Congratulations on making this note! Let me pass a few comments:
page 1: enter appropriate LHCHXSWG note number
Organization of the note: Is it correct that Section 2 is based on published work
in Refs.[15,16,19], while Section 3 is based on original contributions of individual
contributors, which have not been published? This is the impression one gets from
reading the footnotes attached to each sub-section. There is only one exception that
sub-section 3.2 has no footnote. If this understanding is correct, then may be few
words in the introduction could outline this aspect of the note organization as well?
page 5 and Table 1: it is not clear from the text and Table 1 caption,
which basis (SILH or Warsaw) is used in this table (I expect this is SILH).
Jumping between different bases (and sometimes without explaining this)
makes it more confusing for experimental reference. We may want
to use Rosetta https://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.05895.pdf to relate the bases,
so it may be good to relate operators to this reference as well.
In the end, I must admit that it is hard for me, as an experimentalist, to take away
a particular quantitive prediction for Wilson coefficients that I would like to measure
on LHC. This was the expectation that I had after reading the introduction. For example,
if I pick Table 2 of Ref.[11] (Warsaw basis), I may want to know what could be the
typical size of various operators that we could constrain on LHC, given certain models.
few minor typos (I did not pick all, so you may want to check spelling):
page 2, line 6 from the bottom: "most analyses"
page 2, line 2 from the bottom: "flat directions" appears to be jargon to be explained,
"gives" should be plural.
page 4, line 1 of Section 1.1: possible to makeS, remove S
Congratulations on making this note! Let me pass a few comments:
page 1: enter appropriate LHCHXSWG note number
Organization of the note: Is it correct that Section 2 is based on published work
in Refs.[15,16,19], while Section 3 is based on original contributions of individual
contributors, which have not been published? This is the impression one gets from
reading the footnotes attached to each sub-section. There is only one exception that
sub-section 3.2 has no footnote. If this understanding is correct, then may be few
words in the introduction could outline this aspect of the note organization as well?
page 5 and Table 1: it is not clear from the text and Table 1 caption,
which basis (SILH or Warsaw) is used in this table (I expect this is SILH).
Jumping between different bases (and sometimes without explaining this)
makes it more confusing for experimental reference. We may want
to use Rosetta https://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.05895.pdf to relate the bases,
so it may be good to relate operators to this reference as well.
In the end, I must admit that it is hard for me, as an experimentalist, to take away
a particular quantitive prediction for Wilson coefficients that I would like to measure
on LHC. This was the expectation that I had after reading the introduction. For example,
if I pick Table 2 of Ref.[11] (Warsaw basis), I may want to know what could be the
typical size of various operators that we could constrain on LHC, given certain models.
few minor typos (I did not pick all, so you may want to check spelling):
page 2, line 6 from the bottom: "most analyses"
page 2, line 2 from the bottom: "flat directions" appears to be jargon to be explained,
"gives" should be plural.
page 4, line 1 of Section 1.1: possible to makeS, remove S
page 11, line 1 of Section 2.2: adDress, add D
Andrei Gritsan
Dear Andrei, thank you very much for the comments! I implemented them all (I'll add the updated version shortly). Regarding your last comment "In the end...": I think the way to use the document is: rather then selecting a subset of operators from the warsaw basis, search in this document for the subsets of operators that are generated by different models.
Thanks for this note on BSM interpretations for EFT analyses. I think the presentation (with lots of tables summarizing the findings) is excellent as well as the organization of the different sections from weakly to strongly coupled and from one to various fields. Very nice work!
I have a couple of comments:
1. The section Patterns focuses on the ratio c2W/c3W, which is very interesting indeed for the loop effects. But as you show in your Table I, these two coefficients are not that easy to constrain, so I wanted to ask whether you thought on mapping other sets of effects to models. In the note you do [scenario-> EFT coefficients generated] and you indeed talk about how integrating out sets of particles you get specific coefficients. But if you focused on the restricted set of coefficients that one could probe earliest, some larger groups of scenarios could exhibit the same patterns like which coefficients are switched on, which ones are suppressed etc. I was just wondering whether this is something you thought on including a dicussion about this. Measurements of some of these coefficients may take a long time, and before we get the whole picture one may want to start grouping scenarios which will be ruled out (or discovered) first.
