h γγ as a Tool for Discovery at ATLAS

Transcription

1 h as a ool for Discovery at ALAS HEP Seminar Jamie Saxon University of Chicago November 7, 4 Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 / 4

2 Outline. h at ALAS. Differential Cross Sections 3. Higgs Pair Production in bb Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 / 4

3 he ool Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 3 / 4

4 he Large Hadron Collider 6.7 km ring, proton-proton collisions at s = 8 ev. Peak lumi 7 33 cm s (7 nb /s): 8 Higgs bosons per minute! B(h ) =.8 = event per hour... PS Booster Linac PS 8 GeV.6 km ALICE ALAS Cleaning LHC 7 ev, 7 km SPS 45 GeV 6.9 km RF CMS fb otal Integrated Luminosity ALAS Preliminary LHC Delivered ALAS Recorded Good for Physics, s = 7 ev Delivered: 5.46 fb Recorded: 5.8 fb Physics: 4.57 fb, Delivered:.8 s = 8 ev fb Recorded:.3 fb Physics:.3 fb LHCb he LHC Cleaning Dump Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Integrated Luminosity Month in Year Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 4 / 4

5 SM Higgs Production at the LHC g g t Gluon Fusion h q q h q q Vector Boson Fusion q W/Z h q W/Z Associated Production b b h bb Fusion g g tt Associated Production ggh VBF Wh Zh bbh tth Production Fractions Selected 8 ev h σ(pp H+X) [pb] pp H (NNLO+NNLL QCD + NLO EW) pp qqh (NNLO QCD + NLO EW) pp WH (NNLO QCD + NLO EW) pp ZH (NNLO QCD +NLO EW) pp tth (NLO QCD) s= 8 ev LHC HIGGS XS WG BR [pb] σ - - τ + τ ± WH l νbb s = 8eV ± WW l νqq + - WW l νl ν + - ZZ l l qq + - ZZ l l νν ZZ l l l l t t LHC HIGGS XS WG M H [GeV] Production Rates ZH l l bb l = e, μ ν = ν e,ν μ,ν τ q = udscb tth ttbb - VBF H τ + τ 5 5 Observable Final States M H [GeV] Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 5 / 4

6 he ALAS Detector Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 6 / 4

7 Photon Reconstruction Probability of conversion rigger on narrow clusters of energy. Reconstruct energy clusters with efficiency near %, then naïvely: No track = unconverted photon. rack = electron. Also reconstruct conversion vertices and single-track conversions. Proper classification critical: affects identification and resolution. HE INNER DEECOR.6 η = η =.5 η =.5 η = ALAS Radius (mm) Integrated Conversion Probability Figure 7: Probability for a photon to have con- Fraction of photon candidates Unconverted photons Converted photons Single track conversions Double track conversions ALAS Preliminary Data, s = 8 ev L dt = 3.3 fb Average interactions per bunch crossing Conversion Reconstruction Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 7 / 4

8 Photon Identification Photons separated from QCD background using shower shapes in electromagnetic calorimeter. Reect deeper and wider showers, or those with two peaks. Measured using Z ll, Z ee, and systems of equations. 75% diphoton purity in h selection. Entries/6 MeV 4 3 ALAS Preliminary s=8 ev, Ldt=.3 fb Z ll data Z ll corrected MC Z( ll)+et corrected MC Unconverted E for Unconverted Photons E [MeV] (tight) combined ε ID error on ε ID (tight) ALAS Preliminary 3 4 s = 8 ev, Ldt =.3 fb η <.6 unconverted iso E < 4 GeV Efficiencies of Unconverted Photons [GeV] E. ALAS Preliminary Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 8 / 4

9 Photon Energy Scale and Resolution [arxiv:47.563] Entries / 5 MeV Ratio to MC Hits-based calibration replaced with BD-regression for legacy results: % improvement on resolution. Absolute scale from LEP m Z ; resolution from data applied to MC. Good Z line-shape; scale checked in W eν, Z ll, J/ψ ee. Electron/photon differences (reconstruction classification) lead to some -specific systematics ALAS 4 35 Calibrated data 3 MC, uncorrected 5 MC 5 5. Calibration uncertainty s=8 ev, Ldt =.3 fb m ee [GeV] Z Lineshape with Passive Material Uncertainties σ / E ALAS s=8 ev, Ldt =.3 fb Unconverted photons, η = [GeV] E Resolution for Unconverted Photons Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 9 / 4

