Sarah Louise Williams: Chair of the H and L.
Sarah Louise Williams: Now, if I move on to what we've been aiming to do with this study? Essentially, the previous study provided distributions and event selection tables motivating these cuts.
Sarah Louise Williams: and while signal yields were shown, there were no sensitivity projections provided due to the limited Monte Carlo statistics.
Sarah Louise Williams: So what we were aiming to do to begin with, was perform new sensitivity studies, using the winter 23 background samples which have high statistics
Sarah Louise Williams: as well as exploring additional variables
Sarah Louise Williams: on the bottom. You can see a table that I took from the Fcc. Note just showing the raw events we had available for each of the Zed poll samples
Sarah Louise Williams: and the increase in statistics relative to the spring. 2321 samples.
Sarah Louise Williams: And I think one thing that's worth noting here. Is that actually you know. Quite a lot of time was spent trying to understand
Sarah Louise Williams: the differences between the spring 21 and the winter 23 samples in terms of object definitions, and also the reconstruction.
Sarah Louise Williams: But even with this increase in statistics we're still heavily limited here.
Sarah Louise Williams: And if you look at the effective luminosity of these samples, it's very, very low.
Sarah Louise Williams: and actually quite a lot of efforts throughout these projects ended up being diverted to investigating skimmed Monte Carlo samples in Keypad.
Sarah Louise Williams: and how these could be used to boost the background statistics.
Sarah Louise Williams: But sadly, I won't talk about that in much more detail today.
Sarah Louise Williams: Okay, so the last update I gave in this forum was actually at the end of August, and rather than going through everything again. I'd encourage anyone that wants to to look at the slides, which gives a bit more historical information.
Sarah Louise Williams: And what I, instead wanted to do was highlight. What has happened since then? So in terms of the main progress. I documented the work in an Fcc note which you can see linked on the slide.
Sarah Louise Williams: So this work we're still using 150 investment demands for the luminosity. And this can be relatively quickly updated, based on discussions on the correct luminosity to use. But, as some will know, there's been a lot of discussion online.
Sarah Louise Williams: Sorry not online offline about how to correctly do the normalization for the Z poll run for the HTML. Searches.
Sarah Louise Williams: Assuming that actually, the luminosity plan is a, you know, varies across several center of mass energies near the Z pole. And so we will need to do some adjustments.
Sarah Louise Williams: to the effective luminosity if we want to handle this properly.
Sarah Louise Williams: So basically, everything in the Fcc. Note still assumes 150 investment sorry, which is what was used for the snow mass study.
Sarah Louise Williams: and it can be Updated as and when we want to
Sarah Louise Williams: and this study includes preliminary one event and 4 event signal contours. For a background research
Sarah Louise Williams: and on the left, sorry on the right hand side of this slide you can see a distribution for events in the winter. 23 samples
Sarah Louise Williams: where you require 2 electrons and veto on muons and photons, and this distribution is of the number of displaced vertices reconstructed in the event.
Sarah Louise Williams: this wasn't considered in the previous snowmass study, but we implemented the displaced vertex reconstruction.
Sarah Louise Williams: and in particular considered the kind of effective background rejection you get
Sarah Louise Williams: by applying some fairly stringent requirements on this
Sarah Louise Williams: Unfortunately, again, because of the limited background statistics you run out of Monte Carlo events pretty quickly. So in the notes, if you read in detail, essentially made an argument that by the time you combine a relatively tight displaced vertex requirement with
Sarah Louise Williams: a jet veto, then this
Sarah Louise Williams: effectively removes all of the background. But of course this would have to be checked further.
Sarah Louise Williams: And you can see that. Yeah, if you look at the various signal benchmark points. That are shown by the colored lines in the slide.
Sarah Louise Williams: That actually, we're, you know, retaining a reasonable amount of the signal by requiring exactly one displaced vertex.
Sarah Louise Williams: Okay? In terms of other updates. Also went through and provided a 2 page summary of the E plus E minor study, where yields at that point were updated to 205 investment. Sorry 205. I'm afraid I'm in Lhc mood. So I'll have to correct that. And you can see a link to the overleaf document on the slide if you're interested.
Sarah Louise Williams: and in terms of technicalities, I changed it so that the signal contour we were considering was for 3 events assuming a background, free search, and this was following some harmonization studies with others working on Hnl.
Sarah Louise Williams: And on the right, you can see basically an attempted overlay plot for the sensitivity you would get from this study alongside the previous Fcc Ee projections that were provided for the past European strategy and various other experimental constraints from the Cms. And Lhcb.
Sarah Louise Williams: And I think the thing that quite reassuring here is that while the sensitivity you get from this study alone is inside the Fcc. Previous fcc Ee line. It does extend at some smaller values of the couplings and higher masses.
Sarah Louise Williams: but also
Sarah Louise Williams: The initial Fcc Ee line corresponds to
Sarah Louise Williams: a combination of all channels. So semi-deptonic and hydronic as well, whereas this study was just considering one channel. So it should indeed be conservative.
Sarah Louise Williams: But it's again been quite nice to have a look at what effective signal efficiencies we get
Sarah Louise Williams: for these processes in a more realistic experimental environment because I think previous.
Sarah Louise Williams: But he'd assumed that it was a hundred percent efficient.
Sarah Louise Williams: And again, as noted on the previous
Sarah Louise Williams: slide. I I guess, would nominally aim to
Sarah Louise Williams: perform a rerun of these results, based on whatever we converge on as being the recommended luminosities or cross sections to use for the samples.
Sarah Louise Williams: Right? Because this is quite a short talk. I thought I would try and put some kind of headlines together on the next slide.
Sarah Louise Williams: So the main thing was following on from the snow mass results, and we found that again, subject to limited background statistics, we could hopefully perform a background research
Sarah Louise Williams: by vetoing depth, sorry vetoing depth neurons and photons and placing a requirement of exactly one display, secondary vertex reconstructed with track with a d. 0 greater than 2
Sarah Louise Williams: and you can see the cut flow tables from the Scc. Note just below there. And again you see that by the time you combine the displaced vertex requirement with the jet beto requirement, we get the background rejection factors
Sarah Louise Williams: that we would need in order to hopefully provide a background research.
Sarah Louise Williams: We then produce a contour for all signal models with at least 3 events after this selection, and this has been used to create the contours you can see on the previous slide.
Sarah Louise Williams: and I think, the only other thing that I should say is that if we were to access larger background samples, we could do further optimization using additional variables.
Sarah Louise Williams: So on some level, this, this might actually be this might be conservative in the sense of.
Sarah Louise Williams: We put very, very hard requirements on the secondary vertex reconstruction in order to assume that the search would be backup free.
Sarah Louise Williams: Okay? So to conclude and wrap up. So I think what I've really been trying to do for the last few months is kind of tie some loose ends on studies that have been ongoing for some time in the Fcc. Note ee. Note. I also tried to, I guess, provide a bit more explanation of
Sarah Louise Williams: understood differences between the spring, 21 samples and the winter 23 samples
Sarah Louise Williams: and this is mainly so that you know future studies. Can have a clear
Sarah Louise Williams: history of what has changed and why results might look very different now, compared to what they did before.
Sarah Louise Williams: the sensitivity seems consistent with what was shown in previous projections for the European strategy, and that these were based on theoretical assumptions. So you essentially assume your search would be background free, and and that you have a hundred percent signal efficiency for a particular topology.
Sarah Louise Williams: And these were also, as I said before, typically assuming a combination of all channels.
Sarah Louise Williams: I've also mentioned that further studies would benefit from larger Monte college statistics. And this, I think, is a plan's next focus which I know a few of us are interested in.
Sarah Louise Williams: And then if we go to the right in terms of looking ahead. So I don't have any students working on this at the moment, but I would be interested to collaborate in future on looking at whether we could produce a kind of combined contour for a displaced vertex that's assuming all possible decays of the H and L. But
Sarah Louise Williams: for the electron coupling, I think that would probably allow us to provide
Sarah Louise Williams: the most I guess the closest comparison with the theoretical lines that have been shown in the past. Then I think if we could do that, that would be very nice.
Sarah Louise Williams: Also would like to move forward with the infrastructure for producing some skinned Monte Carlo samples
Sarah Louise Williams: and I know that others are already looking at this, but I'd be eager to collaborate on full simulation studies.
Sarah Louise Williams: and whilst, of course, the the midterm report is well, sorry the the Sec study is wrapping up. I would be very interested to keep studying these areas further afterwards. So yeah, if you have similar interests. Please reach out.
Sarah Louise Williams: I think that's everything from me. Thanks a lot.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Thank you so much, Sarah. That's always very interesting to see. I will have some questions, but I see that Patricia has been having the hunt race since a while. So, Patricia, do you want to start.
Patrizia Azzi: Yeah, I I did not want to interrupt, but I needed to remember to raise my hand.
Patrizia Azzi: Yes, just the just the previous, I think previous slide. It's mostly information for me, because I haven't seen no, the one before this one, because I haven't. You know, I haven't been following these plots very carefully. So I just wanted to know the origin of the Cms. And Atlas curves. Are these the full run? 2 ones?
Patrizia Azzi: Where did you get them? Do we have a reference.
Sarah Louise Williams: Yeah. So I think I provided the reference in the note, or if not, I can add it. But it's website that provides the. So I think this is the future one, because these lines have Fcc and Lhcc and click on as well.
Patrizia Azzi: So you're saying that this is a reference to a new Atlas and Cms curve.
Sarah Louise Williams: So I think it's the Atlas and Cms high lumi Lhc prediction projection.
Patrizia Azzi: I don't. Okay, because I I'm doubt. I mean, I've been. I've been pestering people to get those type of lines.
