CMSPAS: SMP arxiv: Paper submitted to PRD

Transcription

1 CMSPAS: SMP arxiv: Paper submitted to PRD γ Daneng Yang The WVA team: Jordan Damgov, Phil Dudero, James Faulkner, Dan Green, Qiang Li, Yajun Mao, Kalanand Mishra, Patricia RebelloTeles, April 20 th 2014

2 Outline Motivations Theoretical Framework Event Selection and Background Modeling Systematic Uncertainties Estimation of the SM WWγ, WZγ signal Limits on Anomalous Quartic Couplings More Backup 2

3

4 Gauge Boson CMS Measurement of gauge boson production help confirm gauge symmetry of the SM New physics appears as gauge boson self interactions at low energy Anomalous couplings: Model independent ways probing new physics (Experimentally important when we don t have enough sensitivity probing new physics directly) Triple gauge boson production can be sensitive to quartic couplings Probing gauge boson self-interactions Give hints on the existence of new physics 4

5 Example Diagrams for Signals MC studies: WWγ: JHEP 2013,1304:108 WZγ: PRD 88, (2013) 5

6

7 Request SU(2) U(1) gauge symmetry, independently conserved C, P, and SU(2) C for nonlinear realization Anomalous Quartic Couplings Our results are a bit different with those in [hep-ph] , but we checked ours with numerical results 7

8

9 Event Selection Tight Muons p T > 25 GeV PF based isolation with DeltaBeta correction Scale factor applied to MC Tight Electrons MVA ID medium E T > 30 GeV PF based isolation with EA correction Scale factor applied to MC Jets Particle flow Jet ID Anti-k T PF jets with ΔR = 0.5 Charged Hadron Subtraction Jet Energy Correction PU jets removed by PileupJetID tool Minimum of 2 jets with p T > 30 GeV and η < 2.4 Missing Transverse Energy PF MET > 35 GeV Type 1 corrected (energy scale) Δφ MET.lead jet > 0.4 Photons 2012 simple cut base ID PF isolation with EA correction E T > 30 GeV Barrel only ( η < ) ΔR jγ > 0.5, ΔR lγ > 0.5 Scale factor applied to MC Additional selection reqiurements Exactly one lepton Anti-b tag (CVSM) for jets Δη jj < 1.4 and 70 GeV < Mjj < 100 GeV for two leading cerntral jets M γe - MZ > 10 GeV MT(W) > 30 GeV 9

10 Background: Wgamma+jets Muon channel Electron channel Wgamma+jets: float factorization/renormalization scale & ME-PS matching Data and MC dijet mass sidebands used to estimate the data-driven Wγ+jets K factor K factor ± for muons and ± for electrons 10

11 Background: Fake Photons Mis-identification of photons Electron misidentified Jet misidentified True photons Electron mis-identified events can be suppressed using M γe - MZ > 10 GeV Electron channel only Jet misidentification leads to QCD contamination of photons Can not be tagged with a simple kinematic requirement Photon Fake Rate Used method presented in Egamma POG meetings[1-3] Only data is used, inclusive estimation [1] EWK [2] [3] contribid=41&sessionid=6&resid=0&materialid=slides&confid=

12

13 13

14 Estimation of the SM WWγ, WZγ signal

15 Data and MC Comparison Comparison between predicted and observed photon p T distribution in muon (a) and electron (b) channels 15

16 Expected number of events Expected number of events, with statistical, systematic and luminosity uncertainties Because of low statistics, a cut and count approach is adopted Upper limit for γ γ With photon p T > 30 GeV ~ 3.4 times the SM cross section: γ γ = 91.6 fb 16

17

18 18

19 Comparison with existing limits Exclusive γγ WW CMS : arxiv: (Λ ff = 500 GeV) OPAL: Phys.Rev. D70 (2004) , arxiv:hep-ex/ D0: arxiv:

20 Expected Limits with a Form Factor The limits without a form factor is α 0 Fix the value of aqgc α ff = α 0 1 ff = (1 + s/λ 2 ff ) 2 Find limits with form factor Λ ff = 500GeV, use this point fix the effective s; a 0 W /Λ 2 limits have been used to fix this Vary the effective s by a factor of 0.5/2; 0.25/4 (lower/upper) to estimate the uncertainty Unitarity bound calculated using the Form Factor Calculation Tool of VBFNLO: i/doku.php?id=download:formfactor 20

21

22 Summary Presented is a study of WWγ and WZγ Production in Semileptonic Channel and Related Anomalous Quartic Couplings in p p Collisions at s = 8 TeV with 2012 data We do not have enough statistics to measure the WVγ cross section We set upper limit for WWγ and WZγ cross section to fb at 95% C.L. with photon p T > 30 GeV, which is ~3.4 times of the SM prediction. We ve set 95% C.L. shape-based exclusion limits on individual aqgc parameters Improvement over the LEP limits Best-to-date limits on WWZγ aqgc parameters First time setting limits on the dimension 8 f T,0 parameter 22

23 More EW related projects in PKU-HEP Group EWK W production, Wei Zou et al. (Going to preappral) EWK Wgamma+2jets, Daneng Yang, Wei Zou, et al. EWK Zgamma+2jets, FengWangdong, Zhaoru Zhang, et al. Projects coordinated by Qiang Li, Yajun Mao 23

24

25 Theoretical framework EFT or anomalous coupling? Key: Start from symmetries or vertices Find relationships between them Discovery of Higgs! Linear realized EFT is more preferable Symmetries and Particle content: TGC or QGC? TGCs are well constrained by the Di-boson productions. Higher dimensional operators stronger suppressed, EFT breaks down if TGC QGC contribute equally. It s possible that new physics effects are more significant on QGCs Consider Genuine anomalous Quartic Gauge Couplings (aqgcs) Need implement of the SU(2) U(1) gauge symmetry Higgs is not a must in the realization of the gauge symmetry: Linear realization non-linear realization 25

