2HDM interpretations Nick Amin April 1, 2019 Overview Slides - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

2HDM interpretations Nick Amin April 1, 2019

Overview ⚫ Slides looking into using a new MG model file for type2 2HDM from last year are in backup ⚫ Summary of those slides • I got consistency between ttH xsecs from (1) ATLAS (2) Nate’s model (3) new MG model • I did not get consistency for tHW, tHq between (2) and (3) ⚫ That’s the starting point for these slides • Technical setup • BR(H/A → tt ̅ ) from LHCHXSWG • Reproducing Nate’s xsecs with the new MG model by decoupling charged Higgses ⚫ Useful links: • HIG-17-027 / AN-2017/202 discusses H/A → tt ̅ � 2 ↑

Technical Details ⚫ Using 2HDMtII_NLO model out of the box with the proc card below • LO, no extra partons • Default (dynamical) MG factorization/renormalization scales, nn23lo1 PDF • Using 5FS via define p = p b b~ ⚫ Scan over particle mass, tan( 𝛾 ), sin( 𝛾 - 𝛽 ) for ttX, tXW, tXq for X=h2 (H), h3 (A) ⚫ Important note: • Cannot decay via " pp > t t~ h2, h2 > t t~ " since the widths for h2 and h3 are set to 1.0 by default. • This means I’m just calculating the production cross-section and can’t decay the h2/h3 in MG, but from LHCHXSWG ROOT files, BR(H/A → tt ̅ )~1 when m H/A >2m top (next slide) import 2HDMtII_NLO define p = p b b~ define j = p assumptions define tpm = t t~ define wpm = w+ w- define qpm = u c d s u~ c~ d~ s~ b b~ keep SM higgs at 125GeV generate p p > tpm qpm h2 output temp -nojpeg launch tan 𝛾 =1, sin( 𝛾 - 𝛽 )=1 set run_card ebeam1 6500.0 set run_card ebeam2 6500.0 set run_card nevents 5000 m H =m A =chosen mass set param_card mass 25 125 # h1 set param_card frblock 1 1.0 # tanbeta m H± set to high values (more on this later) set param_card frblock 2 1.0 # sinbma set param_card mass 35 550 # H2 set param_card mass 36 550 # H3 � 3 set param_card mass 37 1000

BR(H/A → tt ̅ ) ⚫ https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCPhysics/LHCHXSWGMSSMNeutral has the following text • "This scenario yields a SM-like Higgs boson h also for low values of mA at about tan β =7 due to alignment. In contrast to the definition in arXiv:1808.07542 the ROOT files start only at mA > 120 GeV due to a theoretically inaccessible region at low mA < 120 GeV and tan β >10." ⚫ And this ROOT file • mh125_align_13.root: 13 TeV, tan β = 1-20, mA = 120-1000 GeV • ROOT file does not have values for tan 𝛾 <1 ⚫ Below, plot contours of BR in the tan 𝛾 -mass plane separately for H and A ⚫ Note the di ff erence in color scale — pseudoscalar A has BR~1 even for tan 𝛾 reaching ~2-3, but scalar H BR drops o ff very close to tan 𝛾 =1 ⚫ Subsequent plots in these slides will have BRs multiplied in (even though it doesn’t make a visible di ff erence) � 4

H ± di ff erences ⚫ Nate’s model does not explicitly have H ± particles, while the new MG one does • By default, m H± is 140GeV ⚫ Try decoupling those particles in the new model in 4 ways 1. set width of H ± to 0GeV - doesn’t do much compared to backup s16 2. set m H± to 100TeV 3. set m H± to 10TeV 4. set m H± to 1TeV � 5

H ± di ff erences ⚫ Nate’s model does not explicitly have H ± particles, while the new MG one does • By default, m H± is 140GeV ⚫ Try decoupling those particles in the new model in 4 ways 1. set width of H ± to 0GeV - doesn’t do much compared to backup s21 2. set m H± to 100TeV - much better agreement with 2016 xsecs 3. set m H± to 10TeV 4. set m H± to 1TeV � 6

H ± di ff erences ⚫ Nate’s model does not explicitly have H ± particles, while the new MG one does • By default, m H± is 140GeV ⚫ Try decoupling those particles in the new model in 4 ways 1. set width of H ± to 0GeV - doesn’t do much compared to backup s21 2. set m H± to 100TeV - much better agreement with 2016 xsecs 3. set m H± to 10TeV - nearly identical to 100TeV 4. set m H± to 1TeV � 7

H ± di ff erences ⚫ Nate’s model does not explicitly have H ± particles, while the new MG one does • By default, m H± is 140GeV ⚫ Try decoupling those particles in the new model in 4 ways 1. set width of H ± to 0GeV - doesn’t do much compared to backup s21 2. set m H± to 100TeV - much better agreement with 2016 xsecs 3. set m H± to 10TeV - nearly identical to 100TeV 4. set m H± to 1TeV - gives very large tHW/tAW xsecs mind the crazy scale � 8

