Search for Exotic Higgs Decays with. Detector. Portal. Higgs. University of Illinois Philip Chang. SUSY 2016 July 5, 2016

Transcription

1 Search for Exotic iggs Decays with Detector iggs Portal X X University of Philip SUSY 206 July 5, 206

2 Outline Motivation Analyses at ATLAS Future challenges Summary 2

3 iggs discovery Could iggs boson lead to another discovery? July 4, 202 Yes. To see why, let s look at its properties. 3

4 SM iggs decay bb 57% Other ff gg, γγ, Zγ VV* 24% B XX Suppressed by small mass Suppressed by loop Phase-space suppressed (m < 2 mw,z) Largest partial width is to Γbb Yet this has a tiny coupling of O(0.0) Curtin et al (204) 4

5 Exotic iggs decay BSM bb 57% Other ff gg, γγ, Zγ VV* 24% B XX Curtin et al (204) et al (2008) Silveira & Zee, PL B 6 (985) 36 + many more A new coupling of O(0.0) can easily add B BSM = O(0%) Portal coupling X X 5

6 Exotic iggs decay BSM c.f. LC produced 2M iggs events so far bb 57% Other ff gg, γγ, Zγ VV* 24% B XX Curtin et al (204) et al (2008) Silveira & Zee, PL B 6 (985) 36 + many more A new coupling of O(0.0) can easily add B BSM = O(0%) Portal coupling X X 6

7 Exotic iggs decay BSM bb 57% Other ff gg, γγ, Zγ VV* 24% B XX Current limit is only at 34% 3 ab projection is 0% i.e. 300M iggs events A new coupling of O(0.0) can easily add B BSM = O(0%) Portal coupling X ATLAS+CMS combination ATLAS projection ATL-PYS-PUB X 7

8 iggs portal coined by Brian Patt, Frank Wilczek Dim 2 ζ 2 X 2 Portal interaction Patt, Wilczek hep-ph/ (2006) 8

9 iggs portal coined by Brian Patt, Frank Wilczek Mass Dim 2 ζ 2 X 2 Portal interaction t Z W light Portal X SM charge BSM charge Patt, Wilczek hep-ph/ (2006) 9

10 iggs portal Mass coined by Brian Patt, Frank Wilczek? Dim 2 ζ 2 X 2 t Z W Portal??? Portal interaction light X? SM charge BSM charge Patt, Wilczek hep-ph/ (2006) 0

11 iggs portal Mass coined by Brian Patt, Frank Wilczek? Dim 2 ζ 2 X 2 t Z W Portal??? Portal interaction light X? SM charge BSM charge Can explore idden BSM structures via iggs portal Patt, Wilczek hep-ph/ (2006)

12 Case : Invisible iggs decay Mass DM candidate decays Portal X q q q q invisible invisible SM charge BSM charge decays away to hidden sector leaves missing energy e.g. Curtin et al (204) + many more 2

13 Invisible iggs decay # of events Data / Pred Others W lv Z vv Various invisible iggs decay analyses from ATLAS: PRL 2, (204), EPJ C 75:337 (205), JEP0 (206) 72, JEP (205) 206 VBF Signal (m =25 GeV, BR=00%) W lν Z ν ν Other Backgrounds SM Uncertainty Data fb ATLAS 8 TeV 20.3 fb Signal B inv = 00% ATLAS, 8 TeV SR Missing tranverse energy [GeV] - SR VBF inv analysis example Probe missing energy spectrum Understanding Z vv crucial 2 (becoming the main limitation) No significant excess observed Combining inv analyses constrain B inv < 25% (95% CL) Data/MC.5 (b) m jj dis Figure 6. Data and MC distributions after all the requirements in SR f dijet invariant mass m jj. The background histograms are normalized to th VBF signal (red histogram) is normalized to the SM VBF iggs boson p 3

