10:03:09 >> Yeah, please, go uh 10:03:13 head and do the recording. Thank you. >> Recording in progress. 10:03:18 >> OK. I will get started. Good morning, 10:03:21 everybody. Welcome to the 10:03:25 last day of the 10:03:29 EF restart workshop. It has been a 10:03:32 long and very intense week but they 10:03:37 -- there have been many lively discussions and 10:03:40 presentations. It has been really good to see what people were 10:03:43 up to during the slowdown and 10:03:46 also to review what all we 10:03:49 need to do and how we will proceed after this workshop 10:03:53 towards the final report in the next year. 10:03:57 Today's 10:04:00 agenda, the first three sessions, will 10:04:04 be highlights from each one of the 10 topical 10:04:07 groups about the highlights until now and the 10:04:10 plans for the next year. And then we will close 10:04:13 out the workshop with a discussion 10:04:17 at the end of the day about the report preparation, 10:04:20 what plots and tables and summaries we should have and that is 10:04:23 an open discussion which we would like all of 10:04:26 you in the community to participate 10:04:30 . With that, 10:04:46 we will start out with the summary from 10:04:49 EF01 which is 10:04:52 Higgs boson properties given by 10:04:56 Caterina. Caterina, please start any time. >> I will start with 10:05:01 EF01. We are focused on explicit 10:05:05 properties. Just before 10:05:08 I start, as we have heard over 10:05:12 this week, the Higgs is playing a central 10:05:15 element in exploration of the energy frontier and 10:05:25 we have a strong synergy with other groups. The 10:05:28 strongest are with the global fit 10:05:31 EF04 and as we provide input and help with 10:05:35 interpretation there. And another thing over the last 10:05:38 year and next year we will explore is also very 10:05:42 joined work with EF02 for the 10:05:45 searches for Higgs boson and the 10:05:50 complementary with EF01 for 10:05:54 interpretation of Higgs measurements. What I want to say 10:05:57 as we have discussed a lot this 10:06:02 week, we think the Higgs precision is a guide to help us 10:06:06 kind of address the different machines 10:06:09 being proposed. Right now, we are targeting 10:06:14 precisions on the Higgs cubling at the level of 10:06:18 50% and future Higgs factors being 10:06:21 weighted will allow us to test the Higgs 10:06:24 coupling and the level of percent which is a tarsal and position 10:06:28 of most of 10:06:31 the machines plus and minus. The very high energy 10:06:34 target, and there are different options there that could be 10:06:40 coming later in time, then would allow us 10:06:43 to reach precision to the Higgs coupling and 10:06:47 test the Higgs coupling at the percent level. 10:06:50 And in the 10:06:53 complementary between the 10:06:57 dataset that we will have in the next 10-15 10:07:01 years and the 10:07:04 plus and minus is the combination we are trying 10:07:08 to understand at a deeper level. This is 10:07:11 what, as a community, we should aim for in order to 10:07:14 get the most precise understanding 10:07:17 of the Higgs. In timelines, this discussion 10:07:20 matters as well, as we are going to have a 10:07:24 knew seat and need to understand how to 10:07:28 compliment that information the best way possible. Here is a summary of the 10:07:32 collider that we heard of over this week. 10:07:37 Can be classified into leadership 10:07:41 -- lepton and hadron. This plot 10:07:45 shows the number of Higgs boson in the center of mass energy 10:07:48 and all the facilities. This has to be taken with 10:07:51 some grain of salt because 10:07:54 it is very different for each of the stars in terms of 10:07:58 project readiness. We have 10:08:01 a variety of lepton machines being 10:08:05 proposed you can see. Linear 10:08:08 nigh in American 10:08:12 -- high in energy and with some of the Higgs measurements in 10:08:15 order to announce the cross section. 10:08:18 We have heard this week about the muon 10:08:21 CQ and that could provide 10:08:25 similar physic output 10:08:28 and then we have hadron and 10:08:32 muon collider which is high energy targeting up 10:08:35 to 10 TeV and a little bit of what we have heard 10:08:39 this week. And hadron colliders between 10:08:43 75-200 TeV being considered. This is the 10:08:46 map. As group 10:08:51 10:08:54 EF01 along with the others we will have to 10:08:57 harmonize all the studies and assumptions 10:09:01 for the final report comparison. What we started 10:09:03 off with were the couplings 10:09:07 projection from 10:09:11 LHC in the European study 10:09:14 group results. That was our starting point in terms of 10:09:17 understanding the potential different machines in the context 10:09:20 of Higgs coupling precision. This is 10:09:23 plot from European strategy group which 10:09:27 provided information from 10:09:32 L HPHP 10:09:36 -- LHC and others. One goal is to update 10:09:39 this in order to include all of the latest machines and their 10:09:42 parameters. One thing about this plot in terms of 10:09:46 what we are targeting since I stressed 10:09:49 about the compelementary 10:09:53 between future colliders that should be 10:09:56 further investigated, for instance, all of 10:09:59 them, if you see this plot at glance and 10:10:03 we have seen this multiple times, are targeting and 10:10:06 improve precision with respect to 10:10:10 LHC and push the understanding of Higgs boson couplings 10:10:13 below 1% and 5% at most. The coupling to 10:10:16 charm could be measurement with accuracy of is % 10:10:21 in future machine allowing to probe 10:10:24 this important cubling were the first time. 10:10:27 Cubling is not accessible at low energy 10:10:31 -- coupling. For statistically 10:10:34 dominated channels, 10:10:38 high LHC 10:10:41 will provide the best sector. 10:10:45 What we have -- what's new and something that 10:10:49 we will have to work towards is to evaluate how to 10:10:53 include in this map the muon collider. 10:10:57 Then we need to present the fit results for 10:11:00 10 TeV muon collider physics case 10:11:04 combined with the high 10:11:07 LHC and the Higgs factory of 250 10:11:10 GeV. This is something we will have to 10:11:13 work on preparation and I think later we will have more 10:11:16 discussion about this. 10:11:19 Specifically for 10:11:23 EF01 I want to give an overview about the work that has been going 10:11:26 on before the break and now right after the start we had one 10:11:29 meeting last month. We had 10:11:33 received about a little bit more than 10:11:36 60LOIs 10:11:39 covering several topics and proposing new studies 10:11:42 with respect to the European strategy group study. 10:11:47 There are various teams and I am trying to highlight just a 10:11:50 few. There are a few L 10:11:55 OIs targeting understanding couplings. 10:11:59 There is a nice study of the electron coupling in 10:12:04 FCCee with four years running. This is the plot that 10:12:08 restrains as a function of the 10:12:12 integrated luminosity and the spread of the beam. The results are 10:12:15 ongoing to assess the sensitivity to the 10:12:18 strings. You have a coupling with the Higgs to 10:12:21 assess bar at plus and minus 10:12:25 minus. And in terms of studying and 10:12:28 understanding the constraints, future constraints 10:12:33 , there has been recently results from 10:12:36 LHC community and so that 10:12:39 motivates new studies to understand 10:12:43 better what high luminosity would provide in that 10:12:46 respect. We also have heard this week, and last month 10:12:49 from Krysztof 10:12:53 and others about the 10:12:56 Higgs production would provide additional constraints at pT 10:13:00 machine. It will be interesting to 10:13:03 understand the comp 10:13:07 lementary and hopefully by the end of the year we have progress on that. 10:13:11 There has been progress on CP violation studies. We expect 10:13:14 an update with respect to the 2013 Snowmass 10:13:17 study. Andre has shown 10:13:21 earlier this week the plan for this update. 10:13:24 The goal is to sharpen theoretical 10:13:27 expectation as well as the model interpretation and to 10:13:30 connect these measurements to the broader 10:13:33 EFT interpretation and distinguish between 10:13:37 linear and quadratic 10:13:40 effects in the observable. Another thing 10:13:44 that has emerged from our discussion is the Higgs 10:13:47 inverse problem. There has been 10:13:51 recent progress on how to map 10:13:54 BSM models to the SMEF 10:13:59 SMEFT contraints. 10:14:04 Both of them have presented 10:14:07 earlier this month in our 10:14:11 EF01 meeting and there are their talks. The 10:14:14 plan is to include complete loop one matching for the 10:14:17 models so we can account for more next 10:14:20 leading order effect as well as more distribution. 10:14:26 Sorry this is just right on the 10:14:29 plot. It was not supposed to 10:14:32 be like that. The idea is to show distribution like the one 10:14:35 shown here where we can show for 10:14:39 constraints to the -- how the constraints on 10:14:42 the SMEFT 10:14:45 fit maps to the given model. This would be a nice 10:14:48 way to visualize for is 10:14:52 subset of benchmarks the 10:14:54 phase space that is constrained as we increase precision on 10:14:58 the constraints. 10:15:01 Another main theme of our discussion is the 10:15:04 self-coupling. This is the 10:15:07 usual map that at this point has been shown multiple times 10:15:10 and shows the precision that we expect to 10:15:14 constrain the self-coupling from single 10:15:17 and double Higgs and a combination of different 10:15:20 colliders. I want to highlight here that high 10:15:26 -LHC shows a 10:15:29 50% phase space of the report and we have received 10:15:33 updated data from the high 10:15:36 luminosity experiments on this projection. 10:15:39 Because the 50% quoted here was 10:15:42 based on earlier untuned 10:15:45 analysis. -- run2 10:15:49 analysis. They pushed the limits beyond the 10:15:52 luminosity scales. We should expect an update 10:15:56 in this direction for 10:15:59 the precision projected for 10:16:05 LHC. It will be good is in the discussion of 10:16:08 exploring more on the 10:16:14 complementary. The muon collider is not on this map and we should 10:16:17 think how to add all the 10:16:21 caveats and 10:16:24 the backgrounds. We had a discussion 10:16:29 earlier this week about this. But in principle, for what 10:16:33 January -- 10:16:37 Jan has shown we should expect constraints at 6% 10:16:40 at a 10 TeV muon 10:16:43 collider. Another area of 10:16:51 where we are active is to understand and provide 10:16:54 benchmark on which precisions in the 10:16:57 self-coupling have a target. The idea is that 10:17:01 we want to understand the goal of the measurements for 10:17:04 the Higgs production process given the possibility of 10:17:07 different future colliders and 10:17:11 implications that each level precision would have on the physics 10:17:15 model. For instance, this would be key to 10:17:18 understanding whether or not the breaking 10:17:21 occurs as per silver or as a strong 10:17:25 precision. This is connected with all the 10:17:29 biogenesis implications and 10:17:33 so on. What we want to provide and we started discussion in this 10:17:36 direction, we want to converge on 10:17:40 providing sort of benchmark that can map 10:17:43 out the precision we can expect on the 10:17:46 self-coupling to specific model and 10:17:50 what our implications are. Precision of 10:17:53 100%. Then we are testing sensitivity to models that have the 10:17:56 largest effect where we should expect residency 10:17:59 at the level of 200 GeV 10:18:03 appearing in 10:18:07 there. Precision of 25% is when we start probing 10:18:10 testing models and mixing up the Higgs boson with the 10:18:13 heavy scalers and with mass of the order of the 10:18:17 1 TeV. Also, models 10:18:21 that require biogenerous predict 10:18:24 this level of 10:18:27 self-coupling and at this level of precision we should be able to 10:18:31 exclude physical hypothesis and 10:18:34 Higgs self-coupling. 10:18:37 Higher precision should be compatible with 10:18:41 finding new particles. 10:18:46 Precision better than 10% should be compatible 10:18:49 with finding really important 10:18:53 particles at that point. In summary, 10:18:56 take away message is we are planning to define new 10:18:59 physic benchmark for the res onant and 10:19:04 non-resonant 10:19:07 interpretation that we can use as the precision 10:19:10 for the self-couple improves. 10:19:14 Towards the finaler report. This is a list of 10:19:17 questions we put together at the beginning and 10:19:20 we have kept updating itas 10:19:23 the activities have progressed. Essentially, 10:19:29 our to-do list includes accessing all these 10:19:33 questions. Which physics beyond the standard model 10:19:37 can be probed by precision of the 10:19:40 measurement of the Higgs 10:19:44 coupling? How precise 10:19:47 does the measurement have to be? How we can connect 10:19:50 searches to Higgs like particles to precision coupling 10:19:54 measurements? And the gain should be studied by 10:19:57 exploring the complementary between 10:20:01 high LHC and future 10:20:05 colliders taking into count the different timelines. In order 10:20:08 to understand, the Higgs boson is connected to this 10:20:12 potentialized standard model. We want 10:20:15 to try to come up with benchmark 10:20:18 that can tell us how 10:20:22 the W Higgs production could be 10:20:27 used to test 10:20:34 potential and what's the target given it is connected to other 10:20:37 measurements we are waiting for in the hadronic approach 10:20:41 in 10:20:44 SMEFT. The measurement in the 10:20:47 sector can be combined 10:20:51 with other measurements in the sector in order to understand 10:20:54 the overall sector and what are the 10:20:57 input theory calculations needed in the 10:21:02 future to enable these precision 10:21:05 theories we need. We are making progress in this direction Scheie 10:21:09 are -- and we 10:21:12 are aiming and I started sketching the summary plots 10:21:15 and tables that we think we want to have. Those would be super 10:21:19 interesting to have input strong 10:21:22 from the community and in general to understand what would be 10:21:26 interesting to see to summarize the performance of future 10:21:30 colliders. We are aiming to, of course, work 10:21:33 towards an update on the Higgs coupling 10:21:36 starting from 1 to 10:21:40 ESG and expect reports from the EF04 to include an 10:21:43 updated list of machines and their parameters 10:21:47 as well as some of the consumptions. 10:21:51 consumptions. I would like to have example maps of how the new fit 10:21:55 phase space is constrained by the 10:22:00 EFT analysis and again providing benchmarks for 10:22:04 resonant and 10:22:08 HH -- 10:22:12 non-reso 10:22:15 nant 10:22:20 HH. We had a meeting and have another one planned and 10:22:23 a dedicated discussion on the Higgs collider 10:22:26 at the Higgs 2021. We plan 10:22:29 to have a meeting to survey 10:22:32 the ongoing efforts from the LOI that are 10:22:36 active in November as well. And that's all 10:22:39 we have for today. I think it is probably time for 10:22:42 your question. Thank you. >> 10:22:46 Thank you, Caterina, for a very nice presentation 10:22:49 and the highlights and plans. Please raise your 10:22:52 hand or if you are there first one just ask questions. 10:22:55 If you have a comment. 10:23:09 >> I don't see any raised hand here. Oh, I see 10:23:15 Sergio. I will let him go ahead. 