Your list of questions contains very relevant issues for which we don’t have yet clear answers (and therefore if we can make any good progress, a publication will certainly be warranted).
Let me try to inject some thoughts (not necessarily very deep and for sure not complete). A more thorough discussion is definitively needed. It might actually be interesting and productive to start this discussion before the next vidyo meeting. But maybe a more appropriate format would be a dedicated twiki page, rather than a long email thread.
>
- What types of BSM benchmark models should be analysed? Light degrees of freedom up to what scale? In particular to uncover limitations of EFT fits. Are common models sufficient (MSSM, 2HDM, SM+scalar)? What toy models (composite inspired, ...)? Mostly theory activity until experimental evidence for New Physics?
It will be important to have toy models that could at least cover the 2 extreme situations:
- no exotic/undetected width but large/visible effects in off-shell measurements;
- some sizeable exotic/undetected width but no deviation in off-shell measurements.
Then we should see to which limit the common models are the closest.
>
- Interplay with other channels due to shared couplings, e.g. top production
>
Can coefficients of operators with less sensitivity really be set to zero?
>
HOW TO DISENTANGLE? Independent subsets? Proper treatment? Best use of limited number of degrees of freedom in fits. How to expand?
Given the list of previous models, we can check compare the width and off-shell constraints to other constraints from EW or top measurements for instance. I would start the discussion with the explicit models. Then we can move to EFT.
>
- Should operators that go beyond Higgs from EW doublets be studied? e.g. arXiv:1403.4951
On the EFT side, I would focus first on SMEFT, i.e. with a Higgs as part of an SU(2) doublet.
Other cases, with the Higgs as an SU(2) singlet for instance, are a bit marginal and not so well motivated any longer.
>
- Should the Higgs width be treated as model output or independent parameter, perhaps constrained by on-peak signal strength?
Here, we have to be a bit careful, at least in our EFT treatment: modifying the width, requires light degrees of freedom, which should a priori be included in the EFT Lagrangian. In some cases, it is possible to rely on SMEFT and still consider the width as a free parameter. But this comes with some extra assumptions that we’ll need to spell out clearly (in particular to avoid messing up with EW precision constraints).
>
- NLO effects in EFT studies
>
QCD: studies/tools available. Is BSM@NLO required? Justification?
When available, we should include NLO effects.
BSM@NLO in general, for instance dim-8 operators, are probably beyond the scope of what we can do for the moment.
There is a way to estimate the neglected
BSM higher order effects and to test the validity of the EFT expansion.
Still, at an existence proof, we might want to consider a very specific case where one dim-8 operator will play an important role.
>
- specific BSM extended with higher-dim. operators, e.g. arXiv:2003.10449
>
Is it worthwhile? Which models? Are technical issues understood?
That’s is related to the question of the width as a free parameter in an EFT approach.
An EFT with an extra field, like a singlet, might help us approach the problem of a consistent framework SMEFT+free width.
>
- EFT fits compatibility: Tools to convert results and for validation
>
What is essential? Available? Concrete examples? Thoughts on EFT basis choice? Need off-shell and on-shell compatibility due to complementarity.
At LO, all the tools should exist.
At NLO, we’ll have to check.
>
- Are a_i coefficients used by CMS equivalent to SMEFT@LO?
The equivalence might depend on extra assumptions, in particular, concerning the flavour structure.
That should be a relatively easy point to clarify.
>
- Should we also consider associated Higgs production, e.g. VBF -> H -> VV or VH?
>
Less model dependent, but less data. But much higher signal at high M_4l than ggF. See e.g. Figs. 17 & 18 of arXiv:2002.09888. In certain EFT scenarios, VH becomes equally dominant as VBF. ggF production with 2-jets is included implicitly as one of the main backgrounds for these processes.
I think these different production modes should be considered and compared to each others.
>
- How does the off-shell signal strength fit in?
>
>
- It is subleading in gg -> H -> VV, but should New Physics in the Higgs self-energy be modelled via an oblique parameter? see arXiv:1903.07725
The Higgs self-energy is one among many parameters to consider.
The class of models where the Higgs self-energy is the only relevant deformation of the SM is rather thin.
So I wouldn’t limit to this study.
>
Please recall, our goal is to produce a first write-up with recommendations/guidance as input to the experimental analyses by ~July.
Given the current situation the world is experiencing, a deadline in July might sound very ambitious.
There are many very interesting questions to think about.
And hopefully, we’ll collect many good answers.