CERN Accelerating science

Representative Feynman diagrams for $\PV\PH$ production sensitive to different dimension-six operators. The EFT effects contribute in vertices highlighted with a black dot. The diagram on the left shows effects due to ${\cal O}^{(1)}_{\PH\PQq}$, ${\cal O}^{(3)}_{\PH\PQq}$, ${\cal O}_{\PH\PQu}$, and ${\cal O}_{\PH\PQd}$. The diagram at the center also includes contributions due to ${\cal O}_{\PH\textrm{D}}$ and ${\cal O}_{\PH\PW\textrm{B}}$. The diagram on the right displays effects from $\mathcal{O}_{\PH\PW}$, $\mathcal{O}_{\PH\PW\textrm{B}}$, $\mathcal{O}_{\PH\textrm{B}}$, and their $CP$ conjugates.

Representative Feynman diagrams for $\PV\PH$ production sensitive to different dimension-six operators. The EFT effects contribute in vertices highlighted with a black dot. The diagram on the left shows effects due to ${\cal O}^{(1)}_{\PH\PQq}$, ${\cal O}^{(3)}_{\PH\PQq}$, ${\cal O}_{\PH\PQu}$, and ${\cal O}_{\PH\PQd}$. The diagram at the center also includes contributions due to ${\cal O}_{\PH\textrm{D}}$ and ${\cal O}_{\PH\PW\textrm{B}}$. The diagram on the right displays effects from $\mathcal{O}_{\PH\PW}$, $\mathcal{O}_{\PH\PW\textrm{B}}$, $\mathcal{O}_{\PH\textrm{B}}$, and their $CP$ conjugates.

Representative Feynman diagrams for $\PV\PH$ production sensitive to different dimension-six operators. The EFT effects contribute in vertices highlighted with a black dot. The diagram on the left shows effects due to ${\cal O}^{(1)}_{\PH\PQq}$, ${\cal O}^{(3)}_{\PH\PQq}$, ${\cal O}_{\PH\PQu}$, and ${\cal O}_{\PH\PQd}$. The diagram at the center also includes contributions due to ${\cal O}_{\PH\textrm{D}}$ and ${\cal O}_{\PH\PW\textrm{B}}$. The diagram on the right displays effects from $\mathcal{O}_{\PH\PW}$, $\mathcal{O}_{\PH\PW\textrm{B}}$, $\mathcal{O}_{\PH\textrm{B}}$, and their $CP$ conjugates.

Decay planes and angles in the $\PV(\to \Pell_1 \Pell_2){\PH}(\to \PQb \PAQb)$ production. The $\Theta$ angle is defined in the $\PV\PH$ rest frame, while $\theta$ is defined in the \PV rest frame. Figure modified from Ref.~\cite{Banerjee:2019twi}. The coordinate system used in the sketch of the decay plane is independent of the general CMS coordinate system that is used for the analysis.

Selected template shapes after the optimization process described in Section~\ref{sec:opt_discriminator} in the resolved (left) and boosted (right) categories of the $\twol$ channel . The template shapes of the EFT signal components are shown for arbitrary values of the Wilson coefficients: ($\cHqo$, $\cHqt$, $\cHu$, $\cHd$, $\gtZZ$, $\gfZZ$) = (1, 0.8, 1, 1, 2, 2) and (0.2, -0.03, 0.2, 0.2, 1, 1) in the resolved and boosted categories, respectively. The SM $\PV\PH$ signal is flat by construction. The background is shown as the grey histogram.

Selected template shapes after the optimization process described in Section~\ref{sec:opt_discriminator} in the resolved (left) and boosted (right) categories of the $\twol$ channel . The template shapes of the EFT signal components are shown for arbitrary values of the Wilson coefficients: ($\cHqo$, $\cHqt$, $\cHu$, $\cHd$, $\gtZZ$, $\gfZZ$) = (1, 0.8, 1, 1, 2, 2) and (0.2, -0.03, 0.2, 0.2, 1, 1) in the resolved and boosted categories, respectively. The SM $\PV\PH$ signal is flat by construction. The background is shown as the grey histogram.

The BIT templates obtained using a background-only fit to data in the {\twom} (left) and {\twoe} (right) final states in the SR for resolved (upper row) and boosted (lower row) categories considering the 2017 data set. The SM {\PV}{\PH} signal has been scaled by 20 and 5 for the resolved and boosted BIT templates in the upper and lower row, respectively, for better visualization. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the background expectation after the background-only fit to the data.

