16 May 2022: QFT research seminar, questions to the speaker
Q: Is this EFT incomplete?
- Yes - the framework shown iis HEFT (Higgs effective field theory) rather than SMEFT (Standard model effective field theory). SMEFT contains more parameters.
Q: Is there a rule of thumb for the look-elsewhere effect? For example, if you see a local significance of 3 sigma after scanning masses from [250-100, interval of 50 GeV], can you quickly make an estimate for the global significance?
- Not that I know of but that’s also a good thing to check.
Q: Why would you expect HH to be the leading BR for X decay and not qq?
- Don’t think HH is necessarily the dominant decay mode. The fact that the XHH coupling is predicted is just relevant for di-Higgs analyses.
Q: What is the Run 2 b-tagging efficiency compared to Run 1?
- Not sure - The numbers provided by the speaker may have been inaccurate and should be verified.
- In the context of the CMS boosted VBF HH->4b analysis, a novel H->bb identifier named “ParticleNet” provides excellent H->bb identification:
Q: Why is the VBF (kappa_2V) constraint tighter than the kappa_lambda one, even though the XS is a factor of 30 smaller?
- Good question - not sure, to be followed up.
Q: Is it possible to create a 2d table for HH final states but taking object efficiency into account?
- Good idea - that would be useful to have in the future.
Q: What will you do during Run 3?
- Re-evalute sensitivity to SM HH production, anomalous HH couplings in HEFT / SMEFT frameworks with this larger dataset, add more channels in order to improve sensitivity.