Patrizia Azzi: So I'm very surprised that there is one, and I didn't know about it, so I will check it. It's very possible, you know, we're all busy.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Isn't, isn't it this one that that comes from from the website that I'm adding in the chat.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: isn't it? Isn't it coming from there.
Patrizia Azzi: Okay, I will check that because.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: That is not. It's not. I mean, this has been there since a while, but it's relatively update.
Patrizia Azzi: No, okay. So so the old one was not separated in Cms and Atlas. The old one was high. Lumi Lhc was more or less there, but was not separated. That's why I'm surprised that it's split in Cms and Atlas. Okay, Cms has made an effort to combine some of the, and we wanted to make an effort to extrapolate.
Patrizia Azzi: But this is still not not happening yet.
Patrizia Azzi: so I I will check. I will check your reference. So.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Yeah, check check. That one is the second in the second plot. To me it looks like it's the same curve.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: and atlas and Cms. They have some displays vertifest, but this has been their.
Richard Ruiz: This. This should be rescaling. I think this is taking Cms and Atlas and rescaling for high luminosity, because, as Patricia said, I don't remember Cms and Atlas coming out with high Lumi projections. For this.
Patrizia Azzi: Not approved absolutely. They also do not want to do it. So I'm in the middle of that. So I can tell you that maybe this is someone that just took and rescaled, and maybe theories that I presented in a talk.
Patrizia Azzi: But as Cms exist, there is not new, not a new line. Okay? So I I just want to check that. It's okay. We don't have to discuss.
Sarah Louise Williams: Clarify. I actually just checked it behind the scene. You're right. It's a it's a theory paper extrapolating the Atlas and Cms limits to highly.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Okay.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: And so.
Patrizia Azzi: So I will. I will double check that thing. I will check all the references that you have in the chat. Then the other question is that the the green bigger Fcc. Is this the old theory one, or is the one that we usually show from from analysis.
Sarah Louise Williams: So I can again, probably.
Patrizia Azzi: I think this is the old theory one also, because it goes down and you should not go below the 5 Gv.
Sarah Louise Williams: Okay, these are just the lines that come from that Ucl website that Rebecca.
Patrizia Azzi: Yeah, okay, okay. So so before we we do all this, we're gonna go through the the whatever has been discussed. Okay, okay, thank you, and then, instead, your line is the blue one that says this study correct.
Sarah Louise Williams: Yeah.
Patrizia Azzi: Okay? And and you have as a as a as a distance as is long lived. Just that cut on the 0.
Sarah Louise Williams: Yeah, exactly. So it's I mean, it's very conservative, because we don't really have the statistics to.
Patrizia Azzi: Right.
Sarah Louise Williams: So.
Patrizia Azzi: No, no, I'm not. You don't have to justify. It's just for me to understand what to compare with what? Okay.
Sarah Louise Williams: Yeah. So I I think what I was trying to go for here is is assuming that what we might like is to have say the ee plot
Sarah Louise Williams: and the Ej. And any other getting the same.
Patrizia Azzi: Of course. Yeah.
Sarah Louise Williams: The same as well.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Yeah, I mean.
Patrizia Azzi: Yes, yes, that's the final goal. Yes, not not terribly easy. But you know it will be the final goal. What? I'm more concerned now for the strategy are. We need also the other curves.
Patrizia Azzi: especially also from the high Lumi and the other experiments. I know that you know we worry about the Fcc. But it's important that the other ones that we overlay with make sense, and then they'll generate the discussion. Okay, thank you. I don't want to take too much time. I see many hands.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: I want to comment something here that for our own final plot, we don't need necessarily to add Atlas and Cms.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: So. But what I'm thinking, is that what we would want to do is to for the challenge we don't have try to extrapolate in some way. So it's something to discuss altogether.
Patrizia Azzi: We can keep it just Fcc, I mean, I think, having a plot like this. Now it's good for our, you know, internal thing. But even in your note that you might have a plot just with the Fcc. Okay? Or maybe the older stuff, the very old stuff that has been shown a million time, and then we know which is the one in the next page. And and you know, and we all know that that is not maybe correct for the.
Patrizia Azzi: But it's okay. We just want to care about our own intrinsic coherence. And for all the discussion that will come on the luminosity, normalization, combination, etc. Let's just forget about the other curves. That would be my suggestion.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Okay, I think we are going to need to move on in a bit. But there was also a question about the luminosity.
Patrizia Azzi: Right, and then it's offline, for now I think.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: We can keep it. Offline.
Patrizia Azzi: Good to have. I think it's good to have, for now everything we'd like the standard number. And then the the new, the new discussion, the new cooking, and and, you know, different cross section as a function of the Z. We'll take it offline. We'll discuss in another.
Patrizia Azzi: We take another decision. For now just let's be consistent with the past.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Okay, thank you. Patricia.
Sarah Louise Williams: Can I.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: So.
Sarah Louise Williams: So so is this temporary thing, then are we using 205, or are we using a hundred 50.
Patrizia Azzi: We are using whatever it is, on the latest numbers that I posted on the physics performance and on the main page. Those are the numbers to be used for the final report.
Sarah Louise Williams: So the thing is.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: And then those numbers are the numbers we have been using, though.
Patrizia Azzi: Yeah, so that. So that's fine.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: I have added a link there, Patricia, can you confirm that this note that is in the new repository? There is a new Cds. Is the same as what you are sharing in the website.
Patrizia Azzi: I know. Why do we go through a million notes? We put it on the main web page.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Okay?
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Well, I'm in.
Patrizia Azzi: Let me go here. I'll post here that.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Can you share the main page paging? Then I think maybe it's better.
Patrizia Azzi: One second, I'll do it. You can take the other questions. I will.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Alright, we should we should move it up because we already delayed. But I think Jan was the 1st that raised the hand, and then, Jeremy. So, Jan, please go ahead.
Richard Ruiz: Actually, can we? Can we actually move on to my talk because I don't have a lot of time? I know I was a little late, but I do have to go in about 20 min. So can I. Can we maybe push these questions to a later time?
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Technically, you have 10 min for your talk, plus 5 of comments. But okay, I mean, Jan, Jeremy. Maybe you can also write it down in the chat, so Sarah can answer
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: before she has to leave also. Then let's try to do it that way.
Jan Hajer: The the blue and the red lines are from my Lhc study. Is this so? It's theory curves, and the green one is the old theory curve, which is which should be updated.
Patrizia Azzi: Okay.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Okay.
Patrizia Azzi: Thank you.
Jeremy Andrea: My point is 2 seconds. It's really yes, Sarah, we are interested in in discussing this analysis with you also, and in particular about the benchmark points. So we can, we can interact offline. We'd be very happy to to talk to you.
Sarah Louise Williams: Yeah, sounds great. Just send me an email.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Nice.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Alright, very good. So then, thank you so much, Sarah. Again, it's very nice update, and we get to reach her. Then.
Richard Ruiz: Sir, can you? Stop and sharing? Sorry.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: There you go!
Richard Ruiz: Wonderful bueno.
Richard Ruiz: Yes, it did not crash this time. Okay.
Richard Ruiz: I know we want to get more to questions, and so I'll try to be quick. So we can actually maybe discuss more about Sarah's talk. So first, st thank you for the intro for the invitation. And so, yeah, I just wanted to give a kind of a summary looking at beyond the Ee program.
Richard Ruiz: because we've accumulated a lot a lot of numbers and promising outlook for the Fcch. Which is, you know, companion for the Fccelhc program. And so this is also more generally about neutrino mass models. So
Richard Ruiz: so the big picture is that you know we. We know that neutrino masses are an issue, and we have to reconcile this with the standard model.
Richard Ruiz: But one of the things I like to emphasize is that we really like right-headed neutrinos, and they're really really well motivated. But as we've learned lessons with, say, supersymmetry, it's at the Lhc. We can't put all our eggs into one basket, and we should be very careful about
Richard Ruiz: over promising the deliverables for the fccee. And so what do I mean by that is to also say, that in addition to our sensitivity, to heavy neutrinos or axions, and all that stuff or other long-lived particles, there's this whole spectrum, this whole collection of neutrino mass models. And so the the important part is that anything that you hypothesize to solve
Richard Ruiz: the lightness of neutrinos they have to couple to the standard model Higgs. Somehow they have to couple to the standard model Leptons, obviously 2 neutrinos, and this often introduces Lepton number of violation. Lepton flavor violation. This is what we try to see at the Collider experience, and this is what Sarah was showing in our nice plots, you know implicitly in all of this stuff. There is some Lepton flavor violation going on there, and while we can't
Richard Ruiz: well, it's difficult to verify Lepton number violation at Fccee. It's not maybe impossible.
Richard Ruiz: And so the in 10 min I hope to just give us sort of a snapshot of the Fcc. And particularly Hh. Sensitivity to neutrino mass models. This isn't our 1st rodeo. You know, we had this no mass exercises in North America the past couple years. And there's also the previous European strategy update. And
Richard Ruiz: you know, the Fcc Ee program is very mature program. And so there's but the Fcch program we can still use more pro more numbers to really build up this case. And because this isn't, you know, while some of these numbers are a little old, I mean, it's not like
Richard Ruiz: Fcc has changed in the past 10 years, and so for broader, you know. So some of the numbers I'm pulling are from a pair of reviews. So I think this 1812 paper is what you guys have what Sarah was showing for the high luminosity Lhc reach and the Fcc. Hh. Reach. And there's also newer work stuff with Patricia, Rebecca and
Richard Ruiz: and Julia, of course. And there's newer stuff by the community. So I'm just gonna kind of sample a couple things. And this will not be an exhaustive talk.