14 Invisible iggs decay But soft Mass light decays Portal decays X SM charge BSM charge idden sector particles decay back to visible but soft SM final states BSM scalar a a O(M/4 = 30) GeV b,τ, µ b,τ, µ b,τ b,τ Merged Low transverse momentum final states Trigger challenges Relatively Boosted merged jets tagging e.g. Curtin, Essig, Zhong (205) + many more 4

15 ATLAS: aa bb bb Signal SM background l v q q W l v a a b b b b g g t t W g W q q b b b b σx-sec much larger Use multivariate analysis 5

16 # of events Data / Pred a 4b, m a = 60 GeV Non tt ATLAS: aa bb bb tt + light tt + cc ATLAS 3 TeV 3.2 fb tt + bb Non-tt tt + F Signal Sensitivity loss at low mscalar due to merged jet BDT score 95%CL on σw BR [pb] 20 0 ATLAS 3 TeV 3.2 fb mscalar [GeV] B 4b = 00% line More data being analyzed. Stay tuned. 6

17 B(h aa) L on σsm h(25)"aa$searches$in$runv$at Other channels Direct searches -2 are constraining beyond indirect Limits$can$be$set$on$B(h"aa)$ 0 h aa searchesh aa searches constraint for some parameter space 0 2 CMS h(25)"aa$searches$in$runv$at$cms$ 0 Preliminary Indirect constraint This is CMS result to illustrate 0 excludes this region what other channels exist 95% CL on B aa DM+S type-3 tanβ = 5.0 arxiv: h aa searches expected 9.7 fb - No prediction for B(a XX) h aa µµττ (IG-5-0) h aa µµbb (IG-4-04) h aa ττττ (JEP 0 (206) 079) h aa ττττ (IG-4-022) h aa µµµµ (PLB 752 (206) 46) observed (8 TeV)! For$given$tan$β$and$m a $in$a$parccular$type$of$2dm+s,$all$branching$fracco CMS Preliminary 4µ B(h aa) σ (h) σ L on SM fb (8 fbtev) - Shown$here$for$tan$β$=$5$in$2DM+S$typeV3$(enhanced$couplings$to$leptons$wr CMS Preliminary - No No prediction for B(a XX) for B(a XX) (8 TeV) 2µ2τ ATLAS 2µ2τ overlaid 0 mscalar [GeV] B aa = 34% (indirect) Some channels reach beyond the indirect constraint owever, these are model dependent 7

18 Lepton flavor violating iggs decay Many BSM models predict non-diagonal Yukawa couplings up to O(0%) while satisfying experimental constraints e, µ Diaz-Cruz, Toscano, PR D 62, 6005 (2000) Blankenburg, Ellis, Isidori PL B 72 (202) 386 Arhrib, Cheng, Kong PR D (203) Arana-Catania, Arganda, errero JEP0 (205) 92 + many more τ CMS reported 2.4σ excess at Run (3 TeV 2.3/fb shows no excess) PL B 749 (205) 337 S/(S+B) Weighted Events / 20 GeV Data-Bkgd (fit) Bkgd (fit) CMS Data Bkgd. uncertainty SM Z ττ Other tt, t, t fb (8 TeV) MisID'd τ, e, µ LFV iggs, (B=0.84%) M(µτ) col [GeV] 8

19 Mass reconstructions in lτ Data/Bkg Events/0 GeV Assume v s are collinear e, µ m coll [GeV] τ v v e, µ ATLAS JEP(205)2 2 s = 8 TeV L dt = 20.3 fb 0 Arbitrary units m = 25 GeV Data µe SR withjets Symm. background Tot. background Post-fit uncertainty µτ (BR=%) Arbitrary units Relative orientations of v and had consistent with τ decay e, µ τ v had m = 25 GeV 0 0 Data/Bkg mcollinear [GeV] mmmc [GeV] Well reconstructed lτ peak 9

20 Focusing on µτ results JEP(205) # of events Data / Pred Z ττ W SS ATLAS 8 TeV 20.3 fb Others mmmc [GeV] 2.2σ One signal region reports 2.2σ But combination shows no excess SR µτhad SR2 µτhad comb µτhad SR µτlep SR2 µτlep comb µτlep ATLAS 8 TeV 20.3 fb B µτ <.43% (95%CL) 20

