Yes, yes. And you're decently in full screen. So can you just try to go to the
next slide to see if it switches?
Yes, perfect. Okay. Okay, great. Thanks. Thanks for the introduction. First of all,
I'm very glad to present this talk at this conference and I hope it will be clearing
this for some today I'm going to speak about the interpretation of Atlas and CMS
measurements is takes us in the ft. So, a few words about the simplified template
sections. So if access is the form at which come on the BFS and CMS results are
presented. So they have few advantages. So they are designed to maximize the
experimental sensitivity and at the same time, minimize a theoretical uncertainty.
By doing that, I think measurement we can insulate possible PSM effects because they
are For different models, they are predicted in different traditional space
regions also suitable for the global combination of different production
channels and so on. But the limitation is that they are not fully official and
bursty. And they doesn't take into account the things they can change. So during
round one, we use so called stage one and stage measurements, which are only
reference to the production mode. Well, further onto we also introduce additional
kinematic bands. So this is so called stage one. And the whole idea is that we
can have by analyzing the whole random data set with all the kitchen production
channels we can to get access to the information, the ultimate it's been really
nice to access the transcript. So just an example here is the measurements of this
TMS for leptin analysis. So, there is a stage stage one results with a lot of
different things actually, in this particular example 22 different states or
stage one bins, representative and production modes, different number of
chests that transfer momentum and so on. So, yeah, by measuring all this stuff, we
can proceed with the interpretation of this results. Sure, surely quite
straightforward. And for more details about these measurements for different
calibration and analysis, the result can be found in the talks by William Stephen.
Tuesday and Firstly, secondly, so, we'll proceed to the ft. So, the effectual
effective field theory is quite useful theoretical instrument for interpretating
effects as measured measurements. So, we can consider the effect differential Which
is supplemented by new operators of higher dimensional vectors. So, here the
operators themselves to see is division for some coefficients and considering the
cross section parameterization we can I can express it like Standard Model cross
section plus the interference term soco linear term and the pure bsm contribution
which is referred to as a quadratic and by destructing the ratio to the standard
model can obtain the parameterization like this in which eight MBR partitions are not
dependent on the definitions themselves and they're determined from the MonteCarlo
simulation and this is actually used in the analysis by doing the attentive
prediction. Okay few words about the basis so considering the effective for grand
chance, we can Perform, we can present the results in by several different ways. So,
the complete and non redundant set of higher dimensional operators of the
particular location from so called EFT basis. So for example, and considering the
expected for graduation, we can see a part of CIP evaluating the breeders good fit
here, and the 50 phases, one of the basics expect for Crimson coats the seal phases
are considering semi empty Lagrangian, and there's also basis spaces and several
others. So, things that underlying this slide are actually used in the analysis
I'm going to present today and, in some cases, it is necessary to use only a
subset of few operators for example, as usually done in the HPD interaction
studies.
So this is an effective from the dude usually used by the CMS in their analysis
and they're only several operators but they parameterize whole PHP interactions
concerning the leading in terms of the separators. Okay, so moving to the
results, there is a nice set of results and with the run to data, and first of
all, we have a bunch of results related to the DB channel measurements from Atlas.
So, here is the first analysis which we use the 18% the burn of the run to data.
So, we measure the stakes cross sections over different bits of the
transfer momentum of your emotions. So
after that we interpret them in the terms of basis is always the operator symbols
and coefficients. And on the table on the right, we can see the update expected and
observed limits, they awesome petitions. So the first row correspond to the linear
plus quadratic terms. And while the second one respond only to linear term, I mean
the interference plus the European contribution. So you can see what's the
difference between them. And that's what we have for the 18 versus the band. But
this point, we didn't see any disagreement with the standard model. This analysis was
riddled with the whole run to dataset, just this slide. So it's now on how big
now 39% above by adding additional statistics were increased the most
interesting category, utter hate transfers momentum, and then I'll perform DFT
interpretation in terms of where somebody is. So we have different operators defined
coefficients and the very new results which are only approved this week
concerning the linear and linear plus quadratic limitations on the boson
coefficients. And again, nothing is there's no deviation from the Standard
Model, observe this point of view. So there is another set of these
measurements. But more interesting in terms of PSM search, this is a boosted HPP
analysis. Again, they assess the associated present production came to BP.
