Higgs Recoil Study and Higgsino Analysis Friday ILC Group Meeting Dec 18, 2015, KEK Jacqueline Yan (KEK) 2013/07/20 ILC@富山 1

Features of These Past Weeks Finalizing papers on Higgs Recoil Analysis and its Model Independence at this point, all analysis redults should be final Higgsino pair production studies (with Tanabe-san) ECM= 500 GeV : χ02 pair , χ01 + χ02, χ±1 benchmarks ILC1 (ΔM ~20 GeV ) and ILC2 (ΔM 〜10 GeV ) Here is the data selection I applied, with the numbers from last week Friday. First I select muon pairs based on ratio of deposit in calorimeter wrt to total energy, opposite charge, and track quality. Than I pick out the best muon pair candidates base on how close their inv mass is to real Z mass Next , comes final selection for recoil mass analysis. Here, in the order that these arei implemented I require inv mass to be between 86 and 95 GeV, Then recoil mass to be between 115 and 140 GeV Then PT of dilepton system to be between 10 GeV and 70 geV Then acoplanarity to be between 0.2 and 3 then cosine of Z production angle to be smaller than 0.91, to cut out very forward events characteristic of BG processes, Then I calculate efficieny by counting events in signal region of 123 and 135 geV Recoil mass is calculated taking into account beam x angle of 14 mrad. Last week I received a comment from Kurata san about why I have this lower limicoplanarity Ithe reason is that for some Bgprocesses, teher is a peak at very small cop values, although for the dominant 2f_Z_l, peak is at aroudn pai. However I have doubts as to whether this cut is really necessary, when I already have the other cuts before it. experimented with the outcome s when I take away the lower limit, and when I take away the cop cut altogether. I also experimented with widening the inv maass cut window.

Finalized all analysis of Higgs recoil Eventually cuts were very much simplified Signal efficiency is 5-10% higher than results for LCWS2015 bias also reduced Lepton Pair Candidate Selection opposite +/- 1 charge E_cluster / P_total : < 0.5 (μ） / > 0.9 (e) isolation (small cone energy) |d0/δd0| < 5 , |z0/δz0| < 5 FSR and bremsstrahlung recovery Lepton pairing : select pair with smallest χ2(Minv, Mrec) Final Selection 73 < GeV < M_inv < 120 GeV 10 GeV < pt_dl < 140 GeV |cos(θ_missing)| < 0.98 TMVA cut (..) GeV < Mrec < (…) GeV Evis cut Here is the data selection I applied, with the numbers from last week Friday. First I select muon pairs based on ratio of deposit in calorimeter wrt to total energy, opposite charge, and track quality. Than I pick out the best muon pair candidates base on how close their inv mass is to real Z mass Next , comes final selection for recoil mass analysis. Here, in the order that these arei implemented I require inv mass to be between 86 and 95 GeV, Then recoil mass to be between 115 and 140 GeV Then PT of dilepton system to be between 10 GeV and 70 geV Then acoplanarity to be between 0.2 and 3 then cosine of Z production angle to be smaller than 0.91, to cut out very forward events characteristic of BG processes, Then I calculate efficieny by counting events in signal region of 123 and 135 geV Recoil mass is calculated taking into account beam x angle of 14 mrad. Last week I received a comment from Kurata san about why I have this lower limicoplanarity Ithe reason is that for some Bgprocesses, teher is a peak at very small cop values, although for the dominant 2f_Z_l, peak is at aroudn pai. However I have doubts as to whether this cut is really necessary, when I already have the other cuts before it. experimented with the outcome s when I take away the lower limit, and when I take away the cop cut altogether. I also experimented with widening the inv maass cut window.