10 Photon Vertices Standard p is not appropriate for diphoton events! Use photon pointing in MVA with p, ϕ(, tracks), etc.. Diphoton mass resolution depends on both energies and opening angle ( E E ( cos α)).. Diphoton-specific track isolation reduces pileup dependence. 3. Jets (VBF, dσ/dn ets, etc.) use vertex-dependent pileup subtraction. [GeV] σ 68.9 ALAS Simulation s = 8 ev rue vertex Selected vertex Photon-traectories H, m = 5 GeV H.8 iso ALAS Simulation s = 8 ev z Photon Pointing Number of primary vertices Impact of Vertex on Mass.75.7 H (ggf), m H = 5 GeV calo isolation < 4 GeV.65 calo isolation < 6 GeV + track isolation <.6 GeV Number of primary vertices Calorimeter and rack Isolation Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 / 4

11 h at ALAS For measurements and searches... Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 / 4

12 he h Analysis: Event Selection Just Need wo Photons! rigger on two electromagnetic clusters, with 99% efficiency. Select the two highest-e photons. η <.37, excluding the transition region.37 < η <.56. Impose additional quality cuts on the photons: Cuts-based particle identification in ; MVA in. Apply track and calorimeter isolation. Kinematic cuts: p /m >.35 (.5) on the (sub)leading photon. Use of relative cuts allows a smoother modelling of the backgrounds. Photon origins are shifted to the best primary vertex (MVA). Mass window 5 < m < 6 GeV. Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 / 4

13 he h Analysis: Method Diphoton Invariant Mass [GeV] Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 3 / 4

14 he h Analysis: Method Higgs Boson Continuum Background Diphoton Invariant Mass [GeV] Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 3 / 4

15 he h Analysis: Method Higgs Boson m h Continuum Background Diphoton Invariant Mass [GeV] Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 3 / 4

16 he h Analysis: Method Signal templates from MC (Crystal Ball!). Background function selected, and potential bias evaluated in high-stat MC. Categorize and subdivide to taste!! m h Diphoton Invariant Mass [GeV] Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 3 / 4

17 Differential Cross Sections Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 4 / 4

18 Differential Cross Sections: Context and Motivations Scrutinize the Higgs production and decay: measure observables, look for discrepancies. Diphoton channel gives high rate and allows a clean signal extraction. Note is arxiv:47.4; highlights of measured variables below. Inclusive -ets Variable Motivation p Kinematics, and QCD description of ggh. BSM!? y Kinematics (and one day, PDFs) cos θ Spin (model independent!) Jet multiplicities vary by production mode. N ets p ϕ p Hardest parton emission: NNLO+NNLL comparisons! ggh + VBF: spin and CP; matrix element of nd et. Powerful VBF variable with large theory uncertainties. Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 5 / 4

19 Fiducial Region (Benchmark Acceptance) Define a kinematic phase space, matching the detector acceptance. Unfold selection efficiencies but not detector acceptance. his reduces the model-dependence of the unfolding. he fiducial definition directly mirrors the reconstructed cuts: Select the two highest-e photons within η <.37. Do not remove.37 < η <.56. Particle-level: truth isolation less than 4 GeV, within R <.4. Mass window from 5 < m < 6 GeV. Require p /m >.35 (.5) for the leading (subleading) photon. Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 6 / 4

20 et L gg H X H p et s i gg H (K ggf =.54) X H et (MiNLO HJ+PY8) + X H = VBF + VH + tth Analysis Strategy Differential cross sections amount to different divisions of the total data sample, binned according to physical observables.. In each bin of each observable, the signal is extracted with a signal + background fit in the m spectrum.. he impact of the detector response on the measured yield of each bin is then unfolded with correction factors, to truth level. Events / GeV data - b ALAS data s+b fit background, b N events pp H, L dt =.3 fb m H N ets = 5.4 GeV =, p 5 ALAS data syst. unc. s = 8 ev > 3 GeV Binned Signal Extraction m H, gg (POWHEG+PY8) + X H + tth = VBF + VH = 8 ev dt =.3 fb > 3 GeV 3 [GeV] Reconstructed level N ets Raw Yields / Correction factors, c i ALAS Simulation H, s = 8 ev L dt =.3 fb = heoretical modelling uncertainty c with total uncertainty 3 N ets Correction Factors [fb] σ fid data / prediction ALAS data syst. unc. H, s = 8 ev L dt =.3 fb p > 3 GeV 3 N ets Fiducial Differential Cross Sections Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 7 / 4

