The Higgs Legacy of the LHC Run I - Max Planck SocietyThe Higgs Legacy of the LHC Run I Juan...
53
The Higgs Legacy of the LHC Run I Juan González Fraile Universität Heidelberg Tyler Corbett, O. J. P. Éboli, Dorival Gonçalves, J. G–F, M. C. Gonzalez–Garcia, Tilman Plehn and Michael Rauch arXiv:1207.1344, 1211.4580, 1304.1151, 1505.05516 Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 1 / 19
Transcript of The Higgs Legacy of the LHC Run I - Max Planck SocietyThe Higgs Legacy of the LHC Run I Juan...
The Higgs Legacy of the LHC Run I
Juan González Fraile
Universität Heidelberg
Tyler Corbett, O. J. P. Éboli, Dorival Gonçalves, J. G–F,M. C. Gonzalez–Garcia, Tilman Plehn and Michael Rauch
arXiv:1207.1344, 1211.4580, 1304.1151, 1505.05516
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 1 / 19
Outline
How to access the EWSB mechanism?
• Run I: the Higgs boson was discovered→ a particle directly related to the EWSB.
Many studies of the Higgs properties have been performed: that could be afterall one ofthe fastest track to understand the origin of the EWSB.
� Is there a preferred framework to study the Higgs interactions?
� How can we exploit all available data?
• Run II: Kick off!
Outline
• ∆-framework for Higgs interactions.• Effective Lagrangian approach for the Higgs.• Adding distributions: pT , ∆φjj and off-shell–m4`.
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 2 / 19
Outline
How to access the EWSB mechanism?
• Run I: the Higgs boson was discovered→ a particle directly related to the EWSB.
Many studies of the Higgs properties have been performed: that could be afterall one ofthe fastest track to understand the origin of the EWSB.
� Is there a preferred framework to study the Higgs interactions?
� How can we exploit all available data?
• Run II: Kick off!
Outline
• ∆-framework for Higgs interactions.• Effective Lagrangian approach for the Higgs.• Adding distributions: pT , ∆φjj and off-shell–m4`.
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 2 / 19
Outline
How to access the EWSB mechanism?
• Run I: the Higgs boson was discovered→ a particle directly related to the EWSB.
Many studies of the Higgs properties have been performed: that could be afterall one ofthe fastest track to understand the origin of the EWSB.
� Is there a preferred framework to study the Higgs interactions?
� How can we exploit all available data?
• Run II: Kick off!
Outline
• ∆-framework for Higgs interactions.• Effective Lagrangian approach for the Higgs.• Adding distributions: pT , ∆φjj and off-shell–m4`.
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 2 / 19
Outline
How to access the EWSB mechanism?
• Run I: the Higgs boson was discovered→ a particle directly related to the EWSB.
Many studies of the Higgs properties have been performed: that could be afterall one ofthe fastest track to understand the origin of the EWSB.
� Is there a preferred framework to study the Higgs interactions?
� How can we exploit all available data?
• Run II: Kick off!
Outline
• ∆-framework for Higgs interactions.• Effective Lagrangian approach for the Higgs.• Adding distributions: pT , ∆φjj and off-shell–m4`.
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 2 / 19
∆–framework: rate–based analysis
∆–framework: rate–based analysis
Study the Higgs interactions using as a parametrization the SM operators with free couplings:
gx = gSMx (1 + ∆x)
gγ = gSMγ (1 + ∆SM
γ + ∆γ) ≡ gSMγ (1 + ∆SM+NP
γ )
gg = gSMg (1 + ∆SM
g + ∆g) ≡ gSMg (1 + ∆SM+NP
g ) ,
Thus, the Lagrangian is:
L = LSM + ∆W gmWH WµWµ + ∆Zg
2cwmZH ZµZµ −
∑τ,b,t
∆fmf
vH(fRfL + h.c.
)+ ∆gFG
H
vGµνG
µν + ∆γFAH
vAµνA
µν + invisible decays ,
Can be linked to extended Higgs sectors, 2HDM, Higgs Portals etc→ see 1308.1979
Can also be almost directly linked to the LO non–linear Effective Lagrangian→ see 1504.01707
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 3 / 19
Analysis Framework
SFITTER
• For the analyses based on event rates (159 measurements):
Modes ATLAS CMSH →WW 1412.2641 1312.1129H → ZZ 1408.5191 1312.5353H → γγ 1408.7084 1407.0558H → τ τ 1501.04943 1401.5041H → bb 1409.6212 1310.3687H → Zγ ATLAS-CONF-2013-009 1307.5515H → invisible 1402.3244, ATLAS-CONF-2015-004 1404.1344
1502.01518, 1504.04324, CMS-PAS-HIG-14-038ttH production 1408.7084,1409.3122 1407.0558,1408.1682
1502.02485kinematic distributions 1409.6212,1407.4222off-shell rate ATLAS-COM-CONF-2014-052 1405.3455
• Correlated experimental uncertainties• Default: Box shaped theoretical uncertainties• Default: Uncorrelated production theoretical uncertainties
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 4 / 19
∆–framework: results
∆–framework: results� 68% CL error bars:
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
∆W
∆Z
∆t
∆b
∆τ
∆γ
∆g
BRinv
∆γSM
+NP
∆gSM
+NP
∆Z/W
∆b/τ
∆b/W
gx = gxSM
(1+∆x)
L=4.5-5.1(7 TeV)+19.4-20.3(8 TeV) fb-1
, 68% CL: ATLAS + CMS
SM exp.
data
�Well understood correlations:
∆g
∆t
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
∆g
∆t
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
∆(-2 ln L) 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
� Everything consistent with the SM (what a surprise...)
� ∆–framework is well aligned with experimental measurements. Suitable for testingdifferent analysis details→ 1505.05516
Correlated vs. Uncorrelated theoretical uncertaintiesBox-shaped vs. Gaussian theoretical uncertaintiesPassarino estimates, N3LO for gluon fusion.
� ∆–framework only suitable for event -rate analysis.
How could we add the information from kinematic distributions?→ Effective Lagrangian!
