Tania Natalie Robens escribió en 12 Nov 2019, 15:23:
Chapter 1:
- page 17: I am wondering what the effects would be re non-zero widths for Higgs and top
Top width effects have been studied here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.6542.pdf
and found to be ~-2% at LO. There are no studies of its effect at NLO with full mt dependence as far as I know.
I think it makes sense to add a statement on this 2% effect in the document, thanks!
Regarding effects related to the Higgs width (talking about the off-shell Higgs in the triangle contribution, h*->hh) I think these are extremely small, since the (m_hh^2-m_h^2) term in the propagator will be always much larger than mh*gamma_h, since m_hh > 2m_h
- page 33: in such situation -> in such a situation
it is also not so clear to me why model-independent bounds depend on a global fit if the lam_H^3 coupling modifications only enter at NLO, but maybe I understand the sentence in a wrong way
- page 39: coincides to -> coincides with
-page 40: if I look at the results in section 7.2.2, it looks as if the current constraints are just on the boundary of the "interesting" regime; maybe the corresponding sentence should be modified. Also a reference to that section might be valuable.
- page 44: week -> weak
- page 48: below eqn 2.38: only because it involves
also, I think a reference for S1 and S2 should be added (e.g. HL-LHC Higgs Yellow Report, current ref 176)
- page 33: in such situation -> in such a situation
Fixed
it is also not so clear to me why model-independent bounds depend on a global fit if the lam_H^3 coupling modifications only enter at NLO, but maybe I understand the sentence in a wrong way
The meaning of the phrase is that the operators that enter in single H at LO also need to be taken into account, together with the lambda_hhh effects
- page 39: coincides to -> coincides with
Fixed
-page 40: if I look at the results in section 7.2.2, it looks as if the current constraints are just on the boundary of the "interesting" regime; maybe the corresponding sentence should be modified. Also a reference to that section might be valuable.
We have added a footnote to clarify this in the text
- page 44: week -> weak
Fixed
- page 48: below eqn 2.38: only because it involves
Fixed
also, I think a reference for S1 and S2 should be added (e.g. HL-LHC Higgs Yellow Report, current ref 176)
- comparison of figs 3.3 and 3.4: i would assume in fig 3.3, e.g. for m_2 = 600 gev, there is also a peak in the distribution at mhh ~ 400 gev ?
- page 60: make these searches more challenging => which searches ?
i also dont understand the sentence "This results in a reduced..." - I guess the meaning is with respect to a second scalar with full SM-like couplings, but it might be good to add this (wrt SM expectations the rate is of course enhanced)
- page 61: show -> shows
- page 62, eqn 3.16: it would be interesting to know what the effects are of replacing s_parton -> m_hh^2 in the propagator, as done here
- page 70, before eqn 3.25: 2HDM
- page 71: what does "NSM" stand for ?
further down: forbids the coupling... from coupling -> please correct
- page 72: i find the labels in figure 3.10 hard to read
- page 73: comment re mass splittings: are there no constraints e.g. from S,T,U ? in general, it would be good to know which other constraints (vacuum structure, etc) the model has been tested against/ complies with, e.g. for regions in fig 3.10
- page 81: decrease -> decreased
I also dont see from figure 3.16 that kappa=2 is needed to obtain the SM rate for single Higgs
And I guess "Although the rates are identical" should be read as "even if the rates are identical" (as fig 3.16 demonstrates they are usually not)
- page 83: fig 3.19 right (and maybe also left): are there already bounds for this ? e.g. in the resonance searches the combinations go down to order (100 fb)... are any of these applicable ?
- page 85: Outside of the red... larger than 30% => in which direction ?
- page 87: of the final state
- page 89: figures 3.25 and 3.26: these are cross sections for production times decay according to fig 3.23 ? or production only
a related comment: re check with checkmate: if the cross sections are production only, I agree. if not, I think the sentence needs modification
Tania Natalie Robens escribió en 12 Nov 2019, 17:21:
Chapter 3:
- comparison of figs 3.3 and 3.4: i would assume in fig 3.3, e.g. for m_2 = 600 gev, there is also a peak in the distribution at mhh ~ 400 gev ?
I think there is indeed a small peak. The difference wrt fig 3.4 is the mass of the resonance being lower (e.g. 600GeV) and being wide, also the interplay with PDFs may generate some deformations. It is a minor effect and the plot is log scale.