The BIT templates obtained using a background-only fit to data in the {\twom} (left) and {\twoe} (right) final states in the SR for resolved (upper row) and boosted (lower row) categories considering the 2017 data set. The SM {\PV}{\PH} signal has been scaled by 20 and 5 for the resolved and boosted BIT templates in the upper and lower row, respectively, for better visualization. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the background expectation after the background-only fit to the data.

The BIT templates obtained using a background-only fit to data in the {\twom} (left) and {\twoe} (right) final states in the SR for resolved (upper row) and boosted (lower row) categories considering the 2017 data set. The SM {\PV}{\PH} signal has been scaled by 20 and 5 for the resolved and boosted BIT templates in the upper and lower row, respectively, for better visualization. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the background expectation after the background-only fit to the data.

The BIT templates obtained using a background-only fit to data in the {\twom} (left) and {\twoe} (right) final states in the SR for resolved (upper row) and boosted (lower row) categories considering the 2017 data set. The SM {\PV}{\PH} signal has been scaled by 20 and 5 for the resolved and boosted BIT templates in the upper and lower row, respectively, for better visualization. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the background expectation after the background-only fit to the data.

The BIT templates obtained using a background-only fit to data in the {\onem} (left) and {\onee} (right) final states in the SR for resolved (upper row) and boosted (lower row) categories considering the 2017 data set. The SM {\PV}{\PH} signal has been scaled by 20 and 5 for the resolved and boosted BIT templates in the upper and lower row, respectively, for better visualization. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the background expectation after the background-only fit to the data.

The BIT templates obtained using a background-only fit to data in the {\onem} (left) and {\onee} (right) final states in the SR for resolved (upper row) and boosted (lower row) categories considering the 2017 data set. The SM {\PV}{\PH} signal has been scaled by 20 and 5 for the resolved and boosted BIT templates in the upper and lower row, respectively, for better visualization. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the background expectation after the background-only fit to the data.

The BIT templates obtained using a background-only fit to data in the {\onem} (left) and {\onee} (right) final states in the SR for resolved (upper row) and boosted (lower row) categories considering the 2017 data set. The SM {\PV}{\PH} signal has been scaled by 20 and 5 for the resolved and boosted BIT templates in the upper and lower row, respectively, for better visualization. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the background expectation after the background-only fit to the data.

The BIT templates obtained using a background-only fit to data in the {\onem} (left) and {\onee} (right) final states in the SR for resolved (upper row) and boosted (lower row) categories considering the 2017 data set. The SM {\PV}{\PH} signal has been scaled by 20 and 5 for the resolved and boosted BIT templates in the upper and lower row, respectively, for better visualization. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the background expectation after the background-only fit to the data.

The BIT templates obtained using a background-only fit to data in the {\zerol} final state in the SR for resolved (left) and boosted (right) categories considering the 2017 data set. The SM {\PV}{\PH} signal has been scaled by 20 and 5 for the resolved and boosted BIT templates in the upper and lower row, respectively, for better visualization. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the background expectation after the background-only fit to the data.

The BIT templates obtained using a background-only fit to data in the {\zerol} final state in the SR for resolved (left) and boosted (right) categories considering the 2017 data set. The SM {\PV}{\PH} signal has been scaled by 20 and 5 for the resolved and boosted BIT templates in the upper and lower row, respectively, for better visualization. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the background expectation after the background-only fit to the data.

Summary of results in terms of best fit value of the Wilson coefficients and the intervals where the test statistic is below 1 and 4, with up to the linear (upper row) and quadratic (lower row) terms in the SMEFT parameterization. These results are obtained either by allowing all Wilson coefficients to float freely at every point of the scan (profiled fit), or by keeping all other Wilson coefficients to their SM values, \ie, 0, except for the one that is being considered in the scan (frozen fit). The multiplication factor applies to the sizes of intervals satisfying $\textit{q}<1$ and $\textit{q}<4$ but not to the values of the CIs on the right-hand side of the figure, which correspond to the profiled constraints in all cases.

Summary of results in terms of best fit value of the Wilson coefficients and the intervals where the test statistic is below 1 and 4, with up to the linear (upper row) and quadratic (lower row) terms in the SMEFT parameterization. These results are obtained either by allowing all Wilson coefficients to float freely at every point of the scan (profiled fit), or by keeping all other Wilson coefficients to their SM values, \ie, 0, except for the one that is being considered in the scan (frozen fit). The multiplication factor applies to the sizes of intervals satisfying $\textit{q}<1$ and $\textit{q}<4$ but not to the values of the CIs on the right-hand side of the figure, which correspond to the profiled constraints in all cases.