10:23:18 >> If you want I can go after you. >> No, go ahead 10:23:21 >> It is just a comment, Caterina. Thanks for the nice 10:23:25 presentation. I think it will be very useful not to only have 10:23:29 like projections for individual colliders 10:23:32 but also have projections in combination 10:23:36 to what's expected at the end of the high 10:23:40 luminosity LHC. It sounded like 10:23:43 that was planned. I think it would be useful to have both 10:23:46 numbers because different colliders provide different 10:23:53 complecomplementary if you wish. I can see that's already on your plot. 10:23:56 >> Yes, it is not -- it is the ESG 10:23:59 map. This one. I think that's pretty much what 10:24:04 already the community has been doing. I think we will be 10:24:07 continuing this way. It is important to explore the 10:24:10 complementary of what 10:24:13 high luminosity would provide. I think this has been 10:24:18 the results shown so far in combination with 10:24:21 low luminosity. I expect we will 10:24:25 retain that to some extent. >> Thanks. >> 10:24:28 Laura, you are next. >> Yeah. 10:24:32 Something and I don't know if it is a previous slide to this 10:24:35 one. 10:24:45 >> Sorry. I cannot hear you any 10:24:48 more. >> OK. >> Laura, you are 10:24:51 very faint. Your voice/volume. 10:24:54 >> The next slide probably. 10:25:04 No, no, I saw another one. 10:25:10 I just wanted to emphasize something on this 10:25:13 slide which I think is important to our studies. 10:25:16 This plot you are showing shows pretty 10:25:21 clear message that the limitation to reach the 10:25:25 precision we want is soon going 10:25:28 to become the theory systematics. This is 10:25:31 a really important plot. If we want to play this game, I think we 10:25:34 really need to dedicate quite some effort in trying to 10:25:38 understand how to reduce the systematics 10:25:41 and theory is shown for the high luminosity 10:25:45 LHC. It will be different future collideers 10:25:49 -- colliders 10:25:52 but the high LHC is the 10:25:55 baseline. We need to fully exploit the machine 10:25:58 because of theory reasons or else we lose a 10:26:01 lot. This I think is an important point to be developed during 10:26:05 this project. 10:26:08 >> Yeah, thank you for marking that. 10:26:12 I had a note in our wish list about the theory calculations but I think you 10:26:15 made an important point. >> No, no, I saw this. You had 10:26:18 it -- >> 10:26:22 there it is really evident. I think -- >> And you 10:26:25 stress an important point that high luminosity 10:26:28 should be our target first because it is what we will have and we 10:26:31 have to make sure it is very important. Thank you. 10:26:45 >> I have a question regarding the summary slide. 10:26:48 I think 10:26:51 EF04 we covered the global fit 10:26:54 including Higgs coupling. But the input measurement 10:26:57 uncertainties from various Higgs 10:27:01 observers, cross section, branching ratio, should come from 10:27:05 EF01. The question is are you planning 10:27:08 to scrutinize 10:27:11 the input measurement in particular from different 10:27:15 plus and minus to make sure there are more 10:27:18 or less consistent? >> 10:27:22 Yeah. >> Including the experimental systematics area 10:27:25 assumed in different measurements. >> 10:27:28 Yeah. That's what 10:27:31 we are planning to make sure that the 10:27:34 assumptions that are in the inputs are 10:27:39 harmonized as possible. That should be part 10:27:42 of our homework, yeah. >> Good. Thanks. 10:27:53 OK. Next. 10:27:57 Alessandro? 10:28:01 >> OK. My comment is just to reply to 10:28:05 Sergio. I think his comment 10:28:09 was very good and I think this is what we should do. I want 10:28:12 to remind everybody at the end of the day we have a dedicated 10:28:15 session to discuss how to present the 10:28:18 results in the report. I think 10:28:22 Sergio's comment very much fits in that discussion and how to present the 10:28:26 results in plots and tables. I invite 10:28:29 Sergio and everybody else to join the discussion later this 10:28:32 afternoon where we will discuss all these 10:28:37 issues. Your input is 10:28:40 appreciated. >> Thanks for the 10:28:43 reminder. We have to in the interest of time move on 10:28:47 to EF02 highlights which 10:28:50 is given by Isobel on behalf of 10:28:53 EF02. >> Let me try to share my 10:28:56 screen. 10:29:10 Can you 10:29:13 hear me? >> Thank you, Caterina. Sorry. 10:29:16 Thank you. >> OK. 10:29:19 >> Let's see. 10:29:39 >> Do you want me to share the 10:29:42 slides? >> Let me try this. How is that? >> 10:29:45 Sure. Still in the browser but OK. 10:29:58 What we find a lot in this group is we have a good 10:30:01 mount of 10:30:04 complementary between EF 10:30:08 EF01 and 02. Just a reminder on what we hope to 10:30:11 include in the final report. What is a Higgs 10:30:14 BSM in the context of 10:30:17 Snowmass? We have a number of big questions we want to be able to 10:30:22 perhaps 10:30:25 address one day. There is a solution for the 10:30:29 EWSB? What about the Higgs and flavor? Higgs 10:30:33 portal models. How do we 10:30:36 study these at future colliders? What detectors 10:30:39 and computing/electronics do we 10:30:42 need to study these phenomenon? And what 10:30:46 improvements in analysis techniques such as 10:30:49 machine learning for instance are going to be important for achieve 10:30:53 any of these -- achieve 10:30:56 answers to any of these questions. Here in the 10:31:04 picture on the light 10:31:07 -- right is the standard Higgs and us falling off the 10:31:10 edge of the earth and traveling into the unknown. On 10:31:13 the plus side, between EF01 and 10:31:16 02 we cover all of the 10:31:19 Higgs. Precision measurements are under 10:31:24 EF01 and standard deviations from the standard 10:31:28 model are under EF02 but really we have 10:31:31 a strong collaboration including a 10:31:34 number of meetings that have been planned in 10:31:41 as 10:31:44 overlap. We have 10:31:48 the meetings at the same time and alternate with the 10:31:51 EF01 and 10:31:54 03 and that way anyone can attend them and they 10:31:58 won't be overlapping. Here are 10:32:01 a few previous meetings. I linked the 10:32:11 Indico 10:32:15 page. The next slides are a 10:32:17 few topics we have discussed in these various 10:32:21 meetings. If this were a normal, you know, if this 10:32:24 were a normal conference it would be 10:32:27 fun do a conference report based on the 10:32:31 local scenery or flavors, however, this 10:32:35 is on Zoom again. It is the end of the year and 10:32:39 this is 10:32:44 is typically the time of the year with the state 10:32:47 fair. This is the Minnesota 10:32:50 state fair midway. Much of 10:32:53 this year has felt like a roller coaster so 10:32:57 perhaps there is overla 10:33:00 p there. Let me discuss the Higgs 10:33:03 and flavor and triple Higgs 10:33:07 flavor part one and two. In 10:33:10 our two Higgs double meeting, we heard from a number of 10:33:13 people including Nathaniel Craig 10:33:16 on theory overview. He adviced 10:33:19 the types. All coupling 10:33:24 s of standard model states are fixed in terms of 10:33:27 two angles. Philippe outlined 10:33:31 current and future result of colliders 10:33:34 both direct and indirect serves and gave a comp 10:33:39 rehensive overview. Then we 10:33:43 heard from a number of people including Tonia's 10:33:46 group where they discussed in the dublet 10:33:50 model and current and future colliders which is a two 10:33:53 Higgs model with possible dark matter candidates. All 10:33:57 these talks with interesting and I encourage you to click on the 10:34:00 links and watch. Here you can see CMS and 10:34:04 ATLAS were -- productions on the 10:34:07 left and right. In 10:34:11 addition to this, we had a two-part discussion on Higgs and 10:34:15 flavor. He heard from Sam about the 10:34:20 large quark couplings can be and therefore why it is important to 10:34:23 look for them even if it is quite difficult. Many 10:34:26 of you experimentalists are quite pained by 10:34:29 this but distinguishing between 10:34:33 strange and bottom quarks are quite interesting and 10:34:36 perhaps some day we can try to distinguish late 10:34:39 quarks. But OK. There is a rich 10:34:43 10:34:46 phenomenon that can be probed if we 10:34:49 try make the effort of future 10:34:52 colliders. We heard about strange jet 10:34:56 tagging current and future colliders using neutral 10:35:05 Qs. And we heard from 10:35:11 using graph networks to distinguish between strange and 10:35:15 bottom-type jets as well. So, again, I have 10:35:18 linked all of these presentations. Do feel free to take a 10:35:21 look. We 10:35:24 have heard from a number of other people interested in trying to 10:35:27 really probe 10:35:31 different sorts of jet flavors at future colliders. In 10:35:34 addition, we had a meeting focused on higher 10:35:38 order -- triple Higgs 10:35:41 couplings and quartic 10:35:45 and Higgs plus X. Caterina discussed this briefly but I will show 10:35:48 it one more time. Di-Higgs 10:35:52 experimental results and how to do classification of various 10:35:55 collider results in precision. 10:35:58 Actually, in the EF02 group this was 10:36:01 the first time we heard a muon collider report 10:36:07 talking about Higgs 10:36:10 quartic and 10:36:16 quin 10:36:20 tec. This got a number of us jumping off 10:36:23 to do more muon 10:36:27 collider-type studies so that was interesting as well. And 10:36:30 then this past week we heard 10:36:33 from Andre about 10:36:36 the status of Higgs CP studies and various 10:36:39 collider scenario. It was quite 10:36:42 interesting. He talked about hadron colliders and 10:36:46 polarization and the effect on CP studies and photon 10:36:50 colliders with polarized beams. We heard 10:36:53 a comparison on what we could probe at each of 10:36:56 these collider scenario. 10:36:59 Again, quite interesting to see the complementary 10:37:02 and the differences in the different collider 10:37:05 scenario. And then after like 10:37:09 I said the muon collider discussions we had 10:37:13 towards the beginning of Snowmass has kicked 10:37:16 off a bit more discussion in various groups. 10:37:19 From Jenna 10:37:23 we heard about Higgs results from various groups 10:37:26 interested in muon colliders some of 10:37:29 which performed 10:37:33 previously but many have been performed maybe in the last year 10:37:36 or two which again highlights that the high 10:37:40 energy muon collider provides a 10:37:44 physic program. One thing interesting from this 10:37:48 presentation is the explanation of when colliding 10:37:52 high energy electrons we are colliding a bunch of high energy states. A mixture 10:37:55 of gamma, quarks, ZW, 10:37:59 Etc. You can see this in the diagram towards the middle on the 10:38:02 right. Again, quite interesting. And he also mentioned a 10:38:05 paper from tao han's group 10:38:08 released recently detailing now new 10:38:12 states beyond standard scenario can modify the running 10:38:15 of relevant gauge of couplings. 10:38:19 You can see this in the plot in the lower left. 10:38:23 This brings me back to future meetings. Again, 10:38:26 like I said, we have Wednesday 10:38:30 12-2pm. We are meeting once every three 10:38:33 weekwise a tradeoff between EF 10:38:36 01, 2 and 10. Right now we are thinking 10:38:39 to do an initial update from working 10:38:43 groups. This will be next week. After that 10:38:46 we are perhaps thinking about 10:38:49 global fits and compelementary between frontiers and 10:38:53 experiments and different collider experiments. 10:38:56 We would like to discuss Higgs and dark matter and we are also welcome 10:38:59 to hearing any additional 10:39:02 ideas or things that could be missing from your discussion 10:39:05 and our list. And 10:39:08 conclusion, my 10:39:16 co-convener couldn't be here today. I made a meme regardless 10:39:19 to not let this group down, I suppose. 10:39:24 We would like to try to encourage the U.S. community to 10:39:27 10:39:31 coalesce around a long term plan to study Higgs and 10:39:34 BSM. I am saying this as a young-ish person. I urge 10:39:37 everyone to think about our Snowmass plans 10:39:41 for the energy frontier using the holistic approach. The physics 10:39:44 is extremely important. We want to think about the short term and 10:39:47 long term reach. Measurements, searches and 10:39:52 complementary across 10:39:55 frontiers. Timeline is important. If we have a collider coming 10:39:59 down in only 20-30 years we need to figure out how 10:40:03 to sustain the community so 10:40:06 we have people to study. We want to think about programs that build on future 10:40:09 lessons. We should think about programs of 10:40:12 sustainability and technology that will be 10:40:16 useful across designs and 10:40:19 frontiers and that can be upgraded as we go. 10:40:22 Of course, we want to think about broader impacts and some 10:40:26 combination of all of the above. In my personal 10:40:29 opinion, it is worthwhile to think about how to improve ability 10:40:32 to support funding and students and faculty 10:40:36 that are some day in the future. I also think it 10:40:39 is a good idea to think about how we can break out of the 10:40:42 current center of mass energy constraints. In this 10:40:46 meme, I suppose we the energy frontier 10:40:49 Working Groups are Doug, the old man 10:40:52 is the current collider proposals and the 10:40:55 new collider proposals are 10:40:58 the squirrels that Doug is always looking at. With that, 10:41:01 I think this is my final slide. I 10:41:04 welcome any questions or comments. 10:41:13 >> Thank you, Isobel, for the summary of the 10:41:17 past and what happened this week. Anyone who would like to ask any 10:41:19 questions? Or make any 10:41:24 comments? Please raise your hand. 10:41:33 OK. Go ahead, 10:41:36 Cameron. >> Thank you for a nice summary. 10:41:39 It is great to see the calculations for various collider options. One 10:41:42 of the discussions we had yesterday in the 10:41:46 unconstrained discussion on future collider options and in particular 10:41:49 those that can be enabled by advanced accelerators with the 10:41:52 tradeoff in lepton colliders specifically between various properties 10:41:55 like polarization. So we 10:41:59 would certainly be interested to follow up that with folks in 10:42:02 energy frontier including also potential options 10:42:05 for many TeV 10:42:09 polarized lepton colliders that have now become impossible. 10:42:13 >> Thank you very much. I will write that down in my notes 10:42:16 to keep this in mind for a future meeting since that can 10:42:19 be quite a rich discussion. I was listening to that discussion, and 10:42:22 yes, thank you again. >> Thanks very much. >> Thank 10:42:25 you, Cameron, and hope you are attending the 10:42:28 discussion of the last section because this would be a very good point to 10:42:32 discuss there as well. >> Yes, absolutely. I was trying to think of 10:42:35 the best time to bring it up but I fully agree 10:42:38 it is relevant to both sessions. Thank you for 10:42:41 that comment. >> Yeah, thank you. And 10:42:44 thanks, Isobel. I don't see any other hands raised. 10:42:48 We are sort of back on time so 10:42:51 the next summary 10:42:54 would be from EF03 10:42:57 and will be given by Doreen. 