Richard Ruiz: But I'll just kind of skip into redheaded neutrinos, just because this is one of the more popular things, and
Richard Ruiz: unfortunately, I had a connection problem, so I couldn't go before Sarah. But yes, the the the benchmarks are typically used. Is that you? You consider either a Dirac pseudodrac, or Dirac like, or Myrata
Richard Ruiz: mass eigenstate, and you get this by swapping out the Chiral state with light and heavy mass. Eigenstates, and the reason why you want to choose I recommend doing the Drak or Majorana situations as benchmarks for discovery purposes is that realistically, you're either going to get.
Richard Ruiz: you know, sort of a sub ge view of Myron estates or pseudo direct states that can be at any mass scale.
Richard Ruiz: But anyway, I won't say much about this. This is a previous plot with Julia and Company, and you know the kind of the details that have gone into these sort of plots were just presented by Sarah and the community message is that current next generator facilities can probe the simplest leptogenesis scenarios with right headed neutrinos going beyond that, if you are considering heavier fellows at the TV or 10 TV
Richard Ruiz: skills, you're actually able to get quite far into the the ultra high masses.
Patrizia Azzi: Misaka Mister.
Richard Ruiz: Was there a question? Or, Okay, that's fine.
Richard Ruiz: and of course, if you do discover something, one of the 1st things, at least for the heavy neutrinos case that you want to do is polarization measurements, because there are subtle helicity, inversion and differences between the kinematics for Lepton number conserving processes and Lepton number of violating processes. It often is said that the differences between Direct and Majorana states that that's not quite true, because the Majorana State can
Richard Ruiz: can conserve can contribute to Lepton number conserving processes. The the difference in kinematics stems from whether or not you're looking for a Lepton number conserving a leptine number violating process. And that's where the differences of the kinematics come from.
Richard Ruiz: It's not a direct versus majorana. It's Lepton ember conserving versus lepton ember violating process. Okay? So you know, I don't need to say much more about heavy neutrinos. Other stuff kind of the fun stuff that's appeared in more recent years is, attempts to test. The Weinberg operator itself at the PP. Colliders. So in many ways
Richard Ruiz: searches for same sign. Ww. Scattering at the Lhc. Is a high energy realization of nutrientless double beta decay. And there are numbers, you know, you know, already at the Lhc. With searches, vectors on scattering, you're able to limit
Richard Ruiz: set an upper bound on the effective majorata mass for neutrinos at the 10 Gev. Scale. For electron. You know, this is constrained more stringently, of course, at nutrientless double beta decay experience. But it should be emphasized that this is actually the 1st constraint to the Weinberg operator outside a nuclear environment. No one else has been able to do this. And so this is kind of the sort of the 1st time.
Richard Ruiz: and it's the 1st constraints on the mixed flavor channels. And so the projections are at the 10 Gev. Level for high Lumi and at 100 TV Collider down to the Gev. Or Sub. Gev. So it's still high compared to normal order and inverse ordering. But the naive picture breaks down very quickly. If there are multiple sources left on number violation, that's why it's kind of important to do these broad tests.
Richard Ruiz: Going beyond these simplest models. You also have the type, 2 seesaw which is one of the 3 canonical seesaw scenarios. I also think it's 1 of the reasons why I think it's useful to talk about this one in particular is that again, it's sometimes said that neutrino masses are evidence for right-handed neutrinos, and that's not precise.
Richard Ruiz: The type 2 seesaw is a great example of that. In that you can generate neutrino masses without hypothesizing right-headed neutrinos. So this is what
Richard Ruiz: we mean when we say that neutrino masses don't need right-handed neutrinos, you can generate them by hypothesizing alternative particles like scalars that have standard model quantum numbers and Lepton number, and then you're able to build it up a multiplet. And this neutral fellow acquires a vacuum expectation value after electric. This tiny, you know. Sub is
Richard Ruiz: what's going to generate neutrino masses through this dimension. 4 operator. So you have the Lagrangian, which is you. You take the left hand doublet, another left on doublet and the scalar, and then, after a little sc. 2 algebra you're able to generate left-handed marijuana masses.
Richard Ruiz: And what's kind of cool about models like a type? 2 seesaw or variance on that is that because you don't have right-handed neutrinos, you have fewer mixing parameters. You have fewer eucabo couplings. You still have your carbo couplings. You just have fewer of them.
Richard Ruiz: and you have so few eucaly couplings that you're able to really relate. Instead of ratios of eucaly couplings are equal to elements of the Pm. And S. Matrix. Individual eucaly couplings are equal to elements of the Pm. And S matrix. So this would be, say, the diagonal mass matrix for the neutrinos. So you know, elements 1, 2, 3, the Pm. And S. Matrix, and that's the Eucalys.
Richard Ruiz: And therefore, when you start taking, if you were to discover these sort of particles, these doubly or singly charged scalars, and then start taking the ratios of their branching rates to Leptons. You start seeing oscillation parameters and oscillation features being imprinted and showing up
Richard Ruiz: in the into the decay ratios, and here is what I'm showing are just the branching fractions as a function of lightest neutrino masses, and you can just sort of see the the oscillation behavior, the oscillation parameters, you know, reminiscent of here normal ordering versus inverse ordering in these decay rates because it's encapsulated by
Richard Ruiz: what's already been measured at oscillation experience. So this is a great example of the complementarity between collider experience and oscillation experience where the oscillation
Richard Ruiz: parameters measured at neutrino experiments are being fed as inputs for collider predictions.
Richard Ruiz: And again, some of the newer stuff, or at least past couple of years for the the snow mass studies. And this round of strategy updates is that we have predictions, you know.
Richard Ruiz: for collider rates as a function of mass. And what's important to know is that these scalars, you know they they have gauge couplings, and so the predictions are fixed. We know exactly what their cross sections are
Richard Ruiz: at your favorite accuracy in Qcd. Once you fix the mass. What we don't know is, are the branching rates and the total width. So that's the ambiguity. So you have to still do the searches. But you know, we've put all of our tools online, so you could just download your favorite Ufo and try to do studies for, say, Fcc Ee. And there's, you know, like the heavy neutrinos, exotically charged scalars can have a
Richard Ruiz: several production mechanisms glue on fusion vector, built on scattering. Draw Yan gamma gamma. And of course we have our reach plots.
Richard Ruiz: Going beyond the
Richard Ruiz: traditional tree levels. Some of the newer stuff is also trying to expand into the the loop loop level models. Rebecca! Julio, how am I on time? I think I have like what like 2 min left.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Yeah, more or less. 1 min left.
Richard Ruiz: One man. Okay.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Fingers.
Richard Ruiz: Okay, well, I'm just about done, anyway. So what I want to say is that the Z Babu model is again another example in which you're able to generate neutrino masses without hypothesizing right-headed neutrinos. And you just do this by introducing enough scalars with, you know, su 2 hypercharge quantum numbers. Actually, they're in this case, su 2 seamless. But you give them hypercharge. And again you assign them Lepton numbers, and you're able to generate neutrino masses radiatively.
Richard Ruiz: And it's this coupling between the different scalars that violates, that breaks uptime. Emperor induces non-zero neutrino masses.
Richard Ruiz: And again, because there are just fewer parameters. The yukawa couplings can be written explicitly and exactly in terms of the oscillation parameters. And you get this again. This sort of behavior, in which the oscillation parameters are imprinted on branching rates. I'll just conclude by just saying you have cross sections as function mass. And actually, it's kind of cool that it was only
Richard Ruiz: back in at the end of 2022, and beginning of 2023, that Atlas had the 1st constraint. This is a reinterpretation of the results, but this was the the 1st test of this 1st direct search for Zibalu.
Richard Ruiz: Scalers at any high energy facility. So there's so this is relatively new, and you know. There are, of course, search, you know, sensitivities up to several TV at a hundred TV.
Richard Ruiz: that was just a snapshot. I didn't talk about left-right symmetric model. I didn't talk about B minus L or Scotogenic models. I didn't talk about new snf or leptocorks. I didn't even talk about type. 3 seesaws. I didn't cover
Richard Ruiz: a lot. I actually said a little but unambiguously. We know that neutrinos have non-zero masses. Something must exist. What it is we don't know. But until we have concrete guidance on how to proceed, I think it's important that we err on the side of caution, explore broadly and build up this large portfolio, physical portfolio for the future collider scenarios. So yeah.
Richard Ruiz: that's all I have.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Thank you very much, Richard. This actually was quite interesting, and we don't get to to think about high energy super often in here. So I think it's kind of nice to have this option as well.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: so I don't know if anybody has any comments or questions for Richard.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: We're a little bit delayed. So maybe that is not too bad. But I wanted to to check with you. Do you know, if, as anybody contacted you, do, you have any idea
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: if, this kind of of proposal, things would be already included in our study report, the one that we are preparing for the strategy.
Richard Ruiz: As far as I know. No, that's why I'm kind of reaching out, because, it's been kind of fast moving. It's been much faster than the previous nomass. I think, Tavong, you was a point person, but actually I haven't heard much from him, so I think it'd be useful to try to incorporate these numbers.
Richard Ruiz: you know there's something we I think we missed the deadline for doing it through the French community. I thought I saw Eric and a couple other people from the French community who might be able to comment. Is it too late for contributions for the French input.
Richard Ruiz: Like Suzanne, would you would, you know.
Susan Gascon-Shotkin: in a 1st approximation. Yes, I.
Richard Ruiz: Yeah, I thought, so.
Susan Gascon-Shotkin: Jeremy maybe could comment, but we had a deadline that was actually pushed back, but it was.