Profiled limits on the energy scale $\Lambda$ for three different assumptions for each Wilson coefficient while fixing the other Wilson coefficients to their SM values with up to the linear (upper row) and quadratic (lower row) terms in SMEFT parameterization. The upper limits on the Wilson coefficients corresponding to $\textit{q}=4$ is used for translating the constraints to $\Lambda$.

Profiled limits on the energy scale $\Lambda$ for three different assumptions for each Wilson coefficient while fixing the other Wilson coefficients to their SM values with up to the linear (upper row) and quadratic (lower row) terms in SMEFT parameterization. The upper limits on the Wilson coefficients corresponding to $\textit{q}=4$ is used for translating the constraints to $\Lambda$.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients: $\cHqo$ vs. $\cHqt$ (upper row), $\cHqo$ vs. $\cHu$ (middle row), $\cHqo$ vs. $\cHd$ (lower row) while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the scan (left) or fixed at their SM values (right) after combining results from all data-taking years and final states.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients: $\cHqo$ vs. $\cHqt$ (upper row), $\cHqo$ vs. $\cHu$ (middle row), $\cHqo$ vs. $\cHd$ (lower row) while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the scan (left) or fixed at their SM values (right) after combining results from all data-taking years and final states.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients: $\cHqo$ vs. $\cHqt$ (upper row), $\cHqo$ vs. $\cHu$ (middle row), $\cHqo$ vs. $\cHd$ (lower row) while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the scan (left) or fixed at their SM values (right) after combining results from all data-taking years and final states.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients: $\cHqo$ vs. $\cHqt$ (upper row), $\cHqo$ vs. $\cHu$ (middle row), $\cHqo$ vs. $\cHd$ (lower row) while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the scan (left) or fixed at their SM values (right) after combining results from all data-taking years and final states.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients: $\cHqo$ vs. $\cHqt$ (upper row), $\cHqo$ vs. $\cHu$ (middle row), $\cHqo$ vs. $\cHd$ (lower row) while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the scan (left) or fixed at their SM values (right) after combining results from all data-taking years and final states.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients: $\cHqo$ vs. $\cHqt$ (upper row), $\cHqo$ vs. $\cHu$ (middle row), $\cHqo$ vs. $\cHd$ (lower row) while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the scan (left) or fixed at their SM values (right) after combining results from all data-taking years and final states.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients: $\cHqt$ vs. $\cHu$ (upper row), $\cHqt$ vs. $\cHd$ (middle row), $\cHu$ vs. $\cHd$ (lower row) while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the scan (left) or fixed at their SM values (right) after combining results from all data-taking years and final states.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients: $\cHqt$ vs. $\cHu$ (upper row), $\cHqt$ vs. $\cHd$ (middle row), $\cHu$ vs. $\cHd$ (lower row) while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the scan (left) or fixed at their SM values (right) after combining results from all data-taking years and final states.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients: $\cHqt$ vs. $\cHu$ (upper row), $\cHqt$ vs. $\cHd$ (middle row), $\cHu$ vs. $\cHd$ (lower row) while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the scan (left) or fixed at their SM values (right) after combining results from all data-taking years and final states.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients: $\cHqt$ vs. $\cHu$ (upper row), $\cHqt$ vs. $\cHd$ (middle row), $\cHu$ vs. $\cHd$ (lower row) while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the scan (left) or fixed at their SM values (right) after combining results from all data-taking years and final states.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients: $\cHqt$ vs. $\cHu$ (upper row), $\cHqt$ vs. $\cHd$ (middle row), $\cHu$ vs. $\cHd$ (lower row) while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the scan (left) or fixed at their SM values (right) after combining results from all data-taking years and final states.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients: $\cHqt$ vs. $\cHu$ (upper row), $\cHqt$ vs. $\cHd$ (middle row), $\cHu$ vs. $\cHd$ (lower row) while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the scan (left) or fixed at their SM values (right) after combining results from all data-taking years and final states.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients: $\cHqo$ vs. $\gtZZ$ (upper row), $\cHqt$ vs. $\gtZZ$ (middle row), $\cHu$ vs. $\gtZZ$ (lower row) while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the scan (left) or fixed at their SM values (right) after combining results from all data-taking years and final states.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients: $\cHqo$ vs. $\gtZZ$ (upper row), $\cHqt$ vs. $\gtZZ$ (middle row), $\cHu$ vs. $\gtZZ$ (lower row) while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the scan (left) or fixed at their SM values (right) after combining results from all data-taking years and final states.