21 Signal Extraction Signal shape in m derived from Monte Carlo, as a function of m h. Candidate background shapes tested with background-only MC, and required to have minimal bias. Ultimately exp{ax + bx } used almost everywhere (occasionally e ax ). Extraction performed with a single, simultaneous fit for each observable, with shared nuisance parameters between bins (m h fixed). Events / GeV 5 5 ALAS pp H, s = 8 ev L dt =.3 fb = 5.4 GeV m H et N ets =, p > 3 GeV 5 data s+b fit background, b data - b m [GeV] N ets =, Raw Extraction Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 8 / 4

22 Correction Factors Extracted yield of all bins are corrected, using factors derived from MC: Correction = ni Reco. /ni ruth Uses SM composition: ggh (87%), VBF (7%), Vh (5%), tth (.5%). his corrects acceptances, efficiencies, and migrations, at once. Appropriate for this very-low statistics measurement... Correction factors, c i ALAS Simulation H, s = 8 ev L dt =.3 fb Correction factors, c i ALAS Simulation H, s = 8 ev L dt =.3 fb heoretical modelling uncertainty c i with total uncertainty 3 Correction Factors N ets N ets.5 heoretical modelling uncertainty with total uncertainty c i p [GeV] Correction Factors p Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 9 / 4

23 otal Uncertainties otal uncertainty is overwhelmingly statistical. herefore uncorrelated between bins. Additional uncertainties from luminosity, correction factors (theory, migrations, pileup, etc.) and signal extraction (resolution, etc.). Bin-to-bin correlations are typically %. Largest correlations between bins are for p (still < %). Fractional uncertainty on cross section, σ fid /σ fid ALAS H, s = 8 ev L dt =.3 fb Luminosity Correction factor syst. Signal extraction syst. Statistics y Fractional uncertainty on cross section, σ fid /σ fid ALAS H, s = 8 ev L dt =.3 fb Luminosity Correction factor syst. Signal extraction syst. Statistics 3 N ets Higgs Rapdity N ets Jet Multiplicity Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 / 4

24 Results Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 / 4

25 ransverse Momentum of the Higgs Boson p Sensitive to (BSM!) production mode and to QCD. Closely studied andy predicted: Finite quark mass effects, resummation, EW corrections, etc. Harder spectrum observed, but p θ* consistent within uncertainties. -p POWHEG HRes. χ p-value.. [fb/gev] / dp dσ fid N Jets Δφ data / prediction ALAS data syst. unc. p p gg H (HRES) + X H =.5) (K ggf X H = VBF + VH + tth H, s = 8 ev L dt =.3 fb p p [GeV] Unfolded p Differential Cross Section Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 / 4

26 ransverse Momentum of the Higgs Boson p Sensitive to (BSM!) production mode and to QCD. Closely studied andy predicted: Finite quark mass effects, resummation, EW corrections, etc. Harder spectrum observed, but p θ* consistent within uncertainties. -p POWHEG HRes. χ p-value.. Δφ N Jets Ratio to prediction ALAS data syst. unc. H p, s p = 8 ev L dt =.3 fb gg H gg H gg H gg H p (HRES) + X H, (MiNLO HJ+PY8) + X H, K ggf p =.5 =.54 (MiNLO HJJ+PY8) + X H, K ggf =. (POWHEG+PY8) + X H, K ggf = Ratio to Predictions K ggf p [GeV] Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 / 4

27 Partial Cross Sections, by Number of Jets p Δφ N Jets Strongly correlated to p p measurement; same excess. y Scale variations fail, and 3 ets is from PS. POWHEG MINLO χ p-value.4.36 θ* p [fb] σ fid 5 p data / prediction p ALAS data syst. unc. gg H (MiNLO HJ+PY8) + X H =.54) (K ggf X H = VBF + VH + tth H, s = 8 ev L dt =.3 fb et p > 3 GeV 3 N ets Unfolded Differential Cross Section Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 3 / 4

28 Partial Cross Sections, by Number of Jets p Δφ N Jets Strongly correlated to p p measurement; same excess. y Scale variations fail, and 3 ets is from PS. POWHEG MINLO χ p-value.4.36 θ* p Ratio to prediction p ALAS H, s = 8 ev L dt =.3 fb et p p gg H gg H > 3 GeV data gg H (MiNLO HJJ+PY8) + X H, K ggf =. (POWHEG+PY8) + X H, K ggf =.46 syst. unc. (MiNLO HJ+PY8) + X H, K ggf =.54 3 Ratio to Predictions N ets Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 3 / 4

