Scribd
Upload
9 views5 pages

Higgs K Framework

Introductory notes on use of kappa formalism– Follow kappa framework formalism as described in (e.g.) YR3.– K-framework clearly not ultimate/ideal framework for high-precision interpretation of future Higgs data, but chosen to be used because it’s well-known, most current LHCHiggs results are formulated i

Uploaded by

anjan kumar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
9 views5 pages

Higgs K Framework

Introductory notes on use of kappa formalism– Follow kappa framework formalism as described in (e.g.) YR3.– K-framework clearly not ultimate/ideal framework for high-precision interpretation of future Higgs data, but chosen to be used because it’s well-known, most current LHCHiggs results are formulated i

Uploaded by

anjan kumar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

The Kappa Framework –

implementation adopted by the group

W. Verkerke (Nikhef)

Wouter Verkerke, NIKHEF


Kappa-framework - generalities
• Introductory notes on use of kappa formalism
– Follow kappa framework formalism as described in (e.g.) YR3.
– K-framework clearly not ultimate/ideal framework for high-precision interpretation of
future Higgs data, but chosen to be used because it’s well-known, most current LHC-
Higgs results are formulated in it, it can effectively capture the performance of (future)
detectors well in similar ways  useful for side-by-side comparisons.
– K-framework only captures a subset of the future accelerator Higgs data, notably not
self-couplings, and information learned from polarization(?) runs.
Ignored here, but included in EFT fits.

• Choices made in parameterization – maximum flexibility


– 7 parameters for coupling modifiers of W,Z,t,b,c,τ,μ
– 3 parameters for effective couplings to g,γ,Zγ
(i.e. don’t resolve loops in expected SM contributions)
– Up to 2 parameters that allow for BSM contributions to Higgs width
𝛤H/ 𝛤HSM = 𝛴(kj2 ×BRjSM) /(1-BRBSM) explicitly distinguishing
‘invisible’ from ‘untagged’ contributions: BRBSM=BRinv+BRunt
• At any collider BRinv can be constrained from various Hinvisible reconstructions
• At lepton colliders Higgs total width can (also) be measured, constraining BRinv+Brunt, and thus effectively BRunt
• NB: BRunt will also absorb the effect of unmeasured Higgs decays where the coupling deviates from the SM
value (i.e. if kc is not equal to one, but not explicitly measured, its effect will be absorbed also in BRunt)
Kappa-framework – scenarios for each FA standalone
• Define multiple scenarios of kappa fits with goal to estimate various
contributes to uncertainties
– Statistical + experimental systematics
– Theoretical uncertainty
– Uncertainty due to Higgs width assumptions

• To this end define three fitting scenarios

BRunt
Effect of theory
uncertainties

Effect of width
uncertainty

– In all three scenarios BRinv is always floated (and constrained from invisible
decays)
– BRunt in k-3 will more strongly constrained for FA that measure total width
– HL-LHC has multiple scenarios for theory systematic uncertainties – we choose
to use ‘S2’
Wouter Verkerke, NIKHEF
– Is precise scope of ‘theory uncertainty’ well established for all FA?
Kappa-framework – scenarios for HL-LHC+FA

• In addition to stand-alone characterization of each FA, also


rerun scenario 3 in combination with HL-LHC  Scenario 4

Effect of
HL-LHC

BRunt

– Largest impact expected for rare decay couplings in lepton FA


(where HL-LHC will continue to make significant impact)

• Some open points for discussion


– How does this relate to 10y/ultimate discussion for FA’s  I imagine we run
kappa-4 for both scenarios
– What about FCCee/hh? Do we also consider both the
HL-LHC+FCC-hh and the HL-LHC+FCC-ee+FCC-hh scenarios?

Wouter Verkerke, NIKHEF


Kappa-framework – some other technical choices made

• Using Jorge’s Bayesian framework  Bayesian credible


intervals reported instead of Frequentist confidence intervals.
– In limit of (close-to) Gaussian distribution probably not important
– It may make a small difference for upper limits on BRinv,BRunt  I propose
we just report it and don’t do any further work on this

• ATLAS+CMS HL-LHC combination is ‘BLUE’ combination and


not a full likelihood combination. We make (only) likelihood-level
combinations
– Some level of discrepancy is therefore inevitable between L-combination in
our results and official HL-LHC results
– Compounding issue is definition of theory systematic uncertainty from
covariance matrix variants.
– All HL-LHC + FA combinations will effectively be with L-combination of
ATLAS+CMS. Need to be clear about this (I assume that we will in any case
show scenarios 1,2,3 for HL-LHC standalone)

Wouter Verkerke, NIKHEF

You might also like