21 Interesting challenges ahead If B BSM = O(0%), we already have 200k exotic higgs decay events They have topology different from typical analyses phase-space BSM scalar a a O(M/4 = 30) GeV b,τ, µ b,τ, µ b,τ b,τ Merged Key objects to study low PT merged jets low PT b-tagging algorithms soft lepton final states 2

22 b-tagging efficiency Normalized MX = 20 GeV MX = 30 GeV MX = 40 GeV Sub-leading Y PT [GeV] Relevant region 22

23 Low PT b-tagging in SUSY 23

24 Catch-all analysis Difficult topology is targeted with all hadronic channel [GeV] 0 χ m ~ tt, CMS Preliminary ~ t t pp Moriond 206 miss χ 0 Observed Expected SUS-5-002, 0-lep ( T ), 2.3 fb (3 TeV) - SUS-5-003, 0-lep (M T2 ), 2.3 fb (3 TeV) - SUS PTT, 0-lep stop, 2.3 fb (3 TeV) - SUS ETT, 0-lep stop, 2.3 fb (3 TeV) - SUS-6-002, -lep stop, 2.3 fb (3 TeV) m~ t = m t 0 χ + m m~ t [GeV] Soft b-jets tagging will be helpful in this area 24

25 Summary A new coupling of O(0.0) can easily add B BSM = O(0%) Indirect constraint is 34% Various direct searches have put stringent constraints Low PT objects are very important Stay tuned for more updates 0% BSM 34% inv 25% aa (model dep.) 0% µτ.5% bb 57% Other ff gg, γγ, Zγ VV* 24% B XX 25

26 Back Up 26

27 Large B BSM Br hæssl k z = m 2 s ëv 2 z = z = 0.00 z = 0.0 Br hæyyl k L = 0.5 TeV L = TeV L = 2 TeV m s GeVL m y GeVL FIG. : Sensitivity of a 25 GeV iggs to light weakly coupled particles. Left: Exotic iggs branching fraction to a singlet scalar s versus the singlet s mass m s, assuming the interaction Eq. () is solely responsible for the h! ss decay. If the interaction in Eq. () generates the s mass, the result is the orange curve; the other curves are for fixed and independent values of and m s. Right: Exotic iggs branching fraction to a new fermion interacting with the iggs as in Eq. (2) to illustrate the sensitivity of exotic iggs decay searches to high scales, here. We take here µ = m. 27

28 Large B BSM BrhÆssL m FIG. 3: Size of the cubic coupling µ v in units of iggs expectation value v to yield the indicated h! ss branching fraction as a function of singlet mass, as given by Eq. (8). The partial width for exotic iggs decays is given by s (h! ss) = µ 2 v 4m 2 2 s µv /v (h! SM), (8) 32 m h m 2 h 0.03 O 28

29 invisible decay Missing energy spectrum in two production modes are studied q q V invisible invisible V: B inv < 75% q q invisible invisible VBF: B inv < 28% 29

30 VBF invisible JEP0 (206) 72 Events/50 GeV 3 0 VBF Signal (m =25 GeV, BR=00%) W lν Z ν ν Other Backgrounds 2 SM Uncertainty 0 Data ATLAS fb, 8 TeV SR Events/0.5 TeV VBF Signal (m =25 GeV, BR=00%) W lν Z ν ν Other Backgrounds SM Uncertainty Data 202 ATLAS fb, 8 TeV SR Data/MC miss [GeV] 500 E T Data/MC m jj [TeV] (a) E miss T distribution. (b) m jj distribution. Figure 6. Data and MC distributions after all the requirements in SR for (a) ET miss and (b) the dijet invariant mass m jj. The background histograms are normalized to the values in table 8. The VBF signal (red histogram) is normalized to the SM VBF iggs boson production cross section with BF( invisible) = 00%. Events 5 0 ATLAS fb, 8 TeV SR2 VBF Signal (m =25 GeV, BF=00%) W lν Z ν ν Events ATLAS fb, 8 TeV SR2 VBF Signal (m =25 GeV, BF=00%) W lν Z ν ν 30