10:43:00 Go ahead, Doreen. >> Can you see my slides OK? >> 10:43:03 Yes, yes. >> Thank you. Hello, 10:43:07 everyone. Rein 10:43:11 Reinhard and I are the co-conveners of 10:43:16 EF03. What we decided to do 10:43:19 for this quick summary is highlight what has been discussed specifically 10:43:23 during this week but of course this is just a small 10:43:26 subset of all the topics discussed during 10:43:29 our meetings that have been presented in the letter of 10:43:32 interest. Here is just the quick overview of all 10:43:35 the different interesting physics 10:43:38 topics we are 10:43:42 are addressing and in green you will see the 10:43:46 topics cover this week which we will highlight in these 10:43:49 15 minutes. I want to point out there are many opportunities for additional 10:43:53 contributions in all areas. You will see some 10:43:56 examples when we go on through the highlights. 10:43:59 Let's start right away with a 10:44:06 very important property of the top quark we will 10:44:10 address here. The precise measurement of the mass of 10:44:13 the top quark. There is a lot of activity 10:44:16 what we discussed here at this workshop 10:44:19 is examples for new ideas. How the top 10:44:22 quark can be extracted from data 10:44:25 specifically by 10:44:35 Kacper. Here 10:44:38 is an example of some new results that have been 10:44:41 presented in our Working Group on extracting 10:44:45 the top mass from the threshold scan. It is just an 10:44:48 example. You can see here the threshold scan of 10:44:51 ttbar production at linear collider depends on many 10:44:54 parameters 10:44:57 . They have all their own uncertainties 10:45:01 and correlations and that has been addressed in this 10:45:04 new work by Kacper and 10:45:07 Aleksandra. You can see here results where they showed the 10:45:10 expected precision for click and 10:45:13 LC and FCC and the improvement you can see by 10:45:17 comparing the baseline assumption to the 10:45:20 dash curve. These are very 10:45:23 nice new results. Just one example of ideas of 10:45:26 how to improve extraction of precision 10:45:30 of the top mass at the linear 10:45:33 collider. Other new ideas going back to had 10:45:41 -- hadron collider. The ideaf 10:45:45 of using the B jet production and the top 10:45:49 production and the peak is sensitive to the top mass 10:45:52 -- . This has been 10:45:56 used by CMS to extract the 10:46:00 top mass but the next step is to see if we can 10:46:03 10:46:06 circumvent some of the uncertainties by using the 10:46:09 BD 10:46:13 -- B decay 10:46:16 lengths. There was an interesting discussion on if that 10:46:20 mass could be used with the lepton collider. Other properties 10:46:23 that are under investigation are quark 10:46:27 polarization and spin correlations. They are well known 10:46:30 sensitive quarks beyond 10:46:33 the standard model physics. We were shown an example 10:46:36 measured at the LHC. Here 10:46:40 you see, for instance, the 10:46:43 angle separation of the lepton pair coming from 10:46:46 top 10:46:49 hep production and top decay. This is the spin 10:46:53 correlation in the standard model and you see the effect 10:46:56 of the new physics on the spin correlation. These, 10:46:59 of course, are already very active and 10:47:03 under investigation at the LHC and will 10:47:06 continue to be so but for Snowmass there is 10:47:10 also the idea of studying and 10:47:13 expanding them to spin density matrix 10:47:16 at future colliders. Other places 10:47:20 where we have a sensitive folks to new physics 10:47:23 are light quark production at lepton 10:47:26 colliders. Quite some activity and 10:47:29 Roman showed us an example of using production 10:47:33 to, for instance, get information about that 10:47:36 inspired models Higgs 10:47:39 unification random modm. They are deviation 10:47:43 from the order of a few 10:47:46 percent. 10:47:49 Zz bar has been very much already under 10:47:52 investigation but their brand new results and you presented 10:47:56 an appetizer for strange quark pair 10:47:59 were introduction. -- production. Here 10:48:02 is the angular 10:48:05 production produced in fullsimilation 10:48:08 and very interesting experimental 10:48:12 studies can be done. This is very much under investigation. Here is a 10:48:15 nice overview Roman presented of what is already covered, what is 10:48:18 not covered, and again, here is a call to action if 10:48:21 anybody would like to contribute here, please contact 10:48:27 Roman or me. There is a lot of potential in the studies and 10:48:30 what we can do with these light quark 10:48:34 pair productions at lepton colliders. Let's move on to 10:48:38 top couplings and the 10:48:41 interpretation of precision of top data in an effective 10:48:44 hit theory. At the LHC this is one of the 10:48:48 focus right now to extract new 10:48:51 physics information in a consistent framework 10:48:54 of EFT. We had two 10:48:57 talks on global fits for 10:49:01 top quark operators and 10:49:06 let me add this. Here is a list of the 10:49:09 top quark operators. The reason it is considered 10:49:12 in ttbar consideration and also at singletop production, 10:49:16 ttv operators, and then you are reminded 10:49:20 they are all connected to other sectors of the 10:49:23 standard model and electroweak 10:49:27 observables. We are all aiming for 10:49:30 global fits. This is clear how important this is. 10:49:33 You see here an example just from a recent publication 10:49:37 of attempting a global fit. This is all still in the 10:49:40 context of the 10:49:44 LHC. 10:49:49 All the different topics we should address here for the 10:49:52 future to to get the most out of these 10:49:56 precision measurements in the interpretation and 10:49:59 then EFT. She reminded us there is 10:50:02 only limited work done for some of the future 10:50:05 collider options. We need to also 10:50:08 global analyses and just saying the 10:50:12 combination of top and Higgs for future colliders include 10:50:15 1-loop effects. This is the 10:50:19 communities. All of these different 10:50:22 projects need to address to really 10:50:25 make sure we are presenting the best 10:50:29 potential for these kind of studies for future colliders. Here 10:50:32 is just an example I would like to show you from 10:50:35 ahgrand global standard model 10:50:38 EFT fit presented by 10:50:42 Marcel at a joint meeting just before the lockdown. You can see 10:50:46 how Higgs coupling -- this is for the 20 10:50:52 20 -- 250 GeV. It 10:50:55 is pretty table with top operators. The first 10:50:58 column is the top operators and the second is this 10:51:03 top operators but it is very different when you look at this 10:51:06 which is affected by there top 10:51:10 hitters. Now moving on to 10:51:13 top and the role in hadron 10:51:16 distribution function. We had a very interesting discussion in a 10:51:19 joint section 10:51:22 EF06. 10:51:25 We had presentation from all three 10:51:28 global fitters. 10:51:33 And then also 10:51:36 Amanda presented the experimental and 10:51:42 pheno 10:51:46 phenomenological issues and a presentation on how to take advantage of all these 10:51:49 frameworks to have a 10:51:53 simultaneously fit. Let 10:51:58 me start with Amanda's talk. This was an important issue that gets 10:52:04 now addressed by all global fitters is the 10:52:08 importance of systematics uncertainties in trying to bin down 10:52:11 the gluon 10:52:15 PDF from top distributions as the pT 10:52:18 of the top and so on. This 10:52:22 is, of course, something that constrains 10:52:25 the high X gluon, and you see 10:52:28 the eificate -- 10:52:31 effect of the top mass. It makes the gluon 10:52:35 harder. In these fits, the 10:52:38 correlated systematics are taken 10:52:41 into account in terms of nuisance parameters and Amanda showed 10:52:45 us the effect of not taking the same nuisance parameter 10:52:48 for each of the uncertainties like 10:52:52 parton shower uncertainty and allowing them to vary and 10:52:55 so to decorrelate. You can see there are quite some 10:52:59 effects. Here is the gluon 10:53:02 distribution. You see when you allow decorrelation, the red 10:53:06 curve, the effects are the same order of 10:53:09 magnitude of having high order corrections. All these 10:53:12 issues are now under discussion and have to be 10:53:15 addressed just keeping in mind we need 10:53:18 1% 10:53:22 foruracy on PDF 10:53:26 for precision studies. Let's 10:53:30 look at some of the results from the global 10:53:34 PDF collaboration. Marco showed 10:53:38 the effect by including for instance 10:53:43 13 TeV data on the PDF and 10:53:46 reminding us of the complementary of 10:53:49 ttbar and jet data. Ttbar 10:53:52 data constrain a large kinematic 10:53:55 region here. And then, again, it is so important 10:53:59 to constrain and to have these 10:54:02 detailed information about those covariance and nuisance 10:54:05 parameters to do these 10:54:09 -- take full advantage of 10:54:12 using top data. 10:54:15 This is what has been done in 10:54:21 MSHT2020. A large set of top data are used to bin down 10:54:24 the gluon and improve the gluon 10:54:27 PDF and the study of decorrelation has been shown here and 10:54:30 how important it is to have this under 10:54:33 control. And 10:54:36 Emanuele showed 10:54:40 us results 10:54:44 and unfortunately they are not precise enough to really 10:54:47 constrain the gluon PDF. There is a lot of 10:54:50 activity there and important discussions. In terms of 10:54:53 extracting more information, 10:54:58 simultaneous fit, Matthew showed us nice results 10:55:02 . There is still a lot of work to be done 10:55:10 to include theoretical 10:55:14 earn -- uncertainties. Standard model prediction is a 10:55:17 topic important for all of our studies and will be 10:55:20 addressed in the theory frontier and other 10:55:23 EF groups. We had interesting talks just specific 10:55:26 for top observables. One my 10:55:34 Nick 10:55:37 ne by Nik. He showed the effect of the gluon correction. There is really interesting 10:55:41 results. He presented result for high energy 10:55:44 colliders. You see here for instance the 10:55:47 effect of next to leading order versus 10:55:50 an approx approximate next to leader 10:55:53 order and you use the meeting at the next to leading gluon and 10:55:56 it is close to 1 10:56:00 with soft gluon dominating the cross 10:56:03 section. The interesting result is when you go to higher energy 10:56:06 that is still true. Here is the last line 10:56:09 you see for instance the approxapproximate 10:56:13 NLO versus the fixed 10:56:16 NLO and it is pretty stable against going to high energy. 10:56:24 >> Five minutes. Sorry for the 10:56:27 interuption. >> Thank you. OK. Then a new topic for 10:56:30 us, for just our groups, we just started 10:56:33 looking into this. I think this will be 10:56:36 a focus now for the activities 10:56:44 and we had two talks. One by 10:56:52 Tobias in the joint section. 10:56:58 Tobias showed us nice result for top 10:57:01 colliderness. He 10:57:05 showed us how it appears as this 10:57:08 operator in plus and minus ttbar and you see how 10:57:12 the scale here is energy. You have here the 10:57:18 operator and so on. That 10:57:21 tells you high energy is 10:57:26 actions that dominate and he showed the result 10:57:30 for the click and the muon collide 10:57:34 and the high energy muon 10:57:37 collider takes advantage of having higher energy. Here is 10:57:40 the reach for the four top contact interaction 10:57:43 and the energy goes up to 80 TeV but 10:57:46 here it shows up to 200 so a 10:57:50 larger region here at the limits 10:57:53 on the com 10:57:58 posite 10:58:03 . And then in Patrick's talk we were 10:58:08 reminded there are other things that can be studied. 10:58:11 Boson fusion for instance. These results are taken from this nice 10:58:14 paper that gives an overview of the 10:58:18 prospects for these kinds of studies 10:58:21 at muon collider. Again, you 10:58:24 take advantage and you see the cross section for the ww 10:58:28 infusion, independency of the center of 10:58:32 mass energy at the collider and you have 10:58:35 here the S channel and the process 10:58:39 that decreases in energy and you have to vector boson 10:58:42 that increases in energy. Again, this is a 10:58:47 process that we can study and take advantage of a high energy 10:58:50 linear collider. This is just for us 10:58:53 in our group. It is just there beginning to consider this but 10:58:56 it will be one of our focus points for the 10:59:00 next few months. 10:59:04 I won't go over this in detail. I just want to flesh 10:59:09 this. This is important to remind you of other 10:59:12 activities not covered in this week but 10:59:15 of course they are all under consideration 10:59:18 in our group most prominently flavor changing 10:59:21 neutrino current 10:59:24 is something we want to study and probably 90%. 10:59:27 The potential for those studies of future 10:59:31 colliders in our report. 10:59:34 We have prosspects like 10:59:37 four top processes or looking for 10:59:40 discovery potential in all hadronic 10:59:43 searches in ttbar resonance 10:59:46 at future collideers just to name a few examples. To 10:59:50 finish, just final remarks. Hopefully you have seen 10:59:53 there are many opportunities to contribute to top and 10:59:56 heavy flavor production physics in 10:59:59 our group. Most input we have gotten is from 11:00:04 ILC and 11:00:09 HL-LHC. We had some physic potential talks from 11:00:12 other options but I think we need more studies as was 11:00:16 pointed out earlier. And also for the H 11:00:19 HL- 11:00:23 HL-LHC it would be to have more studies. And 11:00:27 we are working across the bondries as you 11:00:30 see. And sheer the 11:00:33 -- here is the information in how to get in touch and 11:00:37 contribute. You can write your own ideas, open question, possible 11:00:40 collaboration and so on. Thank you very much for your 11:00:43 attention. 11:00:47 >> Thank you, Doreen, for this comprehensive 11:00:50 overview of EF03 activities. 11:00:55 I will invite anyone who has comments or 11:00:58 questions. I see Michael. Do you have your hand 11:01:01 raised? Please go ahead >> 11:01:05 I have a quick question on page 11:01:08 23, Doreen. This is very 11:01:11 interesting the soft gluon is almost adequate 11:01:16 by itself to explain the larger cross 11:01:19 section. I am wondering if this behavior per 11:01:22 tains if you apply 11:01:25 flu 11:01:34 fiducial sections? >> This is for total but 11:01:37 Nik has 11:01:40 differential distributions in his talk but I would have to go back 11:01:43 to look at those. >> OK. 11:01:46 This is nice. It is, of course, interesting from the 11:01:50 perspective of the QCD group as well. >> 11:01:54 Yes, definitely. We should definitely have at some 11:01:57 point a joint session on these kind of 11:02:00 topics. >> I agree. Thank you very much. >> Thank 11:02:03 you, Michael. Yes. >> Thank you. I think 11:02:07 next is Pablo. 11:02:10 [Audio distorted] >> We cannot 11:02:13 understand you. You are like 11:02:16 underwater. >> Yeah, so I am in outer space but now 11:02:20 you should hear me. [Laughter] >> Yes 11:02:24 . [Laughter] >> First of all, Doreen, thank you for nicely 11:02:28 summarizing our joint section with 11:02:33 EF06 in which we 11:02:36 discussed the prospect for constraining the 11:02:40 ttbar production. What I wish to discuss is there is this big 11:02:43 issue you pointed out that we really don't 11:02:46 , as a community, we don't have a systematic approach 11:02:49 to treat experimental systematic 11:02:53 uncertainties in all these measurements. It makes 11:02:56 very difficult for the analyzing of 11:02:59 the data and to understand what it tells us. What can we do 11:03:03 as a whole energy frontier to 11:03:06 bring up the importance of this issue and also propose 11:03:10 the solutions? 