jonathan.butterworth 2019/06/25 11:17 jonathan.butterworth 2019/06/25 11:16 jonathan.butterworth created Last revision Both sides next revision Line 1: Line 1: ===== 2HDM+Pseudoscalar comparisons ===== ===== 2HDM+Pseudoscalar comparisons ===== - Jon, Priscilla... + Jon B, Priscilla ​P, David Y... Preliminary study with Contur [[https://​contur.hepforge.org/​results/​Pseudoscalar_2HDM/​index.html|here]] with links to the model and to the ATLAS summary paper. (NB. This is the model also being considered from the [[2019:​tools:​searchmeas:​gambit|four top]] point of view.) Preliminary study with Contur [[https://​contur.hepforge.org/​results/​Pseudoscalar_2HDM/​index.html|here]] with links to the model and to the ATLAS summary paper. (NB. This is the model also being considered from the [[2019:​tools:​searchmeas:​gambit|four top]] point of view.) Line 13: Line 13: ===b-jet vetoes and fiducial phase-space=== ​ ===b-jet vetoes and fiducial phase-space=== ​ - The CMS $H \rightarrow WW$ measurement which gives the main sensitivity in the study linked above has a b-jet veto applied at detector-level,​ which is not given in the fiducial phase space and therefore not implemented in rivet. The effect of the b-jet veto is extrapolated out in the unfolding, which therefore assumed the SM. In addition (but related) there is a very large data-driven background subtraction of $WW$ and $t\bar{t}$ SM events. Overall, this means the exclusion for this model (and for most models) from this analysis is is unreliable. (In this case, many of the BSM events entering the fiducial regions will have b-jets since they originate from top and charge Higgs decays.) This analysis should only really be used to exclude anomalous contributions to the $H \rightarrow WW$ cross section which look SM-like (ie do not have any b-jets, for example). More useful for EFT-type studies than Contur. + The CMS $H \rightarrow WW$ measurement ​[[http://​arxiv.org/​abs/​1606.01522|1606.01522]] ​which gives the main sensitivity in the study linked above has a b-jet veto applied at detector-level,​ which is not given in the fiducial phase space and therefore not implemented in rivet. The effect of the b-jet veto is extrapolated out in the unfolding, which therefore assumed the SM. In addition (but related) there is a very large data-driven background subtraction of $WW$ and $t\bar{t}$ SM events. Overall, this means the exclusion for this model (and for most models) from this analysis is is unreliable. (In this case, many of the BSM events entering the fiducial regions will have b-jets since they originate from top and charge Higgs decays.) This analysis should only really be used to exclude anomalous contributions to the $H \rightarrow WW$ cross section which look SM-like (ie do not have any b-jets, for example). More useful for EFT-type studies than Contur. ==Exclusion with the CMS $H \rightarrow WW$ omitted== ==Exclusion with the CMS $H \rightarrow WW$ omitted== Line 30: Line 30: We could think of implementing a b-jet veto as an option in the rivet routine, but this would only be approximate,​ since the analysis cut is done at the detector level with a combination of a b-tagging discriminant (above 30 GeV $p_T$) and a soft muon requirement (with some lower efficiency between 15 and 30 GeV) and we don't have the smearing or efficiency functions. The net result would presumably be to reduce the sensitivity toward the level of the other We could think of implementing a b-jet veto as an option in the rivet routine, but this would only be approximate,​ since the analysis cut is done at the detector level with a combination of a b-tagging discriminant (above 30 GeV $p_T$) and a soft muon requirement (with some lower efficiency between 15 and 30 GeV) and we don't have the smearing or efficiency functions. The net result would presumably be to reduce the sensitivity toward the level of the other $WW$ routines we have, and the large data-driven background subtraction would remain a concern. $WW$ routines we have, and the large data-driven background subtraction would remain a concern. + + Note that the jets+MET analysis has some (weak) sensitivity across quite a wide range... worth pursuing with higher lumi. ==Next steps== ==Next steps== - Scan in $M_{DM}$ and $M_a$ (done, but do again with the b veto issues ​above addressed) + Scan in $M_{DM}$ and $M_a$. Given the above, the $H \rightarrow WW$ measurements are not used. + + {{:​2019:​tools:​searchmeas:​combinedhybrid-fig21.png?​400|}} + + There is not a great deal of sensitivity,​ but what there is comes from $W$+jet, $Z$+jet, 3 lepton and four-lepton + measurements from both ATLAS and CMS. - Note that the jets+MET analysis has some (weak) sensitivity across quite a wide range... worth pursuing with higher lumi.