- page 60: make these searches more challenging => which searches ?
i also dont understand the sentence "This results in a reduced..." - I guess the meaning is with respect to a second scalar with full SM-like couplings, but it might be good to add this (wrt SM expectations the rate is of course enhanced)
Rephrased in the new version
- page 61: show -> shows
I think it is ok as it is
- page 62, eqn 3.16: it would be interesting to know what the effects are of replacing s_parton -> m_hh^2 in the propagator, as done here
If I understand correctly the question, there is no replacement done. The correct propagator has to be evaluated in m_hh, not in s_parton (there can be initial state emissions such that s_parton != mhh^2)
- page 70, before eqn 3.25: 2HDM
Fixed
- page 71: what does "NSM" stand for ?
Non-SM, added
further down: forbids the coupling... from coupling -> please correct
Fixed
- page 72: i find the labels in figure 3.10 hard to read
We decided to leave them as they are (they are taken from a figure from the original paper)
- page 73: comment re mass splittings: are there no constraints e.g. from S,T,U ? in general, it would be good to know which other constraints (vacuum structure, etc) the model has been tested against/ complies with, e.g. for regions in fig 3.10
Iterated with the authors, this is beyond the scope of the analysis
- page 81: decrease -> decreased
Fixed
I also dont see from figure 3.16 that kappa=2 is needed to obtain the SM rate for single Higgs
Fixed to kappa>~2
And I guess "Although the rates are identical" should be read as "even if the rates are identical" (as fig 3.16 demonstrates they are usually not)
Fixed
- page 83: fig 3.19 right (and maybe also left): are there already bounds for this ? e.g. in the resonance searches the combinations go down to order (100 fb)... are any of these applicable ?
This plot actually refers to non-resonant production, because it is the effect of light stops in the loop. So the limits would be those from non-resonant searches. However, I think it is not straightforward to translate those limits (which are computed for a SM-like production cross section) to the present case.
- page 85: Outside of the red... larger than 30% => in which direction ?
In any direction, I think therefore there is no need to clarify
- page 87: of the final state
not clear what this refers to
- page 89: figures 3.25 and 3.26: these are cross sections for production times decay according to fig 3.23 ? or production only
Added clarification in the text
a related comment: re check with checkmate: if the cross sections are production only, I agree. if not, I think the sentence needs modification
I then dont understand the discussion in the third paragraph. Isnt this already done (cf e.g. resonance combination results) ? Then maybe in the Dihiggs context it would be better to show one of the resonance searches... or maybe I dont understand what the authors are getting at.
- page 158: remove (MVAs) (already introduced earlier) and (BDTs) (same; also on pages 97, 101,103, ....)
Chapter 2) -> remove )
-page 159/ 160: comment on recast: comparing figs 6.6 bottom left and right there is a distinct edge in the search by CMS for small negative kappas which does not appear in the recast; it would be good to comment on this (in the context of "the observed difference was rather small")
Tania Natalie Robens escribió en 12 Nov 2019, 17:29:
Chapter 6
- page 154: exotic new particles
Fixed
I then dont understand the discussion in the third paragraph. Isnt this already done (cf e.g. resonance combination results) ? Then maybe in the Dihiggs context it would be better to show one of the resonance searches... or maybe I dont understand what the authors are getting at.
What we are describing in the third paragraph is a method to provide limits on Generic Gaussian resonances. Indeed this is already done, and some of the analyses that do so are listed. However, most combinations done within the experimental collaborations don’t use generic signals like this, and certainly all the combinations of di-Higgs results we are aware of generally use real signal models with simulated MC. From the author's checks of the public documents provided by the collaborations, no HH analyses currently provide results in this method.
- page 158: remove (MVAs) (already introduced earlier) and (BDTs) (same; also on pages 97, 101,103, ....)
Fixed
Chapter 2) -> remove )
Fixed
-page 159/ 160: comment on recast: comparing figs 6.6 bottom left and right there is a distinct edge in the search by CMS for small negative kappas which does not appear in the recast; it would be good to comment on this (in the context of "the observed difference was rather small")
Modified the text to explain the wiggle on bottom left and to explain that bottom-right and bottom-left cannot be compared since there is a difference of a factor 10 in stats.
Tania Natalie Robens escribió en 12 Nov 2019, 17:47:
Chapter 7
- page 161: HH kinematics, probe this process with the current dataset, allowing for a large increase, ensuring consistency
Not clear what this comments refers to
- page 162: outperforms, one of the main final states
it has been recently updated: is 33.53 fb the updated result/ what was updated to what ?
The combination reported in Chapter 7 is the most updated one. No HH related result has been published yet with a larger dataset.