11:03:17 >> Probably highlighting it here. This is not just a 11:03:20 question for me. That's a question to everyone, right? And 11:03:23 to our groups that are concerned 11:03:31 with this. Our two groups for instance. >> Just to 11:03:34 add, I am involved in the LHC top 11:03:38 Working Group and that's the avenue where this should be discussed and 11:03:41 it has for the last 3-4 years where it specifically the 11:03:45 theory modeling 11:03:49 uncertainties that should be correlated between ATLAS and CMS but after a four-year effort 11:03:52 the definitions are not 11:03:55 exactly the same. You can't do naive correlations or 11:03:59 decorrelations still. It is a big topic in the 11:04:03 LHC top Working Group and even there where it is being 11:04:06 discussed it hasn't been resolved. 11:04:09 This is very important and we have to keep pushing on this. 11:04:12 >> I think that's precisely the place where resources or 11:04:16 encouragement to do this kind of work from the 11:04:19 community will be very valuable. 11:04:22 >> I totally agree. This is a discussion we should take 11:04:25 up this afternoon as well about the systematics 11:04:28 and final 11:04:32 result for the Higgs group were the 11:04:36 LHC studies and maybe similar ones we could try to push for 11:04:39 convergence with these studies. I would say let's discuss it further 11:04:42 this afternoon. Thank you for bringing it 11:04:45 up. It is a really good point. >> OK. 11:04:50 I don't see any other hands raised so thank you, 11:04:53 Doreen. We will move to the 11:04:57 next set of highlights and I give it over 11:05:00 to Alessandro to run that 11:05:04 session. 11:05:12 >> In this session we would have a first presentation 11:05:15 it is already up from Ayres in 11:05:19 EF04 which is the last 11:05:22 presentation on electroweak physics and then we 11:05:25 transition to QCD with EF 11:05:30 05 and 06. 11:05:35 Ayres, go ahead. >> Thank you. I want to start off with a brief 11:05:38 reminder of what our group 04 is 11:05:41 about. I should mention this is on behalf of my co-convene 11:05:45 rs. 11:05:48 So we kind of 11:05:52 have different kinds of things that we 11:05:56 are doing. One could say an overarching picture we 11:05:59 like to study the sensitivity to new 11:06:02 physics from the precision 11:06:05 measurements in different sectors like electroweak, Higgs, 11:06:08 top, and so on. Because of that, naturally, there are 11:06:11 continuous communications with other groups 11:06:16 in the energy frontier like EF01, 11:06:19 03 and 05 that have to do with the different sectors of the 11:06:22 standard model. The 11:06:25 electroweak sector per se is also then 11:06:32 the area to study in more 11:06:37 detail. Some of the questions we are trying to 11:06:40 pursue is, you know, what is the scale of new 11:06:44 physics that can be probed with these precision 11:06:48 measurements at different colliders. What is the 11:06:51 predicted value collider bring over what we know today? 11:06:54 And different 11:07:00 precision. There is 11:07:03 the Huilinof how one can consistently take into 11:07:06 account correlations that exist between different 11:07:10 observables and the different theoretical 11:07:14 interpretations. Can one improve these things with new 11:07:17 analysis strategies and not just new colliders? What do we need 11:07:20 as tools to make this happen in the future like 11:07:24 theory calculation, Monte Carlo tools, 11:07:27 and, you know, is this a potential limiting 11:07:31 factor. Overall, the goal is to 11:07:35 arrive at some more or less global interpretation 11:07:38 of the reach of different collider 11:07:41 options. The tool we pretty much have chosen in the 11:07:44 scope for doing that is the SM 11:07:50 EFT. I mention six 11:07:54 extensions of the standard model. This could be 11:07:57 argued about if this is good or not and we can do the 11:08:00 interpretation in different frameworks but seems 11:08:03 like this is the consensus we 11:08:06 settled on. At this workshop, our group was involved in 11:08:09 two main activities. One is the joint session 11:08:12 that happened yesterday in the morning together with 11:08:16 EF03 and 04 generally on 11:08:19 topic of precision measurement and 11:08:23 different sectors where we had five speakers presenting on 11:08:26 these topics. On Monday which was a 11:08:29 little bit funny with 11:08:32 the timing but somehow that opened slot in the schedule that 11:08:35 fit best to do it like on the first day but 11:08:39 nevertheless we had a discussion on the 11:08:42 EFT global fits. We do now have 11:08:46 a team of volunteers that was 11:08:51 assembled to perform these global fits for the Snowmass 11:08:54 effort. They were kind of hosting 11:08:57 discussion on several sub-areas 11:09:04 and tieing together input by the community 11:09:07 for what decisions should be taken for the way forward. So I want 11:09:10 to highlight a few things 11:09:13 of what happened at these sessions. There was some 11:09:16 contributions about lepton collider studies in particular 11:09:19 for 11:09:24 FCCEE. And what's kind of remarkable 11:09:27 is they their 11:09:32 declared goal is to perform studies that outline the requirements 11:09:35 needed for detector development so that 11:09:39 systematic, experimental 11:09:42 systematics don't become the limiting factor. 11:09:45 Given the ambitious statistical 11:09:49 this is a daunting 11:09:52 challenge. You can improve for instance the 11:09:56 B versus C tagging if you have a smaller bin 11:10:00 pipe and therefore can move the vertext 11:10:05 detector closer to the beam. This is shown in the plot on the 11:10:07 right. You can increase the precision for 11:10:11 experimentally determining your angular acceptance by 11:10:14 putting an additional element and a silicon 11:10:17 pad in between the tracker and the 11:10:25 meter. Doreen mentioned this already. There is also a push to 11:10:28 study precision measurements at future 11:10:31 muon collider. It should be highlighted we are not 11:10:34 necessarily talk about 125 GeV muon 11:10:38 collider but a multi-TeV muon 11:10:41 collider. That can still do precision measurements. This is 11:10:44 to a large extent driven by the fact that the cross 11:10:47 sections are relatively large for 11:10:52 boson fusion processes. This is shown in the plot 11:10:55 on the right for Higgs coupling 11:10:58 determinations. There are some studies 11:11:01 happening through to include the beam induced background which 11:11:04 is the biggest experimental challenge 11:11:07 of the muon collider. It degrades the precision a 11:11:11 little bit but partial studies that exist seem to 11:11:14 inidate -- indicate 11:11:17 it isn't a show stopper and does 11:11:20 change the big picture. For us, important questions for the muon 11:11:26 collider we would like to learn more about what it can do in 11:11:29 electroweak physics. For instance, for 11:11:32 electroweak precision observables or 11:11:36 boson couplings. There is not much 11:11:39 work happening there so far 11:11:42 so that would be nice to see. For the Higgs measurement, an important 11:11:45 information one needs is the 11:11:49 precise measurement of the Higgs 11:11:52 mass because that needs to be in the interpretation of cross 11:11:55 section measurements if you want to turn that into a Higgs 11:11:59 coupling 11:12:02 extraction. We would need to know the Higgs mass to do that. Moving on to hadron 11:12:06 colliders Doreen mentioned also the contribution 11:12:10 from N Cas 11:12:14 tro. I would say the most important take-home 11:12:17 message is the LHC is moving 11:12:20 to an analysis where multiple 11:12:24 EFT operators are including to parameterize 11:12:28 new physics. This is up to five dimensional 11:12:33 parameter space so far. 11:12:37 Another important area of hadron colliders is of 11:12:41 course vector boson fusion or 11:12:44 vector boson scheduling processing. They can tell 11:12:47 us a lot about another boson coupling and 11:12:50 about details of electroweak symmetry. 11:12:53 So far the studies that 11:12:59 are performed in the LHC 11:13:02 assume only triple gauge boson couplings 11:13:05 appear beyond the standard model. That is a 11:13:10 significant assumption because if one works in a general 11:13:13 EFT one can have new 11:13:17 operators that model the coupling to 11:13:20 the quarks. They can have a significant impact that is shown here on the 11:13:23 plot. This is just a RECASTing done by 11:13:28 11:13:32 phemnologist. In red you see what you 11:13:36 get in terms of restrain if you only 11:13:39 have triple boson coupling. Green is 11:13:42 what you get if you allow all new dimension six 11:13:45 operators that can enter in these 11:13:50 processes including constraints from the left. 11:13:53 You see a big degrading in the precision for 11:13:56 these two parameters. It would be really nice to 11:13:59 basically get this from the experiments 11:14:02 themselves. 11:14:07 The challenge is the cost of Monte Carlo sampling is 11:14:10 much larger if one has a larger 11:14:14 parameter space. For me as a theorist I 11:14:17 might wonder maybe there is interesting 11:14:21 cross pollenation that could be 11:14:24 used here. 11:14:28 An important question when we talk about EFT 11:14:31 fits at the hadron colider is whether 11:14:34 we run into validity bounds in particularly in the 11:14:37 high energy tails. As you probably all know, 11:14:41 in the EFT description we can 11:14:44 expand into a leading piece which comes from the standard model and 11:14:47 then higher order with the dimension 6 being the next to 11:14:50 leading part and dimension 8 and so forth. If we 11:14:54 square the amplitude we get a 11:14:57 unique next to leading order piece which comes from 11:15:03 dimension six operators and the high order comes from 11:15:06 squaring the dimension and from dimension 11:15:11 . This dimension is typically 11:15:15 not included in these stud AECHLTZ we basically assume that 11:15:19 this -- studies -- one over Lambda to the fourth 11:15:22 term is negligible. One way to test it is to look at 11:15:25 this dimension 6 squared piece 11:15:29 which you kind of get more or less for free in your 11:15:32 studies. The open question is how do we set 11:15:35 a quantitative cut off? How large does 11:15:38 this piece need to get before we say the 11:15:42 EFT is not valid any more. Once you set the 11:15:45 cut off, how do you implement it 11:15:48 in a study? One straightforward method is flipping 11:15:51 where you exclude any data that, you know, has 11:15:57 too large energy and violates 11:16:01 your validity criteria. Of course, the violation 11:16:04 of this EFT 11:16:08 validity criteria you only know 11:16:11 post. You don't know that in advance. What you need to do is 11:16:14 run your simulation with the 11:16:18 assumptions of where you put the clipping cut off 11:16:21 which is computationally extensive. Something much 11:16:24 easier is to do there clipping in the EFT 11:16:27 signal hypothesis after you have done your measurement. So you basically 11:16:30 say, you know, there is basically no deviation from 11:16:33 the standard model above a certain 11:16:37 energy. It is just cut off. This is not a well 11:16:40 defined procedure but it can serve as a cross 11:16:43 check to see if anything went wrong. This whole problem with 11:16:47 EFT validity will be reduced if we 11:16:50 accumulate more statistics. At the high 11:16:56 luminosity LHC it will become 11:16:59 less of an issue. We have had several 11:17:02 discussions about the global EFT fit process that is 11:17:06 happening within the current Snowmass effort. There is a team of 11:17:09 people preparing 11:17:12 that and several of these people participated in 11:17:15 discussions. You know, some of the things 11:17:18 they are trying to consider is one needs to 11:17:21 choose a basis of 11:17:24 operators. Your whole study depends 11:17:28 on what basis you choose. 11:17:31 You can reduce this 11:17:35 dependdependency on the basis by working 11:17:38 with effective coupling. Firm 11:17:42 couplings you work with 11:17:45 effective Z boson couplings. That is 11:17:48 independent of the basis you choose then. 11:17:51 Obviously, we cannot work the whole set of 11:17:54 2500 dimension 6 operators. 11:17:58 One needs to make certain asumpt 11:18:03 -- assumptions to reduce 11:18:06 parameters. Common consumption is to 11:18:09 exclude all or almost all 11:18:12 11:18:16 fermion operators. The question 11:18:20 right now happening within the community is how generally can 11:18:24 we be in our -- can we include 11:18:27 more operators than what has been done in the past? The 11:18:30 team is also trying to use a strategy called optimal 11:18:33 observables and processes where it matters. 11:18:38 Is in particular for ww production and e plus and 11:18:41 minus. It can improve the precision for the 11:18:45 efficient 11:18:49 determination quite a bit. An important part is 11:18:52 to highlight for Higgs coupling 11:18:55 determination it is important to have improved 11:18:59 measurements of Z-pole quantities. Here is an 11:19:02 example for that on the right-hand side. This is a determination of 11:19:05 the Higgs self-coupling in an indirect 11:19:08 method for looking at single Higgs production and 11:19:11 the coupling appears in the corrections. 11:19:16 If you didn't have improved Z-pole 11:19:19 predictions the precision you can get shown on the right is 11:19:22 degraded by some 20-30 percent compared to what 11:19:26 you get with improved measurements. 11:19:35 There are many open questions for the fit effort. What's the impact 11:19:38 of different E plus and minus run scenario. Whether 11:19:41 a collider runs at a Z-pole 11:19:44 or gets electroweak precision 11:19:48 data at high energy? What can be gained from a high energy 11:19:51 run at 500 GeV or 1 TeV even? You can 11:19:54 get additional information about Higgs 11:19:57 physics or H-boson physics. In 11:20:00 particular for E plus and minus. 11:20:04 We are asking ourselves if we can 11:20:08 include in this comparative EFT fit some of 11:20:11 the collideers that 11:20:15 haven't been considered. Muon or electron 11:20:18 had drawn colliders, for instance. 11:20:21 -- hadron. There is only information about specific 11:20:25 observables and the sensetivty 11:20:29 of those. We don't have the input of what is needed for a 11:20:32 global fit but it would be nice if this can be done. 11:20:37 Also, 11:20:41 even 11:20:46 HL-LHC only limited projections are available. It would be really nice to 11:20:50 have more input including correlations, for instance, for the 11:20:53 capability of these machines. We have several LOIs 11:20:56 in groups for people who are interested in studying that and 11:21:00 looking forward about what can come out of this. 11:21:03 And, you know, the goal is always in these fits 11:21:06 to try to compare different colliders in an 11:21:10 apples to apples way meaning consistent assumptions 11:21:13 about systematics and so on. 11:21:18 This requires close interaction with the 11:21:21 experimental collaborations and studies. To finish off, 11:21:26 we are after the 11:21:29 slowdown back to regular meeting schedule for our 11:21:32 group. 