29 Comparison to h ZZ Same measurements ust released in h 4l: same behavior. Multiple teams have calculated h + NNLO/NLO k-factors of.4. Excess seems a bit larger, precision very limited. [fb/gev] / dp dσ fid.6 ALAS H ZZ* 4l data syst. unc. gg H (MiNLO HJ+PS) + X H.5 s = 8 ev L dt =.3 fb gg H (POWHEG+PS) + X H (HRES) + X H gg H = VBF + VH + tth p [GeV],H ransverse Momentum from h ZZ X H [fb] σ fid.8 ALAS data syst. unc. H ZZ* 4l.6 gg H (MiNLO HJ+PS) + X H s = 8 ev L dt =.3 fb.4 gg H (POWHEG+PS) + X H et p > 3 GeV X H = VBF + VH + tth Jet Multiplicity from h ZZ n ets Boughezal et al: arxiv:3.66, Chen et al arxiv:48.535v; kn 3 LO/NNLO (ggh) =.6, Ball et al arxiv: Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 4 / 4

30 y p ransverse Momentum of the Leading Jet * p [fb/gev] / dp dσ fid p p ALAS data syst. unc. gg H (MiNLO HJ+PY8) + X H =.54) (K ggf X H = VBF + VH + tth Hardest radiation in Higgs events. First bin from Nets =. Consistent with theory calculations to NNLO. POWHEG MINLO χ p-value.84.8 data / prediction H, s = 8 ev L dt =.3 fb N ets p [GeV] Unfolded Differential Cross Section Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 5 / 4

31 Azimuthal Separation of the wo Leading Jets y Δφ p Asym. sensitive to spin and CP:.9 v. ASM ϕ =.43 Pileup or DPI at ϕ π?. Low/high pileup samples consistent, or stricter JVF cuts.. Pileup uncertainty is p5%. 3. Higgs + diet DPI is %. A ϕ = POWHEG MINLO χ p-value..4 [fb/rad] / d φ dσ fid data / prediction ALAS p H, s = 8 ev L dt =.3 fb et N ets, p > 3 GeV data gg H (K ggf X H p syst. unc. (MiNLO HJJ+PY8) + X H =.) = VBF + VH + tth φ [rad] Unfolded Differential Cross Section Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 6 / 4

32 What next? Combination planned amongst channels. Data posted to HepData in (excruciating) detail. Event shapes sensitive to production (and e.g., effective theory). Combining bins requires correlations between variables: for h, dominant uncertainties are statistical (other correlations known). Can calculate bin-to-bin correlations of background (within ALAS). dσ/dx [fb] p N ets ϕ cosθ* Bin (Copied from HepData) Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 7 / 4

33 Higgs Boson Pair Production in bb Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 8 / 4

34 (BSM) Motivations for Pair Production. New resonances: HDMs, gravitons, radions, stoponium, hidden sectors, etc.. Non-resonant enchancements: compositeness, colored scalars, etc. First steps towards Higgs potential! YPE : Inclusive Σ Br H X, tanβ, cos Β Α.3, Λ 5 X h New Resonances? t h Σ Br pb... bb cc ΤΤ WW ZZ gg ΓΓ ZΓ tt hh M H GeV ype HDM: σ B [arxiv:35.44v] Compositeness? h h Self-Coupling/Higgs Potential (Future) Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 9 / 4

35 Benchmark Models (and Simulation ) Non-Resonant: SM hh, top box and self-coupling. Resonant: Gluon-induced heavy scalar (X hh) with Γ H. Consistent kinematics according to production mechanism (ggx, qqx, spin-, etc) = reasonably model independent limits. Big caveat: limits derived in NWA limit, do not apply cleanly to gravitons with large width. Focussed on resonances with m h < m X < m t (good for HDMs) beyond this 4b is more powerful. All final signal samples use MadGraph5; alternative models use Pythia8. Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 3 / 4

36 New Cuts for a New Analysis Jets and b-tagging Natural channel is h bb: B =.57. ALAS-CONF-4-4 Recycle baseline selection and optimize cuts discovery. Require two anti-k R=.4 b-ets tagged at working point of ets 7% with efficiency η < for.5 b-ets from tt. Standard ALAS MVA tagger, using impact parameter and multiple decays. Perform b-tagging using neural network tagger at 7% efficiency Add muons for fromb-ets semi-leptonic in b simulated decays back ttbar into ets. events Reection Leading (subleading) factor et 3x (4x) p > 55 (35) GeV. for light quark (charm) ets 95 < m bb < 35 GeV: 8% Calibrate b-tag scale factors efficient for signal. using dilepton ttbar events b-et efficiency ALAS 3 4 Preliminary tt PDF (MC) tt PDF (Data) L dt =.3 fb s = 8 ev = 7% MV, b Jet p [GeV] Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 3 / 4