- page 163: classes of new physics models
two amplitudes as described in section 7.2 -> where ?
Not found what this comment refers to.
- page 165: The BDT -> the BDT, cross section is minimal
Fixed
- page 167: approach using the EFT approach -> reformulate
Changed to “approach using the EFT formalism”
- p 169, footnote 1: is much smaller than
what is the experimental resolution (sample values) ?
Changed to “smaller than”. The experimental resolution varies with the final state and mass of the resonance, it’s not a single value that we can quote.
- p 171: fig 7.9: caption is wrong (e.g. there is no top left/ right plot)
We refer to top, bottom left and bottom right. We think this is clear.
- p 173: remove "are" in first sentence, object reconstruction
Fixed
- p 174: what is exactly the difference in assumptions between the first and second scenario discussed in the last paragraph of section 7.5 ?
Changed to “If instead the impact of the systematic uncertainties will not be sub-dominant contributions, the sensitivity at the end of Run 3 would be about 5 times the SM expectation, and it would be completely driven by the systematic uncertainties, assuming no improvements on the analysis strategy.”
- p 175: remove (stxs) (introduced earlier)
Done
subdivided into bins, computation is still missing and should contribute, k-factors that include corrections
are the ew corrections the same in all stxs bins ?
In the part of Section "10.3 Other Probes of Multi-Linear Higgs Interactions" relevant to the quartic coupling, I believe the following studies should be added as references:
T. Plehn and M. Rauch, The quartic higgs coupling at hadron colliders, Phys. Rev. D72 (2005) 053008 [hep-ph/0507321].
B. Fuks, J. H. Kim and S. J. Lee, Probing Higgs self-interactions in proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 100 TeV, Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 035026 [1510.07697].
C.-Y. Chen, Q.-S. Yan, X. Zhao, Y.-M. Zhong and Z. Zhao, Probing triple-Higgs productions via 4b2γ decay channel at a 100 TeV hadron collider, Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) 013007 [1510.04013].
B. Fuks, J. H. Kim and S. J. Lee, Scrutinizing the Higgs quartic coupling at a future 100 TeV proton–proton collider with taus and b-jets, Phys. Lett.B771 (2017) 354 [1704.04298].
W. Kilian, S. Sun, Q.-S. Yan, X. Zhao and Z. Zhao, New Physics in multi-Higgs boson final states, JHEP 06 (2017) 145 [1702.03554].
A. Papaefstathiou, G. Tetlalmatzi-Xolocotzi and M. Zaro, Triple Higgs boson production to six
Andreas Papaefstathiou escribió en 13 Jan 2020, 11:42:
In the part of Section "10.3 Other Probes of Multi-Linear Higgs Interactions" relevant to the quartic coupling, I believe the following studies should be added as references:
T. Plehn and M. Rauch, The quartic higgs coupling at hadron colliders, Phys. Rev. D72 (2005) 053008 [hep-ph/0507321].
B. Fuks, J. H. Kim and S. J. Lee, Probing Higgs self-interactions in proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 100 TeV, Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 035026 [1510.07697].
C.-Y. Chen, Q.-S. Yan, X. Zhao, Y.-M. Zhong and Z. Zhao, Probing triple-Higgs productions via 4b2γ decay channel at a 100 TeV hadron collider, Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) 013007 [1510.04013].
B. Fuks, J. H. Kim and S. J. Lee, Scrutinizing the Higgs quartic coupling at a future 100 TeV proton–proton collider with taus and b-jets, Phys. Lett.B771 (2017) 354 [1704.04298].
W. Kilian, S. Sun, Q.-S. Yan, X. Zhao and Z. Zhao, New Physics in multi-Higgs boson final states, JHEP 06 (2017) 145 [1702.03554].
A. Papaefstathiou, G. Tetlalmatzi-Xolocotzi and M. Zaro, Triple Higgs boson production to six
We added the references in the new version, thanks!
Chapter 1:
- page 17: I am wondering what the effects would be re non-zero widths for Higgs and top
Tania Natalie Robens escribió en 12 Nov 2019, 15:23:
Top width effects have been studied here:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.6542.pdf
and found to be ~-2% at LO. There are no studies of its effect at NLO with full mt dependence as far as I know.
I think it makes sense to add a statement on this 2% effect in the document, thanks!
