Doing so what?
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.
I'm…
No, it is 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 theorists that had presented in a talk
But as CMS exists, there is not a new line. So I just want to check that. It's okay.
It was…
to discuss.
Just to clarify, I actually just checked it behind the scene. You're right. It's a theory paper extrapolating the Atlas and CMS limits to highlight.
Okay, so…
This is…
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 green, bigger FCCE EE,
Is this the old theory one or is the one that we usually show from analysis?
um so i
And again, probably very quickly
I think this is the old theory one also because it goes down and you should not go below the 5 gv
Yeah, these are just the lines that come from that UCL website that Rebecca
Yeah. Okay. Okay. So before we do all this, we're going to go through the whatever has been discussed. Okay. Okay. Thank you. And then instead your line is the blue one that says this study.
Yeah, yeah.
Correct? Okay. And you have as a as a distance as a long lift just that cut on that is zero
Yeah, exactly. So it's i mean it's very conservative because we don't really have the statistics to
try to see them.
Yes.
Right. No, no, I'm not, you don't have to justify. It's just for me to understand what to compare with what okay
Yeah, so I think what I was trying to go for here is assuming that what we might like is to have, say, the EE plot
And the EJJ and any other
getting the same
Of course. Yeah.
on the same foot.
but yeah i mean
Yeah.
Yes. Yes. That's the final goal. Yes. Not terribly easy but you know it will be the final goal. What I'm more concerned now for the strategy are really also the other curves.
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 don't generate
Yeah.
discussion. Okay, thank you. I don't want to keep too much time. I see many hands.
I want to comment something here that for our own final plot, we don't need necessarily to add
Absolutely not. No.
Atlas and CMS if they have not updated so but
What I'm thinking is that what we would want to do is for the challenge we don't have, try to extrapolate in some way. So something to discuss altogether.
Yes, we can keep it in just FCC. I mean, I think that having a plot like this now, it's good for our internal thing. But even in your note, 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 times. 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 iLumi, 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.
Okay, I think we're going to need to move on a bit, but there was also a question about the luminosity
Right. And then our
Yeah, that's where you can pick offline for now, I think.
Okay, we can keep it offline.
I think it's good that you have, I think it's good to have for now everything with 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 will take it offline we'll discuss in another
they can have a decision for now just let's be consistent with the past.
Okay, thank you, Patricia.
It's much easier.
So…
And I actually think so. So is this temporary thing then are we using 205 or are we using 150?
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.
So the thing is that the thing is
Arden is…
Either of those numbers are the numbers we have been using though.
Yeah, so that's fine.
I have gathered a link there. Patricia, can you confirm that this note that is in the new repository, there is a new CDS?
It's the same as what you are sharing in the website.
Why do we go through a million notes we put it on the main web page
Okay, well, let me…
I don't know. Let me go here.
I'll post here the link.
Can you share the main page then i think maybe it's better okay
Yes, just one second. I'll do it. You can take the other questions. I will just
Exactly.
Alright, we should move it up because we are very delayed. But I think Jan was the first that raised the hand and then Jeremy Soyan, please go ahead.
Can you hear me?
Actually, can we actually move on to my talk? Because I don't have a lot of time. I know it was a little late, but I do have to go in about 20 minutes. So can we…
maybe push these questions to a later time?
Technically, you have 10 minutes for your talk plus five of comments, but okay. I mean, Jeremy, maybe you can also write it down in the chat so sarah can answer.
before she has to leave also then let's try to do it that way.
So very quickly, the blue and the red lines are from my LHC study.
Is this what Siri curves and the green one is an old Siri curve which is which should be updated.
Okay.
Okay, thank you.
My point is two seconds. It's really we are interested in discussing this analysis with you also and in particular about the benchmark points
So we can interact offline. We'd be very happy to talk to you.
Yeah, sounds great. Just send me an email.
It's very nice.
All right, very good. So then thank you so much, Sarah, again. It's very nice update and we get to reach her then.
Sarah, can you stop in sharing? Sorry.
There you go.
Wonderful. Buena.
Yes, it did not crash this time. Okay.
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, thank you for the invitation. And so, yeah, I just wanted to give a kind of a summary looking at
Beyond the EE program.
Because we've accumulated a lot, a lot of numbers and promising outlook for the FCC HH, which is a companion for the FCCE, LHLHC program. And so this is also more generally about neutrino mass models.
So the big picture is that we know that neutrino masses are an issue and we have to reconcile this with data.
with the standard model. But one of the things I like to emphasize is that we really like right head of 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
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 important part is that the the
Anything that you hypothesize to solve
the lightness of neutrinos, they have to couple to the standard model Higgs somehow they have to
coupled to the standard model leptons, obviously two neutrinos. And this often introduces lepton number 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. Implicitly in all of this stuff, there is some lepton flavor violation going on there.
And while we can't
Well, it's difficult to verify electron number violation at FCCE, it's not maybe impossible.
And so the intent is to just give us sort of a snapshot
of the FCC and particularly HH sensitivity to neutrino mass models. This isn't our first rodeo. You know, we had the snow mass exercises in North America the past couple of years, and there's also the
previous European strategy update and
The FCC EE program is a very mature program. But the FCCH program, we can still use 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
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 lumina RCD-LHC region, the FCC HH reach. And there's also newer work, stuff with Patricia, Rebecca and
And Julia, of course. And there's newer stuff by the community. So I'm just going to kind of sample a couple of things and this will not be an exhaustive talk.