Syst error on xsec : σ = N/L/ε :: Δσ/σ= Δε/ε observe deviation from average efficiency Cut Efficiency Table , @ 350 GeV, Pol (-0.8,+0.3) final efficiency in last row (statistical uncertainty = 0.16%) no visible bias beyond 1 sigma Largest bias is carried by Hγγ (or H Z γ) Bias get smaller for higher ECM residual bias: regarding γZ mode : lepton mis-ID (e<-- μ) : leptons decayed from non-prompt Z got in the way cosθmissing cut cause some bias , but this cut cannot be sacrificed (see next page) Regarding γγ mode : very slight bias for Zee because no extra protection was used in FSR/brem recovery Here is the data selection I applied, with the numbers from last week Friday. First I select muon pairs based on ratio of deposit in calorimeter wrt to total energy, opposite charge, and track quality. Than I pick out the best muon pair candidates base on how close their inv mass is to real Z mass Next , comes final selection for recoil mass analysis. Here, in the order that these arei implemented I require inv mass to be between 86 and 95 GeV, Then recoil mass to be between 115 and 140 GeV Then PT of dilepton system to be between 10 GeV and 70 geV Then acoplanarity to be between 0.2 and 3 then cosine of Z production angle to be smaller than 0.91, to cut out very forward events characteristic of BG processes, Then I calculate efficieny by counting events in signal region of 123 and 135 geV Recoil mass is calculated taking into account beam x angle of 14 mrad. Last week I received a comment from Kurata san about why I have this lower limicoplanarity Ithe reason is that for some Bgprocesses, teher is a peak at very small cop values, although for the dominant 2f_Z_l, peak is at aroudn pai. However I have doubts as to whether this cut is really necessary, when I already have the other cuts before it. experimented with the outcome s when I take away the lower limit, and when I take away the cop cut altogether. I also experimented with widening the inv maass cut window.

Taking into account of unknown exotic decay modes ! any exotic decay modes should resemble these wide kinematic range of SM modes Strategy: assign 10% of “unknown mode” to one of the known SM modes fluctuate remaining SM modes by the largest BR uncertainty predicted from HL-LHC (7-8%) (Ref: snowmass report from higgs working group, arXiv: 1310.8361 ) a very pessimistic (conservative) assumption Here bias is (BR of exotic mode) * (eff of exotic mode - eff_avg) relative syst error on σZH = maximum bias relative to avg efficiency < 0.08 % for Zmm 　　〜 0.19% for Zee This is the most realistic evaluation of bias !! conclusion: current systematic error is well below even the best statistical uncertainty expected from full H20 run (〜0.9%) Then I added all other BG and sig processes that hhave been generated as samples, even though I presumed them to be not important for Zmumu analysis at 250 GeV. I wanted to check I didn’t msis anything. I almost didn’t miss anything, except for WW_sl, Some of the quarks may have decayed secondarily into muons, and I left it out. There are about 130 events left after all cuts. While other were mostly 0. The results were only a little different after including this. Extensive efforts have been made to reduce systematic error to this stage!! LCWS2015, J.Yan

Cannot Remove Cosθmissing cut !! there will be significant degradation in precision for most channels Degradation is more apparent at lower ECM (θmissing more forward) now we have no Ptsum, no Ptdl in TMVA, so need at least one variable to remove 2f BG Besides, cosθmissing is not causing huge mode bias Degrade xsec Degrade mass ECM=250 GeV xsec mH[MeV] Zmm left 3.2% 39 3.6% 45 12.5% 13.8% right 43 4.1% 49 13.7% 12.2% Zee 4.0% 121 4.5% 145 13.6% 19.8% 4.7% 149 5.4% 14.6% 0.0% ECM=350 GeV mass 3.9% 103 4.2% 112 6.7% 8.7% 120 4.9% 131 9.2% 5.3% 450 5.7% 484 8.4% 7.6% 6.1% 502 545 8.8% 8.6% ECM=500GeV 6.9% 592 7.2% 610 3.0% 8.1% 660 8.5% 720 5.1% 9.1% 1160 7.5% 1190 Here is the data selection I applied, with the numbers from last week Friday. First I select muon pairs based on ratio of deposit in calorimeter wrt to total energy, opposite charge, and track quality. Than I pick out the best muon pair candidates base on how close their inv mass is to real Z mass Next , comes final selection for recoil mass analysis. Here, in the order that these arei implemented I require inv mass to be between 86 and 95 GeV, Then recoil mass to be between 115 and 140 GeV Then PT of dilepton system to be between 10 GeV and 70 geV Then acoplanarity to be between 0.2 and 3 then cosine of Z production angle to be smaller than 0.91, to cut out very forward events characteristic of BG processes, Then I calculate efficieny by counting events in signal region of 123 and 135 geV Recoil mass is calculated taking into account beam x angle of 14 mrad. Last week I received a comment from Kurata san about why I have this lower limicoplanarity Ithe reason is that for some Bgprocesses, teher is a peak at very small cop values, although for the dominant 2f_Z_l, peak is at aroudn pai. However I have doubts as to whether this cut is really necessary, when I already have the other cuts before it. experimented with the outcome s when I take away the lower limit, and when I take away the cop cut altogether. I also experimented with widening the inv maass cut window.