31 Invisible iggs decay # of events Data / Pred. Data/MC VBF Signal (m =25 GeV, BR=00%) W lν Z ν ν Other Backgrounds SM Uncertainty Data fb ATLAS, 8 TeV SR Others m jj [TeV] W lv Z vv (VBF) Dijet Mass [TeV] (b) m jj distribution. ATLAS 8 TeV 20.3 fb Signal B inv = 00% - SR Sig. and bkg. shape differ in VBF dijet distribution the requirements in SR for (a) ET miss and (b) the rams are normalized to the values in table 8. The e SM VBF iggs boson production cross section 3

32 Figure 6. Data and MC distributions after all the requirements in SR for (a) E T and (b) the dijet invariant mass m jj. The background histograms are normalized to the values in table 8. The VBF signal (red histogram) is normalized to the SM VBF iggs boson production cross section with BF( invisible) = 00%. VBF invisible JEP0 (206) 72 Events ATLAS fb, 8 TeV SR2 VBF Signal (m =25 GeV, BF=00%) W lν Z ν ν Other Backgrounds SM Uncertainty Data Events ATLAS fb, 8 TeV SR2 VBF Signal (m =25 GeV, BF=00%) W lν Z ν ν Other Backgrounds SM Uncertainty Data Data/MC Data/MC [GeV] miss E T [TeV] 5 m jj (a) E miss T distribution. (b) m jj distribution. Figure 7. Data and MC distributions after all the requirements in SR2 for (a) ET miss and (b) the dijet invariant mass m jj. The background histograms are normalized to the values in table 8. The VBF signal is normalized to the SM VBF iggs boson production cross section with BF( invisible) = 00%. Uncertainty in the luminosity measurements. This impacts the predicted rates of the signals and the backgrounds that are estimated using MC simulation, namely ggf 32

33 VBF invisible JEP0 (206) 72 Signal region SR SR2a SR2b Process ggf signal 20± 5 58± 22 9± 8 VBF signal 286± 57 82± 9 05±5 Z( νν)+jets 339± ± ±23 W ( lν)+jets 235± 42 00± ±6 Multijet 2± 2 20± 20 4± 4 Other backgrounds ±0.4 64± 9 9± 6 Total background 577± ±30 583±34 Data Table 8. Estimates of the expected yields and their total uncertainties for SR and SR2 in 20.3 fb of 202 data. The Z( νν)+jets, W ( lν)+jets, and multijet background estimates are datadriven. The other backgrounds and the ggf and VBF signals are determined from MC simulation. The expected signal yields are shown for m = 25 GeV and are normalized to BF( invisible) = 00%. The W +jets and Z+jets statistical uncertainties result from the number of MC events in each signal and corresponding control region, and from the number of data events in the control region. Results Expected +σ σ +2σ 2σ Observed SR SR Combined Results Table 9. Summary of limits on BF( invisible) for 20.3 fb of 8 TeV data in the individual search regions and their combination, assuming the SM cross section for m = 25 GeV. 33