But I'll just kind of skip into where I had neutrinos just because this is one of the more
popular things and um
Unfortunately, I had a connection problem, so I couldn't go before Sarah. But yes, the benchmarks that are typically used is that you consider either a Dirac, pseudo Dirac or Dirac-like or myrata
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 drac or Myrana
situations as benchmarks for discovery purposes is that realistically you're either going to get um
sort of a sub GE view of Myron estates or a pseudodrac states that can be at any mass scale.
But anyway, I won't say much about this. This is a previous plot with Julia and company and uh 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-gener facilities can probe the simplest leptogenesis scenarios with right-handed neutrinos.
Going beyond that, if you are considering heavier fellows at the TEV or 10 TV skills, you're actually able to get quite far into the ultra high masses.
Was there a question or? Okay, that's fine.
And of course, if you do discover something, one of the first 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 in lepton number violating processes.
It often is said that the differences between direct and Majorana states, that's not quite true because the Amarana state can
can conserve can contribute to lepton number conserving processes. The difference in kinematics stems from whether or not you're looking for a lepton number conserving a leptin number, violating process. And that's where the differences of the kinematics come from.
It's not a direct versus Myrana. It's left on number conservium versus lepton number violating policies. Okay, so 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.
searches for same sign WW scattering at the LHC is a high energy realization of nutrientless double beta decay. And there are numbers already at the LHC with searches of vector boson scattering, you're able to
limit.
set an upper bound on the effective myurata mass for neutrinos at the 10 GeV scale. For the electron, this is constrained more
stringently, of course, that nutrient list double beta decay experiments, but it should be emphasized that this is actually the first
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 first time
And it's the first constraints on the mixed flavor channels. And so the projections are at the 10 GeV level for high lumi and at the
At 100 TV collider down to the GEV or subGEV. 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 ever violation. That's why it's kind of important to do these broad tests.
Going beyond these simplest models, you also have a type two seesaw which
is one of the three canonical sea salt scenarios. I also think it's one 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
That's how kind of that's how
precise. 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
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 and multiply it. And this neutral fellow acquires a vacuum expectation value after electrical symmetry breaking. And so it's this tiny, you know, sub EV scale VEV is
what's going to generate neutrino masses through this dimension four operator. So you have the Lagrangian, which is you take the lepton doublet, another lepton doublet, and the scalar. And then after a little S2 algebra.
You're able to generate left-handed minor masses.
And what's kind of cool about models like a type 2 seesaw or variants on that
is that because you don't have right-handed neutrinos, you have fewer mixing parameters, you have fewer Yuka couplings.
You still have your color couplings. You just have fewer of them. 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 Eucola couplings are equal to elements of the PMNS matrix. So this would be, say, the diagonal mass matrix for the neutrino. So, you know, elements one, two, three, the PMNS matrix, and that's the eucalyas.
And therefore, when you start taking it, if you're to discover these sort of particles, these doubly or singly charged scalars, and then start taking the ratios
of their branch two leptons, you start seeing oscillation parameters and oscillation features being imprinted and showing up
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 oscillation behavior, the oscillation parameters reminiscent
of here, normal ordering versus inverse ordering
In these decay rates because it's encapsulated by
what's already been measured at oscillation experience. So this is a great example of the complementarity between collider experiments and oscillation experiments, where the oscillation
parameters measured at neutrino experiments are being
fed as inputs for collider predictions.
And again, some of the newer stuff or at least past couple of years for the snowmass studies and uh
And this round of strategy updates is that we have predictions uh you know
for Collider Collider rates as a function of mass. And what's important to you is that these scalars, they have gauge couplings. And so the predictions are fixed. We know exactly
what their cross sections
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 still do the searches. But we've
put all of our tools online so you could just download your favorite UFO and try to do studies for, say, FCCEE. And there's, you know, like the heavy neutrinos
Exactly charged scalers can have several production mechanisms, gluon fusion, vector boson scattering, drill yen, gamma gamma, and of course we have our reach plots.
Going beyond the
traditional tree levels. Some of the newer stuff is also trying to expand into uh the
the loop level models. Rebecca or Julio, how am I on time? I think I have like, what, like two minutes left.
One may, okay. Okay. Well, I'm just about done anyway. So what I want to say is that the ZBabu models, again, another example in which you're able to generate neutrino masses without hypothesizing a right-handed neutrinos. And you just do this by introducing enough scalars with SU2 hypercharge quantum numbers
Actually, in this case, SC2 singles, but you give them hypercharge. And again, you assign them lepton numbers and you're able to generate
You treat them as radiatively. And it's this coupling between the different scalars that breaks subtend or induces non-zero neutrino masses.
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…
back at the end of 2022 and beginning of 2023, that Atlas had the first constraint
This is a reinterpretation of the results, but this was the first test of the first direct search for Zabu.
scalers at any
high energy facilities. So this is relatively new and you know there are course search sensitivities up to several tv
at 100 TV.
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 leptocorx. I didn't even talk about type 3 seesaws.
I didn't cover
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
error on the side of caution, explore broadly and build up this large portfolio, physical portfolio for the future collider scenarios. So yeah.
That's all I have.
Thank you very much, Rita. This actually was quite interesting and we don't get to think about high energy super often in here. So I think it's kind of nice to have this option as well.
So I don't know if anybody has any comments or questions for Richard.
We're a little bit delayed, so maybe that is not too bad, but I wanted to check with you. Do you know if has anybody contacted you
Do you have any idea if this kind of proposal things would be already included in our study report, the one that we are preparing for the strategy?
Yeah.
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 NOMAS.
I think Tavong Yu was a point person, but actually I haven't heard much from him.
So I think it would be useful to try to incorporate these numbers
You know, there's something we, I think we missed the deadline for doing it through the French community. I thought I thought I saw Eric and a couple other people from the French community who might be able to call in. Is it too late for
contributions for the French input.