11:21:36 Every other week, Friday at 10am. The schedule 11:21:39 is on the 11:21:46 indico page. Some things we are trying to get through before the white 11:21:49 papers are do is go through a systematic 11:21:52 review of the LOI studies and in particular 11:21:56 seeking contributions from the LOI 11:21:59 submitters for specific topics that are of key interest 11:22:02 to our group. Also, 11:22:06 actually, we would try to collect 11:22:09 open questions for which we at this point don't know 11:22:13 if anybody is actively studying 11:22:16 that. It would be great if we can find answers for these open 11:22:19 questions within the Snowmass process but we can't 11:22:22 promise that to be the case. At least it may 11:22:26 be useful if these open questions are properly 11:22:29 explained in the report. The fit team as I 11:22:33 mentioned is continuing working and very actively seeking 11:22:36 input from any experimental 11:22:40 studies and for the different topical groups. We do have 11:22:43 a working document that is available on 11:22:46 -- it is linked on the Snowmass web page 11:22:50 but here is the direct link also. 11:22:53 It is continuously updated 11:22:56 whenever we get concrete input from the community. We 11:22:59 encourage anybody to speak up on 11:23:02 that if they see something that could be added there. 11:23:06 Thank you. 11:23:15 >> Thank you. That was a very nice overview 11:23:18 and thank you for perfect timing of our presentation. 11:23:21 I see already there is 11:23:24 a question. >> Yes, thank you, 11:23:28 Ayres, for this nice 11:23:31 overview. Could you, please, go back to slide 8? I want to comment 11:23:34 on the exclusion of data that rubs 11:23:39 me the wrong way. Data is always right. 11:23:43 I would strongly advocate 11:23:47 if data is 11:23:51 excessive you fix the model and not throw away data. 11:23:54 Maybe I misunderstood what is being said. >> The goal 11:23:58 isn't to completely throw away the data and it is lost 11:24:02 in the dustbin of history. That's exactly kind of 11:24:06 the I was probably going fast but mentioned with the 11:24:09 computational expensive thing. The goal is to rather present the 11:24:12 data in basically as a distribution or, you 11:24:16 know, some bined histogram as a function of this 11:24:20 clipping pair 11:24:26 parameter. You can shift the parameter to infinity but if you want 11:24:30 to pursue a particular theoretical interpretation 11:24:33 where that would not be OK that also data is 11:24:37 presented in a form where this clipping parameter does 11:24:40 cut into the phase space and 11:24:47 phemPPphemenological 11:24:51 can perform that. >> Yes, and we have done this 11:24:54 in at ATLAS as a function of 11:24:57 the clipping parameter. It shows how 11:25:01 strong impact unionization will have, for 11:25:06 example, basically the perceived sensitivity to the real 11:25:10 sensitivity if you clip something tells you a lot. It is good information 11:25:13 to provide. >> Yes, absolutely. >> 11:25:16 Thank you. >> Thank you for the question. I think 11:25:20 bottom line more differential distributions is what we 11:25:23 all want. I don't see 11:25:26 any other raised 11:25:29 hands so I thank 11:25:32 Ayres and the 11:25:36 EF04 for the nice presentation. 11:25:39 We move on to the next presentation for 11:25:43 EF05 and the speaker will be Stefan. 11:25:46 >> Yes. Hello. Can you hear he? >> 11:25:49 Yes, a bit faintly but I think it is -- >> 11:25:52 OK. >> I will try and get closer to the microphone. 11:25:55 >> It is better. Thank you. >> OK. 11:25:59 >> Yes, so hello, everyone. This will 11:26:03 be a slightly long 11:26:06 summary. We decided because 11:26:10 EF0 and 11:26:14 -- EF05 and 06 11:26:17 are similar we will have two presentations and go over 11:26:21 LOIs and white papers to give an impression of what is currently going 11:26:24 on in the groups. These questions are given by there people who are 11:26:27 actually driving the 11:26:30 efforts. -- the people. Just as a 11:26:34 reminder this is EF05 and conveners 11:26:38 are listed there. The mandate of our 11:26:41 group is to deal with 11:26:44 aspects of measuring or 11:26:47 determinations of the strong coupling and precision measurements at 11:26:50 lepton colliders and there 11:26:54 DOS. Precision 11:26:59 observables. Z and tau 11:27:02 decay. Other new and exciting techniques weheard about in all 11:27:05 the group meetings. Jet physics including 11:27:09 jet substructure at current and future 11:27:12 colliders and new correlation measurements and jets and systems 11:27:15 for example in connection with EF05 and 11:27:19 7. Monte Carlo and 11:27:23 perturb 11:27:28 ative which is important and need to be understand in more detail in 11:27:32 order to get reliable systematic earn certainty 11:27:38 -- uncertainty estimates. Monte Carlo 11:27:41 simulations. We will hear about an 11:27:45 LOI on particularly this topic in a few minutes. 11:27:55 And these overlap with other groups like 11:27:58 EF01, 3, 4, 6 and 8 and with the theory 11:28:01 and computing frontier also. We try 11:28:05 to exploit them -- 11:28:07 explore them as best as we can. You can see the website and the 11:28:12 indico category where you can find the past meetings. The group 11:28:15 meetings usually happen 11:28:20 Monday 11:28:24 10:30am estern time ge 11:28:30 4:30 CERN. I am not going over all 11:28:35 the LOIs we 11:28:38 received. Here is a list of bought 11:28:42 -- what people are interested in. You can see there are many 11:28:46 topics. There are certain 11:28:49 LOIs we identified as the 11:28:52 primary EF05 and 11:28:56 there are other ones that logically 11:28:59 belong to a different group. Like 11:29:03 the par 11:29:06 parton distribution belongs to 6 but we keep a 11:29:09 close watch on all of them. We have cross talk 11:29:13 with the other topical groups 11:29:16 in particular on these issues. So 11:29:19 the restarting after the pause, we would 11:29:22 like to invite all of you to give 11:29:26 updates on on going projects for 11:29:30 example during a group meeting or any other Snowmass 11:29:33 channel. Slack or email us for example. In 11:29:36 particular, if you have any new ideas that have 11:29:39 come up during the pause. New studies being were 11:29:45 -- proposed let us know so we can 11:29:48 include them in the final document and make other groups 11:29:52 aware of them. One thing we would like to 11:29:55 mention, again, in particular is if you are new to Snowmass, 11:29:58 please try to connect with us. We would like to 11:30:01 especially invite young 11:30:05 scientistscientists at this point. We have 11:30:09 heard a number of nice talks on individual projects and summaries of 11:30:12 workshops that happened in the past and new interesting topics 11:30:15 came up. I invite you to go to the 11:30:19 individual presentations and have a closer look at them. 11:30:22 And we plan to cycle in the 11:30:25 next topical group meeting through the existing 11:30:29 LOIs in the next few weeks and ideally 11:30:32 this might lead to a draft outline of the group 11:30:37 report by the end of 2021. This is next 11:30:40 major milestone probably from the 11:30:45 perspective of EF05. I would like to thank 11:30:48 everyone for participating in these activities. We look forward 11:30:51 to your new ideas. If you have 11:30:55 suggestion, comments or anything, please, send them to 11:30:58 us. And with this, I would 11:31:01 like to hand over the microphone to one 11:31:04 of the LOI authors who is 11:31:07 connected to present the effort on 11:31:10 fragmentation studies. Iowa 11:31:20 lows 11:31:26 >> Thanks. Let me share my screen. 11:31:34 Aye-aye. 11:31:38 >> If you have a problem, maybe Stefan, want to 11:31:41 share the screen? >> Yeah, it would be 11:31:45 easier. >> There is only a few slides. Ah, I found 11:31:48 it, I think. Can you see it? >> 11:31:51 It is coming up, yes. 11:31:56 >> The slides were prepared by 11:31:59 Anselm who is actually the 11:32:05 person responsible for the 11:32:08 snowSnowmass and 11:32:11 QCD but unfortunately he can't join so he asked me 11:32:15 to jump in. I am 11:32:18 caught in the water because I am not 11:32:22 that much involved. Let me see. Some of the 11:32:25 topics that can be studied better 11:32:29 to propagation and 11:32:32 hadronization has been a tupictupic 11:32:37 -- topic already studied. 11:32:42 There is a number of QCD studies. 11:32:45 These are important because they are fundamental QCD 11:32:49 studies and input DIS experiments and 11:32:53 photon collision of hadrons 11:32:56 in the final state. 11:33:03 There is the 11:33:07 EIC coming up. The focus will be 11:33:10 here on four channels 11:33:14 that really need high statistics. One already had a 11:33:17 very good data center but there are some 11:33:20 channels like 11:33:24 hadronisation that are more difficult to access and 11:33:27 we need more statistics. We still 11:33:31 had limititations when looking at the wire 11:33:34 bond data. This is a topic. 11:33:38 Correlations and multi-dimensional measurements and looking 11:33:41 at not just one kinematic variable but really do the 11:33:44 measurements in full differential. That will 11:33:48 fire high precision data and high statistics 11:33:51 dataset. There are some 11:33:55 things beyond just the statistics. For instance, the new 11:34:00 vertex detector which will have separate 11:34:03 charm and light for the 11:34:08 uds quark 11:34:12 contributions. They are all formed into the 11:34:15 bond. That will likely be much 11:34:19 easier. Then there are also 11:34:23 various ideas for jet physics program. We can look at 11:34:26 jet based 11:34:30 imbalances and so on. This has to be studied 11:34:33 what can be done. And then, of course, 11:34:36 e plus and minus is a nice way to really look at 11:34:40 hadronisation and hadronisation models like 11:34:43 jet set and that can be used it really 11:34:47 benchmark Monte Carlos to look at certain observables 11:34:50 that are both wide and 11:34:53 constraining these Monte Carlo models. Besides that 11:34:57 there is always an important measurement now going on 11:35:00 for the g minus 2 efforts. 11:35:03 That is the main contribution of the 11:35:08 uncertainty. They are 11:35:13 bonded and constrained or 11:35:17 restricted in what they can do. 11:35:21 Belle II 11:35:24 will have a better possibility to provide cross 11:35:28 section measurements. This is a list of the activities and 11:35:31 the workforces here. Basically, 11:35:34 the list of people 11:35:37 is very limited actually. Many of the people at 11:35:41 Duke, Riken, 11:35:46 and me here. We have all started Monte Carlo studies 11:35:49 of jet production at 11:35:52 belle II and same for 11:35:56 fragmentation of 11:36:00 belle II. We had a discussion with the Monte Carlo 11:36:03 groups about what can be the relevant contributions from 11:36:06 theal -- 11:36:09 the belle II. 11:36:12 We have discussions with the g-2 theory initiative and 11:36:16 what we can do for the 11:36:19 hadranization measurements. The plans are the 11:36:22 following: We have already a large set 11:36:25 of Monte Carlo samples which should be sufficient 11:36:28 for the studies needed for the white paper. In 11:36:31 fact, a lot can already be done from our 11:36:34 measurements at 11:36:40 Bon. Someone can extrapolate a lot to the final 11:36:44 dataset of belle 11:36:47 II. What has to be done in more 11:36:51 detail is the charm detection and how much it helps and 11:36:54 what can be improved there. 11:36:58 For jets, dedicated studies are underway though I can't 11:37:01 comment because I am not involve 11:37:07 involved there. For g minus 2 they will have a new trigger system for 11:37:10 belle II to study 11:37:13 this exclusive cross section 11:37:16 measurements and this has to be studied 11:37:21 and how to reduce and how much and what can be reached 11:37:25 there. This has to be quantified, of course, for the white paper. 11:37:30 I think that is all I was given on some slides. So 11:37:34 if there are questions I will try to answer 11:37:38 them. >> Thank you very much. I wonder if 11:37:41 Stefan wanted to have some final words? >> 11:37:44 Yes. I would like to quickly follow-up on 11:37:47 this. We have identified this as an 11:37:51 important way to benchmark Monte Carlo models and 11:37:56 hadronisation models in general 11:37:59 because 11:38:02 -- just to provide a little bit 11:38:07 context. Current Monte Carlo and everything we know about 11:38:10 hadronisation stands from hep data which 11:38:13 are taken at a single energy point. It is important and 11:38:17 it has been considered important by the Monte Carlo community at least over the 11:38:20 years to check and 11:38:24 validate the energy extrapolation because the data we have for 11:38:27 example from previous 11:38:31 experiments are limited and belle 11:38:34 II provides another point point that hopefully allows us 11:38:38 to reduce our systematic 11:38:41 uncertainties. 11:38:46 >> Thank you very much. It was a nice set of slides 11:38:49 and good plans. 11:38:55 If there are no other questions or 11:38:58 else I will start with a couple of comments. 11:39:10 This study for hadronisation implementation 11:39:13 and what is listed here using also 11:39:20 belle II data this could be 11:39:23 done with precision physics from 11:39:27 tier and I see they are connected today. This is pretty much in 11:39:30 EF05 activities. 11:39:34 G minus 2 and also charm physics 11:39:38 and it also overlapping with 11:39:44 the frontier and maybe something we can comment 11:39:47 on. >> I don't have a comment but I think it is a good idea because 11:39:51 there is certainly a lot of experience on that 11:39:55 side. Maybe it comes from the 11:39:58 QCD part of 11:40:01 parton studies. 11:40:04 I think people from charm side and g minus 11:40:07 2 we should discuss with them what is 11:40:11 the synergy there. >> Also in terms of 11:40:17 coordination of analysis and tools and 11:40:20 the split of activities. 11:40:27 >> Which group was it actually -- 11:40:30 because I am -- it is 11:40:34 called precision physics grow. 11:40:38 -- group. If you go to the Snowmass 11:40:43 Snowmass wiki page you will find it. The 11:40:46 liaison is connected and you can find 11:40:49 the name in the 11:40:53 wiki 11:40:58 page. >> We can discuss that later. 11:41:02 I think it will be very interesting to 11:41:05 everyone to coordinate. >> Good. Thank you. The 11:41:08 last comment I had which is an idea that just 11:41:12 occurred to me hearing Stefan comment 11:41:15 on the strong interlink between EF0 11:41:19 5 and 06. An idea that hasn't been 11:41:22 discussed with anybody but something we can discuss in the 11:41:25 afternoon session on the reports. 11:41:28 We may even conceive to have 11:41:31 a common report between EF05 11:41:34 and 06 since the 11:41:38 topics are close and intertwined. An idea 11:41:41 I wanted to throw out and maybe we can 11:41:45 discuss further in the afternoon session and of course in future 11:41:48 weeks and months. >> Yes. So in 11:41:51 fact, [indiscernible] will present the common 11:41:54 effort on the white paper we are working on. I think this may be 11:41:57 a good idea, yes. >> Very good. And 11:42:01 since I don't see any other raised hand, we 11:42:04 move on to EF06. 11:42:07 >> OK. Good. 11:42:12 Do you hear me well? Can you see 11:42:16 my slides? >> Not on full screen but 11:42:20 as you prefer. >> How about that? Do 11:42:23 you see them? >> Yeah. Perfect. OK. >> 11:42:26 Good. Well, I will just 11:42:31 takeover and emphasize the point the 11:42:36 EF06 covers a large range of projects and we 11:42:39 have multiple overlaps with other groups. 