In this analysis, we have additional dance with higher transfers momentum, and again
using the personal basis on the interpretation, and that's great, but you
can see the limits are updated again critical linear and linear quadratic
hypothesis. Again, results are in agreement with this time. The results of
this previous analysis will be published very soon, the whole papers Okay, moving
to the 15 measurements and for letson channel There is also set of nice new
results from Atlas consulting for left and final state. So, in this case, again using
the same EFT formalism so there's a list of operators in this case, we're not
considered only sip even as previously but also CP up and using the quadratic terms
taking into account as well. On the left bar, you can see how the acceptance
correction modifies the scans or the test statistics. So the acceptance corrections
quite significant in this analysis and on the center part, you can see Difference
between expected and observed
considering one particular city operators
here's the two dimensional scans over Boston coefficients. So the center you see
to the bus, it's kind of strange shapes, but this strangeness appears again due to
the acceptance corrections which as I said is quite significant. But this this table
you can see the observed best fit for all these six cases and the details. Again,
everything is expensive in this data model. Also, there is a set of one
dimensional IDs assuming all others, yes and parameters are fixed to zero. So yeah,
there is a setup for us given and secure payments on the most efficient and Again
everything is in agreement with the Standard Model, no deviation is observed.
Okay moving to the combine CMS measurements which Trenton already
mentioned. So, there was a set of signal strength measurement of the different
production mode and decay modes. We use the effects engine in order to
parameterize and search for possible physics. So, here is the combined combined
plot with the production mode, the horizontal axis and the became out of the
vertical axis estimate sigma straights, which, again in agreement with a standard
model. Yeah, and here's the interpretation. So, the strong part would
be parameter values and there's exact numbers. So, in the first row of results
correspond to the high profile scans. While not Albeit two parameters are
varying simultaneously well in the second column, we have only varying one ESM
parameter and and others seem to be fixed to the standard model and so, in this case
only CPR in terms are taking into account your parameters are neglected, because
they are not presented to each other and the quadratic terms are all submitted and
the assumed to be small. So, again in this case no deviation from Assam is observed
in a nice and consistent hassle moving forward. There was two measurements in the
gamma gamma channel from Atlas. So, the was the differential visual cross section
measurements and for the for the interpretation use the differential
perspective cross section information. The interpretation was done in two phases on
the scope formulation The second one is Send me a bit different parameters and
consider we consider CPU and efficiency yet. So on the left side you see the two
dimensional scans, which reps are by using the differential resections. And then the
remember this model here is actually the differential cross section because you for
the interpretation, so it's two transfers momentum, gamma gamma, and we can check
the agent mass, the number of jets and those the fire gj. And here is the one
dimensional scans in corresponding to different basis. So everything is nice in
terms of agreement with the Standard Model, so we get nice limits to basis. And
last point I'm going to mention is that the total measurement from CMS which was
combined with it For TMS analysis, we are considering the gf VP of production. In
this case, we're using the effective amplitude in order to parameterize the HIV
interactions. So, there is a supplementary plot for considering different analysis,
combine them all together and see the actually the various of the DSM, the
assemble some captions, limitations for that. So by performing these steps, help
us express an analysis, get the observed and expected limits on the extra effective
cross section. And by interpreting them, we just got the limits on the parameters
of these given unsecured bsm infection, and also the face of this particular
issue. Again, yeah, just as I mentioned again, Everything is an agreement.
So we have a bunch of new results, new interpretation results. So we got a lot
of, we get more more strict limits on the Wilson coefficients in different bases,
different production indicate channels, we do perform good job and noise abatement
and everything. From the point of view, everything that we see now is very good
agreement and the standard model. So right now there is nothing there is no traces of
any discrepancy. But we hope that in the nearest future, we'll see something
exciting.
That's it. That's all from our brain. Excellent.
Thanks a lot, Nikita for the store closures kind of the experimental side of
our session and time for question. There is one from Giovanni
Yes, I said In fact, three but actually related questions on the To give you bar
EFT fits. So first Are you fitting the parameters one at a time or soon as
possible? Yes yes
one at a time.
Then you're doing both linear and linear plus quadratic but the parameterization is
extracted with just interference or also with the the, the quadratic term even in
the in the model for similar when you compute them,
so all for the linear we only use the interference term Well, for the linear
plus quadratic, we also include the the next term, just proportional to one to
four degree. Okay?
And then I will only be syncing wersal basis. Open it also changed Some of those
operators also probably changed.
Also things that are not
these only changed the Higgs couplings, or they would potentially also change. Any
electroweak coupling and class also potentially the backgrounds is CBH BB,
some of them to mean you use at least tapes from the gondola. So,
yeah, that's very good question. I actually I can speak for example for ch
web, which in prolactin case in this modifies a bit these is good ground. But
there was an estimation concerning the range of the parameters we try to use, so
this shouldn't be taken into account.
That's a
good question.
But just to be clear, the current result only consider modification to the
explanation Yes.
Oh at least I can speak for for 10 analysis for the BB which
I think is the same but just better to double check. I was speaking for the BB
Okay, more time for questions
okay if not