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 5 / 19
∆–framework: results
∆–framework: results� 68% CL error bars:
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
∆W
∆Z
∆t
∆b
∆τ
∆γ
∆g
BRinv
∆γSM
+NP
∆gSM
+NP
∆Z/W
∆b/τ
∆b/W
gx = gxSM
(1+∆x)
L=4.5-5.1(7 TeV)+19.4-20.3(8 TeV) fb-1
, 68% CL: ATLAS + CMS
SM exp.
data
�Well understood correlations:
∆g
∆t
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
∆g
∆t
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
∆(-2 ln L) 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
� Everything consistent with the SM (what a surprise...)
� ∆–framework is well aligned with experimental measurements. Suitable for testingdifferent analysis details→ 1505.05516
Correlated vs. Uncorrelated theoretical uncertaintiesBox-shaped vs. Gaussian theoretical uncertaintiesPassarino estimates, N3LO for gluon fusion.
� ∆–framework only suitable for event -rate analysis.
How could we add the information from kinematic distributions?→ Effective Lagrangian!
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 5 / 19
∆–framework: results
∆–framework: results� 68% CL error bars:
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
∆W
∆Z
∆t
∆b
∆τ
∆γ
∆g
BRinv
∆γSM
+NP
∆gSM
+NP
∆Z/W
∆b/τ
∆b/W
gx = gxSM
(1+∆x)
L=4.5-5.1(7 TeV)+19.4-20.3(8 TeV) fb-1
, 68% CL: ATLAS + CMS
SM exp.
data
�Well understood correlations:
∆g
∆t
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
∆g
∆t
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
∆(-2 ln L) 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
� Everything consistent with the SM (what a surprise...)
� ∆–framework is well aligned with experimental measurements. Suitable for testingdifferent analysis details→ 1505.05516
Correlated vs. Uncorrelated theoretical uncertaintiesBox-shaped vs. Gaussian theoretical uncertaintiesPassarino estimates, N3LO for gluon fusion.
� ∆–framework only suitable for event -rate analysis.
How could we add the information from kinematic distributions?→ Effective Lagrangian!
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 5 / 19
Effective Lagrangian Approach
Effective Lagrangian ApproachCommon idea ∼ O(30) years: SM success (lack of unexpected) motivates model independentparametrization for NP→ Leff
Based on symmetries and particle content at low energy:
Leff = LSM0 +
∞∑m=1
∑n
f(4+m)n
ΛmO(4+m)n
First flavor, then LEP/2 and EWPD, TGV, also Higgs at LEP and Tevatron
Apply it to the Higgs sector!1207.1344
Alternative to the ∆ setup:
• Correlations between different sectors: EWPD, TGV and now Higgs!→ 1304.1151(Higgs-TGV)
• Correlations between different Higgs couplings→ analysis gets convoluted• New Lorentz structures: potential to break/increase sensitivity with kinematics!
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 6 / 19
Effective Lagrangian Approach
Effective Lagrangian ApproachCommon idea ∼ O(30) years: SM success (lack of unexpected) motivates model independentparametrization for NP→ Leff
Based on symmetries and particle content at low energy:
Leff = LSM0 +
∞∑m=1
∑n
f(4+m)n
ΛmO(4+m)n
First flavor, then LEP/2 and EWPD, TGV, also Higgs at LEP and Tevatron
Apply it to the Higgs sector!1207.1344
Alternative to the ∆ setup:
• Correlations between different sectors: EWPD, TGV and now Higgs!→ 1304.1151(Higgs-TGV)
• Correlations between different Higgs couplings→ analysis gets convoluted• New Lorentz structures: potential to break/increase sensitivity with kinematics!
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 6 / 19
Effective Lagrangian Approach
Effective Lagrangian ApproachCommon idea ∼ O(30) years: SM success (lack of unexpected) motivates model independentparametrization for NP→ Leff
Based on symmetries and particle content at low energy:
Leff = LSM0 +
∞∑m=1
∑n
f(4+m)n
ΛmO(4+m)n
First flavor, then LEP/2 and EWPD, TGV, also Higgs at LEP and Tevatron
Apply it to the Higgs sector!1207.1344
Alternative to the ∆ setup:
• Correlations between different sectors: EWPD, TGV and now Higgs!
→ 1304.1151(Higgs-TGV)
• Correlations between different Higgs couplings→ analysis gets convoluted• New Lorentz structures: potential to break/increase sensitivity with kinematics!
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 6 / 19
Effective Lagrangian Approach
Effective Lagrangian ApproachCommon idea ∼ O(30) years: SM success (lack of unexpected) motivates model independentparametrization for NP→ Leff
Based on symmetries and particle content at low energy:
Leff = LSM0 +
∞∑m=1
∑n
f(4+m)n
ΛmO(4+m)n
First flavor, then LEP/2 and EWPD, TGV, also Higgs at LEP and Tevatron
Apply it to the Higgs sector!1207.1344
Alternative to the ∆ setup:
• Correlations between different sectors: EWPD, TGV and now Higgs!→ 1304.1151(Higgs-TGV)
• Correlations between different Higgs couplings→ analysis gets convoluted
• New Lorentz structures: potential to break/increase sensitivity with kinematics!
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 6 / 19
Effective Lagrangian Approach
Effective Lagrangian ApproachCommon idea ∼ O(30) years: SM success (lack of unexpected) motivates model independentparametrization for NP→ Leff
Based on symmetries and particle content at low energy:
Leff = LSM0 +
∞∑m=1
∑n
f(4+m)n
ΛmO(4+m)n
First flavor, then LEP/2 and EWPD, TGV, also Higgs at LEP and Tevatron
Apply it to the Higgs sector!1207.1344
Alternative to the ∆ setup:
• Correlations between different sectors: EWPD, TGV and now Higgs!→ 1304.1151(Higgs-TGV)
• Correlations between different Higgs couplings→ analysis gets convoluted• New Lorentz structures: potential to break/increase sensitivity with kinematics!