11:42:42 EF05 and 03 discussed the 11:42:46 parallel sessions of this workshop and I will not repeat all 11:42:48 of this for the sake of saving time. But 11:42:52 also, EF07 will come after 11:42:55 us and discuss many topics that we studied 11:42:58 together. This is an issue for us. 11:43:09 We have so many broad topics. Perhaps we should 11:43:12 write one report on QCD with 11:43:15 EF05 and maybe with other groups would be very good. 11:43:19 Just as a reminder, we have three major 11:43:22 areas that we are studying in 11:43:25 EF06. Hadron struck CLR and 11:43:29 participate ton distribution. 11:43:32 QCD at the high density 11:43:36 region. A major topic that will be not 11:43:40 be presented today because Krysztof is not available but it 11:43:43 is very actively studied in our group. 11:43:46 And also another topic that 11:43:49 overlaps quite well with the 11:43:53 proposals frontier is the 11:43:57 -- and I will not discuss it today but some of us have to 11:44:00 keep in mind there is a lot of activity going on there. We 11:44:03 actually started working very 11:44:07 rigorously quite early 11:44:10 in 2020 before the pause. We had many meetings, 11:44:13 I think about 15 meetings, that you can see at the 11:44:16 indico agenda that is shown 11:44:19 on the slide. 11:44:24 We didn't really stop or 11:44:27 fully pause during the last few months 11:44:30 because there was ongoing work on various distributions 11:44:33 going in parallel. Some will be quickly 11:44:37 summarized after my short presentation. This is a list of 11:44:41 focus questions that may be useful in the 11:44:45 frontier conveners 11:44:51 when we try to formulate what we want to recover 11:44:54 in the reports. The range of the topics is very broad as 11:44:57 you see. We have about 6 11:45:02 60 or 70 LOIs depending how you count the 11:45:05 overlap. You can see a single document filled with all the 11:45:11 LOIs 11:45:14 that are 11:45:17 pertinent to EF 06. It is clear 11:45:21 what we need to do in the next few months. We 11:45:24 meet in the fall, 11:45:27 and tentively meet every two weeks, and 11:45:30 we will primarily 11:45:34 track progress on several white papers. We have all these 11:45:37 LOIs but the scope of the work is already so 11:45:40 large we need to focus on pressing on the 11:45:43 key issues with the goal all white papers will be 11:45:48 archived by March 15, 2022. 11:45:52 Of course, we have 11:45:55 directions in the group. In particular, several of 11:45:58 the studies as we know are open to 11:46:01 new participants. There is some work to do in this 11:46:05 white paper studies especially some studies 11:46:08 can be very amendable for early 11:46:11 career researchers. Therefore if you wish to present your 11:46:15 work on Snowmass contributions, for example, 11:46:18 you wish to give a talk in one of the meetings, or you are 11:46:21 looking for a project to join either for you or your 11:46:25 students or postdocs, please, 11:46:28 contact us. We have a special scope of work that needs to be 11:46:32 covered. Just to give you a few 11:46:35 examples. Today we will talk about three LOIs. First of 11:46:39 all I will talk about major study on the proton 11:46:41 structure of the precision frontier that is 11:46:45 prepared by these three groups. 11:46:48 EFO 11:46:52 EFO5 and 06 and 11:46:55 TF06. And then we will learn about two other 11:46:59 LOIs that made substantial progress. On 11:47:02 the LHC forward physics facility 11:47:05 and the hadron 11:47:08 structure collider. I don't have to remind you that the 11:47:11 PDFs of all kind are very important for a variety of 11:47:15 measurements at the energy frontier 11:47:19 and the fixed target experiments. We need 11:47:22 to get PDFs as accurate to 11:47:27 11:47:30 NNLO QCD predictions. That requires studying a complex set of issues 11:47:34 arising in theory, experiment and also in the statistical 11:47:37 analysis. The PDF analysis is an example of a 11:47:40 large scale data analysis. Therefore 11:47:43 if we wish to meet the 11:47:46 physics target for the Higgs coupling discussed by 11:47:49 there previous groups we have to understand what's going on in the QCD 11:47:53 sector and especially with the PDFs. 11:47:56 Aside of that is the structure of the proton 11:48:00 is interesting in its own right because there are many new 11:48:03 coming experiments especially the electron 11:48:08 hadron collider 11:48:12 interested in the various kinds of nuke 11:48:16 nuclei. This is a very big table I think we 11:48:19 discussed at one of the workshops and I will probably not 11:48:22 go in detail but this discusses the 11:48:25 various topics related to the PDF analysis. 11:48:28 What you see here are the topics that we covered in the 11:48:32 2013 report from the QCD 11:48:35 Working Group. As well as the updates that we need to make 11:48:39 in this new report that will be produced. But also, when 11:48:42 we target the highest accuracy at the high 11:48:47 luminosity LHC area, we have to look into 11:48:50 multiple other issues that were not relevant eight years ago. Therefore 11:48:53 we really need to think as a community how to address these 11:48:57 issues if we really wish to reach the accuracy target by 11:49:00 the 11:49:04 LH37 -- 11:49:08 LHC. The way to approach this is 11:49:11 to write a white paper coordinated by through groups. 11:49:15 On the top you see the names 11:49:18 of the general coordinators of this major 11:49:22 work. Now on the left hand side you see the table 11:49:25 of contents from this white 11:49:28 paper. The idea is to give a pretty 11:49:32 comprehensive introduction to the model status of the 11:49:35 PDF that covers all sorts of issues. Obviously it is very 11:49:38 difficult to write this 11:49:41 large scope paper. We decided to assign small 11:49:44 groups of leading authors. If you like 11:49:49 coordinators that will spend the few months 11:49:52 to write there bulk of the test. -- the. 11:49:55 In small groups this makes it most efficient. In 11:49:59 December we will open the paper to the comments from the whole community 11:50:03 and then every community member who is interested 11:50:06 can sign up on the message of 11:50:09 the paper as one of the authors. Of course, the 11:50:13 coordinated will be highlighted as the main con 11:50:17 tribtribtributer 11:50:20 -- contributors to the work. If you are interested in a particular topic and 11:50:23 would really like to play a role, meaning 11:50:26 you have to commit the time, please contact us. We still have 11:50:30 a few of these chapters, well, not fully 11:50:33 covered. Here is a list of the authors 11:50:36 that are currently working on individual sections. 11:50:39 Wherever you see who else it 11:50:44 indicates we are looking for additional con 11:50:48 tributors. If you would like to contribute to this 11:50:51 paper, work on any of these topics, like for 11:50:54 example, we are especially 11:50:57 welcoming experimentalists from ATLAS and 11:51:01 CMS to tell us how they 11:51:04 see the vision of measuring the quantities for 11:51:07 PDF or controlling systematics errors. We need 11:51:10 your input. With this, I would like to now switch 11:51:14 and give a few minutes to 11:51:17 Maria first who will tell us about 11:51:22 the forward physics facility. Maria, I can 11:51:25 show your slide if you like. I hope you can hear me. >> 11:51:28 Yes, yes, that's probably good you show them. 11:51:32 Can you hear? Yes. OK. Then I will tell you when to 11:51:35 change the slide. First of all, yes, this is one of the 11:51:41 involving 11:51:45 EF05, 06 and 07. It can 11:51:51 be coming from Jonathan Lee and Felix and myself 11:51:55 and others who have started 11:51:58 helping. Next slide. The idea is to 11:52:02 do the following. As you 11:52:05 know, ATLAS and CMS can just 11:52:08 look at particles submitted at low 11:52:13 but there are a lot of other 11:52:16 particles at larger and 11:52:19 these are essentially lost. I mean particles 11:52:23 that are larger than 5. There are some ex 11:52:27 periments and ideas to exploit the beams of 11:52:31 sneutrino and muon and the 11:52:34 particles produced in this way. There are already two 11:52:38 experiments that have been proved and are now 11:52:41 under development and they will start taking data during round 11:52:44 3 that will be sensible 11:52:47 to this particle. Go to the next slide, 11:52:51 Pavel. They will be located at 11:52:56 00 meters from the interaction point. You see one on the 11:52:59 one side that is called a UJ 11:53:02 12 and the other is the 11:53:06 UJ18. This cover will be at the time 11:53:09 of -- the problem of this experiment is 11:53:13 they can only exploit 11:53:16 limited space and so also limited 11:53:20 sensitivity in terms of rapidity. People start 11:53:23 to think of what to do for the next round and 11:53:26 can we improve the situation, better measure this 11:53:30 kind of forward neutrino and particles and the idea 11:53:33 came up of trying to design a forward 11:53:37 physics facility. For this, Pavel, 11:53:40 next slide. There are two possible ideas 11:53:43 that are now being elaborated at CERN by the 11:53:48 engineering group. One is to enlarge one 11:53:51 of the existing and the 11:53:54 UJ12 will be co-located in such 11:53:57 a way to create cover where one could put the 11:54:00 bigger experiments. The other possibility is to create from 11:54:04 scratch a new shopped and a new cavern 11:54:07 -- shaft -- on the opposite 11:54:11 side around 600 meters from the 11:54:14 UJ12 in a region where there is just now grass. 11:54:18 This would be the best option because as you can see from the next slide 11:54:22 slide, this would allow to put them 11:54:26 in this new cavern that would be large enough 11:54:29 and arrange different experiments characterized by 11:54:33 different technologies and covered in different 11:54:36 ranges in such a way that one can make a program of 11:54:41 diversified physics. Go to 11:54:44 next slide. And in particular, we 11:54:48 see a number of QCD opportunities relate today the fact 11:54:51 that the 11:54:54 neutrinos and muons we see 11:54:57 are produced by light flavor and heavy flavor 11:55:01 production and decay. This will allow us to study a number 11:55:04 of problems from proton 11:55:07 PDF that can study 11:55:10 small and large to 11:55:14 nuclear PDF that can be study from the 11:55:17 neutrino and neutrino cut on many 11:55:20 different targets that would be put in these experiments. 11:55:24 The complementary tweak 11:55:28 -- we can get from the forward and 11:55:32 future experiments like the 11:55:35 EIC. The possibility of starting alternative to the 11:55:38 factorization framework in particular eb factorization 11:55:42 framework which in collaboration of 11:55:45 energy log rhythm would be relevant 11:55:48 especially for the description 11:55:51 of charm production in the 11:55:54 forward region and also the production reaction. Then we can 11:55:58 think to constrain by means of data that can be 11:56:02 extracted in this facility 11:56:05 non 11:56:09 non-perturbative models and also maybe better tuning and 11:56:12 there are also other connections with 11:56:16 astoparticle 11:56:19 physics. This would give us a lot of 11:56:24 insight about neutrino and 11:56:27 hadron production in the atmosphere. Just to give an example 11:56:30 of the advantage of 11:56:34 going from run3 11:56:38 where we could see 10 scattering 11:56:42 events by means of the 11:56:45 cc to the 1,000 11:56:50 events we can see with 11:56:53 better statistics of a factor of 11:56:56 100. Next slide. 11:57:00 This is what we have done in this month that 11:57:03 Snowmass was under 11:57:06 after the first participate we 11:57:11 -- paper we submitted to Snowmass. 11:57:14 There was a meeting in November 2020 and a second in 11:57:17 May. Afterwards we start to write the first paper 11:57:20 that at the moment is almost 70 pages and 11:57:24 almost ready. It 11:57:30 concern all aspects from civil 11:57:33 engineering to physical exploration study 11:57:36 and involves several tens of orders and 11:57:39 12 topical conveners. We want 11:57:42 to submit to to the archive 11:57:45 soon. There will be a third meeting on this subject in October 11:57:49 2021. That would be 11:57:52 devoted mostly to the discussion 11:57:55 on the Snowmass paper that we want to submit by 11:57:58 Spring 11:58:02 2022. We expect the same orders working now that started to 11:58:05 do the calculation 11:58:08 for the forward facility and 11:58:12 additional collaboration from people that maybe want to join the effort. In case 11:58:15 you want to join us, please, write us an 11:58:18 email. We would find something for you to do for sure. 11:58:23 The physic facility will not stop with the end of 11:58:26 the Snowmass process. We want to submit 11:58:30 conceptual design paper in autumn 11:58:34 2022 and in autumn 11:58:38 2023 for the TDR. If everything is 11:58:42 approved then this can be started to be build during the 11:58:45 long shutdown three between 11:58:48 11:58:52 2025-2027 and be ready for taking data 11:58:55 during the high 11:58:59 luminosity phase. >> Thank you. As you can see this 11:59:02 happens quite soon. That's very interesting. Now, 11:59:06 let me invite Timon to say a few words 11:59:09 about the other LOI and then we will take questions for all of us. >> 11:59:12 Yes, thank you, 11:59:16 Pavlo. Indeed these comments will be brief and essentially almost 11:59:19 all entirely programmatic in the 11:59:22 interest of time. Basically, what I wanted to do on behalf 11:59:26 of my fellow co-organizers of the proceedings that 11:59:29 we are developing on this subject is provide a 11:59:32 reminder that we exist and very brief update 11:59:35 regarding the status. In particular what this 11:59:39 concerns is the electron ion 11:59:42 collider, EIC and hadron 11:59:48 tomography which you can read as measurements of the 11:59:51 EIC that could be constraining with respect to 11:59:54 hadronic or nuclear structure and in particular build a 11:59:58 cross over subject and what measurements of that type could have a 12:00:01 say with respect to the energy frontier 12:00:04 or really in high energy physics in general. This of course 12:00:07 includes the LHC 12:00:10 but neutrino nuclear scattering as 12:00:13 well as fer 12:00:17 fermilab and elsewhere. There is 12:00:21 an embedded summary in the two dimensional code 12:00:24 and you can see the link to the original 12:00:28 LOIs which is very brief and 12:00:33 succinct. A reminder of what we have been up to. Looking back 12:00:36 to the early part of this 12:00:39 year, January 2021 12:00:43 we assembled a large groupf 12:00:46 people interested in the subject. It is a very broad subject 12:00:49 relating to PDFs and things like generalized 12:00:52 parton functions and 12:00:55 TMD measurements. We had something on the order of 12:00:58 something 160 plus LOI contributors who 12:01:02 are being funneled toward the 12:01:05 proceedings. One we objective we agreed to carry 12:01:08 forward is studies that had been somewhat 12:01:11 only briefly covered in the EIC 12:01:15 report that was completed in March of 12:01:19 this year bringing some conclusions forward 12:01:22 and developing them further in the proceedings. We had 12:01:25 identified that community. We had somehow broken it into 12:01:28 a number of appropriate sub-concentrations 12:01:31 concerning things like PDFs and TMDs 12:01:35 and we made substantial 12:01:39 progress in building a template documentdocument 12:01:42 which we might correlate conclusions in each area. That document is 12:01:45 completely open. We invite contributions from 12:01:48 anyone with expertise in the area that we have 12:01:51 outlined keeping inside the track that we have developed and a 12:01:54 link to that over leaf is embedded in 12:01:57 this slide and the yellow-green text at the 12:02:01 bottom. Lastly, I just wanted to note on this point 12:02:03 that, of course, we are looking to complete this 12:02:07 in march of next year 12:02:10 giving us just half a year to finalize this. We 12:02:13 are in the process, as the pause ends, outlining the key 12:02:16 efforts and we will be reaching out to that end. Next 12:02:20 slide, please. This is my 12:02:23 last slide already. The current status where are we 12:02:26 as I just mentioned in words, we already 12:02:29 created a lot of material in the key areas that are 12:02:33 relevant here. We brought forward a great deal of this from 12:02:36 the report. We already gathered a lot 12:02:39 to do with there 12:02:42 PDFs and 12:02:47 nPDFs. There is development with high energy neutrino scattering and not 12:02:51 unheard of like in the last talk and 12:02:54 TMD and TMD 12:02:57 fragmentation and lattice calculations for the 12:03:01 GPDs. Building the relation to the areas already 12:03:05 present is something that needs to be developed further. 