2. My second comment refers to the strongly coupled section. As usual, one presents the NDA counting and parametrizes the unknowns with g* and Lambda. In Table 13 these kind of estimates are shown and then in the caption one can read 'Different combinations of such UV assumptions might simultaneously be satisfied in a given concrete UV model.' I was wondering whether it would be good to show a couple of examples of such specific UV completions. For the weakly coupled scenarios we got so many specific benchmarks, like the light stop or the additional doublet, and so little on this section, apart from the models focused on the high-energy scattering (Remedios+X) which again won't be probed in the near future. I would have liked to see a discussion on whether when could one disentangle certain weakly interacting scenarios (Sec2) from strongly coupled scenarios (Sec 3), given what we know and will know in the near future.
These are just suggestions, in case you had already thought about those points and could add them in the overview summary.
Apart from that, I noticed there's a little typo in page 18, after eq 27.
Dear Veronica, thank you very much for the important comments!
1. The section Patterns focuses on the ratio c2W/c3W, which is very interesting indeed for the loop effects. But as you show in your Table I, these two coefficients are not that easy to constrain, so I wanted to ask whether you thought on mapping other sets of effects to models. In the note you do [scenario-> EFT coefficients generated] and you indeed talk about how integrating out sets of particles you get specific coefficients. But if you focused on the restricted set of coefficients that one could probe earliest, some larger groups of scenarios could exhibit the same patterns like which coefficients are switched on, which ones are suppressed etc. I was just wondering whether this is something you thought on including a dicussion about this. Measurements of some of these coefficients may take a long time, and before we get the whole picture one may want to start grouping scenarios which will be ruled out (or discovered) first.
Indeed, I think table one was misrepresenting how well these couplings are measured (indeed c3w and c2w are in fact pretty well tested); I changed the layout of table 1 so that this should bbe easier to understand. Unfortunately there are not so many sharp predictions as the ratio c2w/c3w as far as we know, especially among the couplings that can be measured first...
2. My second comment refers to the strongly coupled section. As usual, one presents the NDA counting and parametrizes the unknowns with g* and Lambda. In Table 13 these kind of estimates are shown and then in the caption one can read 'Different combinations of such UV assumptions might simultaneously be satisfied in a given concrete UV model.' I was wondering whether it would be good to show a couple of examples of such specific UV completions. For the weakly coupled scenarios we got so many specific benchmarks, like the light stop or the additional doublet, and so little on this section, apart from the models focused on the high-energy scattering (Remedios+X) which again won't be probed in the near future. I would have liked to see a discussion on whether when could one disentangle certain weakly interacting scenarios (Sec2) from strongly coupled scenarios (Sec 3), given what we know and will know in the near future.
THis is a good point. Unfortunately we don't have generic UV completions of these models that can be used as convincing benchmarks...so for the time being, the idea is that the patterns of suppressions provided in table 13 reflect the properties of the would bbe UV models. These patterns, for large enough g*, are very different from the weakly coupled prediction (e.g. a c_H much larger than a c_3W), and this could be used as discriminant between the two scenarios. Unfortunately is not extremely sharp, but this only reflects the fact that "strong" and "weak" are only relative statements.
These are just suggestions, in case you had already thought about those points and could add them in the overview summary.
Apart from that, I noticed there's a little typo in page 18, after eq 27.
Let me second the previous comments and congratulate you for this nice document. It is well structured and it contains a lot of useful information. Some parts might have benefited from a bit more explanation, but overall it has thr right balance to reach a good ration of information/lenght.
I could think of a few things to add, but maybe this is not the right moment for that. Instead, I'd like to report some "typos".
p3, 4th paragraph: you should mention what g is (not to be confused with a typical SM coupling for instance).
p3, 5th paragraph: in addition to R-parity, you might also want to mention T-parity for Little Higgs models
p5, Table 1: first, there are a few quantities that are not defined (even though they are probably self-evident), like \lambda_h, y_\psi, \leftrightarrow (normalisation). Also, the meaning of the precision figures reported in the 3rd row is not totally clear, in particular 0.1% for ZZ* and VV*.
p6, eq. 2: Do $q_{Li}$ denote the SM left-handed quarks? Since, you include a flavour index, you should mention if it is in the mass or flavour basis.
p7, caption of Table 3: "less" and "smaller" than what?
p8, eq. 3: isn't a kinetic mixing between the new vector and the hypercharge gauge boson also allowed? You might also want to comment on the origin of the mass term for the new vector?
p9, quark bidoublet model: O_g and O_\gamma are not mentioned explcitly because they are loop-generated. Still, they played a role as important as O_{u\phi} in constraining the model via Higgs measurements. So they should be discussed (and the matching given explicitly?). It would be good to add a reference for the direct searches.
p10, neutral vector triplet model: a reference on the direct searches would also be welcome
p11, section 2.2: is it obvious that these modesl match onto SMEFT and not HEFT? Do you need to make assumptions for that to be the case or is it generic? the operators O_b, O_t and O_\tau in eq. 8 are not defined.