Like Suzanne, would you know?
uh uh
Yeah, I thought so.
in a first approximation, yes, I think also Jeremi maybe could comment but
We had a deadline that was actually pushed back, but it was…
I believe it was November 18th or
16th to have the two page, I mean, it was the same deal have the
have a two-page summary.
of contributions, but maybe offline I can, or I don't know if Jeremy are you still connected you can
Yes.
I can go on the page and see if there's a possibility to slip in things still.
Yeah, because, you know.
Well, yeah, continue.
yeah sorry the
Ah.
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 the deadline.
Okay.
Also, we are wrapping up a bit, the contents, but for sure it will be it will be considered for for march we have an intermediate meeting in January. That's why we had this
This deadline a couple of weeks ago
Yeah, it's the jasoom meeting yeah the reason why I mentioned the French…
Yeah, 20th and 21st.
Yes.
Yeah, the reason why I mentioned the French is that one, I already have some stuff with Benjamin Fuchs, who also worked on some of this stuff, but also
Yeah, okay, yeah.
possibly combining forces with uh anna
at the Team Claremont, because we just have so many plots
That it'd be nice to just do something.
Rachel, sorry, I need to leave for another meeting. But I guess you are in the list of the FCCHH meetings.
And you know that there is one next week.
So maybe that's the place where you want to present and talk to Michelangelo and the people taking care of the FCCHH.
Okay.
There is also, you know, we are finalizing the agenda for January and there will be an FCCHH session as well
And…
Well, yeah, it's also the kind of the travel schedule to CERN. You know, I have a young kid and it's
Yeah.
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
There is a meeting for the FCCHH 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
Since it's FCC is to go through the people that are doing the FCCh
material in general if you want to.
Okay.
trying to say. So there was an email yesterday. I haven't seen, I haven't checked when is the meeting exactly uh but maybe you want to check and see if you can sleep in a five minutes presentation.
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, Patricia. I appreciate it. I must have missed that.
I mean, Patrick, if you could share it with us also, because I don't have that meeting so
Anyway.
Yeah, it's another mailing list where people needs to be. So maybe you just
Add up.
Yeah, it will be good to know about it.
Because, I mean, at this point, I think it's fine. We don't have super many things, but it will be nice to keep an eye on all this kind of status like this one.
to follow them up because I think it's kind of a cool thing to have
Jeremy, are you adding up on something now?
Yeah, just to mention, the French thing is a national effort
And it doesn't supersede the FCC8H path. So I would recommend you go there first and we'd be happy to receive your contribution to the French national effort.
but it doesn't uh
it has to go through the FCC path for sure, in my opinion.
Okay. Thank you, Jeremy. And thanks to both Sarah and Patricia for the very least. I certainly was not in it. So I just sign up now.
Yeah, thank you.
All right, 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 will keep in touch with you. I will send you an email with the phone also so you can also keep an eye on that.
And now we move on to Mina about the search for action-like particles decaying into a pair of gluons.
Are you ready?
Hi. Yes. Hi, everyone.
Let me share the screen.
Okay, I think slice are visible.
There.
Okay.
So today I will give you update on our search for a giant light particles weakened into a pair of clones.
So a giant-like particle is a potential candidate that can help to understand strong CP problem.
dark matter and Bjorn Standard of Physics.
So currently we are studying the ALP sensitivity at FCC electron positron collider at the central mass energy 91 cv and
luminosity currently we used 150 Autobahn universe
And we used the available latest fast simulation FCC card.
So signal process include electron positron jacket to form a gamma plus egg giant and an egg giant digging further into diplomes.
And we have considered branching ratio and going to diagonal to 100%.
based on LP linear model, more detail can be found in this paper
And here is the filament diagram on the left hand side is for signal and on the right hand side for background gum.
margin or dichama.
And the fourth generation we have generated signal and background process using metadata and which are used for bottom showering and heteronization
And currently we used idea of our simulation device card
And I'll see selection and protein are done with the meta-analysis framework.
So coming to next slide.
So it is little bit about a giant story. So this language equation here shown represent how x-run interact with the
standard water particle after a spontaneous material breaking
And there is a relation between coupling before and after the SSP. So CGG, CVP, CWW, and C5.
field, and U1 hypercharged gauge boson field and Higgs field.
Before SSP and then coupling
denoted by c a gamma gamma repair gen coupling agent, gamma gma
And C. Maji Ripajan, coupling of egg giant uga Maji.
After the SSD.
And there is regulation between CA gamma gamma and equal to CBB equals k theta plus c w times k theta divided by the new fogit scale.
And also for coupling of egg and gammaji coupling that is equal to 2 cos theta sine theta cww minus cvb divided by the new physics scale.
And so for ALP linear model, it's going to diclone. So important parameter are CGG, CWW, CVB, C5, and H and mass.
Coming to the next slide.
So currently we have applied some selection to select benchmark point
So we have considered that egg giant must decay within the tracker volume while keeping a signal cross-section at least 10% of total background.
And we have considered branching. So Virgin went into clone balloon 100%.
So flight distance can be calculated using the beta gamma sitau formula betta is the
equal to H cross over the cave width
and decrease and beta gamma can be calculated using this formula
So flight distance depends on the mass of egg joint and cg
And the constraint on CGG is that
must be less than 1% to avoid unphysical large decay width of egg going to gamma gamma.
Then from these two conditions we can select CGG, then we have to select CW and CBV.
So for this we have to make sure that a giant going to gamma gamma are not happen in our channel.
So for this we have to make coupling of 2 gamma gamma equal to 0 and from that we can get this relation that we have to take CVB equal to minus 0.3
CWW.