34 VBF Invisible JEP0 (206) 72 Γ inv SS = λ2 SS v2 β S, (8.2) 64πm ( ) Γ inv VV = λ2 V V v2 m 3 β V 256πm 4 V Model is from Phys. Lett. B 709 (202) 65 4 m2 V m m4 V m 4, (8.3) Γ inv ff = λ2 ff v2 m β 3 f 32πΛ 2, (8.4) for the scalar, vector and Majorana-fermion dark matter, respectively. The parameters λ SS, λ V V, λ ff /Λ are the corresponding coupling constants, v is the vacuum expectation value of the SM iggs doublet, β χ = 4m 2 χ/m 2 (χ = S, V, f), and m χ is the WIMP mass. In the iggs-portal model, the iggs boson is assumed to be the only mediator in the WIMP-nucleon scattering, and the WIMP-nucleon cross section can be written in a general spin-independent form. Inserting the couplings and masses for each spin scenario gives: σ SI SN = λ2 SS 6πm 4 m 4 N f 2 N (m S + m N ) 2, (8.5) Vacuum expectation value v/ 2 74 GeV iggs boson mass m 25 GeV iggs boson width Γ 4.07 MeV Nucleon mass m N 939 MeV iggs-nucleon coupling form factor f N Table. Parameters in the iggs-portal dark-matter model. σ SI VN = σ SI fn = λ2 V V 6πm 4 λ2 ff 4πΛ 2 m 4 m 4 N f 2 N (m V + m N ) 2, (8.6) m 4 N m2 f f 2 N (m f + m N ) 2, (8.7) where m N is the nucleon mass, and f N is the form factor associated to the iggs bosonnucleon coupling and computed using lattice QCD [0]. The numerical values for all the parameters in the equations above are given in table. 34

35 Z Invisible ll PRL 2, (204) FIG. 2 (color online). Distribution of E miss T after the full selection in the 8 TeV data (dots). The filled stacked histograms represent the background expectations. The signal expectation for a iggs boson with m ¼ 25.5 GeV, a SM Z production rate and BRð inv:þ ¼ is stacked on top of the background expectations. The inset at the bottom of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the combined background expectations. The hashed area shows the systematic uncertainty on the combined background expectation. 35

36 Z Invisible ll PRL 2, (204) FIG. 3 (color online). Upper limits on σ Z BRð inv:þ at 95% C.L. for a iggs boson with 0 <m < 400 GeV, for the combined 7 and 8 TeV data. The full and dashed lines show the observed and expected limits, respectively. 36

37 Z Invisible ll PRL 2, (204) TABLE I. Number of events observed in data and expected from the signal and from each background source for the 7 and 8 TeV data-taking periods. Uncertainties on the signal and background expectations are presented with statistical uncertainties first and systematic uncertainties second. Data period 20 (7 TeV) 202 (8 TeV) ZZ llνν WZ lνll Dileptonic t t, Wt, WW, Z ττ Z ee, Z μμ W þ jets, multijet, semileptonic top Total background Signal (m ¼ 25.5 GeV, σ Z;SM, BRð inv:þ ¼) Observed

38 V Invisible jj EPJ C 75:337 (205) Table 4 Predicted and observed numbers of events for the six categories in the signal region. The yields and uncertainties of the backgrounds are shown after the profile likelihood fit to the data. In this fit all categories share the same signal-strength parameter. The quoted uncertainties combine the statistical and systematic contributions. These can be smaller for the total background than for individual components due to anti-correlations. The yields and uncertainties of the signals are shown as expected before the fit for m = 25 GeV and BR( inv.) = 00 %. Signal contributions from VBF and t t production are estimated to be negligible b-tag category 0-tag -tag 2-tag Process 2-jet events Background Z+jets ± ± ± 3 W +jets ± ± ± 7 t t 403 ± ± ± 0 Single top 49 ± 6 07 ± 4 ± 2 Diboson 670 ± ± ± 7 SM V(bb).5± ± 2 3 ± Multijet 26 ± 43 8 ± ± 0.9 Total ± ± ± 5 Signal gg 403 ± ± 6 2. ± 0.5 W ( jj) 425 ± ± ± 0. Z( jj) 27 ± 9 42 ± 4 26 ± 2 Data jet events Background Z+jets 960 ± ± ± 7 W +jets 7940 ± ± 70 2 ± 4 t t 443 ± ± ± 7 Single top 97 ± 4 66 ± ± 0.9 Diboson 473 ± ± 6 3 ± 2 SM V(bb) 0.8± ± ± 0.5 Multijet 22 ± 29 4 ± ± 0.6 Total 8580 ± ± ± 7 Signal gg 224 ± 55 5 ± 4.2 ± 0.5 W ( jj) 0 ± 6 ± 0.4 ± 0.03 Z( jj) 65 ± 7 2 ± 6. ± 0.7 Data