p14, end of the first paragraph: I guess [X] means the mass dimension of X but this is not indicated clearly.
p15: eqs. (20): the symbol # indicates an appropriate power of g_UV. Note that there models with specific selection rules where it is g_SM and not g_UV that appear in the 20b.
p18, second line after eq. 27: label of the equation missing
p21: end of the 4th paragraph: "This possibility will not be discussed...": it would be good to give a reference
p34: eq. 34: what are c and c' denoting?
p24: O_y was denoted O_\psi before in the document (same for the last column of Table 14)
p25: the normalisation of the operators doesn't seem to be consistent with what was used before (Table 1 and Table 13)
A general comment: it would be nice to homogenise the style of the table
Some papers that just appear with their arXiv number have been published by now.
thank you very much for the many comments. I implement them all (some of the I'll have to ask to the authors of the specific subsections); I will post the updated version shortly.
- It was not always clear to me which basis is being used in each subsection, can it be explicitly stated?
- Is it possible to provide at least one mapping in two bases? This would allow a cross-check that demonstrates the basis-independence of the interpretation.
Apologies if the latter two are already there and I missed them.
Dear authors of LHCHXSWG-2019-006,
Congratulations on making this note! Let me pass a few comments:
page 1: enter appropriate LHCHXSWG note number
Organization of the note: Is it correct that Section 2 is based on published work
in Refs.[15,16,19], while Section 3 is based on original contributions of individual
contributors, which have not been published? This is the impression one gets from
reading the footnotes attached to each sub-section. There is only one exception that
sub-section 3.2 has no footnote. If this understanding is correct, then may be few
words in the introduction could outline this aspect of the note organization as well?
page 5 and Table 1: it is not clear from the text and Table 1 caption,
which basis (SILH or Warsaw) is used in this table (I expect this is SILH).
Jumping between different bases (and sometimes without explaining this)
makes it more confusing for experimental reference. We may want
to use Rosetta https://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.05895.pdf to relate the bases,
so it may be good to relate operators to this reference as well.
In the end, I must admit that it is hard for me, as an experimentalist, to take away
a particular quantitive prediction for Wilson coefficients that I would like to measure
on LHC. This was the expectation that I had after reading the introduction. For example,
if I pick Table 2 of Ref.[11] (Warsaw basis), I may want to know what could be the
typical size of various operators that we could constrain on LHC, given certain models.
few minor typos (I did not pick all, so you may want to check spelling):
page 2, line 6 from the bottom: "most analyses"
page 2, line 2 from the bottom: "flat directions" appears to be jargon to be explained,
"gives" should be plural.
page 4, line 1 of Section 1.1: possible to makeS, remove S
page 11, line 1 of Section 2.2: adDress, add D
Andrei Gritsan
Andrei Gritsan ha scritto il 16 Jun 2020, 23:53:
Dear Andrei, thank you very much for the comments! I implemented them all (I'll add the updated version shortly). Regarding your last comment "In the end...": I think the way to use the document is: rather then selecting a subset of operators from the warsaw basis, search in this document for the subsets of operators that are generated by different models.
Thank you! francesco riva
Dear authors,
Thanks for this note on BSM interpretations for EFT analyses. I think the presentation (with lots of tables summarizing the findings) is excellent as well as the organization of the different sections from weakly to strongly coupled and from one to various fields. Very nice work!
I have a couple of comments:
1. The section Patterns focuses on the ratio c2W/c3W, which is very interesting indeed for the loop effects. But as you show in your Table I, these two coefficients are not that easy to constrain, so I wanted to ask whether you thought on mapping other sets of effects to models. In the note you do [scenario-> EFT coefficients generated] and you indeed talk about how integrating out sets of particles you get specific coefficients. But if you focused on the restricted set of coefficients that one could probe earliest, some larger groups of scenarios could exhibit the same patterns like which coefficients are switched on, which ones are suppressed etc. I was just wondering whether this is something you thought on including a dicussion about this. Measurements of some of these coefficients may take a long time, and before we get the whole picture one may want to start grouping scenarios which will be ruled out (or discovered) first.
2. My second comment refers to the strongly coupled section. As usual, one presents the NDA counting and parametrizes the unknowns with g* and Lambda. In Table 13 these kind of estimates are shown and then in the caption one can read 'Different combinations of such UV assumptions might simultaneously be satisfied in a given concrete UV model.' I was wondering whether it would be good to show a couple of examples of such specific UV completions. For the weakly coupled scenarios we got so many specific benchmarks, like the light stop or the additional doublet, and so little on this section, apart from the models focused on the high-energy scattering (Remedios+X) which again won't be probed in the near future. I would have liked to see a discussion on whether when could one disentangle certain weakly interacting scenarios (Sec2) from strongly coupled scenarios (Sec 3), given what we know and will know in the near future.