And the second constraint on the CW and CBB is
coming from the decay weight of three going to xine plus comma and it must be less than 2.3 it is to power minus 3 gb that is coming from the total gtk width uncertainties
And the third constraint on the CW and CVBs that currently we consider signal cross-section greater than 10% of total background cross section
And the total background cross section is to
200, 250 pico barn.
So coming to next slide. So here is the result for benchmark point selection. On the left hand side uh the flight distance is shown
As a function of egg joint muscle nexus and CG
CGG over FA on the y-axis.
And so here are the black rippur giant fly distance for 0.1 centimeter green one is for 1 centimeter and blue one is for
50 centimeter. So initially we can select CGC from here then on the right hand side
there is a constraint for the upper limit of CGG.
that register of dk width over gamma, it must be less than one percent
So from this constant we had to take CGJ below this curve.
So this is all for cgg then uh
Selection for CWW.
is the bottom plot showing for the cross section
And X accesses represent agendas, y-axis represent CWW over FAA.
and held the blackout repurgent cross section equal to 20 picobound. So we have to take above this curve
And the upper limit on CCW is coming from the GDK width.
So this is the coupling value we have to take
For CWW and 4CB it's just a minus 0.3 into CW2.
Coming to next slide. So here is the initial result for some benchmark points so we
used CGG call to 0.2 c0.9, CBV minus 0.7
So if I call to zero and for different mass of egg giant like 20, 30, 40 gb
And FSL is used 1 TV and total number of event are generated 1 million.
So our final selection is required that we have at least one gamma and at least two checks in the 1L state.
So initially, GAMI required a half PT greater than 50 GV and jets are clean against gamma
using the delta R condition greater than 0.5.
So then row events are normalized with the luminosity into
cross-section divided by the total number of generated events.
then sensitivity is calculating using the
ratio of number of signal event divided by the sum of signal event plus background and scale root of that.
And on the left hand side pro, the number of chats are shown after at least one gamma selection.
And we can clearly see that it's a peak around two jets and here the blue
and black one for 40 GB.
And on the right hand side are digest mass are shown after at least 1 gamma plus at least two jets.
And the mastermas and here we can see that 20 it's around 20, 430 and 40 G.
And below is the table.
In which sensitivity and selection efficiency is shown.
So the first column represent different MC sample and last row repergance background
sample that is gamma plus charges
And second column shows cross section corresponding to MC sample and the third is represent row number of event
As uncertainties and uh
Then fourth column repents event after normalization
And then fifth column represents selection efficiency uh
and the last repugen sensitivity.
So the difference between these two section of the table is that was in the blue color where gamma pt is taken 50 gb on the right
And in the red color PD card is 20 GB.
So for the
So if you use 20 gb that selection sensitivities increased and background contribution
reduce from 35 to 22%.
Coming to next slide. So future plan is to is that melt analysis limit is already set for
sensitive analysis, but we have to further optimize event selection for the grandmast and benchmark point
And to complete the analysis for us to benchmark points.
So thank you.
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
And so Juliet has the hand raised, so please juliet, go ahead.
Yeah, thanks a lot, Mina. This is showing really nice progress. I just had a simple question, really. Well, maybe two very…
Quick questions.
Yeah.
Why are you using mad analysis and not FCC analysis for the analysis?
Parts.
Our first target is to publish a female papers.
Okay.
Yeah.
Okay, great. And then just a simple one on the previous slide. For the right plot where you have the mass, I can hardly see the background in the plot. So maybe consider the y-axis changing it to log scale.
Depending on how your optimization goes, if this version of the plot sort of sticks around.
But I didn't put here. So, okay.
No problem.
Yeah, next time. Yeah.
Thanks.
This was also my comment, actually, in that plot because I was having it hard to see the background.
Okay. Thank you, Juliet. So we have suzanne also with a comment or question
Go ahead.
Yes, thanks a lot, Mina.
So I just had a question about, okay, you obviously just wanted to start by choosing a benchmark point, but
On slide four, so this requirement of the signal cross section being bigger than 10% of the
Total background section, was this just to assure that you
would be able to see signal events. I mean, I mean, you just
kind of like qualitatively
that threshold or was there something else behind
I think, yes, but we can check sensitivity for the low cross section also.
then we can decide.
Actual or…
cross section values we have to skip for
benchmark point selection.
Okay, I realized this was just a first iteration to try to get from beginning to end so that it's really good. I just wanted to
see what was behind it. So thanks. Thanks a lot.
Thank you.
Very good. 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.
Thank you.
And now I hand over to Juliet to continue the chairing of this meeting.
Thanks. Okay, so next in principle, we have Emanuele, but I know that Emery and Anna Paola need to leave by 2.30, I believe.
Is it okay, Anna Paula, for example, if we go with Emanuele following the schedule, or should we bump you up?
I think it's fine.
Okay. Emmanuela.
Okay, can you hear me? Hello?
Yes.
Okay, let me share my screen.
Okay.
Right. All right.
Nope.
Okay. Okay, so good afternoon, everyone. Today I will give you some update about this work that was previously introduced by my supervisor Basilicki who is also connected.
So this is about the use of two particle angular correlations to investigate
new physics at future replacement collider. So our previous work was performed for ILC and now we are trying to stand for FCCE.
So first of all, what do I mean by two particular angular correlations? So these observable are powerful method 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.
Once we define the difference in rapidity and the azimotal angle of two final state particles, we can define the two particle angular correlation function.
which is given by the given
ratio of the density of particle price of particle price produce
within the same event.
Anthos produced in different events.
So these observables have been largely studied in proton, proton, proton-led, lead-lead collision, you see plus C minus.
And what we can notice here is the appearance of a reach in
in all of them and in general for instance for level-led coalitions, the reason of this reach is given
is considered to be given by a querclon plasma effects.