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 6 / 19
Effective Lagrangian for Higgs Interactions
Effective Lagrangian: the linear realizationBottom-up model-independent effective Lagrangian approach:
Leff = LSM0 +
∑n
fn
Λ2On
Particle content (SU(2)L doublet), Symmetries (SM, lepton, baryon, CP)
Choice of basis (not for today): EOM, huge variety of data (DATA–DRIVEN), focus measurable atLHC:1
OGG = Φ†Φ GaµνGaµν , OWW = Φ†WµνWµνΦ, OBB = Φ†BµνBµνΦ,
OΦ,2 = 12∂µ(Φ†Φ
)∂µ(Φ†Φ
), OW = (DµΦ)†Wµν(DνΦ), OB = (DµΦ)†Bµν(DνΦ),
OeΦ,33 = (Φ†Φ)(L3ΦeR,3), OuΦ,33 = (Φ†Φ)(Q3ΦuR,3), OdΦ,33 = (Φ†Φ)(Q3ΦdR,3) ,
Thus, 9 parameters for Higgs interactions:
fGG
Λ2,fWW
Λ2,fBB
Λ2,fφ,2
Λ2,fW
Λ2,fB
Λ2,fτ
Λ2,fb
Λ2,ft
Λ2
Let’s see them in unitary gauge
1DµΦ =
(∂µ + i 1
2g′Bµ + ig σa
2Waµ
)Φ, Bµν = i g
′2Bµν , Wµν = i g
2σaWa
µν
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 7 / 19
Effective Lagrangian for Higgs Interactions
Effective Lagrangian: the linear realizationBottom-up model-independent effective Lagrangian approach:
Leff = LSM0 +
∑n
fn
Λ2On
Particle content (SU(2)L doublet), Symmetries (SM, lepton, baryon, CP)
Choice of basis (not for today): EOM, huge variety of data (DATA–DRIVEN), focus measurable atLHC:
1
OGG = Φ†Φ GaµνGaµν , OWW = Φ†WµνWµνΦ, OBB = Φ†BµνBµνΦ,
OΦ,2 = 12∂µ(Φ†Φ
)∂µ(Φ†Φ
), OW = (DµΦ)†Wµν(DνΦ), OB = (DµΦ)†Bµν(DνΦ),
OeΦ,33 = (Φ†Φ)(L3ΦeR,3), OuΦ,33 = (Φ†Φ)(Q3ΦuR,3), OdΦ,33 = (Φ†Φ)(Q3ΦdR,3) ,
Thus, 9 parameters for Higgs interactions:
fGG
Λ2,fWW
Λ2,fBB
Λ2,fφ,2
Λ2,fW
Λ2,fB
Λ2,fτ
Λ2,fb
Λ2,ft
Λ2
Let’s see them in unitary gauge
1DµΦ =
(∂µ + i 1
2g′Bµ + ig σa
2Waµ
)Φ, Bµν = i g
′2Bµν , Wµν = i g
2σaWa
µν
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 7 / 19
Effective Lagrangian for Higgs Interactions
Effective Lagrangian: the linear realizationBottom-up model-independent effective Lagrangian approach:
Leff = LSM0 +
∑n
fn
Λ2On
Particle content (SU(2)L doublet), Symmetries (SM, lepton, baryon, CP)
Choice of basis (not for today): EOM, huge variety of data (DATA–DRIVEN), focus measurable atLHC:1
OGG = Φ†Φ GaµνGaµν , OWW = Φ†WµνWµνΦ, OBB = Φ†BµνBµνΦ,
OΦ,2 = 12∂µ(Φ†Φ
)∂µ(Φ†Φ
), OW = (DµΦ)†Wµν(DνΦ), OB = (DµΦ)†Bµν(DνΦ),
OeΦ,33 = (Φ†Φ)(L3ΦeR,3), OuΦ,33 = (Φ†Φ)(Q3ΦuR,3), OdΦ,33 = (Φ†Φ)(Q3ΦdR,3) ,
Thus, 9 parameters for Higgs interactions:
fGG
Λ2,fWW
Λ2,fBB
Λ2,fφ,2
Λ2,fW
Λ2,fB
Λ2,fτ
Λ2,fb
Λ2,ft
Λ2
Let’s see them in unitary gauge
1DµΦ =
(∂µ + i 1
2g′Bµ + ig σa
2Waµ
)Φ, Bµν = i g
′2Bµν , Wµν = i g
2σaWa
µν
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 7 / 19
Effective Lagrangian for Higgs Interactions
Effective Lagrangian: the linear realizationBottom-up model-independent effective Lagrangian approach:
Leff = LSM0 +
∑n
fn
Λ2On
Particle content (SU(2)L doublet), Symmetries (SM, lepton, baryon, CP)
Choice of basis (not for today): EOM, huge variety of data (DATA–DRIVEN), focus measurable atLHC:1
OGG = Φ†Φ GaµνGaµν , OWW = Φ†WµνWµνΦ, OBB = Φ†BµνBµνΦ,
OΦ,2 = 12∂µ(Φ†Φ
)∂µ(Φ†Φ
), OW = (DµΦ)†Wµν(DνΦ), OB = (DµΦ)†Bµν(DνΦ),
OeΦ,33 = (Φ†Φ)(L3ΦeR,3), OuΦ,33 = (Φ†Φ)(Q3ΦuR,3), OdΦ,33 = (Φ†Φ)(Q3ΦdR,3) ,
Thus, 9 parameters for Higgs interactions:
fGG
Λ2,fWW
Λ2,fBB
Λ2,fφ,2
Λ2,fW
Λ2,fB
Λ2,fτ
Λ2,fb
Λ2,ft
Λ2
Let’s see them in unitary gauge1DµΦ =
(∂µ + i 1
2g′Bµ + ig σa
2Waµ
)Φ, Bµν = i g
′2Bµν , Wµν = i g
2σaWa
µν
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 7 / 19
Effective Lagrangian for Higgs Interactions
Effective Lagrangian for Higgs Interactions
LHVVeff = gHgg HG
aµνG
aµν+ gHγγ HAµνA
µν+ g
(1)HZγ
AµνZµ∂νH + g
(2)HZγ
HAµνZµν
+ g(1)HZZ
ZµνZµ∂νH + g
(2)HZZ
HZµνZµν
+ g(3)HZZ
HZµZµ
+ +g(1)HWW
(W
+µνW
−µ∂νH + h.c.