These are just suggestions, in case you had already thought about those points and could add them in the overview summary.
Apart from that, I noticed there's a little typo in page 18, after eq 27.
Thanks for your work.
Veronica.
Dear Veronica, thank you very much for the important comments!
Indeed, I think table one was misrepresenting how well these couplings are measured (indeed c3w and c2w are in fact pretty well tested); I changed the layout of table 1 so that this should bbe easier to understand. Unfortunately there are not so many sharp predictions as the ratio c2w/c3w as far as we know, especially among the couplings that can be measured first...
THis is a good point. Unfortunately we don't have generic UV completions of these models that can be used as convincing benchmarks...so for the time being, the idea is that the patterns of suppressions provided in table 13 reflect the properties of the would bbe UV models. These patterns, for large enough g*, are very different from the weakly coupled prediction (e.g. a c_H much larger than a c_3W), and this could be used as discriminant between the two scenarios. Unfortunately is not extremely sharp, but this only reflects the fact that "strong" and "weak" are only relative statements.
Thank to you!!!
francesco
Hello,
Let me second the previous comments and congratulate you for this nice document. It is well structured and it contains a lot of useful information. Some parts might have benefited from a bit more explanation, but overall it has thr right balance to reach a good ration of information/lenght.
I could think of a few things to add, but maybe this is not the right moment for that. Instead, I'd like to report some "typos".
p3, 4th paragraph: you should mention what g is (not to be confused with a typical SM coupling for instance).
p3, 5th paragraph: in addition to R-parity, you might also want to mention T-parity for Little Higgs models
p5, Table 1: first, there are a few quantities that are not defined (even though they are probably self-evident), like \lambda_h, y_\psi, \leftrightarrow (normalisation). Also, the meaning of the precision figures reported in the 3rd row is not totally clear, in particular 0.1% for ZZ* and VV*.
p6, eq. 2: Do $q_{Li}$ denote the SM left-handed quarks? Since, you include a flavour index, you should mention if it is in the mass or flavour basis.
p7, caption of Table 3: "less" and "smaller" than what?
p8, eq. 3: isn't a kinetic mixing between the new vector and the hypercharge gauge boson also allowed? You might also want to comment on the origin of the mass term for the new vector?
p9, quark bidoublet model: O_g and O_\gamma are not mentioned explcitly because they are loop-generated. Still, they played a role as important as O_{u\phi} in constraining the model via Higgs measurements. So they should be discussed (and the matching given explicitly?). It would be good to add a reference for the direct searches.
p10, neutral vector triplet model: a reference on the direct searches would also be welcome
p11, section 2.2: is it obvious that these modesl match onto SMEFT and not HEFT? Do you need to make assumptions for that to be the case or is it generic? the operators O_b, O_t and O_\tau in eq. 8 are not defined.
p14, end of the first paragraph: I guess [X] means the mass dimension of X but this is not indicated clearly.
p15: eqs. (20): the symbol # indicates an appropriate power of g_UV. Note that there models with specific selection rules where it is g_SM and not g_UV that appear in the 20b.
p18, second line after eq. 27: label of the equation missing
p21: end of the 4th paragraph: "This possibility will not be discussed...": it would be good to give a reference
p34: eq. 34: what are c and c' denoting?
p24: O_y was denoted O_\psi before in the document (same for the last column of Table 14)
p25: the normalisation of the operators doesn't seem to be consistent with what was used before (Table 1 and Table 13)
A general comment: it would be nice to homogenise the style of the table
Some papers that just appear with their arXiv number have been published by now.
Thanks again for preparing this nice document.
Christophe
Dear Christophe,
thank you very much for the many comments. I implement them all (some of the I'll have to ask to the authors of the specific subsections); I will post the updated version shortly.
Thank you again!
Francesco
Hi authors,
Just a few comments from a quick look:
- Table 1 has a spurious "Here" at the end
- It was not always clear to me which basis is being used in each subsection, can it be explicitly stated?
- Is it possible to provide at least one mapping in two bases? This would allow a cross-check that demonstrates the basis-independence of the interpretation.
Apologies if the latter two are already there and I missed them.
- Chris
Dear Dhris, thank you very much for the comments! I edited the typo and included references to the bases in every section where it was missing.
For the translation we preferred to refer to Rosetta where this can be done systematically for all scenarios.
Thank you very much,
Francesco