So our goal here is to study correlation and to consider it as a tool for investigating new physics.
What do I mean by new physics?
So we consider the hidden valet scenario in which by Hidden Valley referral to a wide class of models, which the standard model gauge group is extended by a new group.
under which we have a new class of particles called phi particles which are
natural under standard model particles under the standard model gauge group
And then we have a communicator
which is charged it under both groups yeah
The specific hidden ballet model we consider is acoustic-like scenario in which our communicator is denoted by FB.
which has to be perproduced and which is to be considered as the mirror partner of standard model charged leptons and quartz.
And this is supposed to dedicate promptly into what into a visible particles and the so-called big quarks and then we have
the other organization this is the way on the left the way to produce such particles in proton-proton collision but we are interested in Iplasi-manios collisions as they provide a much cleaner environment in particular
As in nature, we consider the perturbation in conventional QCD cascade and final organization. In particular, we investigate if there is any anomaly in angular correlations.
So this analysis is performed at detector level. We consider the truss axis
Then the tools employed are PTI-8 for Monte Carlo Haven Generator, then for fast detector simulation we use sgv30 that was previously used for ic studies and then for the analysis we consider IC soft and root.
We consider a center of mass energy of 240
As a signal, we consider the production of the so-called GB, which is our communicator, which is the case in water into a deep quark and weak quarks and gluons.
And the main contribution is for the background is given by QQ bar production in association with initial state radiation.
And WW, which the case in four quirks.
As you can see here from this table.
We have the standard model background, which gives a contribution which is
two or up to two order magnitudes bigger than our
hidden valley signal so we need to apply some cuts in order to reduce as much background as possible.
So here we applied some changes in the LD geometry by adapting it for FCCE. So here you can see the difference between ILD at LC and ILD at FCC and here are listed the main
the main changes and as you can see there is a reduction of the forward region here available which will affect somehow
our analysis let's see how
So here we have in our case, the injecting variant mass distribution
For a standard model from some hidden valley signal
And which indicates which knockouts are still applied.
And as you can see here, around the Z peak, there is
there is a large overlap between standard model
signal between the standard model background and our signal.
So we need to act there a bit. So we tried by applying some cuts used for ALC, which are no secondary vertices in the number of neutral particle from objects
to be less than 22 and charged at once less than 50 and 15 and we applied some cuts on the emission angle of the photon from ion's initial state radiation.
And it's energy and then i cut on digit
invariant mass.
And also I got on the energy associated with the leading jet.
So these cards
turns out to be not as effective as other lc and this is due to the limited coverage in the forward region.
Which makes the ICR photon detection less efficient. So for FCC, we need re-optimization and we are still working on that.
Here I can show you some plots and the difference between ILC and FCC in terms of digging variant mass jets so here
the ejecting variant mass. So here you have for uh in red
what we have for uh what we had for ilc which we have a peak at 250 with back jack
And here we have a large contribution
For FCC uh from uh
radiative returns as we consider some ISR photons to escape undetected.
And here you have an intermediate region.
So…
But by applying these cards for the previous mentioned cuts for LDFCC,
We had a ratio signal over background equal to one and it needs to be
reoptimized and we need a refinement
But what we can see that
Regardless that we still
observe something in the angular correlations observable and still they turn out to be a powerful
tool. As you can see here in the left you have the standard model
distribution here you have pure hidden valley in which we consider the just uh
as benchmark
the b mass of 120 gb and the v quarks mass of 10 gv
So if we consider the health function, which is obtained by integrating the angular correlation functions into delta y
range.
And we focus on the Delta Y range, which is from minus 1.6 and to 1.6.
What we observe here is this
still this bump that was for also for ILC.
And so which is, as you can see here red which is
absent for uh for the case of our standard model.
And here you have very preliminary sensitivity in which we consider both a contribution from the statistics
statistical and statistical
And the systematic uncertainties and still we found some good
sensitivity here.
So this is to be taken since it's very preliminary work we need to refine cuts and
and investigate better. But so far it still looks promising.
And so this brings to my conclusions. So the analysis of the long range
angular particle violation can provide insights into the initial state of the matter.
And studying the subsurvival could be useful to uncover the existence of new physics. And I want to remark this to be
considered complementary to conventional searches.
And right now we are working for FCCE in order to study
Subtocervable
We are trying to re-optimize re-atomize.
re-optimizing that. So thank you so much and
I hope I'm…
I'm inside. Thank you so much.
Thank you. Just a little late, but I didn't chair very well so
No worries.
Sorry, I tried to, yeah, I'm sorry
Absolutely.
Thank you. This is very nice progress. So I see a question from Emre.
Hello, can you hear me?
Yes.
Yep.
I just have a really quick question. First of all, thank you so much for the talk.
I was just wondering in slide 10,
there is a…
Okay.
240 GeV.
Yes. Mm-hmm.
similar thing happened to
Hear Emil?
Or…
Okay.
Yeah, there. Yeah, they're the red signal
Mm-hmm.
We had a very similar signature in our analyses and we were not able to quite understand why that peak appears around 240 GeV.
Would you maybe have an explanation for that?
So this is…
Well, what…
I'd say this is due to…
So, uh.
back-to-back reconstructive jets
But not really.
Yeah, we don't.
Actually, because we are considering our season, we are focusing on our single region
So…
Yeah, I see.
Actually, but yeah, maybe it's due to
back-to-back jets that can be
Yeah.
I have to admit it wasn't relieving to see that you also have that peak because I was thinking maybe we did something wrong in our analysis or
No, it's still…
But seeing this peak appear also yeah
Yep. Yep.
Thank you so much.
So yeah, I guess it's cucumber production here is the main
contribution from ISR?
