-- ThomasKlijnsma - 2018-02-06
## Pre-approval comments v1

**1. Fill in the StatComm questionnaire: http://cern.ch/cms-stat-questionnaire**

**2. Datacards should be checked and approved by the combination group**

**3. Fill in the HIG Muon questionnaire: https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMS/TWikiHIG-MUO**

**4. For all the plots: add theory predictions**

**5. For all the plots: add systematic error uncertainty in the plots**

**6. Include tables with numerical values of cross-sections & uncertainties in the paper draft, including separation of systematics and statistics. Correlation matrix to be released as well (**

**7. Total XS: separate also here syst stat**

**8. Cross checks for the BR: BR vs pt, BR using the Njets categorisation**

**9. For kb vs kc, kt vs kg, kb vs kt: add also the 95% CL from the 1D scan**

**10. Add additional deformation of the kc,kb spectrum going in other directions (closer to 0,0)**

**11. For supplementary material: when modifying the BR for kb,kc add a third fit floating also the overall normalisation**

**12. kt vs kg: check the constraints that we get using only shape, floating also the overall normalisation**

**13. Possible for supplementary material: include also the variation of the BR also for kt,kg and check also here the constraints only from shape floating the overall normalisation**

**14. Find a new name for kg which has a different parametrisation wrt couplings combination**

**15. Most notably: boosted ggH(bb) needs to be added in the pt spectrum and in the kt,kg interpretation. Preliminary list of discussed checks: compare the theory predictions currently used for boosted ggHbb vs HRES, ggHbb team should provide the datacards as soon as possible, consider to add an additional theory uncertainty for the mtop treatment above 350 GeV**

TODO

TODO

TODO

A line indicating the SM prediction is added to all the plots concerning combinations of differential cross sections. The 2D coupling scans already had SM predictions.

The normalization of the SM line is set to the YR4 N3LO cross section for gluon fusion: 48.52 fb.

pT, for smH and ggH+xH (split):

nJets, pT_jet and rapidity:

The uncertainty denoted by the vertical line corresponds to the full uncertainty (statistical and systematic), whereas the filled area denotes only the statistical uncertainty (the total uncertainty is dominated by the statistical uncertainty; see Question 5).

The uncertainties previously calculated concerned the combined uncertainty of statistical and systematic uncertainties. In order to calculate only the statistical uncertainties, the scans were repeated freezing all the nuisance parameters to their best-fit-value. An example for the difference between stat+syst en stat-only is shown here for the pT combination:

Stat. + syst.: Stat. only:

The contribution of the statistical uncertainty to the total uncertainty dominates the systematic contribution. The statistical uncertainties are also plotted in the shapes shown in Question 4.

A full set of scans is here: http://tklijnsm.web.cern.ch/tklijnsm/differentials2017/ptCombination_v3/preapp/statsyst_scans/ . In the majority of these scans, the systematic uncertainty is very small with respect to the statistical uncertainty.

For all the observables, tables of their mu (ratio to SM) and cross section where computed. The resulting tables are displayed below, and will also be included in the paper draft.

The tables contain uncertainties in terms of **ratio to SM** (mu).

pth_smH | 0-15 | 15-30 | 30-45 | 45-85 | 85-125 | 125-200 | 200-350 | 350-10000 |

hgg (stat.) | 0.37 | 0.34 | 0.36 | 0.31 | 0.36 | 0.31 | 0.41 | 0.75 |

hgg (syst.) | 0.08 | 0.13 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.13 | 0.08 |

hzz (stat.) | 0.35 | 0.40 | 0.25 | 0.39 | 0.29 | |||

hzz (syst.) | 0.07 | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.15 | |||

combination (stat.) | 0.26 | 0.26 | 0.33 | 0.26 | 0.29 | 0.30 | 0.39 | 0.61 |

combination (syst.) | 0.06 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.10 | 0.13 |

pth_ggH | 0-15 | 15-30 | 30-45 | 45-85 | 85-125 | 125-200 | 200-350 | 350-10000 |

hgg (stat.) | 0.37 | 0.35 | 0.40 | 0.37 | 0.50 | 0.48 | 0.69 | 1.31 |

hgg (syst.) | 0.09 | 0.14 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.23 | 0.26 |

hzz (stat.) | 0.36 | 0.41 | 0.28 | 0.59 | 0.68 | |||

hzz (syst.) | 0.16 | 0.21 | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.06 | |||

combination (stat.) | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0.35 | 0.29 | 0.35 | 0.42 | 0.66 | 1.23 |

combination (syst.) | 0.09 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.16 | 0.22 | 0.21 | 0.18 | 0.35 |