Susan Gascon-Shotkin: I believe it was November 18th or
Susan Gascon-Shotkin: 16th to have the 2 page, I mean, it's the same. It was the same deal. Have the have a 2 page summary
Susan Gascon-Shotkin: of contributions, but maybe offline. I can or I don't know. If Jeremy are you still connected? You can.
Susan Gascon-Shotkin: I can go on the page and see if there's a possibility to slip in things. Still.
Richard Ruiz: Yeah, because you know, yeah, continue.
Jeremy Andrea: Yeah, sorry. The
Jeremy Andrea: the submission to the page is probably still possible. You need to give a try and see if it goes through. I think we left it open a bit more than than the deadline
Jeremy Andrea: or also we are wrapping up a bit the contents, but for sure it will be, it will be considered for for for March we have an intermediate meeting in January. That's why we had this
Jeremy Andrea: this this deadline couple.
Richard Ruiz: Yeah, it's the just Zoom Meeting. Yeah. The reason why I mentioned the French.
Susan Gascon-Shotkin: Thirst.
Richard Ruiz: Yeah. The reason why I mentioned the French is that when I already have some stuff with Benjamin Fuchs, who also worked on some of this stuff, but also possibly combining forces with Anna at the the team, Claremont. Because, you know, we we just have so many plots. That it'd be nice to just do something.
Patrizia Azzi: Need to leave for another meeting but I guess you are in the list of the Fcch. Meetings, and you know that there is one next week. So
Patrizia Azzi: maybe that's the place where you want to present and talk to Michelangelo and the people taking care of the fcchh.
Patrizia Azzi: There is also, you know, we are finalizing the agenda for January, and there will be an Fcch. Session as well.
Richard Ruiz: Well, yeah, yeah, it's it's also the kind of the the travel schedule to cern. You know, I have a young kid, and it's.
Patrizia Azzi: But you don't have to necessarily travel. I mean, I'm just saying you're trying to get to get the information through. I'm just saying that
Patrizia Azzi: there is. There is a meeting for the Fcch. Page, and and there is a community that is working because we are going to have contributions in the document about that, so as much as things are finalized. As Jeremy and Suzanne said, there are still, you know, things are not totally written in stone, because there is still, you know, few time, some time, but the best, if you want.
Patrizia Azzi: since it's Fcc. Is to go through the people that are doing the Fcch material in general, if you want to
Patrizia Azzi: trying to say so. So there was an email yesterday. I haven't seen. I haven't checked. When is when is the meeting? Exactly. But maybe you wanna check and and see if you can sleep in 5 min.
Richard Ruiz: Yeah, maybe I missed that because I'm traveling this week. So maybe I'll take a look at that. Thanks for pointing that out. I appreciate it. I must have missed that.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: I mean, Patricia, if you could share it with us also, because I don't have that that meeting. So.
Patrizia Azzi: But anyway, yeah, it's another mailing list away where people needs to be. So maybe.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Yeah, it will be good to to know about it, because I mean at this point I think it's it's fine. We don't have super many things, but this is, it would be nice to keep an eye on all these kind of studies like this one to to follow them up, because I think it's kind of a cool thing to have. Jeremy, are you? Are you adding up on something now?
Jeremy Andrea: Yeah, just to to mention the the French thing is a national effort, and it doesn't supersede the Fcc. 8th path. So I would recommend you. Go there first, st and we'd be happy to receive your contribution to the French national effort.
Jeremy Andrea: But it doesn't, and it it has to go through the the Fcc. Path, for sure, in my opinion.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Okay.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: thank you, Jeremy, and thanks to both Sarah and Patricia for the mail list, I I certainly was not in it. So I just sign up now. Alright cool. So I think, and I'm afraid we don't have time for anything else. Richard, you can go. You're free. Thank you so much for this update. We'll keep. Keep in touch with you.
Richard Ruiz: Thank you.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Email with the phone also. So he can also keep an eye on that. And now we move on to Mina about the search for action like particles, decay, and into a pair of gluons. Are you ready.
Meena Meena: Yes, Hi, everyone.
Meena Meena: Let me share the screen.
Meena Meena: Okay, Hi, I think slides are visible.
Meena Meena: They are
Meena Meena: so today, I will give you update on our search for a giant like particle detained into a pair of clones.
Meena Meena: So a giant like particle is a potential candidate that can help to understand. Understand? Strong Cp problem, dark matter and beyond standard model physics.
Meena Meena: So currently, we are studying the Alp sensitivity at Fcc, electron posit positron collider at the center of mass energy 91 Gv and luminosity. Currently, we used 150 autobahn inverse.
Meena Meena: And we used the available latest files simulation Fcc card.
Meena Meena: So the signal process include electron positron check to form a gamma plus egg giant and then egg joint digging further into dipolons.
Meena Meena: And we have considered, branching ratio of adjoint going to diagram equal to 100% based on Alp linear model. More detail can be found in this paper.
Meena Meena: and here is the filament diagram on the left hand side is for signal, and on the right hand side for background.
Meena Meena: Marty and Daigama
Meena Meena: plus jets. And the 4th generation, we have generated signal and background process using Nagta and which it used for bottom showering and hydronization. And currently, we used idea, fast simulation
Meena Meena: and analysis, selection and reporting are done with the Meta analysis framework.
Meena Meena: So coming to next slide.
Meena Meena: So it is a little bit about agent Tory so this language equation here shown represent how agent interact with the
Meena Meena: standard motor particle after a spontaneous symmetry breaking.
Meena Meena: and there is a relation between coupling before and after the Ssp. So Cgg, Cvb, Cww. And C. 5 represent coupling of alp, 2 su. 3 blown Su. 2 l. Gauge boson field and u. 1 hypercharge, gauge, boson field and Higgs field
Meena Meena: before Ssp, and then coupling
Meena Meena: denoted by Ca. Gamma gamma, repair gent coupling of adjoint gloom. Gamma gamma.
Meena Meena: and see a gamma G represent coupling of a joint to Gamma G.
Meena Meena: After the SSD.
Meena Meena: And there is a relation between Camma Gamma and equal to Cbb. Cos K. Theta plus CWW. Sinus K. Theta divided by the new physics scale.
Meena Meena: and also for a coupling of adjoint Gamma G. Coupling that is equal to 2 Cos Theta sine Theta Cww. Minus Cv. Divided by the new physics scale.
Meena Meena: And so for Lp. Linear model, Hn. Going to Diclone. So important parameter are Cgg, cww, Cvb. C. Phi. And Hn. Mass.
Meena Meena: coming to the next slide.
Meena Meena: So currently we have applied some selection to select Benchmark Point.
Meena Meena: So we have considered that a giant must decay within the tracker volume while keeping a signal cross section at least 10% of total background. And we have considered branching rates of a giant went to below 100%.
Meena Meena: So flight distance can be calculated using the Beta gamma C Tau formula where Tau is
Meena Meena: equal to h cross over decay, width, and decay, width and beta Gamma can be calculated using this formula, so flight distance depend on the mass of a joint, and Cgg.
Meena Meena: And the constraint on Cgg is that
Meena Meena: ratio of decay, width or mass of egg joint must be less than 1% to avoid unphysical large decay. Width of egg giant going to gamma gamma.
Meena Meena: Then from these 2 condition we can select Cgg, and we have to select Cw. And Cbbv. So for this, we have to make sure. That. A giant going to Gamma Gamma not happen in our channel. So for this we have to make coupling of a giant to Gamma gamma equal to 0, and from that we can get this relation that we have to take Cvv equal to minus 0 point 3 cww.
Meena Meena: And the second constant on the Cw. And Cv. Is coming from the Dk width of G going to a giant plus comma, and it must be less than 2.3. It is to power minus 3 gv. That is coming from the total Gdk width uncertainties.
Meena Meena: And the 3rd constraint on the Cw. And Cvv is that we have to consider, we currently we consider Signal Cross section greater than 10% of total background cross section.
Meena Meena: And the total background country cross section is to 200 to 50 pico barn.
Meena Meena: So coming to next slide. So here is the result for Benchmark Point selection on the left hand side the flight distance is shown as a function of egg joint mass on X-axis and cgg over fa on the y-axis.
Meena Meena: and so here are the blackout repergent flight distance for 0 point 1 cm green. One is for 1 cm and blue. One is for 50 cm.
Meena Meena: So initially we can select Cg from here. Then, on the right hand side there is a constraint for the upper limit of Cg.
Meena Meena: that ratio of decay weight over Gamma. It must be less than 1%. So we can from this constraint constraint, we had to take Czg below this curve.
Meena Meena: So this is done. This is all for Cgg. Then selection for cww.
Meena Meena: is the bottom plot shown for the cross section.
Meena Meena: and X-axis is represent adjoint mass. Y-axis represent cww over fa
Meena Meena: and held the black. Represent cross section equal to 20 pico bound. So we have to take above this curve, and the upper limit on Ccw. Is coming from the Gdk width.
Meena Meena: So this is the coupling value we have to take
Meena Meena: for cww, and for Cbb, it's just a minus 0 point 3 into cww.
Meena Meena: coming to next slide. So here is the initial result for some benchmark points. So we used Cgg equal to 0 point 2 cw. 0 point 9 Cbv minus 0 point 7, if I equal to 0. And for different mass effect, like 2030, 40 Gv and Fa scale is used one TV, and total number of event are generated 1 million.
Meena Meena: So final, our final selection is required that we have at least one gamma, and at least 2 chats in the one else sheet
Meena Meena: so initially gamma required have pt. Greater than 50 Gb. And jets are clean against gamma, using the delta condition greater than 0 point 5.
Meena Meena: So then row events are normalized with the luminosity into cross section, divided by the total number of generated events.