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
just to be taken as preliminar so hopefully we will give some progresses with
the fundamental earn cards soon.
and some more consistent.
For instance.
Okay. Other questions?
Okay. In the interest of time, thanks a lot, Emmanuele. And we move on to the next talk.
Sorry for being a bit late. Sorry.
No, no, no. Don't worry.
Okay.
We move on directly to Emory.
I just want to make sure you can hear me well because I have really bad
headphones i hope you can hear me well
For the most part, yeah. For half a second, it seemed a little low, but then you came back.
Yeah. Sorry.
So I think it's fine.
Can you see the slide?
Okay. Yes.
I'm not absolutely full screen yet, but I think they're good enough that if you needed to go like this, ah, there they are, full screen.
Cool. Ahead, please.
Perfect. Thank you.
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 anapaula, who is also attending today's workshop.
Basically, I would like to talk to you about
a model that we built that can be tested in FCCE
and the selections that we applied
the analysis that we made
but to quickly
give you an overview of what is necessary in our model is
I prepared this short slide about hidden volleys. It's basically a framework that is introduced to
explain behavior of
suppose particles beyond standard model
the main reason why we have hidden volleys is basically to detect or to
see if long-lived particles really exist.
apart from the long-lived particles, as was mentioned in previous presentations, it gives us insights
into unexplored phenomena such as dark matter and exotic Higgs decays.
letter being the focus of our project.
Which I would like to talk to you about.
and especially just to give you a quick reason why we're interested in fixed processes is because
FCC eHeix factory mode.
basically optimized for z production optimized production
which maximizes 6 boson production rates.
Which I would like to show you in the next slide here.
the cross sections of different standard model processes involving Higgs
And you can see in the second plot on the right
clearly that's the
cross-section for that age pole
is maximized around the energies.
FCCEA will be operating.
So that is the dominant background.
involved compared to the
dark signals that we are interested in or semi-visible jets, which I will explain later in a bit.
And we're, again, interested in these processes specifically because
we can discover and learn more about exotic higs decays such as
involved or mentioned in BSM physics or which will be the focus of the talk today we can learn more about dark showers
So just to give you a quick overview of our models.
we are basically interested in also a strongly confined dark sector
where we introduce for the moment two flavor of dark quarks
And to symmetry.
apart from dark quarks and dark loons, we also introduced a dark photon which
helps us detect the particles that decay into standard model.
on top of introducing an axion-like particle
which also allows some of the dark mesons
to decay in the standard model particles.
And how do we access the hidden sector? Well, we introduce a Higgs portal
So our production mechanism involves Higgs.
Which I will show you here in this slide.
So in an electron positron collider like FCCE,
we are able to produce that h
Where in our model, we assumed that to decay into standard model electrons
and Higgs to
coupled to the dark plugs that we introduced.
And these dark quarks then later hadronize to
the dark mesons in our theory
which we assume to assume
dark pions.
These are detectors stable and we assumed them to be uh
to constitute the invisible sector.
we assume the row zero to decay into sterimodal leptons and quarks
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
the sector steep.
which might be good candidates for dark matter.
So how does this coupling actually work? We assume the Higgs to couple to dark quarks via a UCARA-like coupling.
here we make the assumption that dark quarks are spin zero to make sure the Lagrangian gauges invariant.
And here we introduce or we make use of two parameters to change the
invisible fraction in our theory
These are 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.
And P rho is the fraction of dark vector mesons being row zero and row plus minus.
to the pseudoscaler mesons being pions and eta prime not here.
So what kind of signature do we expect actually? We expect a signature where the Higgs
basically produces two jets
And these jets, we specify them as temu 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 the invisible traction
that's why the name uh ten invisible Chats.
And the Zet that is produced in the electron positron collision
it then produces dileptons like muons as represented in this
in this plot in this
Drawing.
So just to give you an idea of how do these particles that we assume to decay into certain model decay into stern model
Here you can see that we introduced a dark photon to make sure
we have a coupling between dark quarks and stereot fermions.
And this is basically the mechanism that is necessary to make sure
we have row zero duking into certain mobile products and several leptons.
And here you can see the mechanism introduced
for making sure it's a
couples to certain model photons
So this is the part where we have the axial light particle and vector-like leptons
This basically effectively disappears in our calculations. So effectively, the decay width
gamma is given by this formula
that only depends on the mass of the eta prime and this decay constant f eta prime.
Here you can see two plots representing branching fractions for dark row meson.
which use two different approaches. So for theoretical considerations, it was not possible to
make the same predictions as the same predictions
as possible with higher values of lambda in the lower value regime for lambda. So we use the dark test.
framework to compute the branch infractions.
As you can see here, we dominantly have electrons and mounds for lower
Lambda confinement scale
And here on this plot, you can see the branchings into other possible cell model.
leptons and quarks
And these bots, I have to mention are for some specific choice of couplings in our theory, which can be modified anytime.
Depending on what we want to
what management points we want to have.
And here you can see the average fractions
are represented in dependence of the confinement scale lambda.
So basically, we consider both of our particles row zero and eta prime, which decay into standard model, and we tried to compute
what kind of retractions we would expect in our signature.
by making the assumption that
P eta which is the
probability factor of eta being produced over
ions setting it to 0.25 np rho the probability vector
the fraction of row mesons, vector mesons to seros killer mesons, adding it to 0.75.
And these are the results again for the lower confinement scales, we had to use a different approach.
higher confinement scales. So that is why the plots seem different from each other.
now to talk about the simulation. So we used PTA-8 delphis
to be more sophisticated K for HEP.
to create our samples and we use fast simulation within the FCC software framework.