39 V Invisible jj Events / 0 GeV ATLAS s=8tev 20. 3fb 2 jets, 0 tags EPJ C 75:337 (205) - Data 202 (inv) (BR=) Diboson V(bb) Top Multijet W+jets Z+jets Uncertainty Pre-fit bkg (inv) (BR=) 0 m = 25GeV Events / 0 GeV ATLAS s=8tev 20. 3fb 2 jets, tag - Data 202 (inv) (BR=) Diboson V(bb) Top Multijet W+jets Z+jets Uncertainty Pre-fit bkg (inv) (BR=) 0 m = 25GeV Data/Bkg (a) miss E T [GeV] Data/Bkg (b) miss E T [GeV] Events / 0 GeV ATLAS s=8tev 20. 3fb 2 jets, 2 tags - Data 202 (inv) (BR=) Diboson V(bb) Top Multijet W+jets Z+jets Uncertainty Pre-fit bkg (inv) (BR=) 0 m = 25GeV Data/Bkg (c) miss E T [GeV] Fig. The missing transverse momentum (ET miss ) distributions of the 2-jet events in the signal region for the a 0-b-tag, b -b-tag and c 2- b-tag categories. The data are compared with the background model after the likelihood fit. The bottom plots show the ratio of the data to the total background. The signal expectation for m = 25 GeV and BR( inv.) = 00 % is shown on top of the background and additionally as an overlay line, scaled by the factor indicated in the legend. The total background before the fit is shown as a dashed line. The hatched bands represent the total uncertainty on the background 39

40 V Invisible EPJ C 75:337 (205) jj Events / 0 GeV ATLAS s=8tev 20. 3fb 3 jets, 0 tags - Data 202 (inv) (BR=) Diboson V(bb) Top Multijet W+jets Z+jets Uncertainty Pre-fit bkg (inv) (BR=) 0 m = 25GeV Events / 0 GeV ATLAS s=8tev 20. 3fb 3 jets, tag - Data 202 (inv) (BR=) Diboson V(bb) Top Multijet W+jets Z+jets Uncertainty Pre-fit bkg (inv) (BR=) 0 m = 25GeV Data/Bkg Data/Bkg (a) miss E T [GeV] (b) miss E T [GeV] Events / 0 GeV ATLAS s=8tev 20. 3fb 3 jets, 2 tags - Data 202 (inv) (BR=) Diboson V(bb) Top Multijet W+jets Z+jets Uncertainty Pre-fit bkg (inv) (BR=) 0 m = 25GeV Data/Bkg (c) miss E T [GeV] Fig. 2 The missing transverse momentum (ET miss ) distributions of the 3-jet events in the signal region for the a 0-b-tag, b -b-tag and c 2-b-tag categories. The data are compared with the background model after the likelihood fit. The bottom plots show the ratio of the data to the total background. The signal expectation for m = 25 GeV is shown on top of the background and additionally as an overlay line, scaled by the factor indicated in the legend. The total background before the fit is shown as a dashed line. The hatched bands represent the total uncertainty on the background V 40

41 Dark Matter interpretation Recasting B inv limit on DM model Scalar DM Fermion DM Direct detection Expt. limits Vector DM LC limit dominates for mwimp < m/2 LC limit complimentary to direct detection limits 4

42 aa searches iggs decaying to a light hidden sector is well motivated scalar scalar Larger the mass, larger the BR b,τ, µ b,τ, µ b,τ b,τ (also γ) R 2m PT Bscalar SM gg tan β = 4, type-ii 2DM+S cc mscalar [GeV] bb τ + τ - ss μ + μ - Low PT merged jet tagging is an interesting area of research 42