Intermediate summary ⚫ After solving three remaining issues (?), we can make a tan 𝛾 vs mass exclusion plot ⚫ Flipping between s5 and s6 is satisfying — close agreement (<10%) between new model and Nate’s model • So we have a consistent model that can corroborate results using Nate’s model 1. We already have an interpretation with Nate’s numbers. Do we have to update it to the latest model? I guess so, otherwise the tan 𝛾 vs mass exclusion plot will be using di ff erent cross-sections than the 𝜏 *BR vs mass? ⚫ The new model shows that not decoupling H ± and keeping it at a default value of 140GeV will lead to tHW/tHA having ~0 cross-section • And when we set the mass to 1TeV (slide 8), tHW/tHA cross-sections are very large (O(pb)) 2. Do we continue with high mass H ± ? 3. BR(H/A → tt ̅ ) values provided by the LHCHXSWG do not go below tan 𝛾 =1 • Though I think it’s safe to assume BR=1 below 1 � 9

Continuing ⚫ Continue by decoupling charged higgses (setting mass to 10TeV) ⚫ Generate cross-sections for {H,A} * {ttX,tWX,tqX} * {mass values} * {tan 𝛾 values} ~ 1k points marked with x on top of cross-section*BR contours • Assume m H =m A • This is just the plot on slide 7 but for many di ff erent tan 𝛾 values scalar pseudoscalar � 10

Continuing ⚫ Now take upper limits from the exclusion plots we already had (cross-section vs mass for H and A separately) and rescale the upper limits to these new cross-sections • Note, I need to update the cross-sections and re-run the looper for a more correct answer (since relative mixture of single top and tt processes can make a di ff erence) ⚫ For each mass value (vertical slice), find upper limit on tan 𝛾 by linearly interpolating the cross-section in that slice ⚫ ATLAS expected, observed from 2016 analysis (s14) overlaid in red for ttH — not a fair comparison since our exclusion curve includes single top as well • Around mH~600, ATLAS expected exclusion is nearly equivalent to ours. • Looking at the blue points in the top right plot of s16, I think it’s because they have larger xsecs for ttH and m600 is a bit jumpy scalar pseudoscalar � 11

More 2HDM checks Nick Amin October 27, 2018

Overview ⚫ Goal is to compare 2HDM results from CMS + ATLAS +N. Craig's paper results on equal footing ⚫ And also I have some misc plots/dumps 2 2 β ) [pb] β ATLAS ATLAS tan tan Excluded region Excluded region ATLAS Observed limit 1.8 1.8 -1 -1 Expected limit s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb Observed s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb Observed -1 t s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb t ± 1 σ Expected Expected → 1.6 SS dilepton / trilepton + b-jets 1.6 SS dilepton / trilepton + b-jets 2 ± σ 2HDM type-II H t t → 1 1 ± 1 σ ± σ BR(H All limits at 95% C.L. 2HDM type-II H t t 2HDM type-II A/H → t t → 2 SS dilepton / trilepton + b-jets ± 2 σ ± σ 1.4 1.4 Theory (NNLO): All limits at 95% C.L. All limits at 95% C.L. tan β = 0.3 1.2 1.2 × tan β = 0.5 H) 1 − 10 tan = 1.0 β 1 1 t t → 0.8 0.8 (pp 0.6 0.6 2 − 10 σ 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 3 − 10 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 m [TeV] m [GeV] m [GeV] H H H/A (b) -1 -1 CMS CMS 35.9 fb (13 TeV) 35.9 fb (13 TeV) 160 160 ) (fb) ) (fb) scalar pseudoscalar σ 95% CL Observed 95% CL Observed σ theory theory t 140 t 140 t 95% CL Expected ± 1 and ± 2 σ t 95% CL Expected ± 1 and ± 2 σ experiment experiment → → BR(H BR(A 120 120 (a) (b) × × 100 100 ,tW,tq)+A) ,tW,tq)+H) 80 80 60 60 t t (t (t → → (pp (pp 40 40 σ σ 20 20 0 0 350 400 450 500 550 350 400 450 500 550 m (GeV) m (GeV) � 14 H A Figure 8: Limits at 95% CL on the production cross section for heavy scalar (a) and pseudoscalar

Technical Details ⚫ Using 2HDMtII_NLO model out of the box with the proc card below • Default (dynamical) MG factorization/renormalization scales, nn23lo1 PDF • Using 5FS via define p = p b b~ ⚫ Scan over particle mass, tan( 𝛾 ), sin( 𝛾 - 𝛽 ) for ttX, ttX+1jet, tXW, tXq for X=h2 (H), h3 (A) ⚫ Important note: • Cannot decay via " pp > t t~ h2, h2 > t t~ " since the widths for h2 and h3 are set to 1.0 by default. Without properly recalculating the widths as a function of mass/other parameters, the output cross-sections are meaningless. • This means I’m just calculating the production cross-section and can’t decay the h2/h3 in MG, but the numbers will then be directly comparable with values for 𝜏 (pp → tt ̅ H/A) × BR(H/A → tt ̅ ). set nb_core 10 set automatic_html_opening False import model 2HDMtII_NLO define tpm = t t~ define wpm = w+ w- define p = p b b~ define j = g u c d s u~ c~ d~ s~ b b~ define qpm = u c d s u~ c~ d~ s~ b b~ generate p p > tpm tpm h2 output output_scan_v1/thw -nojpeg launch set param_card mass 25 125 # h1 set param_card frblock 1 scan:[0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8,0.9,1.0,1.1,1.2,1.4,1.6,1.8,2.0,2.2,2.5,3.0,3.5,4.0] set param_card frblock 2 1.0 # sinbma � 15 set param_card mass 35 scan:[350,400,450,500,550,600,650,700,750,800,850,900,1000]