And we also made use of the idea detector card where we introduced uh
invisible particles
on top of neutrinos. We modified the detector car to make sure that's
Invisible particles are not included in the jet clustering.
Then we analyze our samples. So we basically created 45 benchmark points in the parameter space of
p it rho and lambda, where these two parameters constitute the invisible fraction.
And we also made sure that
for our model, we set mpi over lambda to two
And we made sure that the room has obeys this lattice QCD result.
And again, the very invisible fraction, we just varied these two parameters.
so here you can see the
what that grants we use in our analysis. So why are these backgrounds necessary in the first place? These are necessary because we
expect similar signatures in our signal that are similar signatures to standard model processes like ZZ, muh.
And WW?
And we have to consider these to make sure that we can differentiate our signal
to those backgrounds.
And the selections we applied are basically listed here
So we wanted to make sure we wanted to make sure
to me on with this energy and this
rapid pseudor rapidity.
And the following selections are also made to make sure that in this process here i just
showing you that we are able to select events where that decays into mu
And we consider the SVJs
from the Higgs.
in our model.
So why are we interested in jet mass? Before I show you some plots, I want to explain to you why this is relevant.
So the jet mask basically
gives us direct information about the Higgs boson decay products, especially instant model processes where we have hydromic decays with HBB.
But also in our case where we assume Higgs to couple to dark sector. So for dark showers basically
And to make sure we reject the background, here we assume
a recoil mass for a recoil mass
here we consider recoil maps for background rejection because it's more suited
for rejecting backgrounds and isolating events like ZH, but it does not directly contribute to reconstructing the Higgs properties.
So here I would like to show you some plots with jet mass.
Basically, here we have our signal
and some specific choice of
are invisible, which is given by these two parameters.
So depending on the choice of
these and variants of the other parameter, we get the following results.
So here you can see, for example, for lambda equals the 10
in the leading JetNAS plot, we are able to recognize
the mass of the row
in this peak around rent.
Whereas both of Orlando equals 1 and Lambda equals two 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 three
GEV, even though it's not that.
well recognizable.
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
So if we make the invisible fraction
higher.
then we see a we see an increase, if we decrease the invisible fraction, we see an increase in the number of events
around this peak so this
also reflects
how are miserable as it relates to the number of events around this peak.
And here you can see there is almost no difference for this choice of parameter.
which um which
we have to check specifically what this P eta describes.
this plot is just to show you that we expect a peak around here as well for this choice of land now.
On top of that, we also did some sensitivity analyses
So here in these four plots you can see here
for different choices of
parameters that constitute invisible fraction
what kind of sensitivities we expect.
So here, if we scan over lambda, these are basically the plots that we would expect.
So in the lower confinement skate regime.
we seem to be more sensitive than in the higher
towards detecting these seeds.
Another thing that we analyzed is JET clustering algorithm
So basically, just to give you a quick summary of
the algorithms that we try to analyze.
we have the KT Durham exclusive algorithm, which is defined by this
We're too privacy.
And at this point.
Sorry.
So we have this definition of this
the metric in this jet clustering algorithm
And it's commonly used in E plus E minus colliders for resolving jets in low PT environments.
Another algorithm that we have, just to quickly remind you, is the anti-kt algorithm
which is defined by this metric.
And what we try to do in our studies is to analyze the difference of these algorithms in
recognizing the peak that I just showed you.
So what we did is we, first of all, for these three colors
green, black, and blue, we have the anti-Kt algorithm
where we changed rp and p
which are specified parameters in the detector cart.
We can see, for example, here in this plot
That's…
KT Durham seems to be with
better in constructing the digest invariant mass for the standard model process.Q.
also here you can see that if we zoom in, KT Durham
seems to have a sharper peak around the mass of stat.
or the standalone process.
On the other hand, if we have a look at our signal.
we see that the jet clustering
algorithm.
that is recommended for these processes, which is kt durham
This is 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 Katie Durham.
So this is basically the takeaway message of
of our analysis of jets clustering
And this would conclude my presentation.
Thank you so much for your attention.
Great. Thanks a lot. Yeah, also showing lots of nice progress.
Questions?
I think I would have…
one or two. Perhaps a naive one. The sensitivity plots that you used
Is this using combine or some s over square root of s plus b?
I believe so.
How is this sensitive? Which one?
I believe he was the first one.
Combine.
Okay, cool. That's cool.
But I have to check to give you a clear response so i'm
Yes, yes, it is using combine.
Just to clarify.
Okay, cool. Well, especially for the Atlas colleagues, that would be a good thing to note on the slide for the future.
Okay, no problem.
Yeah, this is interesting.
Oh, my other comment was 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 modify the idea card such that
invisible, sorry.
Yes.
Exactly, exactly. It's now that I realized. So what we wanted to do is we wanted to exclude invisible particles from the chats.
because this was causing some problems in some problems
in further analysis and all the results that I've just shown you, they consider this fact that these invisible particles are not considered within jet clustering.
Okay, I think this is an actually important point to note. And in future documentation, I suggest you write this quite clearly.
Yes, thank you so much.
Because this is a big change with respect to what everyone else is doing.
To me, it seems totally fair but
One should note it.
Yeah, thank you so much.
Other comments or questions?
Okay, I'm not hearing any. Thanks a lot, Emery.
We move on to the last talk today.
on H&Ls with Folsom, I think.
Jeremy will talk and show Gail slides if I have understood correctly, right because she's sick and she lost her voice.
Yes.
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.
Yeah, we'll watch the chat.
I would try…
try to do as a good talk as she would have done. Let me go to full screen maybe.
Okay, can you say it?
I mean, when it went to full screen, it also went to black.
I mean…
Okay.
Yeah.