12:03:08 In the coming six months there are a number of crucial things that 12:03:11 have not been expanded or mapped out at all to this point 12:03:14 and that includes the spin 12:03:18 polarized distributions, possible 12:03:22 simultaneously analyses of three dimensional 12:03:25 observables, and thren mapping out a 12:03:28 little bit further the EIC's 12:03:31 impact on high energy QCD as well as nuclear 12:03:34 physics for ultra 12:03:38 peripheral collision we will be actively 12:03:44 soliciting key players in the next couple months. 12:03:47 I stres this is an open 12:03:50 process. The link to the overleaf is available and I 12:03:54 invite anyone interested to reach out either 12:03:57 to me or my colleagues. That's all we would like to 12:04:00 say for now. Thank you, Pavel. >> 12:04:03 With this, we conclude our EF 12:04:07 EF06 presentation. 12:04:11 Thank you very much. And the speakers. >> And the whole 12:04:15 EF06 group. And the conveners for 12:04:18 engineering all the sessions. Questions. 12:05:47 >> I think this is 12:05:50 comlemeant -- 12:05:56 complementary. This will be both small and large. 12:05:59 We can, I mean, 12:06:03 there is the comlementary where we don't 12:06:07 see 12:06:14 LHC. We will reach like 10 to the 12:06:17 minus 7. 12:06:23 I agree. It is an important. >> I think 12:06:27 just an analysis would be interesting. 12:06:31 >> Yeah, I think we can do this because we have on board 12:06:34 the people that are also working for the 12:06:38 EAC. I mean the main PDF 12:06:41 collaboration. This is definitely possible. 12:06:44 >> Thank you. >> I don't see any 12:06:47 raised hands. So with that, 12:06:51 we thank all the speakers. 12:06:55 And we take a break of 12:06:58 about 24 minutes or so. Then 12:07:01 we will continue with another 12:07:05 plenary session where we conclude the highlights and plans from all there 12:07:08 other energy 12:07:11 frontier topical groups. So we 12:07:15 close this session here. I want to thank also 12:07:19 Maggie the captioner from white 12:07:22 coat Captioning 12:07:25 Captioning. >> Maggie: 12:07:29 Thank you. >> We will see you in about 23 12:07:33 minutes from 12:07:38 now. >> Alessandro, isn't it an hour? >> 12:07:41 Apologize. It is at 1:00, yes. I mixed 12:07:45 up the agenda. Yes, it is less 12:07:48 than an hour from now. 53 12:07:51 minutes. Thank you, Laura, for correcting me. >> Thank you. 13:02:33 . The group activities so far this 13:02:36 year can be summarized 13:02:40 in these three workshops. The first 13:02:42 is a dedicated workshop that starts in 13:02:46 the EIC opportunities for Snowmass. 13:02:50 And the second one is an 13:02:54 opportunity for PO and O physic 13:02:57 s organized at CERN. 13:02:59 And the third is heavy ion and new 13:03:02 physics. So the EF07 parallel 13:03:05 session is organized that we listen to 13:03:08 the highlights from these two heavy ion 13:03:11 workshops. In the middle there is a 13:03:14 fresh talk, talk about the study of the 13:03:17 E plus E minus jet and the implication 13:03:21 to EIC measurements. And finally a 13:03:24 dedicated talk for EIC physics and 13:03:28 those were present 13:03:31 ed by the coordinators in the group. 13:03:31 13:03:33 So first of all, I will cover some of 13:03:36 the highlights from the heavy ions and 13:03:39 the new physics workshop. It's 13:03:43 the second success 13:03:45 ful workshop. The first one happened 13:03:48 in 2018. That was for the preparation 13:03:51 for ESPP and results in a 13:03:55 writeup we can access here from the 13:03:59 archive 13:04:06 this workshop is including 13:04:09 the magnetic monopole search, axion 13:04:13 -like particles, sexaquark 13:04:16 s, dark photons and soft new physics 13:04:19 and long-live 13:04:23 ed particle search. 13:04:25 In connection to cosmic ray shower 13:04:30 s and gravation 13:04:32 al studies. 13:04:34 The first part I would like to cover is 13:04:37 ALP search. The group has been work 13:04:41 ing on the 13:04:47 performance. We have heard from 13:04:51 almost all the experiments available 13:04:54 from LHC and 13:04:56 the performance was already presented 13:05:00 in this workshop. For those 13:05:04 searches -- they rely on 13:05:07 the large electromagnetic field which 13:05:10 is up to 13:05:13 10 to the 16th. 13:05:16 With the new data, we had the 13:05:19 opportunity to push the limit 13:05:22 and interesting potential 13:05:23 observations. 13:05:25 We can see also the performance for 13:05:29 the tau g-2 where the 13:05:32 tau are produced through the 13:05:35 use of heavy ion beam, it's 13:05:38 a form of photon collider. You can 13:05:41 see in this part here, shows 13:05:44 that suppose we have 13:05:47 2 to 20 -- collisions, 13:05:51 this measurement of few tau g-2 13:05:54 can be improved dramatically compared 13:05:56 to the left studies. 13:05:59 Now moving towards the sexaquark 13:06:03 . This time we're relying on the 13:06:05 heavy atom collision itself to produce 13:06:09 the sexaquark. 13:06:13 There is baryon density ratios that 13:06:14 can be predicted by a simple 13:06:17 statistical argument. It's a kind of 13:06:19 dark matter because it's based on this 13:06:21 approach, the predicted ratio of the 13:06:24 dark matter and the baryon 13:06:28 is 4.5 which is 13:06:32 consistent with the expectation 13:06:33 . 13:06:35 So fab it's not excluded and the search 13:06:38 will be based on the heavy ion 13:06:41 collision and a potential neuro 13:06:45 detector behind a neutron absorber 13:06:49 shell. That sounds interesting 13:06:49 . 13:06:52 Moving onto the second work 13:06:56 shop which was dedicated for PO 13:07:00 and the O collision. More 13:07:03 than 150 participants over five days 13:07:05 and this is in preparation for the 13:07:10 physics case for 13:07:14 -- this was successfully done 13:07:17 . We had a potential pilot run to 13:07:19 a special run dedicated with PO and OO 13:07:23 physics based on the 13:07:26 new [indiscernible] 13:07:29 And the first physics case which is 13:07:32 important also for the cosmic air show 13:07:35 er is the potential collusion to the 13:07:38 muon puzzle in the cosmic 13:07:41 air shower. It is typical 13:07:45 to predict simultaneously the shower 13:07:48 depth and mass which is X 13:07:52 max and nu which is the number 13:07:54 of muons and mass. 13:07:57 There is density which is very 13:07:58 important information for 13:08:01 characterizing the cosmic ray shower. 13:08:05 And the experimental accuracy 13:08:07 is both the [indiscernible] 13:08:07 uncertainties. 13:08:10 And the measurements which we expected 13:08:14 to be performed had the LHC energy 13:08:17 ies. Can solve the divergent 13:08:20 theoretical predictions using the 13:08:23 combination of LHC 13:08:27 measurement and LHCf which provide 13:08:29 s crucial information about the muon 13:08:34 production in Ms. kick ray shower. 13:08:34 13:08:37 The second important physics case which 13:08:40 was discussed and was presented in 13:08:43 this section is a PO and OO physics 13:08:46 for the study of pQ 13:08:50 CD. The enhance 13:08:53 ed signal has been seen by these 13:08:57 collaborations by particle ratios. 13:08:57 13:09:00 This effect, this enhancement is 13:09:03 increasing the function of the 13:09:06 multiplicity which is not described 13:09:11 by Pythia and is not yet fully 13:09:14 understood. The opportunity with OO 13:09:17 collision is it serves as a brin 13:09:19 climate change between the proton and 13:09:22 the -- collision which nicely bridges 13:09:25 these to measurements. And leads to 13:09:28 a more detailed study 13:09:29 . 13:09:32 Finally, the case was presented 13:09:35 in the workshop, the 13:09:38 jet quench studies in small system. 13:09:41 An interesting picture emerged 13:09:44 when we had the first LHC data and 13:09:47 the high PP collision [inaudible] 13:09:50 . There seems to be flow everywhere 13:09:54 . And everything seems to be 13:09:59 consistent with the -- 13:10:03 this doesn't prove hydrol but if you 13:10:06 think there is a -- information, the 13:10:09 interesting thing is the multiplication 13:10:13 factors in proton lab is 13:10:16 about both one which indicates no 13:10:19 jet quenching signal. That is 13:10:22 puzzling and it will be interesting to 13:10:25 study in the immediate site, a signal 13:10:29 which is much more welcome compared to 13:10:32 peripheral -- collision and that's the 13:10:35 OO collision here for the study of 13:10:38 jet quenching requirements in small 13:10:40 systems. 13:10:43 So then here we move to 13:10:46 the E plus E minus measurements for 13:10:50 QCD. This is the 13:10:53 cleanest way to study -- 13:10:55 jets. And the interesting thing is 13:10:59 since the end of LEP operation, 13:11:02 there is significant progress made in 13:11:05 jet definition and jet algorithms. 13:11:08 Jet sub theres and observable 13:11:11 s have been explored. Those techniques 13:11:14 are not yet used in E plus E minus and 13:11:16 this work is presented in the 13:11:19 conference, in the workshop for the 13:11:20 first time. 13:11:23 This is jet spectral measurements with 13:11:25 a very sharp edge on the right-hand 13:11:27 side. That is attractive because this 13:11:31 is enabling us to understand the 13:11:34 performance of radius dependent 13:11:36 logs which I mentioned and which is 13:11:40 providing this sharp H there. And also 13:11:41 an opportunity to test the event 13:11:45 generators which are commonly used 13:11:48 in various studies. You can see 13:11:50 that the interesting thing is that the 13:11:54 simulation is not really producing the 13:11:58 E plus E minus data perfect 13:11:58 ly. 13:12:02 That is probably an implication 13:12:05 for future studies with EI 13:12:09 C or other collision systems. 13:12:11 Now the jets at EIC. This is going 13:12:14 to be a jet factory as well 13:12:18 . We hope to employ jets for 13:12:21 the study of the 3D structure and 13:12:24 the evolving proton and ions 13:12:25 . 13:12:28 The first example measurements of 13:12:31 this type, the lepton plus 13:12:34 jet is shown in the conference. It's 13:12:36 also discussed in other sections. The 13:12:40 new H1 measurements which is available 13:12:43 on archive. This figure 13:12:46 is also interesting by itself because 13:12:50 we use artificial intelligence 13:12:54 based on -- probing for this kind of 13:12:55 measurement. 13:12:58 And in addition, since the -- report 13:13:01 , there are also a lot 13:13:04 of development studies of jet 13:13:07 substructures. The idea is we can 13:13:11 construct jet-base 13:13:14 ed observable to be based on T 13:13:17 I. This example is the TI jet using 13:13:22 the construction of the WTA axis 13:13:25 . And -- this can enable us 13:13:28 to do TMD studies. There are many 13:13:31 other interesting -- the reactions are 13:13:34 also explored with a jet 13:13:40 substructure, analyzers in the jet 13:13:42 subgroup. 13:13:45 Moving onto heavy flavor physic 13:13:49 s at EIC. The effort has been 13:13:52 , the effort has been on many 13:13:55 different -- for example, parton 13:13:59 propagation in the E plus A collisions 13:14:02 collisions and Hadronization and in 13:14:04 the charm jet into the picture. Those 13:14:07 are the examples, demonstrations of 13:14:10 performance parts. 13:14:12 More than that, the heavy flavor 13:14:17 analysis are also giving us access to 13:14:21 the nuclear PDF and 13:14:24 heavy flavor schemes at EIC. 13:14:28 The reason there are also new 13:14:31 discussions on the physics potential 13:14:35 and also the detector requirements for 13:14:38 the future EIC detectors up to the 13:14:41 development of [indiscernible] 13:14:43 . 13:14:46 There are also additional heavy 13:14:49 flavor observables discussed in the 13:14:52 workshop. For example, heavy flavor 13:14:55 dijets 13:14:58 and Quark on yum production 13:15:02 and measurements of heavy flavor 13:15:05 mesons and Hadronization 13:15:06 . 13:15:09 Finally the last part, 13:15:13 the gluon saturation physics. The 13:15:16 boosted proton is on the -- scale, the 13:15:19 picture you will get is very different 13:15:21 . 13:15:24 The excitement is with EIC, we 13:15:27 can keep the 13:15:30 Quark section, the -- sensitivity 13:15:33 but increase the saturation physics X 13:15:36 up to something like 300. Because of 13:15:40 the larger ions we are using for the 13:15:42 saturation physics studies. That is 13:15:43 very exciting. 13:15:45 There are many different observables 13:15:49 and inclusives. 13:15:52 Dihadron and dijet correlations, et 13:15:54 cetera. They were discussed in the 13:15:57 subgroup. 13:16:00 In addition to that, there are recent 13:16:03 events in the 13:16:07 -- calculations. We're trying 13:16:10 to match TMD and 13:16:13 CGC at small X. 13:16:16 The problem is that it's valid 13:16:19 when K -- is constructed by this 13:16:22 dijet to be much much smaller than 13:16:26 the two -- with the improved TM 13:16:28 D framework, this removed that 13:16:29 requirement and it can be compared 13:16:33 directly to the CGC 13:16:37 calculation. Then we have a 13:16:40 genuine contribution. Before a direct 13:16:44 comparison between TMD and C 13:16:47 GC will fold in kinematics 13:16:47 . 13:16:50 This event has been present 13:16:54 ed by B 13:16:58 joern. The 13:17:01 kinematics are sizable in this example 13:17:05 . And this 13:17:09 is improved from the TMD 13:17:12 calculationand also the 13:17:16 difference between ITMD and TM 13:17:19 D cannot be [indiscernible] 13:17:22 due to saturation. There 13:17:26 are also others presented in the 13:17:26 workshop. 13:17:30 Here are the summary and the plan for 13:17:32 the E 13:17:36 F07. I have presented you the A 13:17:39 LP searches and performance studies 13:17:42 at HIC. Including ALP 13:17:46 , monopole, tau, G minus 13:17:48 12 and sexaquark. There are many 13:17:50 other studies that are in preparation 13:17:53 for the Snowmass documentation. 13:17:56 Physics with pO and OO were 13:17:59 presented with important data for 13:18:02 cosmic ray physics and reveal jet 13:18:03 quenching effect in small collision 13:18:04 systems. 