Meena Meena: then sensitivity is calculating, using the
Meena Meena: a ratio of number of signal event divided by the sum of signal event, plus background and scale root of that.
Meena Meena: and on the left hand side probe the number of jets are shown after at least one gamma selection, and we can clearly see that it's a peak around 2 jets. And here the blue represent a full mass, 20 wallet represent for 30 Gb. And black, one for 40 Gb.
Meena Meena: And on the right hand side our digest mass are shown after at least one gamma, plus at least 2 jets, and that must represent a joint mass. And here we can see that 420, it's around 2430, and 40 g.
Meena Meena: And below is the table where? Where? In which, sensitivity and selection, efficiency, efficiency is shown.
Meena Meena: So the 1st column represent different temps, sample and last row represents a background sample, that is gamma plus digest.
Meena Meena: And the second column shows cross section corresponding to Mc Sample, and the 3rd is represent row number of event, plus uncertainties. And then, 4th column represents event after normalization.
Meena Meena: And then, 5th column represents action, efficiency and the last represents sensitivity. So the difference between this 2 section of the table is that was in the blue color where Gamma Pt. Card is taken 50 gb. On the right and in the red color Pd card is 20 gb.
Meena Meena: so for the
Meena Meena: so if you use 20 gb, that selection sensitivities increased and background or contribution reduced from 35 to 22%
Meena Meena: coming to next slide. So future plan is to is that melt analysis framework is already set up for sensitive analysis. But we have to further optimize event selection for different mass and benchmark point
Meena Meena: and to complete the analysis for rest of benchmark points. So thank you.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Thank you so much, Mina. That was a very interesting talk, actually, with a lot of information. It looks like a kind of cool analysis. I see that Juliet has the hand raised. So please, Juliet, go ahead.
Juliette Alimena: Yeah, thanks a lot, Mina, this is showing really nice progress. I just had a simple question, really. Well, maybe 2 very quick questions. Why are you using mad analysis and not Fcc analysis for the analysis part.
Meena Meena: Our 1st target is to publish safino paper. So.
Juliette Alimena: Oh, okay.
Meena Meena: Yeah.
Juliette Alimena: Okay, great.
Juliette Alimena: And then just a simple one on the previous slide for the the right plot, where you have the the mass. I can hardly see the the background in the plot. So maybe consider the Y axis changing it to to log scale, depending on how your optimization goes. If if this version of the plot sort of sticks around.
Meena Meena: Yeah, okay, I have a log load. But I didn't put here. So okay.
Juliette Alimena: No problem.
Meena Meena: Yeah, next time. Yeah.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: This was also my comment, actually, in that, because I was having it hard to see the background. So
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: okay, thank you, Juliet. So we have Suzanne also, with a comment or question.
Susan Gascon-Shotkin: Yes, thanks a lot, Mina.
Susan Gascon-Shotkin: So I just had a question about okay. You obviously just wanted to start by choosing a benchmark point. But
Susan Gascon-Shotkin: on Slide 4. So this requirement of the Signal Cross section being bigger than 10% of the
Susan Gascon-Shotkin: total background section was this just to assure that you
Susan Gascon-Shotkin: would be able to see signal events. I mean, I mean, you just kind of like qualitatively
Susan Gascon-Shotkin: picked that threshold, or was there something else behind.
Meena Meena: I think, yes. But we can check sensitivity for the local section also. Then we can decide
Meena Meena: later which actual or persection values. We have to skept for Benchmark point selection.
Susan Gascon-Shotkin: Okay, I realized this was just a 1st iteration to try to get from beginning to end, so that it's really good. I just wanted to
Susan Gascon-Shotkin: see what was behind it. So thanks. Thanks a lot.
Meena Meena: Yeah, thank, you.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Very good.
Meena Meena: Okay. So I think time is actually at the essence. So thank you so much, Mina. Just keep us posted with anything that you keep progressing with the plan. Sounds good to me, at least, and we're looking forward to see how this goes.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: And I will hand over to yurit to continue the cheering of this meeting.
Juliette Alimena: Thanks.
Juliette Alimena: Okay. So next in principle, we have Emmanuela. But I know that Emre and Anna Paola need to leave by 2 30, I believe, is it okay, Anna Paolo, for example, if we go with Emmanuela following the the schedule, or should we bump you up.
Annapaola de Cosa: I think it's fine.
Juliette Alimena: Okay, I think. Emanuela.
Juliette Alimena: Okay. Can you hear me? Yes.
Emanuela Musumeci: Okay, let me share my screen.
Emanuela Musumeci: Okay, alright, alright. Let me.
Emanuela Musumeci: Nope, it does not.
Emanuela Musumeci: Okay.
Emanuela Musumeci: So okay, so good afternoon. Everyone. Today I will give you some update about this work that was previously introduced by my supervisor. Facility is also connected.
Emanuela Musumeci: So this is about the use of 2 particle angular correlations to investigate.
Emanuela Musumeci: Thank you.
Emanuela Musumeci: Physics at future replacement, Collider. So our previous work was performed for Ilc. And now we are trying to stand for Fcc.
Emanuela Musumeci: So, 1st of all, what do I mean by 2 particle angular correlations? So these observable are powerful method to study, to study, investigate the underlying mechanism of particle production in high energy collisions, and they are also used to uncover possible collective effects resulting from the high particle densities.
Emanuela Musumeci: Once we define the difference in rapidity and the asymutal angle of 2 final state particles, we can define the 2 particle angular correlation, fraction, which is given by the
Emanuela Musumeci: a ratio of the density of particle price of particle price produced within the same event, and those produced in different events.
Emanuela Musumeci: So these observables have been largely studied in proton, proton, proton, lead, lead, collision, c plus c minus.
Emanuela Musumeci: And what what we can notice here is the appearance of outreach in
Emanuela Musumeci: in all of all of them, and in general, for instance, for lead-led collisions, the reason of this reach is given
Emanuela Musumeci: is considered to be given by aquaculum plasma effects
Emanuela Musumeci: so, and our goal here is in is to study correlation and to consider them it as a tool for investigating new physics. What do I mean by new physics?
Emanuela Musumeci: So we consider the hidden ballet scenario in which, by the ballet, refer to a wide class of models in which the standard model gauge group is extended by a new group under which we have a new class of particles called p particles, which are natural under standard model particles under the Southern Model Gauge group.
Emanuela Musumeci: and then we have a communicator
Emanuela Musumeci: which is charged which is charged under both groups. Here.
Emanuela Musumeci: The specific hidden valley model, we consider, is accuracy, delay, like scenario in which our communicator is denoted by fbe.
Emanuela Musumeci: which is, has to be perproduced, and which is to be considered as the mirror partner of standard model charged leptons and quartz.
Emanuela Musumeci: and this is supposed to decay promptly into what? Into visible particles and the so-called peak works. And then we have
Emanuela Musumeci: the adronization. This is the way on the left, the way to produce such particles in proton proton collision. But we are interested in E plus collisions, as they provide a much cleaner environment. In particular.
Emanuela Musumeci: as in nature, we consider the perturbation in conventional Qcd cascade and finalization. In particular, we investigate if there is any anomaly in angular correlations.
Emanuela Musumeci: So this analysis is performed at detector level. We consider the trust axis, then the tools employed are pti. 8 for Monte Carlo. Heaven generator, then for fast detector simulation. We use Sgv 30 0. That was previously used for IC studies. And then for the analysis, we consider IC soft and root.
Emanuela Musumeci: we consider a center of mass energy of 240. As a signal we consider the production of the so-called, which is our communicator, which the case involving the into a deep quark and V quarks and gillions.
Emanuela Musumeci: and the main contribution is for the background is given by Qqbar production in association with initial state radiation
Emanuela Musumeci: and ww, which take which the case in to 4 quarks.
Emanuela Musumeci: as you can see here from this table we have the standard model background which gives a contribution which is up to 2 order magnitudes bigger than our hidden valley signal. So we need to apply some cuts in order to reduce as much background as possible.
Emanuela Musumeci: So here we applied some changes in the Ild geometry by adapting it for Fcc. So here, here you can see the difference between Ildi, at Ilc, and Ild at Fcc. And here are listed the main.
Emanuela Musumeci: the main changes, and, as you can see, there is a reduction of the forward region area available which will affect somehow
Emanuela Musumeci: our analysis. Let's see how.
Emanuela Musumeci: So here we have in our case the divinjecting variant mass distribution
Emanuela Musumeci: for a standard model from some hidden valley signal.
Emanuela Musumeci: and which, in the case which no cuts are still applied. And as you can see here, the around the Z Peak there is
Emanuela Musumeci: There is a large overlap between standard model signal
Emanuela Musumeci: between the standard model background and our signal.
Emanuela Musumeci: so we need to act there a bit. So we tried by applying some cuts used for Alc. Which are no secondary vertices, and the number of natural particles from object to be less than 22, and the charge at once less than 50 and 15, and we applied some cuts on the emission and
Emanuela Musumeci: of the photon from Ions, initial state radiation and its energy, and then a cation and digest
Emanuela Musumeci: invariant mass, and also a cut on the the energy associated with the leading jet.
Emanuela Musumeci: So these cuts turned out to be to be not as effective as other lc, and this is due to the limited coverage in the forward region which makes the Isr photon detection less efficient. So for Fcc. We need reoptimization, and we are still working on that.
Emanuela Musumeci: Here. I can show you some plots, and the difference between Ilc and Fcc in terms of digging variant mass jet. So here and mass. So here you have, for in red what we have for what we had for Ilc, in which we have a peak at 250, with back, Jack, and here we have a large contribution
Emanuela Musumeci: for Fcc. From radiative returns as they? We can. We consider some Isr photons to escape undetected.