Regarding effects related to the Higgs width (talking about the off-shell Higgs in the triangle contribution, h*->hh) I think these are extremely small, since the (m_hh^2-m_h^2) term in the propagator will be always much larger than mh*gamma_h, since m_hh > 2m_h
Chapter 2:
- (SM) already defined previously
- there are various references to Chapter ?? in the manuscript (I guess this refers to the sections yet to come)
-page 31: introduce "EW" (and remove intro on page 45, 174 )
- page 33: in such situation -> in such a situation
it is also not so clear to me why model-independent bounds depend on a global fit if the lam_H^3 coupling modifications only enter at NLO, but maybe I understand the sentence in a wrong way
- page 39: coincides to -> coincides with
-page 40: if I look at the results in section 7.2.2, it looks as if the current constraints are just on the boundary of the "interesting" regime; maybe the corresponding sentence should be modified. Also a reference to that section might be valuable.
- page 44: week -> weak
- page 48: below eqn 2.38: only because it involves
also, I think a reference for S1 and S2 should be added (e.g. HL-LHC Higgs Yellow Report, current ref 176)
-page 51: such a method
Tania Natalie Robens escribió en 12 Nov 2019, 16:04:
Fixed
Indeed, gone after e+e- chapter was added
Fixed
Fixed
The meaning of the phrase is that the operators that enter in single H at LO also need to be taken into account, together with the lambda_hhh effects
Fixed
We have added a footnote to clarify this in the text
Fixed
Fixed
Added reference and a footnote to clarify this
Fixed
Chapter 3:
- comparison of figs 3.3 and 3.4: i would assume in fig 3.3, e.g. for m_2 = 600 gev, there is also a peak in the distribution at mhh ~ 400 gev ?
- page 60: make these searches more challenging => which searches ?
i also dont understand the sentence "This results in a reduced..." - I guess the meaning is with respect to a second scalar with full SM-like couplings, but it might be good to add this (wrt SM expectations the rate is of course enhanced)
- page 61: show -> shows
- page 62, eqn 3.16: it would be interesting to know what the effects are of replacing s_parton -> m_hh^2 in the propagator, as done here
- page 70, before eqn 3.25: 2HDM
- page 71: what does "NSM" stand for ?
further down: forbids the coupling... from coupling -> please correct
- page 72: i find the labels in figure 3.10 hard to read
- page 73: comment re mass splittings: are there no constraints e.g. from S,T,U ? in general, it would be good to know which other constraints (vacuum structure, etc) the model has been tested against/ complies with, e.g. for regions in fig 3.10
- page 81: decrease -> decreased
I also dont see from figure 3.16 that kappa=2 is needed to obtain the SM rate for single Higgs
And I guess "Although the rates are identical" should be read as "even if the rates are identical" (as fig 3.16 demonstrates they are usually not)
- page 83: fig 3.19 right (and maybe also left): are there already bounds for this ? e.g. in the resonance searches the combinations go down to order (100 fb)... are any of these applicable ?
- page 85: Outside of the red... larger than 30% => in which direction ?
- page 87: of the final state
- page 89: figures 3.25 and 3.26: these are cross sections for production times decay according to fig 3.23 ? or production only
a related comment: re check with checkmate: if the cross sections are production only, I agree. if not, I think the sentence needs modification
Tania Natalie Robens escribió en 12 Nov 2019, 17:21:
I think there is indeed a small peak. The difference wrt fig 3.4 is the mass of the resonance being lower (e.g. 600GeV) and being wide, also the interplay with PDFs may generate some deformations. It is a minor effect and the plot is log scale.
Rephrased in the new version
I think it is ok as it is
If I understand correctly the question, there is no replacement done. The correct propagator has to be evaluated in m_hh, not in s_parton (there can be initial state emissions such that s_parton != mhh^2)
Fixed
Non-SM, added
Fixed
We decided to leave them as they are (they are taken from a figure from the original paper)
Iterated with the authors, this is beyond the scope of the analysis
Fixed
Fixed to kappa>~2
Fixed
This plot actually refers to non-resonant production, because it is the effect of light stops in the loop. So the limits would be those from non-resonant searches. However, I think it is not straightforward to translate those limits (which are computed for a SM-like production cross section) to the present case.
In any direction, I think therefore there is no need to clarify
not clear what this refers to
Added clarification in the text
Chapter 6
- page 154: exotic new particles
I then dont understand the discussion in the third paragraph. Isnt this already done (cf e.g. resonance combination results) ? Then maybe in the Dihiggs context it would be better to show one of the resonance searches... or maybe I dont understand what the authors are getting at.
- page 158: remove (MVAs) (already introduced earlier) and (BDTs) (same; also on pages 97, 101,103, ....)