)+ g
(2)HWW
HW+µνW
−µν+ g
(3)HWW
HW+µ W
−µ
LHffeff
= gfHij
fLfRH + h.c.
gHgg = −αs
8π
fGGv
Λ2, gHγγ = −
(g2vs2
2Λ2
)fWW + fBB
2,
g(1)HZγ
=
(g2v
2Λ2
)s(fW − fB)
2c, g
(2)HZγ
=
(g2v
2Λ2
)s[2s2fBB − 2c2fWW ]
2c,
g(1)HZZ
=
(g2v
2Λ2
)c2fW + s2fB
2c2, g
(2)HZZ
= −(g2v
2Λ2
)s4fBB + c4fWW
2c2,
g(1)HWW
=
(g2v
2Λ2
)fW
2, g
(2)HWW
= −(g2v
2Λ2
)fWW ,
gfHij
= −mfi
v
(1−
v2
√2Λ2
ff
), g
Φ,2Hxx
= gSMHxx
(1−
v2
2
fΦ,2
Λ2
)
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 8 / 19
Effective Lagrangian for Higgs Interactions
Effective Lagrangian for Higgs Interactions
LHVVeff = gHgg HG
aµνG
aµν+ gHγγ HAµνA
µν+ g
(1)HZγ
AµνZµ∂νH + g
(2)HZγ
HAµνZµν
+ g(1)HZZ
ZµνZµ∂νH + g
(2)HZZ
HZµνZµν
+ g(3)HZZ
HZµZµ
+ +g(1)HWW
(W
+µνW
−µ∂νH + h.c.
)+ g
(2)HWW
HW+µνW
−µν+ g
(3)HWW
HW+µ W
−µ
LHffeff
= gfHij
fLfRH + h.c.
gHgg = −αs
8π
fGGv
Λ2, gHγγ = −
(g2vs2
2Λ2
)fWW + fBB
2,
g(1)HZγ
=
(g2v
2Λ2
)s(fW − fB)
2c, g
(2)HZγ
=
(g2v
2Λ2
)s[2s2fBB − 2c2fWW ]
2c,
g(1)HZZ
=
(g2v
2Λ2
)c2fW + s2fB
2c2, g
(2)HZZ
= −(g2v
2Λ2
)s4fBB + c4fWW
2c2,
g(1)HWW
=
(g2v
2Λ2
)fW
2, g
(2)HWW
= −(g2v
2Λ2
)fWW ,
gfHij
= −mfi
v
(1−
v2
√2Λ2
ff
), g
Φ,2Hxx
= gSMHxx
(1−
v2
2
fΦ,2
Λ2
)
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 8 / 19
Effective Lagrangian for Higgs Interactions
Effective Lagrangian for Higgs Interactions
LHVVeff = gHgg HG
aµνG
aµν+ gHγγ HAµνA
µν+ g
(1)HZγ
AµνZµ∂νH + g
(2)HZγ
HAµνZµν
+ g(1)HZZ
ZµνZµ∂νH + g
(2)HZZ
HZµνZµν
+ g(3)HZZ
HZµZµ
+ +g(1)HWW
(W
+µνW
−µ∂νH + h.c.
)+ g
(2)HWW
HW+µνW
−µν+ g
(3)HWW
HW+µ W
−µ
LHffeff
= gfHij
fLfRH + h.c.
gHgg = −αs
8π
fGGv
Λ2, gHγγ = −
(g2vs2
2Λ2
)fWW + fBB
2,
g(1)HZγ
=
(g2v
2Λ2
)s(fW − fB)
2c, g
(2)HZγ
=
(g2v
2Λ2
)s[2s2fBB − 2c2fWW ]
2c,
g(1)HZZ
=
(g2v
2Λ2
)c2fW + s2fB
2c2, g
(2)HZZ
= −(g2v
2Λ2
)s4fBB + c4fWW
2c2,
g(1)HWW
=
(g2v
2Λ2
)fW
2, g
(2)HWW
= −(g2v
2Λ2
)fWW ,
gfHij
= −mfi
v
(1−
v2
√2Λ2
ff
), g
Φ,2Hxx
= gSMHxx
(1−
v2
2
fΦ,2
Λ2
)
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 8 / 19
Effective Lagrangian for Higgs Interactions
Effective Lagrangian for Higgs Interactions
LHVVeff = gHgg HG
aµνG
aµν+ gHγγ HAµνA
µν+ g
(1)HZγ
AµνZµ∂νH + g
(2)HZγ
HAµνZµν
+ g(1)HZZ
ZµνZµ∂νH + g
(2)HZZ
HZµνZµν
+ g(3)HZZ
HZµZµ
+ +g(1)HWW
(W
+µνW
−µ∂νH + h.c.
)+ g
(2)HWW
HW+µνW
−µν+ g
(3)HWW
HW+µ W
−µ
LHffeff
= gfHij
fLfRH + h.c.
gHgg = −αs
8π
fGGv
Λ2, gHγγ = −
(g2vs2
2Λ2
)fWW + fBB
2,
g(1)HZγ
=
(g2v
2Λ2
)s(fW − fB)
2c, g
(2)HZγ
=
(g2v
2Λ2
)s[2s2fBB − 2c2fWW ]
2c,
g(1)HZZ
=
(g2v
2Λ2
)c2fW + s2fB
2c2, g
(2)HZZ
= −(g2v
2Λ2
)s4fBB + c4fWW
2c2,
g(1)HWW
=
(g2v
2Λ2
)fW
2, g
(2)HWW
= −(g2v
2Λ2
)fWW ,
gfHij
= −mfi
v
(1−
v2
√2Λ2
ff
), g
Φ,2Hxx
= gSMHxx
(1−
v2
2
fΦ,2
Λ2
)
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 8 / 19
Effective Lagrangian for Higgs Interactions
Effective Lagrangian for Higgs Interactions
LHVVeff = gHgg HG
aµνG
aµν+ gHγγ HAµνA
µν+ g
(1)HZγ
AµνZµ∂νH + g
(2)HZγ
HAµνZµν
+ g(1)HZZ
ZµνZµ∂νH + g
(2)HZZ
HZµνZµν
+ g(3)HZZ
HZµZµ
+ +g(1)HWW
(W
+µνW
−µ∂νH + h.c.