43 Kinematics of X YY 25 XX YYYY Final states carry 25 GeV/4 O(30) GeV Normalized Normalized MX = 20 GeV MX = 30 GeV MX = 40 GeV Leading Y PT [GeV] Sub-leading Y PT [GeV] Interesting experimental challenges of low PT 43

44 Not-so-boosted merged jets 25 XX X s carry 25 GeV/2 O(60) GeV Normalized X b b R Rule-of-thumb for opening angle R 2M PT If MX = 24 GeV, R ~ R of bb New area to develop a low PT merged jet tagger + b-tagging 44

45 B Natural SUSY W Q, u,2 35 JEP 202 g t L b L t R natural SUSY m 5 GeV decoupled SU Fine mass splitting predicted for natural SUSY FIG. : Natural electroweak symmetry breaking constrains the superpart Soft lepton important light. Meanwhile, the superpartners on the right can be heavy, M 45

46 SM + S : B ss Br s SM bb cc ss ΤΤ ΜΜ gg ΓΓ uu dd Br h ss XXYY b bbττ ccττ 4Τ 4g ggττ bbμμ 4Μ ΤΤΜΜ ggμμ m s GeV m s GeV FIG. 4: Left: Branching ratios of a CP-even scalar singlet to SM particles, as function of m s. Right: Branching ratios of exotic decays of the 25 GeV iggs boson as function of m s,inthe SM + Scalar model described in the text, scaled to Br(h! ss) =. adronization e ects likely invalidate our simple calculation in the shaded regions. 46

47 2DM + S : B aa Type I 0. bb cc ss ΤΤ ΜΜ gg Br a SM uu dd ΓΓ m a GeV FIG. 6: Branching ratios of a singlet-like pseudoscalar in the 2DM+S for Type I Yukawa couplings. Decays to quarkonia likely invalidate our simple calculations in the shaded regions. 47

48 2DM + S : B aa tan Β 0.5, TYPE II tan Β 5, TYPE II 0. bb cc ss ΤΤ ΜΜ gg 0. bb cc ss ΤΤ ΜΜ gg Br a SM 0.0 Br a SM uu dd ΓΓ 0.00 uu dd ΓΓ m a GeV m a GeV FIG. 7: Branching ratios of a singlet-like pseudoscalar in the 2DM+S for Type II Yukawa couplings. Decays to quarkonia likely invalidate our simple calculations in the shaded regions. tan Β 5, TYPE III 48

49 2DM + S : B aa tan Β 0.5, TYPE III tan Β 5, TYPE III 0. bb cc ss ΤΤ ΜΜ gg 0. bb cc ss ΤΤ ΜΜ gg Br a SM 0.0 Br a SM uu dd ΓΓ 0.00 uu dd ΓΓ m a GeV m a GeV FIG. 8: Branching ratios of a singlet-like pseudoscalar in the 2DM+S for Type III Yukawa couplings. Decays to quarkonia likely invalidate our simple calculations in the shaded regions. 3 49

50 2DM + S : B aa tan Β 0.5, TYPE IV tan Β 5, TYPE IV 0. bb cc ss ΤΤ ΜΜ gg 0. bb cc ss ΤΤ ΜΜ gg Br a SM 0.0 Br a SM uu dd ΓΓ 0.00 uu dd ΓΓ m a GeV m a GeV FIG. 9: Branching ratios of a singlet-like pseudoscalar in the 2DM+S for Type IV Yukawa couplings. Decays to quarkonia likely invalidate our simple calculations in the shaded regions. 50

51 Title Α 0., tan Β 0.5, TYPE II Α.4, tan Β 0.5, TYPE III 0. bb cc ss ΤΤ ΜΜ gg 0. bb cc ss ΤΤ ΜΜ gg Br s SM 0.0 Br s SM ΓΓ uu dd 0.00 ΓΓ uu dd m s GeV m s GeV Α 0., tan Β 0.5, TYPE IV 0. bb cc ss ΤΤ ΜΜ gg Br s SM ΓΓ uu dd m s GeV FIG. 0: Singlet scalar branching ratios in the 2DM+S for di erent tan, 0 and Yukawa coupling type. These examples illustrate the possible qualitative di erences to the pseudoscalar case, such as dominance of s! c c decay above b b-threshold; democratic decay to b b and + ; and democratic decay to c c and +. adronization e ects likely invalidate our simple calculations in the shaded regions. 5