try again at mH measurement using Hbb mode B likelihood: Red: 2f BG Blue : signal mH measurement does not need to be model-independent, If use Hbb mode, the only major residual BG is 4f_zz_sl Zmm : b-tag 250GeV ΔmH[MeV] ΔmH (H-->bb) Zmm left 39 38 right 43 Zee 121 106 149 124 350 GeV 103 114 120 125 450 382 502 464 500 GeV 592 530 660 566 1160 1030 1190 1130 More improvement for Zee And ECM=500 GeV (10-15%) no improvement for Zmm at 250, 350 GeV (2f BG is more serious for Zee and higher ECM) Here is the data selection I applied, with the numbers from last week Friday. First I select muon pairs based on ratio of deposit in calorimeter wrt to total energy, opposite charge, and track quality. Than I pick out the best muon pair candidates base on how close their inv mass is to real Z mass Next , comes final selection for recoil mass analysis. Here, in the order that these arei implemented I require inv mass to be between 86 and 95 GeV, Then recoil mass to be between 115 and 140 GeV Then PT of dilepton system to be between 10 GeV and 70 geV Then acoplanarity to be between 0.2 and 3 then cosine of Z production angle to be smaller than 0.91, to cut out very forward events characteristic of BG processes, Then I calculate efficieny by counting events in signal region of 123 and 135 geV Recoil mass is calculated taking into account beam x angle of 14 mrad. Last week I received a comment from Kurata san about why I have this lower limicoplanarity Ithe reason is that for some Bgprocesses, teher is a peak at very small cop values, although for the dominant 2f_Z_l, peak is at aroudn pai. However I have doubts as to whether this cut is really necessary, when I already have the other cuts before it. experimented with the outcome s when I take away the lower limit, and when I take away the cop cut altogether. I also experimented with widening the inv maass cut window. 2f BG is greatly reduced, but mass precisions limited by signal statistics requires more careful optimisation

Quantitative evaluation of the effect of FSR/brem recovery Difficult to explain the difference in the improvement for each channel In the case of Zee channel: precision of σZH cdegraded by as much as 73%, MH by as much as 23% without the recovery process. Here is the data selection I applied, with the numbers from last week Friday. First I select muon pairs based on ratio of deposit in calorimeter wrt to total energy, opposite charge, and track quality. Than I pick out the best muon pair candidates base on how close their inv mass is to real Z mass Next , comes final selection for recoil mass analysis. Here, in the order that these arei implemented I require inv mass to be between 86 and 95 GeV, Then recoil mass to be between 115 and 140 GeV Then PT of dilepton system to be between 10 GeV and 70 geV Then acoplanarity to be between 0.2 and 3 then cosine of Z production angle to be smaller than 0.91, to cut out very forward events characteristic of BG processes, Then I calculate efficieny by counting events in signal region of 123 and 135 geV Recoil mass is calculated taking into account beam x angle of 14 mrad. Last week I received a comment from Kurata san about why I have this lower limicoplanarity Ithe reason is that for some Bgprocesses, teher is a peak at very small cop values, although for the dominant 2f_Z_l, peak is at aroudn pai. However I have doubts as to whether this cut is really necessary, when I already have the other cuts before it. experimented with the outcome s when I take away the lower limit, and when I take away the cop cut altogether. I also experimented with widening the inv maass cut window.