)+ g
(2)HWW
HW+µνW
−µν+ g
(3)HWW
HW+µ W
−µ
LHffeff
= gfHij
fLfRH + h.c.
gHgg = −αs
8π
fGGv
Λ2, gHγγ = −
(g2vs2
2Λ2
)fWW + fBB
2,
g(1)HZγ
=
(g2v
2Λ2
)s(fW − fB)
2c, g
(2)HZγ
=
(g2v
2Λ2
)s[2s2fBB − 2c2fWW ]
2c,
g(1)HZZ
=
(g2v
2Λ2
)c2fW + s2fB
2c2, g
(2)HZZ
= −(g2v
2Λ2
)s4fBB + c4fWW
2c2,
g(1)HWW
=
(g2v
2Λ2
)fW
2, g
(2)HWW
= −(g2v
2Λ2
)fWW ,
gfHij
= −mfi
v
(1−
v2
√2Λ2
ff
), g
Φ,2Hxx
= gSMHxx
(1−
v2
2
fΦ,2
Λ2
)
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 8 / 19
Effective Lagrangian for Higgs Interactions
Effective Lagrangian for Higgs Interactions
LHVVeff = gHgg HG
aµνG
aµν+ gHγγ HAµνA
µν+ g
(1)HZγ
AµνZµ∂νH + g
(2)HZγ
HAµνZµν
+ g(1)HZZ
ZµνZµ∂νH + g
(2)HZZ
HZµνZµν
+ g(3)HZZ
HZµZµ
+ +g(1)HWW
(W
+µνW
−µ∂νH + h.c.
)+ g
(2)HWW
HW+µνW
−µν+ g
(3)HWW
HW+µ W
−µ
LHffeff
= gfHij
fLfRH + h.c.
gHgg = −αs
8π
fGGv
Λ2, gHγγ = −
(g2vs2
2Λ2
)fWW + fBB
2,
g(1)HZγ
=
(g2v
2Λ2
)s(fW − fB)
2c, g
(2)HZγ
=
(g2v
2Λ2
)s[2s2fBB − 2c2fWW ]
2c,
g(1)HZZ
=
(g2v
2Λ2
)c2fW + s2fB
2c2, g
(2)HZZ
= −(g2v
2Λ2
)s4fBB + c4fWW
2c2,
g(1)HWW
=
(g2v
2Λ2
)fW
2, g
(2)HWW
= −(g2v
2Λ2
)fWW ,
gfHij
= −mfi
v
(1−
v2
√2Λ2
ff
), g
Φ,2Hxx
= gSMHxx
(1−
v2
2
fΦ,2
Λ2
)
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 8 / 19
Effective Lagrangian for Higgs Interactions
Effective Lagrangian for Higgs Interactions
LHVVeff = gHgg HG
aµνG
aµν+ gHγγ HAµνA
µν+ g
(1)HZγ
AµνZµ∂νH + g
(2)HZγ
HAµνZµν
+ g(1)HZZ
ZµνZµ∂νH + g
(2)HZZ
HZµνZµν
+ g(3)HZZ
HZµZµ
+ +g(1)HWW
(W
+µνW
−µ∂νH + h.c.
)+ g
(2)HWW
HW+µνW
−µν+ g
(3)HWW
HW+µ W
−µ
LHffeff
= gfHij
fLfRH + h.c.
gHgg = −αs
8π
fGGv
Λ2, gHγγ = −
(g2vs2
2Λ2
)fWW + fBB
2,
g(1)HZγ
=
(g2v
2Λ2
)s(fW − fB)
2c, g
(2)HZγ
=
(g2v
2Λ2
)s[2s2fBB − 2c2fWW ]
2c,
g(1)HZZ
=
(g2v
2Λ2
)c2fW + s2fB
2c2, g
(2)HZZ
= −(g2v
2Λ2
)s4fBB + c4fWW
2c2,
g(1)HWW
=
(g2v
2Λ2
)fW
2, g
(2)HWW
= −(g2v
2Λ2
)fWW ,
gfHij
= −mfi
v
(1−
v2
√2Λ2
ff
), g
Φ,2Hxx
= gSMHxx
(1−
v2
2
fΦ,2
Λ2
)
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 8 / 19
Rate–based results
A variety of correlations
fWW/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fBB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
fW/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-20 -10 0 10 20 30-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
-20 -10 0 10 20 30-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
fB/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fBB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
2-d correlations with 68%, 90%, 95% and 99%CL allowed regions in the planes fWW × fBB ,fW × fB , and fB × fBB (TeV−2× TeV−2).
Lorentz structures not exploited so far...
Add kinematic distributions!
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 9 / 19
Rate–based results
A variety of correlations
fWW/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fBB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
fW/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-20 -10 0 10 20 30-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
-20 -10 0 10 20 30-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
fB/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fBB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
2-d correlations with 68%, 90%, 95% and 99%CL allowed regions in the planes fWW × fBB ,fW × fB , and fB × fBB (TeV−2× TeV−2).
Lorentz structures not exploited so far...
Add kinematic distributions!
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 9 / 19
Kinematic distributions
pVT in associated production
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
pT
V(GeV)
Ev
ents
/bin
SM
(SM Higgs) x 30(f
B/Λ
2=-20 TeV
-2) x 30
0leptons
0 50 100 150 200 2500
200
400
600
800
102
103
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
pT
V(GeV)
Ev
ents
/bin
SM
(SM Higgs) x 80
(fWW
/Λ2=-f
BB/Λ
2=20TeV
-2) x 80
1lepton
0 50 100 150 200 250
103
102
102
103
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
pT
V(GeV)
Even
ts/b
in
SM(SM Higgs) x 70
(fW
/Λ2 =20TeV
-2) x 70
2leptons
0 50 100 150 200 250
103
102
ATLAS H → bb (1409.6212)
pVT is sensitive to maximum energy flow ofthe event
Background rapidly decreases, whileenhancement for dimension-6 operators
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 10 / 19
Kinematic distributions
pVT implementation
Simulation with usual tools: FeynRules, MadGraph5, Pythia, PGS4/DELPHES
102
103
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
pT
V(GeV)
Ev
ents
/bin
SM(SM Higgs) x 70
(fW
/Λ2 =20TeV
-2) x 70
2leptons
0 50 100 150 200 250
103
102
• Distributions for cut–based cross check
� Less precise� Shifted central measurement
MVA–8 TeV: µ = 0.65± 0.4Cut–based–8TeV: µ = 1.23± 0.6
Thus, combination is not straightforward.• Optimal:
� fix normalization from MVA� define asymmetries
Ai =bini+1 − binibini+1 + bini
.