So…
It's the wrong page again
Oh, maybe I forget full screen and I assume that it's good enough like this.
It was big enough, I think.
Okay, so this is an update of the HNL studies done by Gail, indeed based on CLD full simulation
So I'll go be quick through the introductions that we presented a few times here already.
But again, the idea is to have a full simulation so we can compare with Facim and see the impact
and see also where we have to improve the full seam to better match what could be the expected performances.
We try to do so to reproduce the analysis of a bit of the
fast simulation that has been already published.
And yeah, you can find all the references to the model and so on there.
This is not the latest
geometry of CLD, but for what we want to test, it's by far good enough.
As a reminder, we faced issues with the tracking reconstruction in CLD with this so-called conformal tracking.
which with the new geometry was not matching
what was expected for the performances of this place vertex
compared to the CLD paper.
So Gary identified that the issue was coming to a parameter of the pattern recognition that has to be adapted to match the new geometry.
So it's improved quite significantly if you don't go into the technical details but if you look at the uh
top and bottom plots
you see that the reconstruction is getting much closer to the generator the generation this is the displacement
The vertex declines if you want.
Jen Enrico and you see that we improve quite significantly the reconstruction also it's not 100% actually. So maybe some further optimization might be might be required
Along this line, we also realized that the electron reconstructions, once you get the track, the electron reconstruction is also not 100%.
it's so on the right side, you see
you see an illustration of this. The top is the electrode distribution
And on the bottom is the track for construction distribution with each signal
This has been spotted to be related to the particle 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
But when we go for a high displacement really the efficiency is dropping and we have to deal with that in the analysis. I will come back to this later.
Moving on with the tracking efficiency estimations, this is tracking efficiency and fake rate for Z into Total and zoom intoe
And as I expected, the efficiency is very high and the effect rate is very low
which is behaving as it should be
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.
But when you look at the
Benchmark points where the displacements start to be more pronounced.
the efficiency is significantly impacted so this is the efficiency as function of the position of the generated vertex with respect to the origin.
the PT and the theta distribution.
All this to say that in full simulation, in fast simulation sorry i i think we take 100% efficiency everywhere
which may be too optimistic. No, it's true also that on the
full sympath, we have to improve this to get closer to the 100% efficiency.
But for the time being, this is how it is.
Yeah, and how does this propagate to the reconstruction of the vertex
This is a comparison between the gen vertex position and RICO vertex position.
And you see that we can for low displacement there is basically no real issue
But for high displacement
It's impacting and and also okay we can we can still reconstruct up to something like 60 centimeters within the detective
So once we have this, how do we proceed?
Of course, the electron thing is something that we have to deal with. So for benchmark, at least to not too large
displacement will probably leave with the electrons
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
a cluster. And this is what we plan to do some sort of a
low-level electron reconstruction so we can we can move on with the analysis.
you will see it has a severe impact on the signal selection.
So far, the event selection that we are testing, there is a minimum
pretty cut on the electron.
We asked for two electrons with the opposite charge and not compatible with the boson.
And minimal missing transverse energy code.
And of course, all this is not is not optimized yet. There is room for improvement
a lot. Still, it gives a good idea
of what it could be. Then we'll reconstruct the vertex and then um
It usually, if we can have a bag on the account all these graph text
TK Lance.
might be a good observable to base the extraction of the signal.
But to…
So this is the cut flow table that has been prepared by gail again.
This is corresponding to cross-section from the
fast simulation paper that would multiply by a huge factor
Why? Just to see something on the slide, on the plots, actually. Otherwise, you don't see the
the signal a lot and in the event with that we it you will see it's difficult to extract the signal
I think. HLR 3050 is kind of where we have the largest displacement and you see they're just asking two electrons is reducing quite significantly
the signal itself
illustrating the impact of this bad electronical reconstruction.
And for smaller displacement, it's kind of okay.
This is the background. I will not go through all the numbers, but you see that indeed we might have some Monte Carlo issues there in terms of statistics.
Because once you ask for a little bit of displacement
the background is strictly zero while it's probably not the case.
So far, we produce our own samples because it
pool simulation and we with
Some had small statistics something like uh 50 50 000 if I recall properly
we might have to increase this a lot.
Some stack plots illustrating a bit the impact of the selections on some distributions uh
the pity of the left answer of the leptons, the dileptone invariant mass.
The missing energy, adverse energy and the um the the length.
here clearly you see that we need more statistics on the Monte Carlo and it might not be easy to deal with that, in fact.
Yes, 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
It's made on efficiency analysis.
using the official tools and I think we are ready to move on there. The basic bricks are there
Now we need to improve the electron reconstruction for displacement.
optimize a bit to try to get back a bit of more efficiency
define what is committing variables and systematics and extract the signal with a statistical tool.
So the analysis work is actually starting.
So.
Great. Thanks so much, Jeremy and Gail.
Questions?
I have maybe a basic one on slide eight.
I'm aware I missed something fundamental.
How can you have one value for max cell angle for signal and another value for background?
Okay.
We cannot, of course. I think it's just more technology generation that has been one way or the other
Also does not have a huge effect on the background indeed but for sure for the final production, we need to use the same value yes
Okay, okay, cool.
Yeah, good catch. Yeah.
Well, it's in purple and orange. I had to see it.
Other questions?
So we are not hiding anything, yeah.
Yeah, indeed, indeed. Thank you.
Other questions or comments?
Well, I think things are progressing here. We have clear next steps.
it's more or less clear to me
So thanks very much.
Okay, I think that's about it. Unless there's any other urgent business.
Did I skip anything, Rebecca?
Otherwise, we close the meeting here.
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
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.
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.
Thank you.
Bye. Happy New Year.
Right?
Bye