Emanuela Musumeci: And here you have an intermediate region.
Emanuela Musumeci: So
Emanuela Musumeci: for by applying these cards for for the previous mentioned cards for the Fcc. We had a ratio signal over background equal to one, and it need to be optimized and we need a refinement. But what we can see that.
Emanuela Musumeci: regardless that we still observe something in the angular correlations observable, and still they turn out to be a powerful
Emanuela Musumeci: tool, as as you can see here in the left you have the standard model distribution. Here you have pure hidden valley, with which we consider the just
Emanuela Musumeci: as benchmark, Dv. Mass. Of 120 Gb. And V. Quartz. Mass of 10 gb.
Emanuela Musumeci: so if we consider the yield function which is obtained by integrating the angular correlation functions into Delta Y range.
Emanuela Musumeci: and we focus on the Delta Y range, which is from mine from minus 1.6 and to 1.6. What we observe here is this, still this bump that was for also for ilc.
Emanuela Musumeci: And so which is, as you can see here, right, which is absent
Emanuela Musumeci: for for the case of our standard model.
Emanuela Musumeci: and here you have very preliminary sensitivity, in which we consider both a contribution from the statistics, statistical and
Emanuela Musumeci: and the systematic uncertainties, and still we found some good
Emanuela Musumeci: sensitivity here. So this is to be taken, since it's very preliminary work. We need to refine cards and and investigate better. But so far it's still looks promising.
Emanuela Musumeci: And so this brings to my conclusions. So the analysis of the long range angular particle correlation can provide insights into the initial state of the matter, and
Emanuela Musumeci: studying subservable could be useful to uncover the existence of new physics. And I want to remark, this is to be considered complementary to conventional searches.
Emanuela Musumeci: And right now we are working for Fcc in order to to study such as servable
Emanuela Musumeci: we are trying to reoptimize, optimize, re-optimizing cards. So thank you so much, and hope I I'm inside.
Emanuela Musumeci: Thank you so much.
Juliette Alimena: Thank you just a little late, but I didn't share.
Emanuela Musumeci: Sorry.
Juliette Alimena: So.
Emanuela Musumeci: I try. It's true. Yeah. And.
Juliette Alimena: No worries.
Emanuela Musumeci: Sorry.
Juliette Alimena: Thank you. This is very nice progress. So I see a question from Emery.
Emre Sitti: Hello! Can you hear me?
Juliette Alimena: Yes.
Emanuela Musumeci: Yep.
Emre Sitti: I just had a really quick question 1st of all, thank you so much for the talk. I was just wondering in Slide 10
Emre Sitti: bear with me.
Emanuela Musumeci: Okay.
Emre Sitti: Around 240.
Emre Sitti: Similar thing.
Emanuela Musumeci: Here, you mean or
Emre Sitti: Yeah, there. Yeah, there the red signal.
Emre Sitti: We had a very similar signature in our analysis, and we were not able to quite understand why, that peak appears around 240 gev.
Emre Sitti: Would you maybe have an explanation for that?
Emanuela Musumeci: So this is well, what?
Emanuela Musumeci: I'd I'd say this is due to.
Emanuela Musumeci: So the back to back reconstructive jets. But yeah, not really.
Emanuela Musumeci: yeah, we don't actually because we are considering our season, we are focusing on our single region. So
Emanuela Musumeci: yeah, actually, but yeah, maybe it's due to
Emanuela Musumeci: back to back jets. That can be, yeah.
Emre Sitti: I have to admit. See that you also have that peak? Because I was thinking maybe we did something wrong in our analysis, or
Emre Sitti: but seeing no tickets, you're also yeah.
Emanuela Musumeci: Yeah, thank you so much.
Emanuela Musumeci: Nope, so yeah, I guess it's cucumber production. Here it is. The main contribution from Isr.
Emanuela Musumeci: hmm.
Emanuela Musumeci: still to be investigated. It's very as I said, it's very, very preliminary study we just started to work on that. So this is
Emanuela Musumeci: just to be taken as preliminary. So hopefully. We will give some progresses with refinement on cards soon, and
Emanuela Musumeci: some more consistent presence.
Juliette Alimena: Other questions.
Juliette Alimena: Okay?
Juliette Alimena: In the interest of time. Thanks a lot, emmanuelle, and we move on to.
Emanuela Musumeci: Sorry for being a bit late. Sorry.
Juliette Alimena: Don't worry.
Emanuela Musumeci: For it.
Juliette Alimena: We move on directly to to Emory.
Emre Sitti: And I just wanna make sure you can hear me. Well, because I have really bad
Emre Sitti: headphones. I hope you can hear me. Well.
Juliette Alimena: For the most part. Yeah. For half a second it seemed a little.
Emre Sitti: Yeah, but.
Juliette Alimena: Then you came back. So I think it's fine.
Emre Sitti: Can you see the slide.
Juliette Alimena: Yes.
Juliette Alimena: absolutely full screen yet, but I think they're good enough that if you needed to go like this there they are, full screen.
Emre Sitti: Perfect. Thank you.
Emre Sitti: Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to talk about this. So basically, I would like to talk to you about my master's thesis, who is supervised by Anna Paula, who is also attending today's workshop.
Emre Sitti: Basically, I would like to talk to you about
Emre Sitti: a model that we built that can be tested in Fccee, and the selections that we applied.
Emre Sitti: the analysis that we made.
Emre Sitti: But to quickly give you an overview of what is necessary in our model is.
Emre Sitti: I prepared this short slide about hidden volleys. It's basically a framework that is introduced to explain behavior of
Emre Sitti: supposed particles beyond standard model.
Emre Sitti: The main reason why we have hidden volleys is basically to detect or to
Emre Sitti: see if long-lived particles really exist
Emre Sitti: apart from long live particles, as was mentioned in previous presentations, it gives us insights into unexplored phenomena, such as dark matter and exotics.
Emre Sitti: Letter being the focus of our project
Emre Sitti: which I would like to talk to you about, and especially
Emre Sitti: just give you a quick reason why we're interested in takes processes is because
Emre Sitti: Fcc Ehix factory mode is basically optimized for Zh production, which
Emre Sitti: maximize the 6,000 production rates which I can.
Emre Sitti: I would like to show you in the in the next slide. Here you can see,
Emre Sitti: the cross sections of different shared model processes involving Hicks, and you can see in the second plot on the right clearly that the
Emre Sitti: cross section, for that each pole is maximized around the energies.
Emre Sitti: Fccee will be operating so that that features the dominant background involved compared to the
Emre Sitti: dark, dark signals that we are interested in, or some visible jets which I will explain later in a bit.
Emre Sitti: And we are again interested in these processes specifically because
Emre Sitti: we can cover and learn more about exotic sdks, such as
Emre Sitti: involved or mentioned in Bsn physics, or which we would, which will be the focus of the talk. Today, we can learn more about dark showers.
Emre Sitti: So just to give you a quick overview of our model, we are basically interested in also a strongly confined dark sector, where we introduce for the moment to flavor of dark quarks
Emre Sitti: and a t 3 symmetry
Emre Sitti: apart from dark quarks and dark glow ons. We also introduce a dark photon which helps us detect the particles that decay into standard model
Emre Sitti: on top of introducing an axion like particle, which also allows some of the dark mesons
Emre Sitti: to to decay in those shared model particles.
Emre Sitti: And how do we access the certain sector? Well, we introduce a Hicks portal. So our production mechanism involves Hicks.
Emre Sitti: which I will show you here in this slide. So in an electron positron collider like Fccee, we are able to produce that H,
Emre Sitti: where, in our model, we assumed that to decay into standard model Leptons and Higgs to
Emre Sitti: couple to the dark clocks that we introduced.
Emre Sitti: and these dark quarks then later hadronized to the Dark Mesons. In our theory, which we assume to be
Emre Sitti: dark pions, these are detectors, table, and we assumed them to be
Emre Sitti: to to constitute the invisible sector. We assume the row 0 to decay into stereo model laptops and quarks.
Emre Sitti: the decay mechanism of which I will explain later, and we also assumed eta prime to decay into stern model photons and all the other particles in the dark sector we assumed or not particles, but mesons, we assumed them to be
Emre Sitti: detectors, tape, which might be good candidates for dark matter.
Emre Sitti: So how does this coupling actually work. We assume the we assume the Higgs to couple to dark quarks via Yukawa, like coupling.
Emre Sitti: Here we make the assumption that dark quarks are spin spin 0 to make sure the Lagrangian gauge invariant.
Emre Sitti: And here we introduce, or we make use of, 2 parameters to change the invisible fraction in our theory.
Emre Sitti: These are
Emre Sitti: parameters that are provided within the Ptr. For example, P. Eta is like the probability factor of eta prime meson produced over dark ions, which we assume to be stable.
Emre Sitti: And p rho is the fraction of dark vector mesons being row 0 and rho plus minus
Emre Sitti: to the pseudoscalar mesons being pions and eta prime, not theory.
Emre Sitti: So what kind of signature do we expect? Actually, we expect a signature where the Hicks basically produces 2 jets.
Emre Sitti: And these jets we call we. We specify them as semi-visible jets, because some of the particles that are mentioned here they decay into certain model, but some of them don't, and they constitute invisible fraction.
Emre Sitti: That's why the name semivisible chats
Emre Sitti: and the Z that is produced in the collision in the electron positron collision. It then produces dilepton dileptons like neons, as represented in this
Emre Sitti: in this plot, in this drawing.
Emre Sitti: So just to give you an idea of how do these particles that we assume to decay into stern model, decay into stern model. Here you can see that we introduce a dark photon to make sure we have a coupling between dark quarks and stern model fermions. And this is basically the mechanism that is necessary to make sure we have row 0 decaying into stern model quarks and stern model Leptons.