52 ATLAS µµττ analysis PRD 92, (205) scalar scalar µ µ τ τ Trigger 2 BR(h aa) BR(a ττ) σ(gg h) σ 2 0 SM ATLAS - s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb m = m h = 25 GeV Observed 95% CL Median Expected 95% CL ± σ ± 2 σ m a [GeV] mscalar [GeV] Run 2 results will come B 4τ = 00% line B 4τ = 0% line 52

53 LFV: CMS 8 TeV v. 3 TeV µτ µτ µτ, 0 Jets e.32% (exp.) 2.04% (obs.), Jet e.66% (exp.) 2.38% (obs.), 2 Jets e 3.77% (exp.) 3.84% (obs.) µτ, 0 Jets h 2.34% (exp.) 2.6% (obs.) µτ, Jet h 2.07% (exp.) 2.22% (obs.) µτ, 2 Jets h 2.3% (exp.) 3.68% (obs.) µτ 0.75% (exp.).5% (obs.) CMS fb (8 TeV) Observed Expected Expected ± σ Expected ± 2σ % CL limit on B( µτ), % µτ had 4.7% (exp.) 4.24% (obs.) µτ µτ had 4.89% (exp.) 6.35% (obs.) had 6.4% (exp.) 7.7% (obs.) µτ e 2.24% (exp.).33% (obs.) µτ e 4.36% (exp.) 3.04% (obs.) µτ, 0 Jets, Jet, 2 Jets, 0 Jets, Jet, 2 Jets e 7.3% (exp.) 8.99% (obs.) µτ.62% (exp.).20% (obs.) CMS Preliminary Observed Expected ± std deviation ± 2 std deviation 8 TeV [Phys. Lett. B 749 (205) 337]: Observed Expected fb (3 TeV) % CL Limit on Br( µτ), % 53

54 Lepton flavor violating iggs decay Many BSM models predict non-diagonal Yukawa couplings e, µ τ PL B 749 (205) 337 S/(S+B) Weighted Events / 20 GeV CMS LFV µτ signal (B=0.84%) Bkgd. uncertainty Data-Bkgd M(µτ) col fb (8 TeV) [GeV] Curtin et al (204) et al (2008) Silveira & Zee, PL B 6,36 (985) + many more CMS reported 2σ excess at Run 54

55 J/Ψγ The process is very rare cc coupling J/Ψ γ incl. γγ WW* 2% ZZ* gg ττ cc Perhaps cc is larger? cc If cc coupling is larger it can increase the rate (possibly more than 00%) Searching for J/Ψ+γ probes the loop Bodwin, Petriello, Stoynev, Velasco PR D 88, (203) Bodwin, Chung, Ee, Lee, Petriello et al. PR D 90, 300 (204) bb 57% iggs decay branching fraction 55

56 Zγ The process is very rare BSM particle Z γ BSM particle can contribute in the loop Searching for Zγ probes the loop 56

57 Projection Brooke et al (206) (SM) VBF inv)/σ 25 σ x B( % % % % 0.2 Syst, error scales with L Constant syst expected limit L syst expected limit Constant systematic 0% L [fb ] quickly systematic dominated (more work needed!) 57

58 ATLAS and CMS combination ATLAS and CMS LC Run ATLAS+CMS ATLAS CMS ±σ ±2σ κ Z κ W κ t κ τ κ b κ g κ γ B BSM κ V 0 B BSM B BSM = Parameter value 58

59 Why 0.5 million? 20pb 25/fb = 500k 50pb 0/fb = 500k (500k + 500k) 2 expt = 2 million iggs events 2 million iggs events (B BSM = 25%) = 0.5 million 59