Added to the likelihood functionpropagating the uncertainties
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 11 / 19
Kinematic distributions
pVT implementation
Simulation with usual tools: FeynRules, MadGraph5, Pythia, PGS4/DELPHES
102
103
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
pT
V(GeV)
Ev
ents
/bin
SM(SM Higgs) x 70
(fW
/Λ2 =20TeV
-2) x 70
2leptons
0 50 100 150 200 250
103
102
• Distributions for cut–based cross check
� Less precise� Shifted central measurement
MVA–8 TeV: µ = 0.65± 0.4Cut–based–8TeV: µ = 1.23± 0.6
Thus, combination is not straightforward.
• Optimal:� fix normalization from MVA� define asymmetries
Ai =bini+1 − binibini+1 + bini
.
Added to the likelihood functionpropagating the uncertainties
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 11 / 19
Kinematic distributions
pVT implementation
Simulation with usual tools: FeynRules, MadGraph5, Pythia, PGS4/DELPHES
102
103
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
pT
V(GeV)
Ev
ents
/bin
SM(SM Higgs) x 70
(fW
/Λ2 =20TeV
-2) x 70
2leptons
0 50 100 150 200 250
103
102
• Distributions for cut–based cross check
� Less precise� Shifted central measurement
MVA–8 TeV: µ = 0.65± 0.4Cut–based–8TeV: µ = 1.23± 0.6
Thus, combination is not straightforward.• Optimal:
� fix normalization from MVA
� define asymmetries
Ai =bini+1 − binibini+1 + bini
.
Added to the likelihood functionpropagating the uncertainties
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 11 / 19
Kinematic distributions
pVT implementation
Simulation with usual tools: FeynRules, MadGraph5, Pythia, PGS4/DELPHES
102
103
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
pT
V(GeV)
Ev
ents
/bin
SM(SM Higgs) x 70
(fW
/Λ2 =20TeV
-2) x 70
2leptons
0 50 100 150 200 250
103
102
• Distributions for cut–based cross check
� Less precise� Shifted central measurement
MVA–8 TeV: µ = 0.65± 0.4Cut–based–8TeV: µ = 1.23± 0.6
Thus, combination is not straightforward.• Optimal:
� fix normalization from MVA� define asymmetries
Ai =bini+1 − binibini+1 + bini
.
Added to the likelihood functionpropagating the uncertainties
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 11 / 19
Kinematic distributions
∆Φjj in weak boson fusion
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 1.0472 2.0944 3.1416
∆Φjj
Even
ts/b
in
SM Higgs
fWW
/Λ2=-f
BB/Λ
2=20TeV
-2
fWW
/Λ2=-f
BB/Λ
2=-20TeV
-2
γγ jj
0 π/3 2π/3 π10
102
ATLAS H → γγ differential study (1407.4222)
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 1.0472 2.0944 3.1416
∆Φjj
Even
ts/b
in
SM Higgs
fWW
/Λ2=-f
BB/Λ
2=20TeV
-2
fWW
/Λ2=-f
BB/Λ
2=-20TeV
-2
γγ jj
0 π/3 2π/3 π10
102
ATLAS H → γγ differential study (1407.4222)
• Dimension-6 contributions peak at 0or π.
• Keep in mind
�WBF better for WW and ττ ,� No WFB specific cuts: both GGFand VH mess up
Thus, power dramatically diminished.• Combination: again, fix normalization
and define sensitive asymmetries:
A1 =(σ < π
3) + (σ > 2π
3)− (π
3< σ < 2π
3)
(σ < π3
) + (σ > 2π3
) + (π3< σ < 2π
3),
A2 =(σ > 2π
3)− (σ < π
3)
(σ > 2π3
) + (σ < π3
)
A3 =(σ > 5π
6)− ( 2π
3< σ < 5π
6)
(σ > 5π6
) + ( 2π3< σ < 5π
6).
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 12 / 19
Kinematic distributions
∆Φjj in weak boson fusion
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 1.0472 2.0944 3.1416
∆Φjj
Even
ts/b
in
SM Higgs
fWW
/Λ2=-f
BB/Λ
2=20TeV
-2
fWW
/Λ2=-f
BB/Λ
2=-20TeV
-2
γγ jj
0 π/3 2π/3 π10
102
ATLAS H → γγ differential study (1407.4222)
• Dimension-6 contributions peak at 0or π.
• Keep in mind
�WBF better for WW and ττ ,� No WFB specific cuts: both GGFand VH mess up
Thus, power dramatically diminished.• Combination: again, fix normalization
and define sensitive asymmetries:
A1 =(σ < π
3) + (σ > 2π
3)− (π
3< σ < 2π
3)
(σ < π3
) + (σ > 2π3
) + (π3< σ < 2π
3),
A2 =(σ > 2π
3)− (σ < π
3)
(σ > 2π3
) + (σ < π3
)
A3 =(σ > 5π
6)− ( 2π
3< σ < 5π
6)
(σ > 5π6
) + ( 2π3< σ < 5π
6).
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 12 / 19
Kinematic distributions
∆Φjj in weak boson fusion
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 1.0472 2.0944 3.1416
∆Φjj
Even
ts/b
in
SM Higgs
fWW
/Λ2=-f
BB/Λ
2=20TeV
-2
fWW
/Λ2=-f
BB/Λ
2=-20TeV
-2
γγ jj
0 π/3 2π/3 π10
102
ATLAS H → γγ differential study (1407.4222)
• Dimension-6 contributions peak at 0or π.
• Keep in mind
�WBF better for WW and ττ ,� No WFB specific cuts: both GGFand VH mess up
Thus, power dramatically diminished.• Combination: again, fix normalization
and define sensitive asymmetries:
A1 =(σ < π
3) + (σ > 2π
3)− (π
3< σ < 2π
3)
(σ < π3
) + (σ > 2π3
) + (π3< σ < 2π
3),
A2 =(σ > 2π
3)− (σ < π
3)
(σ > 2π3
) + (σ < π3
)
A3 =(σ > 5π
6)− ( 2π
3< σ < 5π
6)
(σ > 5π6
) + ( 2π3< σ < 5π
6).
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 12 / 19
Kinematic distributions
∆Φjj in weak boson fusion
• Dimension-6 contributions peak at 0or π.
• Keep in mind
�WBF better for WW and ττ ,� No WFB specific cuts: both GGFand VH mess up
Thus, power dramatically diminished.