Emre Sitti: And here you can see the mechanism we introduced
Emre Sitti: for making sure eta prime couples to certain model protons.
Emre Sitti: So this part, where we have the axion, like particle and vector-like leptons. This basically effectively disappears in our calculations so effectively. The decay with gamma is given by this formula that only depends on the mass of the Eta prime, and this decay constant f eta prime.
Emre Sitti: Here you can see 2 plots representing branching fractions for dark row meson
Emre Sitti: which used 2 different approaches. So for theoretical considerations, it was not possible to
Emre Sitti: make the same predictions as
Emre Sitti: was possible with higher values of lambda in the lower mass in the lower value regime for lambda. So we use the dark cast framework to compute the branching fractions, as you can see here. We don't have electrons and muons for lower lambda confinement scale.
Emre Sitti: And here on this plot, you can see the branchings into other possible set model leptons and quarks.
Emre Sitti: and these bots I have to mention are for some specific choice of couplings in our theory which can be modified anytime
Emre Sitti: depending on what we want to
Emre Sitti: what enterprise points we want to have.
Emre Sitti: And here you can see the average fractions
Emre Sitti: represented independence of the confinement scale lambda.
Emre Sitti: So basically, we consider both of our particles, rho 0 and eta prime, which decay into standard model, and we try to compute what kind of retractions we would expect in our signature
Emre Sitti: by making the assumption that p eta, which is the probability factor of eta being produced over ions.
Emre Sitti: adding it to 0 point 2 5 and p rho, the probability, vector, the the fraction of rho mesons, vector mesons to pseudoscalar mesons, adding it to 0 point 7 5.
Emre Sitti: And these are the results again for the lower confinement scales we had to use a different approach and higher confinement scales. So that is why the plots seem different from each other
Emre Sitti: now to talk about the simulation. So we use Pta 8 Delphis to be more sophisticated. K for Hep to create our samples, and we use fast simulation within the Fcc. Software framework.
Emre Sitti: and we also use made use of the idea detector card where we introduced invisible particles
Emre Sitti: on top of my prinos.
Emre Sitti: We modified the detector card to make sure that invisible particles are not included in the jets in the jet clustering.
Emre Sitti: Then we analyze our samples. So we basically created 45 benchmark points in the parameter space of P. Eta. P. Rho and lambda, where these 2 parameters constitute the invisible fraction.
Emre Sitti: and we also made sure that
Emre Sitti: for our for our model we set Mpy over lambda to 2, and we made sure that the Romas obeys this lattice. Qcd. Result.
Emre Sitti: and again very invisible fraction. We just varied these 2 parameters.
Emre Sitti: So here you can see the
Emre Sitti: what backgrounds we use in our analysis. So why are these backgrounds necessary. In the 1st place, these are necessary because we expect similar signatures in our signal that are that are similar signatures to standard model processes like Z. Mu, H. And Ww.
Emre Sitti: and we have to consider these to make sure that we can differentiate our signal to those backgrounds.
Emre Sitti: And the selections we applied are basically listed here.
Emre Sitti: So we wanted to make sure we
Emre Sitti: choose neons with this energy and this repetitutor, rapid team
Emre Sitti: and the following selections are also made to make sure that in this process here I just
Emre Sitti: showing you that we are able to select events where that decays into Mu, and we consider the Svjs
Emre Sitti: from the Higgs in our model.
Emre Sitti: So
Emre Sitti: why are we interested in jet mass to? I will. I will, before I show you some plots. I want to explain to you why this is relevant. So the jet mass basically gives us direct information about the Higgs boson decay products, especially in scent model processes where we have hydronic decays. Hbb. But also in our case, where we assume Higgs to couple to dark sectors. So for dark showers, basically.
Emre Sitti: and for to make sure we, we reject the background. Here we assume a recording mass, for
Emre Sitti: here we consider recoiling that for background rejection, because it's more suited
Emre Sitti: for rejecting backgrounds and isolating events like that. H. But it does not directly contribute to reconstructing the Higgs product peaks properties.
Emre Sitti: So here I would like to show you some plots with jet mass. Basically, here we have our signal
Emre Sitti: and
Emre Sitti: some specific choice of our invisible, which is given by these 2 parameters. So depending on the choice of
Emre Sitti: these and variance of the other parameter, we get the following results, so here you can see, for example, for lambda equals to 10
Emre Sitti: in the leading jet mass plot, we are able to recognize the mass of the row in this
Emre Sitti: around that.
Emre Sitti: whereas for lambda equals one and lambda equals 2 we are, even though it's not that distinct. We are still able to recognize the peaks, for example, for lambda equals 2. We have the peak around 7 6 gev. For lambda equals one. We have the peak around 3 gev. Even though it's not that
Emre Sitti: well recognizable
Emre Sitti: here in this plot you can see how the leading jet mass, or the peak, or this peak around the leading jet mass for Lambda, 10 changes with respect to the invisible fraction.
Emre Sitti: So if we make the invisible fraction higher, then
Emre Sitti: we see a, we see an increase. If we, if we decrease the invisible fraction, we see an increase in the, in the number of events around this peak. So this
Emre Sitti: also reflects how are written visible, as it relates to the number of events around this peak.
Emre Sitti: and here you can see there is almost no difference for this choice of parameter which
Emre Sitti: we have to check specifically what this P. Eta describes.
Emre Sitti: Just a lot of just
Emre Sitti: show you that we expect a peak around here as well for this choice of lambda.
Emre Sitti: We, on top of that, we also did some sensitivity analyses. So here in these 4 plots, you can see for different choices of
Emre Sitti: parameters that comes to invisible fraction.
Emre Sitti: What kind of sensitivities we expect.
Emre Sitti: So here, if we scan over lambda, these are basically the plots that we would expect.
Emre Sitti: So in the lower mass, in the lower confinement scale regime confinement scale regime. We seem to be more sensitive than in the higher
Emre Sitti: towards protecting these seats.
Emre Sitti: Another thing that we analyzed is jet clustering algorithm. So
Emre Sitti: basically just to give you a quick summary of
Emre Sitti: the algorithms that we try to analyze. We have the Katie Durham exclusive algorithm which is defined by this.
Susan Gascon-Shotkin: To privacy.
Emre Sitti: Sorry.
Emre Sitti: So we have this definition of the metric in this in this jet clustering algorithm, and it's commonly used in e plus E, minus colliders for resolving jets in low Pt environments.
Emre Sitti: Another algorithm that we have just to quickly remind you is the anti Kt algorithm which is defined by this metric.
Emre Sitti: And what we try to do in our studies is to analyze the difference of these algorithms in
Emre Sitti: recognizing the peak that I just showed you.
Emre Sitti: So what we did is we 1st of all for the for these 3 colors green, black, and blue. We have the anti Kt algorithm where we changed R. And P. Which are specified parameters in the detector cart.
Emre Sitti: We can see, for example, here in this plot, that's
Emre Sitti: Katie Durham seems to be but
Emre Sitti: better in constructing the digest invariant mass for the standard model process that Qq.
Emre Sitti: Also. Here you can see that if if we zoom in Katie Durham
Emre Sitti: seems to have a sharper peak around the mass of Stat
Emre Sitti: or the stand model process. On the other hand, if we have a look at our signal. We see that the jet clustering
Emre Sitti: algorithm that is recommended for these processes, which is Katie Durham tenantly.
Emre Sitti: It does not reconstruct the mass peak that we expect around 35 gev. But anti-kt does a much better job in constructing this peak compared to Kt. Durham.
Emre Sitti: So this is basically the takeaway message of the of our analysis of jets clustering, and this would conclude my presentation.
Emre Sitti: Thank you so much for your attention.
Juliette Alimena: Okay, great thanks. A lot. Yeah. Also showing lots of nice progress questions.
Juliette Alimena: I think I would have
Juliette Alimena: one or or 2 perhaps a naive one. The sensitivity plots that that you used is this using combine, or some S over square root of s plus b.
Emre Sitti: I believe so.
Emre Sitti: I believe it uses the 1st one.
Juliette Alimena: Combined.
Juliette Alimena: Okay, cool. That. That's.
Emre Sitti: I have to check to give you a clear response. So I'm.
Cesare Cazzaniga: Yes, yes, it is using combined.
Juliette Alimena: Okay, cool. Well, especially for the the Atlas colleagues. That would be a good thing to to note on the slide for the future. Okay, no problem.
Juliette Alimena: Yeah, this is interesting.
Juliette Alimena: Oh, my other comment was the the thing you mentioned on Slide 12 sort of offhand. And it's not written on the slide. Was that you, you made sure to to modify the idea card such that invisible, sorry.
Emre Sitti: Exactly. Exactly. This is not only that's now that I realize. So what we wanted to do is we wanted to exclude invisible particles from the jets, because this was causing some problems in our in in further analysis.
Emre Sitti: and all the results that I've just shown you, they consider this fact that these invisible particles are not considered within jet clustering.
Juliette Alimena: Okay, I think this is an actual, actually important point to to note. And in future documentation, I suggest you. You write this quite clearly.
Emre Sitti: Yes, thank you so much.
Juliette Alimena: This is a big change with respect to what everyone else is doing.
Juliette Alimena: It's I. To me it seems totally fair, but once you note it.
Emre Sitti: Yeah, thank you so much.
Juliette Alimena: Other comments or questions.
Juliette Alimena: Okay, I'm not hearing any. Thanks a lot. Emery.
Emre Sitti: Thank you.
