Pre-approval comments v1

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 format of the cells is:

Ratio to SM:

Cross sections (pb/GeV):

Ratio to SM:

Cross sections (pb/GeV):

Ratio to SM:

Cross sections (pb/GeV):

Ratio to SM:

Cross sections (pb):

Ratio to SM:

Cross sections (pb/bin width):

[Still scanning]

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

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.

[TK] Star-like shape appears due to the limit-values of the parametrization coefficients when letting kappa_t/kappa_g go to infinity. Need to type more explanation here.

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 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.