• Combination: again, fix normalizationand define sensitive asymmetries:
A1 =(σ < π
3) + (σ > 2π
3)− (π
3< σ < 2π
3)
(σ < π3
) + (σ > 2π3
) + (π3< σ < 2π
3),
A2 =(σ > 2π
3)− (σ < π
3)
(σ > 2π3
) + (σ < π3
)
A3 =(σ > 5π
6)− ( 2π
3< σ < 5π
6)
(σ > 5π6
) + ( 2π3< σ < 5π
6).
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 12 / 19
Kinematic distributions
∆Φjj in weak boson fusion
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 1.0472 2.0944 3.1416
∆Φjj
Even
ts/b
in
SM Higgs
fWW
/Λ2=-f
BB/Λ
2=20TeV
-2
fWW
/Λ2=-f
BB/Λ
2=-20TeV
-2
γγ jj
0 π/3 2π/3 π10
102
ATLAS H → γγ differential study (1407.4222)
• Dimension-6 contributions peak at 0or π.
• Keep in mind
�WBF better for WW and ττ ,� No WFB specific cuts: both GGFand VH mess up
Thus, power dramatically diminished.• Combination: again, fix normalization
and define sensitive asymmetries:
A1 =(σ < π
3) + (σ > 2π
3)− (π
3< σ < 2π
3)
(σ < π3
) + (σ > 2π3
) + (π3< σ < 2π
3),
A2 =(σ > 2π
3)− (σ < π
3)
(σ > 2π3
) + (σ < π3
)
A3 =(σ > 5π
6)− ( 2π
3< σ < 5π
6)
(σ > 5π6
) + ( 2π3< σ < 5π
6).
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 12 / 19
Kinematic distributions
Full dimension-6 analysis
fWW/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fBB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
fW/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-20 -10 0 10 20 30-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
-20 -10 0 10 20 30-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
fB/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fBB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
fWW/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fBB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
fW/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-20 -10 0 10 20 30-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
-20 -10 0 10 20 30-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
fB/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fBB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
fWW/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fBB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
fW/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-20 -10 0 10 20 30-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
-20 -10 0 10 20 30-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
fB/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fBB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 13 / 19
Kinematic distributions
Full dimension-6 analysis
fWW/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fBB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
fW/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-20 -10 0 10 20 30-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
-20 -10 0 10 20 30-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
fB/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fBB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
fWW/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fBB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
fW/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-20 -10 0 10 20 30-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
-20 -10 0 10 20 30-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
fB/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fBB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
fWW/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fBB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
fW/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-20 -10 0 10 20 30-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
-20 -10 0 10 20 30-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
fB/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fBB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 13 / 19
Kinematic distributions
Full dimension-6 analysis
fWW/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fBB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
fW/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-20 -10 0 10 20 30-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
-20 -10 0 10 20 30-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
fB/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fBB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
fWW/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fBB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
fW/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-20 -10 0 10 20 30-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
-20 -10 0 10 20 30-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
fB/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fBB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
fWW/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fBB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
fW/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-20 -10 0 10 20 30-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
-20 -10 0 10 20 30-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
fB/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fBB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 13 / 19
Kinematic distributions
EFT from Effective?
fWW/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fBB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
fW/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-20 -10 0 10 20 30-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
-20 -10 0 10 20 30-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
fB/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fBB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
fWW/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fBB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
fW/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-20 -10 0 10 20 30-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
-20 -10 0 10 20 30-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
fB/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fBB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
fWW/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fBB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
fW/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-20 -10 0 10 20 30-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
-20 -10 0 10 20 30-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
fB/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fBB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 14 / 19
Kinematic distributions
EFT from Effective?
fWW/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fBB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
fW/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-20 -10 0 10 20 30-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
-20 -10 0 10 20 30-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
fB/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fBB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
fWW/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fBB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
fW/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-20 -10 0 10 20 30-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
-20 -10 0 10 20 30-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
fB/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fBB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
fWW/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fBB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
fW/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-20 -10 0 10 20 30-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
-20 -10 0 10 20 30-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
fB/Λ2 [TeV
-2]
fBB/Λ2
[TeV-2
]
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 14 / 19
Kinematic distributions
1dimensional results
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
OGG
OW
W
OBB
OW
OB
Oφ2
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.5∞
0.5
f/Λ2
[TeV-2
]Λ/√|f|[TeV]
L=4.5-5.1(7 TeV)+19.4-20.3(8 TeV) fb-1
, 68% CL: ATLAS + CMS
rate only
rate+distributions
-15
-10
-5
0
5
Ot
Ob
Oτ
0.3
0.4
0.5
1∞1
0.5
f/Λ2
[TeV-2
]Λ/√|f|[TeV]
L=4.5-5.1(7 TeV)+19.4-20.3(8 TeV) fb-1
, 68% CL: ATLAS + CMS
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 15 / 19
Kinematic distributions
m4` from off–shell measurements
t
1 + ∆t/ftΛ2
1 + ∆Z/fφ,2Λ2 ∆g/
fGGΛ2 1 + ∆Z/
fφ,2Λ2
Continuum background qq (gg)→ ZZ (left) and Higgs signal gg → H → ZZ (right).
Mgg→ZZ = (1 + ∆Z) [(1 + ∆t)Mt + ∆gMg ] +Mc
dσ
dm4`= (1 + ∆Z)
[(1 + ∆t)
dσtc
dm4`+ ∆g
dσgc
dm4`
]+ (1 + ∆Z)2
[(1 + ∆t)
2 dσtt
dm4`+ (1 + ∆t)∆g
dσtg
dm4`+ ∆2
g
dσgg
dm4`
]+dσc
dm4`.