ptjet | 0-30 | 30-55 | 55-95 | 95-120 | 120-200 | 200-10000 |

hgg (stat.) | 0.21 | 0.53 | 0.58 | 1.34 | 0.67 | 1.00 |

hgg (syst.) | 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.15 | 0.19 | 0.08 | 0.18 |

hzz (stat.) | 0.22 | 0.59 | 0.58 | 0.44 | ||

hzz (syst.) | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.05 | ||

combination (stat.) | 0.16 | 0.36 | 0.45 | 1.19 | 0.63 | 0.97 |

combination (syst.) | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.13 | 0.08 | 0.19 |

njets | 0-1 | 1-2 | 2-3 | 3-4 | 4-10000 |

hgg (stat.) | 0.20 | 0.35 | 0.65 | 1.88 | 1.40 |

hgg (syst.) | 0.12 | 0.08 | 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.24 |

hzz (stat.) | 0.22 | 0.32 | 0.80 | 1.22 | |

hzz (syst.) | 0.10 | 0.06 | 0.10 | 0.17 | |

combination (stat.) | 0.16 | 0.25 | 0.43 | 1.42 | 1.33 |

combination (syst.) | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.08 | 0.18 | 0.19 |

rapidity | 0-0.1 | 0.1-0.3 | 0.3-0.6 | 0.6-0.9 | 0.9-1.2 | 1.2-2.5 |

hgg (stat.) | 0.38 | 0.40 | 0.29 | 0.34 | 0.45 | 0.38 |

hgg (syst.) | 0.13 | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.10 | 0.08 |

hzz (stat.) | 0.54 | 0.56 | 0.38 | 0.47 | 0.37 | 0.31 |

hzz (syst.) | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.11 | 0.06 | 0.07 |

combination (stat.) | 0.31 | 0.33 | 0.23 | 0.26 | 0.29 | 0.26 |

combination (syst.) | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.05 |

A separate scan was performed in which all the systematic nuisances were frozen to the best fit, yielding the only statistical uncertainties. This shape is shown in grey.

I performed this cross check for all the observables we are doing. The results agree within uncertainties, and are shown below.

Scanning the ratio of BRs per pT bin would only have been possible if both hgg and hzz had identical binning schemes. Currently however, floating a BR-modifier per hgg-bin and hzz-bin yields too many degrees of freedom (8 modifiers for hgg + 8 modifiers for hzz > 8 reco bins hgg + 5 reco bins hzz).

A 2-sigma line is included in the plot; note that 2-sigma (95.45%) differs slightly from the asked 95% CL. Also the numerical result is printed in a more clear way.

Observed:

Expected:

I added a point at (0,0). The contribution that is left is due to the kappa_top term, that is fixed to SM.

In black is shown the 'nominal' result: Branching ratios fixed to their SM value, and the normalization fixed to the ggH cross section calculated in Yellow Report 4. The result obtained by making the branching ratios depend on the couplings is shown in blue; the result is more constrained due to the constraining effect of the total width. In red a further modification is applied, where also the overall normalization is floated in the fit. As expected, this is less constraining than keeping it fixed.

The results shown here were computed using the Asimov (expected) dataset.

When the constraint from the normalization is dropped, the shape depends only on the ratio of kappa_t and kappa_g (this is a mathematical consequence of the parametrization). The plot below confirms this expectation: Different levels of exclusion are only obtained by varying the ratio.

In black is shown the 'nominal' result: Branching ratios fixed to their SM value, and the normalization fixed to the ggH cross section calculated in Yellow Report 4. The result obtained by making the branching ratios depend on the couplings is shown in blue; the result is more constrained due to the gamma-gamma loop effects (the gamma-gamma width goes to zero around kappa_t ~ 2.0).

In red a further modification is applied, where also the overall normalization is floated in the fit. As expected, this is less constraining than keeping it fixed. The discrimination due to the shape is mostly on kappa_t, whereas on kappa_g hardly a clear constraint can be made.

The results shown here were computed using the Asimov (expected) dataset.

I would suggest to use "c_g" here, which is what the authors behind the kappa_t/c_g originally called it. Once agreed upon I will change all plotting labels.

As the hgg cards are not yet migrated to the new binning scheme, I performed a combination of hzz and hbb:

The result is comparable to that of hgg alone. As soon as the new hgg datacards are in, I will restart all the relevant scans. The results shown here were computed using the Asimov (expected) dataset.

So far, no additional theory uncertainty for the mtop treatment above 350 GeV has been included.

This topic: Main > TWikiUsers > ThomasKlijnsma > PreApprovalCommentsV1

Topic revision: r8 - 2018-02-08 - ThomasKlijnsma

Copyright &© 2008-2022 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.

or Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? use Discourse or Send feedback

or Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? use Discourse or Send feedback