26 Theoretical framework Request SU(2) U(1) gauge symmetry and independently conserved C, P Many operators contribute to WWγγ, WWZγ couplings in both formalism. Non-linear formalism Spontaneously symmetry breaking without a Higgs boson, custodial symmetry protected ρ = 1 of the EW sector Linear formalism SM EW sector with a Higgs doublet field included Not directly used in our analysis (except the ft0 one) Linear Non-linear WWAA k0w, kcw k0b, kcb k0m, kcm WWZA fm0,fm1,fm6,fm7 fm2,fm3,fm4,fm5 ft0,ft1,ft2 ft5,ft6,ft7 k0b,kcb,k1b,k2b k0w,kcw,k1w,k2w,k3w k0m,k1m,k2m,k3m Non-decoupling: Valid below a scale of 4πv (~3TeV) Dimension-6 operators (aqgc) arxiv: hep-ph Decoupling: The scale of new physics is allowed to be arbitrarily large Dimension-8 operators (aqgc) arxiv: hep-ph

27 The LEP parameterization Widely used experimentally Poor power-counting (dim6) SU(2) U(1) Gauge symmetry together with SU(2) custodial symmetry, toy model We investigated its translation to parameters in linear EFT (next page) Theoretical framework 27

28 28

29 Anomalous Quartic Couplings WWZγ also needed 29

30 Background: Fake Photons The Ratio Method Control sample: Passes all selection criteria except the photon isolation Photon candidates template Tight photons pass 2012 tight ID (with σ IηIη cut removed) Background template Photon-Like Jets resemble photons in the ECAL but fail 2012 tight PF charged and/or neutral isolation Normalize sideband(σ IηIη > 0.012) of the background template to the photon one s. Integrating the background σ IηIη < photon p T, GeV fake photon fraction total uncertainty in % 30

31 Effect on the efficiency for signal due to changes in the dijet mass distribution Based on two ttbar samples: Pythia vs. Herwig (Fragmentation model) Modify the analysis selection - photon selection is removed to gain statistics - events with 2 b-tagged jets and 2 anti-b-tagged jets (CSVM) with pt>30 GeV and eta <2.4 are selected - di-jet mass is constructed from the 2 anti-b-tagged jets - fraction of events in 70<mjj<200 wrt to 0<mjj<200 is computed: Pythia: Herwig: Changes in the fragmentation models (Pythia and Herwig) do not result in essential effect on the efficiency for signal. 31

32 32

33 33

34 REWEIGHT TO GET SCALE DEPENDENCE AND PDF UNCERTAINTY REF: ARXIV Scale & PDF Uncertainty Scale uncertainty PDF uncertainty Factor 0.5/2 around certral scale MSTW2008nlo68cl 3x3 values of weight 1 central + 20 pairs δs = max min arxiv: v3 Eq(3) 34

35 Frixione isolation R iγ R iγ Σ j E jt PT γ 1 cosδ 1 cosδ 0 R jγ R jγ < R iγ E jt 35

36 Data samples and trigger Data recorded by the CMS experiment in 2012 Only certified Golden JSON are considered Total statistics correspond to an integrated luminosity of 19.3 fb 1 Requiring single lepton triggers: p T of muons > 23 GeV, of electrons > 27 GeV 36

37 MC samples Central summer12 production of Single Top (Inclusive) samples All others are generated with the MadGraph5 using the official CMS recipe event generator and showered by PYTHIA6 Reconstructed using the CMSSW_5_3_X release version Pile up events added 37

38 Form Factor and Unitarity Anomalous couplings leads to Tree Level unitarity violation at high energy CMS and ATLAS have decide not to use form factor Measurement will never violate unitarity! Effective theory that fits data will not violate unitarity No need for form factors! (Nicolas Greiner) When and where will the unitarity be violated? S matrix unitarity imposes a condition on the partial wave amplitudes 38

39 Form Factor and Unitarity To dampen the effect of non-unitarity, some people use the form factor. However, the choice of form factors is sort of arbitrary and can be disputable. S matrix unitarity imposes a condition on the partial wave amplitudes Plot from Peskin. 39

40 Form Factor and Unitarity Partial wave amplitudes, used for calculating the former condition (Ref: arxiv hep-ph/ , arxiv ) Most stringent unitarity bound can be extracted from the 0 th partial wave of 2 2 scattering processes For the J th scattering amplitude: In VBFNLO, approximations are used: β = 1 max{a 0 λ 1,λ 2 ( s)} 1 2 Unitarity bound calculated using the Form Factor Calculation Tool of VBFNLO: See also arxiv: (Zhao-Huan Yu, Qi-Shu Yan, Peng-Fei Yin) A general Unitaity Bound for 2->n process 40

41 Expected Limits with a Form Factor Unitarity bound calculated using Eq. 17 of Ref. arxiv: hep-ph/

42 Expected Limits with a Form Factor Unitarity bound calculation implemented using MadGraph and the Form Factor Calculation Tool of VBFNLO 42

43 Anomalous couplings in TBP and DBP Anomalous quartic coupling effects appear both in Triple Boson Production (TBP) and Di-Boson Production (DBP) One external W/Z/γ is always far off-shell, its possible that aqgcs contribute differently, even a different set of (anomalous) couplings contributes. TBP is important physics which should be treated independently w.r.t. VBS processes. Don t just combine the results! From Wolfgang Kilian (U Siegen) 43

44 44