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 16 / 19
Kinematic distributions
m4` from off–shell measurements
[GeV]4lm300 400 500 600 700 800
1
10
ZZ→qqZZ→gg)=(1,-1)t∆,g∆()=(0,-2)t∆,g∆(
data
Events/binZZ→pp
CMS-1L=5.1 (7 TeV) + 19.7 (8 TeV) fb
• Here we can use ATLAS and CMS• Bins directly into the analysis
∆g
∆t
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
∆g
∆t
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
∆g
∆t
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
∆g
∆t
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 17 / 19
Kinematic distributions
m4` from off–shell measurements
[GeV]4lm300 400 500 600 700 800
1
10
ZZ→qqZZ→gg)=(1,-1)t∆,g∆()=(0,-2)t∆,g∆(
data
Events/binZZ→pp
CMS-1L=5.1 (7 TeV) + 19.7 (8 TeV) fb
• Here we can use ATLAS and CMS• Bins directly into the analysis
∆g
∆t
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
∆g
∆t
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
∆g
∆t
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
∆g
∆t
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 17 / 19
Kinematic distributions
m4` from off–shell measurements
[GeV]4lm300 400 500 600 700 800
1
10
ZZ→qqZZ→gg)=(1,-1)t∆,g∆()=(0,-2)t∆,g∆(
data
Events/binZZ→pp
CMS-1L=5.1 (7 TeV) + 19.7 (8 TeV) fb
• Here we can use ATLAS and CMS• Bins directly into the analysis
∆g
∆t
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
∆g
∆t
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
∆g
∆t
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
∆g
∆t
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 17 / 19
Kinematic distributions
ΓH from off–shell measurements
σon-shelli→H→f ∝
g2i (mH ) g2
f (mH )
ΓHvrs. σoff-shell
i→H∗→f ∝ g2i (m4`) g
2f (m4`) .
• ΓH < 9.3ΓSMH 68% CL
• May allow to bound the Higgs total decaywidth under certain assumptions.
• Here including effective operators (andnot only the gluon fusion top-loop inducedproduction).
0 10 20 300
2
4
6
8
10
SMHΓ/HΓ
(-2 ln L)∆ SM+dim6
68% CL
95% CL
Run I LHC - ATLAS+CMS
L = LSM + ∆W gmWH WµWµ + ∆Z
g
2cwmZH Z
µZµ −
∑τ,b,t
∆fmf
vH(fRfL + h.c.
)+ ∆gFG
H
vGµνG
µν+ ∆γFA
H
vAµνA
µν+ invisible decays + unobservable decays .
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 18 / 19
Kinematic distributions
ΓH from off–shell measurements
σon-shelli→H→f ∝
g2i (mH ) g2
f (mH )
ΓHvrs. σoff-shell
i→H∗→f ∝ g2i (m4`) g
2f (m4`) .
• ΓH < 9.3ΓSMH 68% CL
• May allow to bound the Higgs total decaywidth under certain assumptions.
• Here including effective operators (andnot only the gluon fusion top-loop inducedproduction).
0 10 20 300
2
4
6
8
10
SMHΓ/HΓ
(-2 ln L)∆ SM+dim6
68% CL
95% CL
Run I LHC - ATLAS+CMS
L = LSM + ∆W gmWH WµWµ + ∆Z
g
2cwmZH Z
µZµ −
∑τ,b,t
∆fmf
vH(fRfL + h.c.
)+ ∆gFG
H
vGµνG
µν+ ∆γFA
H
vAµνA
µν+ invisible decays + unobservable decays .
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 18 / 19
Outlook
ConclusionsarXiv:1505.05516
• So far the Higgs boson seems completely SM–like.∆–framework aligned with experimental measurements: test different analysis features.
• Moving to Effective Lagrangian analysis: Kinematic distributions essential.Restricting to the Higgs sector: biggest differences between EFT and ∆–framework areanomalous momentum dependence on some vertices.
• Optimal implementation of kinematic distributions in a global analysis is feasible:� Increased sensitivity.� Remove correlations.
We start being sensitive to more and more deviations: for instance OWW and OBB inweak sector.Drawback: consistenty of EFT will need to be carefully checked.
• Off-shell distributions are also starting to be sensitive to gluon and top operators.� Disentangle OGG from Ot (and sign of top-Yukawa!).� Total width ΓH < 9.3ΓSMH 68% CL.
Thank you!
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 19 / 19
Outlook
ConclusionsarXiv:1505.05516
• So far the Higgs boson seems completely SM–like.∆–framework aligned with experimental measurements: test different analysis features.
• Moving to Effective Lagrangian analysis: Kinematic distributions essential.Restricting to the Higgs sector: biggest differences between EFT and ∆–framework areanomalous momentum dependence on some vertices.
• Optimal implementation of kinematic distributions in a global analysis is feasible:� Increased sensitivity.� Remove correlations.
We start being sensitive to more and more deviations: for instance OWW and OBB inweak sector.Drawback: consistenty of EFT will need to be carefully checked.
• Off-shell distributions are also starting to be sensitive to gluon and top operators.� Disentangle OGG from Ot (and sign of top-Yukawa!).� Total width ΓH < 9.3ΓSMH 68% CL.
Thank you!
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 19 / 19
∆–framework: results
∆–framework: results II� Correlated theory uncertainties:
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
∆W
∆Z
∆t
∆b
∆τ
∆γ
∆g
∆γSM
+NP
∆gSM
+NP
∆Z/W
∆b/τ
∆b/W
gx = gxSM
(1+∆x)
L=4.5-5.1(7 TeV)+19.4-20.3(8 TeV) fb-1
, 68% CL: ATLAS + CMS
SM exp.
SM exp. (corr.)
data
data (corr.)
� Gaussian theory uncertainties:
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
∆W
∆Z
∆t
∆b
∆τ
∆γ
∆g
∆γSM
+NP
∆gSM
+NP
∆Z/W
∆b/τ
∆b/W
gx = gxSM
(1+∆x)
L=4.5-5.1(7 TeV)+19.4-20.3(8 TeV) fb-1
, 68% CL: ATLAS + CMS
SM exp.
SM exp. (Gaussian)
data
data (Gaussian)
� N3LO for gluon fusion:
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
∆W
∆Z
∆t
∆b
∆τ
∆γ
∆g
∆γSM
+NP
∆gSM
+NP
∆Z/W
∆b/τ
∆b/W
gx = gxSM
(1+∆x)
L=4.5-5.1(7 TeV)+19.4-20.3(8 TeV) fb-1
, 68% CL: ATLAS + CMS
SM exp. (NNNLO GF)
data
data (NNNLO GF)
� Passarino estimate:
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
∆W
∆Z
∆t
∆b
∆τ
∆γ
∆g
∆γSM
+NP
∆gSM
+NP
∆Z/W
∆b/τ
∆b/W
gx = gxSM
(1+∆x)
L=4.5-5.1(7 TeV)+19.4-20.3(8 TeV) fb-1
, 68% CL: ATLAS + CMS
SM exp. + Passarino shift
data
data + Passarino shift
Juan González Fraile (ITP-Heidelberg) WIN15 MPIK-Heidelberg, June 2015 20 / 19
