Alphabetical code: (C)omment, (Q)uestion, (A)nswer

ATLAS presentation

• C: light higgs is highly motivated for DM
• C: BR as a function of pseudoscalar (PS) mass are indeed needed. For masses above 10 GeV, the a-->bb decays are relevant. The BR's are known well
• Q: do experiments know?
  • A: Maggie can provide info on BR vs PS mass
• Q: How these BR's are in the mass ranges relevant for quarkonia ?
  • A: Recently they appeared
  • Q: Is there any reference?
    • A: Spira worked on that (e.g. this paper), also Ulrich.
• C: the issue is the mix between PS and quarkonia. Work could be done
• C: there is also recent paper of H->hadrons by Florian. 3 GeV or lighter. Seems he extended his study to cc and bb states and the results were included in the latest version of NMSSMTools (this or this link)
• C: about H->a1a2: some run I results at least can be interpreted as they don't have a1 = a2 constraint
  • C: this is not very much motivated anyway because the mass of one PS will be large
• C: bbtt good to see from ATLAS. Also would be nice to see the scan over the parameter space.
  • A: ATLAS has this in plans ...
• C: type II reint. of exotic Higgs decays is very motivated
• Q: would use of MVA, BDT be OK?
  • A: no problem as far as all information are provided
• C: Higgs effects on SUSY is very important
  • C: Ulrich et al are looking at that
  • C: implementation in MC one can use a trick
  • C: would be great if theory provide experiments with any hacks or ...
• C: not to forget extra light higgs production
  • C: diy search is semi-model-dependent (SM-like BSM higgs production)
  • C: radiative corrections are tiny for this.
    Post-meeting explanation: (tiny) radiative corrections which do NOT allow to split sparticle pair production or BSM Higgs production into
    
    a: production processes (incl. radiative corrections, incl. additional jets) and
    b: decays of sparticles or BSM Higgses (incl. radiative corrections)
    
    This is important for simulations since production and decays can be treated by different (specialized) codes like Madgraph for production and Pythia for decays. It is not necessary to ask e.g. Madgraph@NLO - used already for production - to compute radiative corrections to decays, notably those leading to additional final states.
     
  • Q: is the statement true for VBF and VH?
    • A: rescale the coupling
    • C: NN may use VBF features for which the rescaling may not work. Work may need to be separately done for different production modes and coupling assumptions for the light boson

CMS presentation

Regarding hints on forbidden ranges:

• C: Constraints to singlino and higgsino from direct searches,
  • More constraints: from DM
  • Work ongoing by Ulrich et al ...
  • Once known, one can exploit the channel on p4  of CMS slides

Regarding MC implementation:

• Q: why not implement stop decay cascade in pythia
  • A: additional jets and ME generators?
    • A: production with ME + cascade decay in pythia
• Q: do we only have LO even for simple final states?
  • A: EWK corrections are tiny for this
• Q: difference between 2 4tau analyses in CMS summary plots for h->aa?
  • A: different boosted tau techniques
     

Discussion

• C: general problem: large parameters spaces ... bottom-up approach:
  • check what are the present limits on lightest sparticles in the EWK sector using latest papers by ATLAS and CMS --> current work by Ulrich --> use this to define BM
• Q: Why so much focused on neutralino final states? What about Higgeses?
  • A: Mostly for the sparticle searches and for the heavy higgs decays ...
• Q: for neutralino ... is it not too much BM dependent?
  • A: connection with DM motivates that.
• C: Maybe bring together the light Higgs part and sparticles for the constraints and benchmarks.
  • A: ongoing work ...
• C:BM's are final states dependent.
  • A: these are just different approaches with the same outcome.
  • C: not easy to include all constraints from sparticles and DM while it is easy to include the constraints from Higgs ===> Followed in the mailing list
• C: put outcomes in the twiki ...  or remove some? ====> Agreed!
   

Discussion about Ulrich's tool and the level of corrections to be used

• C/Q: can we have a list of codes and pros and cons?
  • A: Finally agreed to give a summary talk about the tools ...
  • Post-meeting inputs:
    Relevant presentations have already been given while ago (1, 2). The talks are mainly based on this paper
    Florian has agreed to arrange a talk including the updates in the different codes of the last three years.