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients: $\cHqo$ vs. $\gtZZ$ (upper row), $\cHqt$ vs. $\gtZZ$ (middle row), $\cHu$ vs. $\gtZZ$ (lower row) while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the scan (left) or fixed at their SM values (right) after combining results from all data-taking years and final states.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients: $\cHqo$ vs. $\gtZZ$ (upper row), $\cHqt$ vs. $\gtZZ$ (middle row), $\cHu$ vs. $\gtZZ$ (lower row) while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the scan (left) or fixed at their SM values (right) after combining results from all data-taking years and final states.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients: $\cHqo$ vs. $\gtZZ$ (upper row), $\cHqt$ vs. $\gtZZ$ (middle row), $\cHu$ vs. $\gtZZ$ (lower row) while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the scan (left) or fixed at their SM values (right) after combining results from all data-taking years and final states.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients: $\cHqo$ vs. $\gtZZ$ (upper row), $\cHqt$ vs. $\gtZZ$ (middle row), $\cHu$ vs. $\gtZZ$ (lower row) while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the scan (left) or fixed at their SM values (right) after combining results from all data-taking years and final states.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients: $\cHqo$ vs. $\gfZZ$ (upper row), $\cHqt$ vs. $\gfZZ$ (middle row), $\cHu$ vs. $\gfZZ$ (lower row) while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the scan (left) or fixed at their SM values (right) after combining results from all data-taking years and final states.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients: $\cHqo$ vs. $\gfZZ$ (upper row), $\cHqt$ vs. $\gfZZ$ (middle row), $\cHu$ vs. $\gfZZ$ (lower row) while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the scan (left) or fixed at their SM values (right) after combining results from all data-taking years and final states.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients: $\cHqo$ vs. $\gfZZ$ (upper row), $\cHqt$ vs. $\gfZZ$ (middle row), $\cHu$ vs. $\gfZZ$ (lower row) while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the scan (left) or fixed at their SM values (right) after combining results from all data-taking years and final states.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients: $\cHqo$ vs. $\gfZZ$ (upper row), $\cHqt$ vs. $\gfZZ$ (middle row), $\cHu$ vs. $\gfZZ$ (lower row) while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the scan (left) or fixed at their SM values (right) after combining results from all data-taking years and final states.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients: $\cHqo$ vs. $\gfZZ$ (upper row), $\cHqt$ vs. $\gfZZ$ (middle row), $\cHu$ vs. $\gfZZ$ (lower row) while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the scan (left) or fixed at their SM values (right) after combining results from all data-taking years and final states.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients: $\cHqo$ vs. $\gfZZ$ (upper row), $\cHqt$ vs. $\gfZZ$ (middle row), $\cHu$ vs. $\gfZZ$ (lower row) while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the scan (left) or fixed at their SM values (right) after combining results from all data-taking years and final states.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients: $\cHd$ vs. $\gtZZ$ (upper row), $\cHd$ vs. $\gfZZ$ (middle row), $\gtZZ$ vs. $\gfZZ$ (lower row) while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the scan (left) or fixed at their SM values (right) after combining results from all data-taking years and final states.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients: $\cHd$ vs. $\gtZZ$ (upper row), $\cHd$ vs. $\gfZZ$ (middle row), $\gtZZ$ vs. $\gfZZ$ (lower row) while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the scan (left) or fixed at their SM values (right) after combining results from all data-taking years and final states.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients: $\cHd$ vs. $\gtZZ$ (upper row), $\cHd$ vs. $\gfZZ$ (middle row), $\gtZZ$ vs. $\gfZZ$ (lower row) while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the scan (left) or fixed at their SM values (right) after combining results from all data-taking years and final states.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients: $\cHd$ vs. $\gtZZ$ (upper row), $\cHd$ vs. $\gfZZ$ (middle row), $\gtZZ$ vs. $\gfZZ$ (lower row) while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the scan (left) or fixed at their SM values (right) after combining results from all data-taking years and final states.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients: $\cHd$ vs. $\gtZZ$ (upper row), $\cHd$ vs. $\gfZZ$ (middle row), $\gtZZ$ vs. $\gfZZ$ (lower row) while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the scan (left) or fixed at their SM values (right) after combining results from all data-taking years and final states.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients: $\cHd$ vs. $\gtZZ$ (upper row), $\cHd$ vs. $\gfZZ$ (middle row), $\gtZZ$ vs. $\gfZZ$ (lower row) while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the scan (left) or fixed at their SM values (right) after combining results from all data-taking years and final states.