Higgsino Analysis Examples of event displays of ILC1 benchmark events (summarized by Tanabe-san) http://www.icepp.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~tomohiko/evtdisp/higgsino-c1c1/ http://www.icepp.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~tomohiko/evtdisp/higgsino-n1n2/ By now, moved up to analysis stage before deciding on concrete analysis strategies, we need to perform a thorough check of tools lepton ID, tracking, beamCal (to veto 2 photon processes), ect…. currently writing code to print out lkinmatic variables and decay patterns into rootfiles Here is the data selection I applied, with the numbers from last week Friday. First I select muon pairs based on ratio of deposit in calorimeter wrt to total energy, opposite charge, and track quality. Than I pick out the best muon pair candidates base on how close their inv mass is to real Z mass Next , comes final selection for recoil mass analysis. Here, in the order that these arei implemented I require inv mass to be between 86 and 95 GeV, Then recoil mass to be between 115 and 140 GeV Then PT of dilepton system to be between 10 GeV and 70 geV Then acoplanarity to be between 0.2 and 3 then cosine of Z production angle to be smaller than 0.91, to cut out very forward events characteristic of BG processes, Then I calculate efficieny by counting events in signal region of 123 and 135 geV Recoil mass is calculated taking into account beam x angle of 14 mrad. Last week I received a comment from Kurata san about why I have this lower limicoplanarity Ithe reason is that for some Bgprocesses, teher is a peak at very small cop values, although for the dominant 2f_Z_l, peak is at aroudn pai. However I have doubts as to whether this cut is really necessary, when I already have the other cuts before it. experimented with the outcome s when I take away the lower limit, and when I take away the cop cut altogether. I also experimented with widening the inv maass cut window. Jenny requested me to upload generated, simulated and reconstructed files and meta data to the grid and register them properly in the ILCDirac catalogue. (to keep track of large produced samples)

Ch1ch1 events ch1  nu1 + Wnu1 + jets semileptonic decay ch1 nu1 + W  nu1 + leptons semileptonic decay This is wanted! ch1 nu1 + W  nu1 + leptons leptonic decay Here is the data selection I applied, with the numbers from last week Friday. First I select muon pairs based on ratio of deposit in calorimeter wrt to total energy, opposite charge, and track quality. Than I pick out the best muon pair candidates base on how close their inv mass is to real Z mass Next , comes final selection for recoil mass analysis. Here, in the order that these arei implemented I require inv mass to be between 86 and 95 GeV, Then recoil mass to be between 115 and 140 GeV Then PT of dilepton system to be between 10 GeV and 70 geV Then acoplanarity to be between 0.2 and 3 then cosine of Z production angle to be smaller than 0.91, to cut out very forward events characteristic of BG processes, Then I calculate efficieny by counting events in signal region of 123 and 135 geV Recoil mass is calculated taking into account beam x angle of 14 mrad. Last week I received a comment from Kurata san about why I have this lower limicoplanarity Ithe reason is that for some Bgprocesses, teher is a peak at very small cop values, although for the dominant 2f_Z_l, peak is at aroudn pai. However I have doubts as to whether this cut is really necessary, when I already have the other cuts before it. experimented with the outcome s when I take away the lower limit, and when I take away the cop cut altogether. I also experimented with widening the inv maass cut window.

nu1nu2 events leptonic decay nu2  nu1 + Z leptons (mm, ee) This is wanted! nu2  nu1 + Z leptons (mm, ee) Invisible, Z decay to nuetrinos Hadronic decay nu2  nu1 + Z jets Here is the data selection I applied, with the numbers from last week Friday. First I select muon pairs based on ratio of deposit in calorimeter wrt to total energy, opposite charge, and track quality. Than I pick out the best muon pair candidates base on how close their inv mass is to real Z mass Next , comes final selection for recoil mass analysis. Here, in the order that these arei implemented I require inv mass to be between 86 and 95 GeV, Then recoil mass to be between 115 and 140 GeV Then PT of dilepton system to be between 10 GeV and 70 geV Then acoplanarity to be between 0.2 and 3 then cosine of Z production angle to be smaller than 0.91, to cut out very forward events characteristic of BG processes, Then I calculate efficieny by counting events in signal region of 123 and 135 geV Recoil mass is calculated taking into account beam x angle of 14 mrad. Last week I received a comment from Kurata san about why I have this lower limicoplanarity Ithe reason is that for some Bgprocesses, teher is a peak at very small cop values, although for the dominant 2f_Z_l, peak is at aroudn pai. However I have doubts as to whether this cut is really necessary, when I already have the other cuts before it. experimented with the outcome s when I take away the lower limit, and when I take away the cop cut altogether. I also experimented with widening the inv maass cut window.