Chapter 2) -> remove )
-page 159/ 160: comment on recast: comparing figs 6.6 bottom left and right there is a distinct edge in the search by CMS for small negative kappas which does not appear in the recast; it would be good to comment on this (in the context of "the observed difference was rather small")
Tania Natalie Robens escribió en 12 Nov 2019, 17:29:
Fixed
What we are describing in the third paragraph is a method to provide limits on Generic Gaussian resonances. Indeed this is already done, and some of the analyses that do so are listed. However, most combinations done within the experimental collaborations don’t use generic signals like this, and certainly all the combinations of di-Higgs results we are aware of generally use real signal models with simulated MC. From the author's checks of the public documents provided by the collaborations, no HH analyses currently provide results in this method.
Fixed
Fixed
Modified the text to explain the wiggle on bottom left and to explain that bottom-right and bottom-left cannot be compared since there is a difference of a factor 10 in stats.
Chapter 7
- page 161: HH kinematics, probe this process with the current dataset, allowing for a large increase, ensuring consistency
- page 162: outperforms, one of the main final states
it has been recently updated: is 33.53 fb the updated result/ what was updated to what ?
- page 163: classes of new physics models
two amplitudes as described in section 7.2 -> where ?
- page 165: The BDT -> the BDT, cross section is minimal
- page 167: approach using the EFT approach -> reformulate
- p 169, footnote 1: is much smaller than
what is the experimental resolution (sample values) ?
- p 171: fig 7.9: caption is wrong (e.g. there is no top left/ right plot)
- p 173: remove "are" in first sentence, object reconstruction
- p 174: what is exactly the difference in assumptions between the first and second scenario discussed in the last paragraph of section 7.5 ?
- p 175: remove (stxs) (introduced earlier)
subdivided into bins, computation is still missing and should contribute, k-factors that include corrections
are the ew corrections the same in all stxs bins ?
- p 177: other Higgs boson couplings
Tania Natalie Robens escribió en 12 Nov 2019, 17:47:
Not clear what this comments refers to
The combination reported in Chapter 7 is the most updated one. No HH related result has been published yet with a larger dataset.
Not found what this comment refers to.
Fixed
Changed to “approach using the EFT formalism”
Changed to “smaller than”. The experimental resolution varies with the final state and mass of the resonance, it’s not a single value that we can quote.
We refer to top, bottom left and bottom right. We think this is clear.
Fixed
Changed to “If instead the impact of the systematic uncertainties will not be sub-dominant contributions, the sensitivity at the end of Run 3 would be about 5 times the SM expectation, and it would be completely driven by the systematic uncertainties, assuming no improvements on the analysis strategy.”
Done
Yes
Done
References
several references have been published in between (e.g. 50, 126,177, 365, 486, 525) or are superseeded (393, 400)
Tania Natalie Robens escribió en 12 Nov 2019, 17:49:
Done, thanks!
In the part of Section "10.3 Other Probes of Multi-Linear Higgs Interactions" relevant to the quartic coupling, I believe the following studies should be added as references:
T. Plehn and M. Rauch, The quartic higgs coupling at hadron colliders, Phys. Rev. D72 (2005) 053008 [hep-ph/0507321].
B. Fuks, J. H. Kim and S. J. Lee, Probing Higgs self-interactions in proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 100 TeV, Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 035026 [1510.07697].
C.-Y. Chen, Q.-S. Yan, X. Zhao, Y.-M. Zhong and Z. Zhao, Probing triple-Higgs productions via 4b2γ decay channel at a 100 TeV hadron collider, Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) 013007 [1510.04013].
B. Fuks, J. H. Kim and S. J. Lee, Scrutinizing the Higgs quartic coupling at a future 100 TeV proton–proton collider with taus and b-jets, Phys. Lett.B771 (2017) 354 [1704.04298].
W. Kilian, S. Sun, Q.-S. Yan, X. Zhao and Z. Zhao, New Physics in multi-Higgs boson final states, JHEP 06 (2017) 145 [1702.03554].
A. Papaefstathiou, G. Tetlalmatzi-Xolocotzi and M. Zaro, Triple Higgs boson production to six
Andreas Papaefstathiou escribió en 13 Jan 2020, 11:42:
We added the references in the new version, thanks!
A short comment on Section 2:
- p35, equation 2.17: there should be a f(h) (or (1+ f(h)), depending on the convention) multiplying the GB kinetic term
Claudius G. Krause escribió en 23 Jan 2020, 22:08:
Decided to leave it as it is after iterating with authors