Juliette Alimena: We move on to the last talk today
Juliette Alimena: it's on H. And l's with Folsom. I think
Juliette Alimena: Jeremy will talk, talk, and show Gail slides. If I have understood correctly right, because she's sick, and she lost her voice.
Juliette Alimena: Yes.
Jeremy Andrea: Yes, exactly. She lost her voice, but still she's connected. So if I'm saying something totally stupid, Gail, please correct on the chat.
Juliette Alimena: We'll watch the chat.
Jeremy Andrea: Like
Jeremy Andrea: try to do as a good talk as she would have done. Let me go to full screen, maybe.
Jeremy Andrea: Okay. Can you see it.
Juliette Alimena: I mean when it went to full screen, it also went to black. I mean.
Jeremy Andrea: Okay.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Yeah.
Jeremy Andrea: So it's the wrong page again.
Jeremy Andrea: Oh, maybe I forget full screen. And I assume that it's good enough like this.
Juliette Alimena: It was big enough, I think.
Jeremy Andrea: Okay, so this is an update of the Hnl studies done by Gail, indeed, based on on Cld full simulation. So I will go a bit quick through the introductions that presented a few times here already.
Jeremy Andrea: But again, the idea is to have full simulation, so we can compare with facim and see the impact and see also where we have to improve the full team to to better match. What could be the expected performances? We try to do so, to reproduce the analysis or fraction of it of the
Jeremy Andrea: fast simulation that has been already published.
Jeremy Andrea: And yeah, you can find all the references to the model, and so on. There. This is not the latest and geometry of Cld, but for what we want to to test. It's it's by far good enough.
Jeremy Andrea: As a reminder we we faced issues with the tracking reconstruction in Cld. With this so-called conformal tracking
Jeremy Andrea: in the which, with the new geometry was not matching
Jeremy Andrea: what was expected for the performances of displaced vertex compared to the cld paper. So Gary notified that the issue was coming to a parameter of the pattern recognition that has to be adapted to match the new geometry.
Jeremy Andrea: So it's improved quite significantly. If you, if you don't go into the technical details, but if you look at the top and bottom plots
Jeremy Andrea: you see that the reconstruction is getting much closer to the generator the generation. This is the displacement.
Jeremy Andrea: the the vertex decon ends. If you want
Jeremy Andrea: Jen and Rico, and you see that we improve quite significantly their construction. Also, it's not 100%. Actually, so might be some. Some further optimization might be might be required.
Jeremy Andrea: along this this line. We also realize that the electron reconstructions, once you get the track, the electron reconstruction is also not not 100%.
Jeremy Andrea: It's see. So on the right side, you you, you see.
Jeremy Andrea: you see an illustration of this. The top is the electrode reconstruction distribution, and on the bottom is the track reconstruction, distribution. With each signal.
Jeremy Andrea: This has been spotted to be related to the particular floor construction. I think some experts are working on those for non displaced electrons. It's kind of. Okay. Also, there are some loss of efficiency observed.
Jeremy Andrea: But when we go for a high displacement, really, the efficiencies is is dropping, and we have to deal with that in in the analysis, I would come back to this later.
Jeremy Andrea: moving on with the tracking efficiency estimations this is tracking efficiency and fake rate for z into total and zoom into ee. And, as I expected, the efficiency is very high, and the fake rate is very low which is behaving as as it should be.
Jeremy Andrea: Then, if you look at this is for the background, then, and if you look at the signals, of course, the picture is a bit different. If you get a benchmark point that doesn't lead to huge displacement, you get a lower efficiency, but still quite high. In fact, this is as a function of Pt and Theta
Jeremy Andrea: But when you look at the benchmark points where the displacement start to be to be more pronounced
Jeremy Andrea: the efficiency is is significantly impacted. So this is the efficiency as function of the position of the generated vertex with respect to the origin.
Jeremy Andrea: the Pt. And the Theta distribution. So all this to say that in full simulation, in fast simulation, sorry, I think we take a hundred percent efficiency everywhere which might be
Jeremy Andrea: too optimistic. Now, it's true also that on the full SIM part, we have to improve this to to get closer to the 100% efficiency.
Jeremy Andrea: But for the time being, this is this is how it is.
Jeremy Andrea: Yeah. And how does this propagate to the reconstruction of the vertex? This is a comparison between the Gen. Vertex position and the liquid vertex position.
Jeremy Andrea: And you see that we can for follow displacement. There is basically no real issue.
Jeremy Andrea: But for high displacement.
Jeremy Andrea: it's it's it's it's impacting. And and also, okay, we can, we can still reconstruct up to something like 60 cm within the detector.
Jeremy Andrea: So once we have this. How do we proceed?
Jeremy Andrea: of course. the electron thing we it's something that we have to to deal with. So for benchmark that leads to not too large displacement, we'll probably leave with the electrons.
Jeremy Andrea: but for large displacement we have to look at the tracks, see if they are isolated from other tracks around, and see if it match any calorimeter.
Jeremy Andrea: A cluster.
Jeremy Andrea: And this is what we plan to do some sort of a low, level electronic construction. So we can, we can move on with the with the analysis.
Jeremy Andrea: You will see it has a severe impact on the signal selection
Jeremy Andrea: so far the event selection that we are testing there is a minimum
Jeremy Andrea: city cut on the electron.
Jeremy Andrea: We asked for 2 electrons with the opposite charge, and not compatible with the boson
Jeremy Andrea: and minimum missing transverse energy code.
Jeremy Andrea: And of course all this is not is not optimized yet. There is rooms for improvement a lot. Still, it gives a good idea of
Jeremy Andrea: of what it could be.
Jeremy Andrea: Then we'll construct the vertex, and ideally, if we can have a background control, this vertex decay length might be a good observable to base the the extraction of the signal.
Jeremy Andrea: So this is the cut flow table that has been prepared by Gail. Again, this is corresponding to cross section from the fascination paper that would multiply by a huge factor.
Jeremy Andrea: Why, just to see something on the slide, on the plots. Actually, otherwise, you don't see you don't see the
Jeremy Andrea: the signal a lot. And in the event. With that we it's you will see. It's difficult to extract the signal, I think.
Jeremy Andrea: H and l 3,050 is kind of where we have the largest displacement. And you see, judges asking 2 electrons is is reducing quite significantly the signal itself.
Jeremy Andrea: illustrating the impact of this bad electronic construction, and for a smaller displacement. It's kind. It's kind of okay.
Jeremy Andrea: This is the background. I would not go through all the numbers. But you see that? Indeed, we might have some Monte Carlo issues there in terms of statistics. Because, yeah, because once you ask for a little bit of displacement the background is strictly 0, while it's probably not the case.
Jeremy Andrea: so far, we produce our own samples because it's full simulation. And we with some somewhat small statistics, something like 50 50,000. If I recall properly, we might have to increase this a lot.
Jeremy Andrea: Some stacks, plot, stack plots illustrating a bit, the impact of the selections on some distributions, the Pt. Of the Leptons, Theta of the Leptons, the Dilepton invariant mass
Jeremy Andrea: the missing energy, transverse energy and the the the decay length. Here clearly, you see that that we need more statistics on on the Monte Carlo, and might not be easy to to to deal with that, in fact.
Jeremy Andrea: Yes.
Jeremy Andrea: I hope I'm not taking too much time. The conclusion is, we made some progresses on the reconstruction part. I think we're getting to a point where we can start really to implement the analysis code that has been done. It's made on Fcc analysis
Jeremy Andrea: using the official tools. And I think we are ready to move on there. The the basic bricks are there.
Jeremy Andrea: Now, we need to improve the electron reconstruction for displacement.
Jeremy Andrea: Optimize a bit to try to get back a bit of more efficiency, define more discriminating variables and systematics and extract the signal with a statistical tool
Jeremy Andrea: so the the analysis work is actually started. So.
Juliette Alimena: Great thanks so much. Jeremy and and Gail questions.
Juliette Alimena: I have maybe a basic one on Slide 8.
Juliette Alimena: I'm I worry. I missed something fundamental. How can you have one value for Max, cell angle for signal and another value for for background.
Jeremy Andrea: We cannot. Of course, I think it's just. It's just not take our generation. That has been one way or the other. Also.
Jeremy Andrea: also does not have a huge effect on on the background. Indeed, but for sure, for the final production, we we need to use the same value. Yes.
Juliette Alimena: Okay. Okay.
Jeremy Andrea: Yeah, yeah, good. Catch. Yeah.
Juliette Alimena: Well, it's in purple and orange. I had to see it, so we're not hiding.
Jeremy Andrea: Anything. Yeah.
Juliette Alimena: Yeah, indeed, indeed, thank you.
Juliette Alimena: Other questions or comments.
Juliette Alimena: Well, I think things are progressing here. We have clear next steps.
Juliette Alimena: It's clear to me more or less clear to me. So thanks very much.
Juliette Alimena: Okay. I think that's about it. Unless there's any other urgent business.
Juliette Alimena: Did I skip anything, Rebecca, otherwise we close the meeting here.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: I thought it was not muted so he was talking to you so. No, no, I think it's all fine. Sorry, I mean I should have, I should have just.
Juliette Alimena: Okay, great thanks, everyone. And in general, if you have updates, please let us know. And we are happy to call a meeting. And probably there's other people who want to show an update as well as you can tell from this meeting, so I think there's no time to have another meeting still this year. So everyone, please have an excellent break, and as you come up with updates, please ping us in the New Year, and we can organize a meeting. Thanks so much.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Thank you.
Pantelis Kontaxakis: Thank you. Bye.
Juliette Alimena: Bye, bye.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Bye, bye.
Juliette Alimena: There!
Vasiliki Mitsou: Bye, bye.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: I.