User Tools

Site Tools


2019:tools:searchmeas:2dhma

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:tools:searchmeas:2dhma [2019/06/25 17:01]
jonathan.butterworth
2019:tools:searchmeas:2dhma [2019/07/08 13:51] (current)
jonathan.butterworth
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 7: Line 7:
 Progress so far/things to work on: Progress so far/things to work on:
  
-   ​* ​Bug fix in ATLAS $H \rightarrow \gamma\gamma$ [[https://​phab.hepforge.org/​rRIVETHG6a31fbc540f98f627961461c2202ec0f363036f5|here]]. +==Bug fix in ATLAS $H \rightarrow \gamma\gamma$== 
-   * The CMS HWW measurement which gives the main sensitivity has a b-jet veto which is in the analysis but not given in the fiducial phase space and therefore not implemented in rivet. ​This means the exclusion is unreliable... and this also applies to some of the other WW analyses we are using.  + 
-   * Here is the {{ :​2019:​tools:​searchmeas:​combinedhybrid.pdf |exclusion with the CMS HWW omitted}}, but note some other analysis ​may have the same or similar problems+See [[https://​phab.hepforge.org/​rRIVETHG6a31fbc540f98f627961461c2202ec0f363036f5|here]]. 
-   * Scan in $M_{DM}$ and $M_a$ (donebut do again with the b veto issues addressed somehow)+ 
 +===b-jet vetoes and fiducial phase-space===  
 + 
 +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== 
 + 
 +{{:​2019:​tools:​searchmeas:​combinedhybrid-2hdma-nohww.png?​500|}}  
 + 
 +({{ :​2019:​tools:​searchmeas:​combinedhybrid.pdf | pdf}})  
 + 
 +Checking through the other $WW$ analyses currently being used by Contur, several have jet vetoes and background subtraction,​ but all have the jet veto applied in the fiducial phase space and in the Rivet routine; in addition the background subtractions are much smaller and generally use the SM predictions rather than data. This presumably explains their lower //​apparent//​ sensitivity,​ but means the sensitivity that remains is reliable. 
 + 
 +The ATLAS $H \rightarrow WW$ [[https://​arxiv.org/​abs/​1604.02997|1604.02997]] is not used in Contur to date, but is actually a bit more useable than the CMS paper, since the jets are included in the fiducial definition. However, there is still a large data-driven background  
 +subtraction,​ based upon a b-tagged control region. 
 + 
 +This is the gzipped directory with the sensitivity plots for the various pools: {{ :​2019:​tools:​searchmeas:​conturplot.tar.gz | gzipped tar file}} 
 + 
 +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 functionsThe 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. 
 + 
 +Note that the jets+MET analysis has some (weak) sensitivity across quite a wide range... worth pursuing with higher lumi. 
 + 
 +==Next steps== 
 + 
 +Scan in $M_{DM}$ and $M_a$. Given the above, the $H \rightarrow WW$ measurements are not used. 
 + 
 +{{:​2019:​tools:​searchmeas:​combinedhybrid-fig21.png?​500|}}  
 + 
 +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.  
 + 
 + 
 + 
2019/tools/searchmeas/2dhma.1561474879.txt.gz · Last modified: 2019/06/25 17:01 by jonathan.butterworth