37 Non-Resonance Search: Strategy With 9 events in the m sidebands, the simultaneous S + B fit remains robust. wo categories:. Signal (bb): provides only the yield.. Diet (): provides our background shape in m. Higgs mass fixed to the measured value; SM h at the SM rate. BSM SM mh m Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 3 / 4

38 ABLE I: Predicted number and composition of SM single Higgs boson background events in Saxon (Chicago) total expected SM signalhfrom pair at production ALAS of Higgs bosonsnovember is.4 events. 7, 4 33 / 4 Non-Resonance Search: Backgrounds Flavor tagging has minimal impact on continuum shape; consistent predictions from:. Relaxed PID.. b-tag 3. b-tags Differences taken as (%) systematic. Unavoidable statistical uncertainty of sideband: 33%. Composition studied in MC: mix of LF ets faking photons and b-tagging; about % tt. Expect.3 events from continuum,. SM h. Events /.5 GeV Events /.5 GeV ALAS Signal Region Data Ldt = fb, s = 8 ev Fitted Signal + Bkds Blinded Single Higgs Boson + Bkd Continuum Background < b-ag Control Region m [GeV] Process Fraction of total ggh % qqh % WH % ZH 7% t th 69% otal.7 ±.4 Events

39 Non-Resonance Search: Results 5 events observed =.4σ deviation from background-only. Masses: 5., 5., 5.4, 5.6, 8.5 GeV. 95% CL S upper limit at. pb (. expected). All results derived exclusively with toys. Compare to SM σ hh = fb. Events /.5 GeV 8 6 ALAS Ldt = fb, s = 8 ev Signal Region Data Fitted Signal + Bkds Single Higgs Boson + Bkd Continuum Background 4 Events /.5 GeV < b-ag Control Region m [GeV] Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 34 / 4

40 Resonance Search: Strategy Bexp. = Bside Sideband Region Signal Region mh ε ε ε mbb εbb ε m mh Bexp. Bside εbb Signal mh εbb Saxon (Chicago) mh mbb h at ALAS November 7, 4 m 35 / 4

41 Backgrounds: ε Measurement Use same control regions as non-resonance search to derive shapes of continuum.. Relaxed PID.. b-tag. 3. b-tags. Calculate the extrapolation, using the integrals: ε m =.3. All shapes (or a flat line) yield consistent ε factors; % Events /.5 GeV Events /.5 GeV uncertainty. [GeV] m ALAS Signal Region Data Ldt = fb, s = 8 ev Fitted Signal + Bkds Blinded Single Higgs Boson + Bkd Continuum Background < b-ag Control Region Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 36 / 4

42 Resonance Search and Mass Constraint Look for peak in m bb : smallest window containing 95% of events. Broad bb mass resolution = large m bb resolution. Cut on m bb, then simply scale bb four-momentum by m h /m bb before reconstructing m bb. Scaling improves m bb resolution by 3-6%, depending on the mass. Fraction /.5 GeV ALAS Simulation s = 8 ev mx =6 GeV mx =3 GeV mx =35 GeV mx =5 GeV Constrained Constrained Constrained Constrained m bb [GeV] With and Without Constraint Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 37 / 4

43 Extraction of ε bb Events / 5 GeV ALAS Ldt = fb, s = 8 ev Signal Region Data Control Region Fit Single Higgs Boson Fit m (< b-tags) in the m signal m X =3 region, GeV, σ X BR using hh = pb a Landau. Systematics from shape and flavor composition (Nb-tags ) from MC. Cross-check shape (and b, ) in m sidebands in data. - Yields mass window efficiency, as a function of resonance mass. Events / GeV < b-ag Control Region Data Landau Fit Constrained m [GeV] Landau Fit of m Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 38 / 4

44 Results: Resonance Search Local fluctuation: 3.σ, but with look elsewhere.σ. Same five events as non-resonance analysis. Events are not clustered in mbb. CMS does not see it. Limit on X hh between 3.5 pb and.7 pb. Clearly see steps in observed limit and εbb in expectation. Events / 5 GeV - ALAS Signal Region Ldt = fb, s = 8 ev Data Control Region Fit Single Higgs Boson m X =3 GeV, σ X BR hh = pb BR(X hh) [pb] σ X ALAS Ldt = fb at s = 8 ev Observed 95% CL Limit Expected Limit ±σ Expected Limit ±σ ype I HDM: tanβ=, cos(β-α)=-.5 Events / GeV < b-ag Control Region Data Landau Fit Constrained m [GeV] CL S Exclusion v. m X [GeV] m X Events in m bb Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 39 / 4

45 Interpreting in HDMs I Left: ALAS generic (MSSM) HDM, using κv, κu, κd, κ` parameterized in terms of α and β. I H hh (and H VV!) searches push much closer to alignment for specific H masses.. Σ Br H hh pb, mh 3 GeV, Λ5, Λ6,7 v 3 GeV HDM ype II ALAS PreliminarytΒ.5 Obs. 95% CL Best fit s = 7 ev: Ldt = fb s = 8 ev: Ldt =.3 fb. t Β tan β Exp. 95% CL Combined h,zz*,ww*.5 Combined h ττ,bb SM tβ Π p 4 5 Π 8 t b =.5.5 3p 8. p t Β tb = b tb =. p 8 t b = p YPE : Inclusive s BrHHÆVVLês BrHHSM ÆVVL, mh=3 GeV, l5 = t Β t b =.5.. t Β t b = pb Β b p p Π 3Π 8.5 : Σ Br H hh Inclusive s BrHHÆVVLês BrHH ÆVVL, mhv=3 GeV, l5= YPEYPE : Inc. pb, mh 3 GeV, 3 GeV SMΛ 5, Λ6,7 p tβ. cos Β Α cos(β-α) coshb-al cos Β Α t Β tb =..6 ype II HDM, H hh, tb = coshb-al ype II HDM, H VV Figure 3.ofContours the pp inclusive Br(H! V V ( ) )/ Br(HSM! V V ( ) ) for 8 ev pp collisions 9. Contours of the inclusive σ Br(H hh) in units pb for 8ofeV collisions for the ALAS ypewith II HDM [arxiv:35.44v] 3GeV H = scalar the non-sm-like Higgs boson, of cos( ) and for ype (left) ike scalar Higgs boson mh = 3 GeV,forshown as m a function of cos(β α) andshown β foras a function and chosen ype λ(right) we GeV) have chosen λ6,7 v Here = (3;, and 5,6,7 = and ma = mh. he inner (outer) dashed left) and ype Limits (right) HDM. Here we have 5 =,HDM. contour denotes the 68% (95%) CL best fit to the signals of the SM-like Higgs. he blue shaded region H. he inner (outer) dashed contour denotes the 68% (95%) CL best fit to the signals of the denotes the parameter space excluded by the most recent LHC searches for a heavy SM-like Higgs Higgs. [6]. Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 4 / 4

46 Other Channels and CMS Current ALAS 4b results stop at 5 GeV; expect non-resonant and lower mass soon. Hope for ALAS hh bbττ fairly soon. CMS presents tighter bb limit; fairly comparable performance between 4b and bb. Expect tighter limits with looser p cuts in Run II. σ(pp G*) x BR(G* HH bbbb) [fb] ALAS Preliminary Expected Limit (95% CL) Expected ± Expected ± σ σ Observed Limit (95% CL) RS Graviton, k/m Planck =. s = 8 ev: Ldt = 9.5 fb m G* [GeV] ALAS hh 4b HH) (fb) spin- 95% CL limit on σ(pp X CMS Preliminary Assumes SM Higgs BR CMS-PAS-HIG3-3 (bb) CMS-PAS-HIG4-3 (bbbb) - spin- CMS-PAS-HIG3-5 (multileptons and photons) radion Λ R =ev radion Λ R =3eV fb Observed Expected (8 ev) spin- m X (GeV) CMS: All Channels } WED: gg X, kl=35 BR(X HH)=.5, no r/h mixing Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 4 / 4

47 Conclusions h is vital for SM measurements and a versatile probe of BSM physics.. Coupling (and spin) measurements agree with SM expectations.. Differential cross sections measurements confirm the Higgs-like properties. Hints of a higher-than-predicted et multiplicity and p consistent with newest calculations. No signs of new physics; can we use this (fully processed) data to make detailed statements about effective theories? 3. Higgs pair production in bb is experimentally straightforward and is theoretically interesting. A few additional events, but nothing significant. Limits will fall quickly in Run II and may squeeze HDMs with m H < m t faster than couplings searches; still a long way to λ! Saxon (Chicago) h at ALAS November 7, 4 4 / 4