13:18:07 Jet in E plus and 13:18:11 E minus can have reference to p 13:18:14 p, EIC, and HI data 13:18:15 . 13:18:18 The yellow report has become public in 13:18:21 EIC physics. 13:18:24 And new gapments in EIC 13:18:27 detector design. New developments in 13:18:30 jet related observables. Advance 13:18:33 in revealing the genuine 13:18:36 saturation effects and NLO computation 13:18:40 and we're working on a Snowmass 13:18:40 document. 13:18:43 And finally the NP L 13:18:46 RP timeline will be decided by the end 13:18:49 of 13:18:53 2021 and that's all, thank you 13:18:55 . 13:18:56 >> Thank you for this very 13:18:58 comprehensive talk. Thank you for 13:19:01 pushing ahead and for staying on time 13:19:02 at the same time. 13:19:06 So are there questions? 13:19:10 13:19:12 So my question to you would be, can you 13:19:16 give us an idea how 13:19:18 how -- a lot of the studies that you 13:19:21 presented here can be well integrated 13:19:23 into other topical group studies. 13:19:26 Studies from jets to heavy flavor and 13:19:29 electroweak and more. What's the plan 13:19:32 to integrate them in their studies or 13:19:36 integrate their studies into yours 13:19:37 . 13:19:40 We will have time to discuss it later 13:19:42 this afternoon but just to have an 13:19:43 idea. 13:19:46 >> I think we have been discussing this 13:19:48 over the last years and will continue 13:19:51 to do that. 13:19:54 For those presentations 13:19:58 -- with the search, also 13:20:01 send those into the corresponding EF 13:20:04 groups for a compilation and 13:20:06 discussions. So that's what we should 13:20:09 be doing. 13:20:11 13:20:14 >> Okay. So we have time for more 13:20:17 questions. 13:20:20 Or suggestions? 13:20:22 13:20:25 Not seeing anything. 13:20:28 I think we thank 13:20:32 Yen-Jie again. Oh, Ala 13:20:35 ssandro, did you have your hand up 13:20:36 ? 13:20:37 >> I think I have my hand up. 13:20:40 >> Things are moving on the screen. I 13:20:42 saw a hand that's all. I wasn't sure. 13:20:43 Yes, go ahead. 13:20:46 >> I have two questions. One is 13:20:49 are you working on anything 13:20:52 with photon/photon fusion heavy ion 13:20:53 collisions. 13:20:56 >> Yes. I think we do have a large 13:20:59 portion of the group who 13:21:02 has been working on 13:21:06 the photon -- I mean collide 13:21:07 er -- yes. 13:21:11 >> So this is something that 13:21:13 will come probably also from the LHC. 13:21:15 >> Yes, that's right. 13:21:18 >> Okay. Thanks. And the second one 13:21:20 -- go ahead. 13:21:23 >> I think it's interesting to find a 13:21:26 way to summarize all the studies 13:21:29 together with otherpin put 13:21:32 input from other groups. 13:21:35 So far those results were present 13:21:38 ed in EF07 and it's interesting to 13:21:40 compare that performance with other 13:21:41 studies. 13:21:42 >> Okay. 13:21:44 >> And the second question is more 13:21:47 about your relation with the cosmic 13:21:50 frontier. I'm imagining that the, all 13:21:53 the work that you're talking about on 13:21:57 the muon puzzles and 13:22:02 you're already in contact with 13:22:05 the authors of the LO 13:22:06 I? 13:22:09 >> Not yet but that's, thank you 13:22:13 for reminding me. I think I should 13:22:15 , of course, send this interesting 13:22:19 contribution to them. 13:22:19 13:22:21 >> I can help because I'm supposed to 13:22:24 be the liaison between the two. Get in 13:22:26 touch because there's a big, long 13:22:28 thread about it and I think that 13:22:30 working together would be good. 13:22:32 Okay, thank you so much? 13:22:35 >> Thank you Caterina, and I see 13:22:38 a question from Simone. 13:22:40 >> I wanted to follow up on the photon 13:22:44 fusion. I guess 13:22:46 in addition to -- there is the 13:22:49 possibility of this process happening 13:22:52 in BP. And I think I remember seeing 13:22:55 a few, a paper looking 13:22:58 at high energy lepton colliders and 13:23:01 photon fusion processes in those 13:23:02 regimes. 13:23:05 So we should probably make sure we 13:23:08 coordinate of where such material 13:23:11 would end up. 13:23:12 13:23:16 So we don't forget. So it doesn't fall 13:23:17 into the cracks. That is my point? 13:23:20 >> Yes, that sounds 13:23:23 very agreeable. Thank you. 13:23:25 13:23:28 >> I see Vitoria has a hand up 13:23:28 . 13:23:31 >> I have a comment on the strangeness 13:23:34 announcement. This is typically 13:23:37 something that people that are studying 13:23:39 the problem are bringing up trying to 13:23:43 say that the strangeness enhancement 13:23:45 can't have a relation because we can't 13:23:48 explain with current Monte Carlo. What 13:23:51 I want to point out, this advantageness 13:23:53 enhance. Has been seen in a region 13:23:55 that is very small. 13:23:58 If this is relevant or not for cosmic 13:24:01 ray physics, one could only see if 13:24:02 a similar measurement would be 13:24:06 performed in the 13:24:11 forward region. Is there a plan for 13:24:14 experiments on this? 13:24:14 13:24:17 >> I think in principle in 13:24:20 the forward region, we should be able 13:24:23 to explore these physics by 13:24:26 looking to 13:24:30 high state -- lepton data for example 13:24:34 . They do have the capability to do so 13:24:37 now. The other thing is that they can 13:24:41 also access data up to 50 percent 13:24:44 centrality. So it would be 13:24:47 interesting to follow this up as you 13:24:49 said. 13:24:53 >> Yes. Also another point, what 13:24:57 is the upward plan for this 13:25:00 oxygen/oxygen run in the sense that, 13:25:03 I know during Run3 13:25:06 they will be given enough luminosity 13:25:10 to these runs or what is the 13:25:13 status? 13:25:16 >> Very briefly I 13:25:18 refreshed this slide. I think the 13:25:22 plan is to have one week run likely to 13:25:25 be in 2024 indicating to the physics 13:25:29 of pO and OO physics. 13:25:33 And they're going to have 13:25:37 narrow band data 13:25:39 [indiscernible] physics motivations. 13:25:42 >> Okay, but nothing for high lum 13:25:43 i. 13:25:46 >> I think it depends on what we see 13:25:49 with this run. So suppose it's 13:25:52 something crazy, then we need to 13:25:56 follow up. But this initial -- 13:25:59 which we had in the workshop including 13:26:02 these three important topics, I think 13:26:04 we have defined the luminosity for the 13:26:05 first one. 13:26:07 >> Thanks. 13:26:10 >> Okay. So thank you very much 13:26:16 Yen-Jie and we will 13:26:21 move onto EF 13:26:24 08. 13:26:25 13:26:28 >> Just getting my share started here 13:26:31 . 13:26:32 13:26:35 It's changing? 13:26:36 13:26:39 >> I still do not see it in slide mode 13:26:43 . 13:26:46 13:26:48 >> How is that? 13:26:51 >> Okay. 13:26:54 13:26:57 So EF08 is the B 13:27:00 SM model specific explorations group. 13:27:02 I will talk about what we're doing and 13:27:04 what our goals are. Basically the goal 13:27:06 of the model specific explorations is 13:27:10 to consider a variety of models 13:27:13 and do comparative sensitivity studies 13:27:16 of various collider scenarios, 13:27:18 including results from other groups in 13:27:19 addition. 13:27:21 There will be results from our group 13:27:24 that are very monospecific studies and 13:27:27 also more general studies that can be 13:27:28 interpreted in a model-specific way. 13:27:32 We take those comparative studies and 13:27:34 interpret that reach in a broader 13:27:38 context. And so one of the first 13:27:40 things that we're trying to work on and 13:27:43 we've been discussing since before the 13:27:46 pause is exactly what models to 13:27:47 include. 13:27:50 Of course SUSY is the elephant in the 13:27:52 room or the big whale, whatever you 13:27:54 want to call it. And then there's 13:27:57 other things like compositeness and 13:28:00 extra dimensions and potentially 13:28:03 leptoquarks and we're seeking 13:28:05 suggestions on what people think are 13:28:06 the most important. And maybe I'll 13:28:08 come back and touch upon that question 13:28:10 a few times throughout the talk. 13:28:12 So what will the work in the group 13:28:14 entail that we're restarting now? One 13:28:18 is search sensitivity estimates. The 13:28:21 other one is reinterpretations of 13:28:23 sensitivity estimates from other groups 13:28:27 like long-lived particles as 13:28:31 Higgsinos, et cetera 13:28:32 . 13:28:35 And then there's studies 13:28:38 of model parameter scan 13:28:40 s and comparisons to precision 13:28:44 measurements, for example, pMSSM scans 13:28:46 to understand how precision 13:28:48 measurements might constrain the model 13:28:51 space and to understand overall how 13:28:53 well we're actually probing the model 13:28:56 space beyond the simplified plots that 13:28:59 are typically shown 13:29:00 . 13:29:02 So on what we've been doing before the 13:29:06 pause we were reviewing our whys: But 13:29:08 now we feel we need to think more 13:29:11 concretely in the next month or so 13:29:14 about what are the deliverables that 13:29:16 we're really going to get from groups 13:29:17 very specifically. 13:29:20 Because for our plots to make impact 13:29:24 , they really need to be 13:29:26 effective comparisons that quantify 13:29:29 the sensitivity differences between 13:29:31 different collider scenarios. We need 13:29:33 them to be good and complete and well 13:29:36 vetted by our broad community. 13:29:39 And they need a coherent set of 13:29:41 assumptions. 13:29:44 So we need to get people to commit to 13:29:46 making some of these deliverables. We 13:29:49 would like to see presentations on 13:29:50 those deliverables somewhere in 13:29:53 January. So we have a couple months to 13:29:54 sort out issues and put things together 13:29:58 in a coherent way before the due 13:30:01 date of our subgroup 13:30:05 report. 13:30:08 So the following slides have a lot of 13:30:10 questions about what we should be 13:30:12 doing about plots, what these 13:30:14 deliverables should be and 13:30:17 encouragements to make commitments. So 13:30:20 please e-mail us or comment here about 13:30:23 your thoughts. This is really meant to 13:30:25 be a collective exercise. 13:30:28 So here's the list of colliders that 13:30:31 was shown on Monday. And has been 13:30:34 shown before. And really we want to 13:30:38 include this list of colliders 13:30:41 in our main model plots as appropriate 13:30:42 . 13:30:44 And in addition, there's questions 13:30:47 about what other PP energies we might 13:30:50 want to include, like an FC 13:30:53 C type system at 150 TeV 13:30:56 or at 75 TeV. This still seem 13:30:59 s to be an open question. 13:31:01 13:31:04 So here is an example 13:31:06 stop Quark limit plot that comes from 13:31:09 the European strategy group report 13:31:11 where they did an excellent job. We 13:31:12 need to start looking at these things 13:31:15 and saying are these what we want or do 13:31:17 we want different things in I think a 13:31:19 lot of them are what we want because 13:31:20 they did a good job. 13:31:22 For instance, here, the way they 13:31:25 captured the 2D space of 13:31:28 stop Quark versus 13:31:32 neutrino for RP conserving is with a 13:31:35 variety of corners of phase space. 13:31:37 A large mass splitting region and then 13:31:39 where it's compressed such that there 13:31:43 is a three-body decay and 13:31:45 more compressed with a four-body decay 13:31:47 and the limits of different 13:31:48 accelerators. 13:31:50 In the context of our energy limit, the 13:31:54 previous 13:31:57 table I showed you is 13:32:00 not referred 13:32:03 to as the HE- 13:32:06 LHC and L E-FCC. 13:32:09 Should we remove those? We would 13:32:11 like to add muon collider plots. I 13:32:13 think that is one of the key things 13:32:15 from Snowmass that is impacting these 13:32:16 kinds of studies. 13:32:18 And the other relevant experiments, for 13:32:22 instance the gamma gamma collision 13:32:24 s mentioned in the previous talk might 13:32:26 be an interesting thing to include if 13:32:28 it's relevant on some of these plots. 13:32:30 And then we want to review the source 13:32:33 of the plots. We don't have to start 13:32:36 from scratch, we can start from these 13:32:39 and review line by line as a group to 13:32:41 see what we think is still appropriate. 13:32:44 What results might need to be 13:32:45 revisited, et cetera. 13:32:47 And we need to do this in short order. 13:32:49 And of course, the same is needed, this 13:32:52 is the stop Quark plot, a similar one 13:32:57 for squarks and gluinos. And the one 13:33:00 thing raised this week, maybe we 13:33:03 wan to think about this in the -- and 13:33:05 in the energy frontier, what about 13:33:09 discovery reach. All these plots are 13:33:12 95 confidence level exclusion plots 13:33:14 but we don't want to just exclude 13:33:16 stuff, we want to consider the 13:33:17 discovery reach. 13:33:20 In some cases for some colliders those 13:33:22 are almost the same thing and for 13:33:24 others it is quite different. 13:33:27 Quantifying that goes towards having a 13:33:30 good comparison between different 13:33:31 scenarios. 13:33:34 To be really concrete about 13:33:36 what our planning exercise for the 13:33:39 next month or so is, we would like to 13:33:40 start making tables that say here is 13:33:42 the name of a plot that we want to 13:33:45 generate. And here is a line on that 13:33:48 plot that we need and then who is going 13:33:50 to give us that plot. 13:33:52 So the answer might be, well, the 13:33:55 European strategy was sufficient and 13:33:57 there is no need to update and we're 13:33:58 done. It's complete. 13:33:59 On the other hand, there are things 13:34:03 that are not even considered in the 13:34:06 European strategy like muon colliders 13:34:08 with a low delta M line. And then we 13:34:11 need a group to commit to doing that 13:34:13 and we'll track their progress and see 13:34:15 how they go. 13:34:17 And so we'd like to build this list 13:34:18 itself as a group exercise in addition 13:34:20 to getting groups to contribute to the 13:34:23 lines because we want to make sure that 13:34:25 everybody is viewing this as a coherent 13:34:28 set of plots. 13:34:28 13:34:31 Okay. Here is another example just to 13:34:34 add a few more 13:34:38 comments. Here is an electroweak 13:34:42 search summary plot where you have the 13:34:45 LSP on the vertical axis 13:34:48 and the chargino or neutralino with 13:34:50 equal mass for the assumptions of this 13:34:53 model on the X axis. 13:34:53 13:34:56 And you see a variety of collider 13:34:58 limits. Again, we need to converge on 13:35:02 what HH limits, energies we want. 13:35:05 We want muon collide 13:35:07 ers and other relevant. But there are 13:35:10 other things, like for hadron machine 13:35:13 results they're all in this plot based 13:35:15 on the three-lepton exclusions. 13:35:17 Meaning you search for signatures with 13:35:20 three leptons in them. 13:35:22 But it's been recently seen since the 13:35:26 opening strategy that all hadronic 13:35:28 strategies might be more sensitive in 13:35:30 parts of the plot. So we want to seek 13:35:33 out getting updates in that direction. 13:35:36 This is all hadronic meaning with a W 13:35:39 or a Z decay to hadrons instead of 13:35:40 decaying to leptons. 13:35:43 And again, we need to review each of 13:35:45 these lines line by line and consider 13:35:47 these issues with discovery versus 13:35:50 limits. And then another big issue 13:35:53 that we really would like to change how 13:35:58 we describe things in the European 13:36:00 strategy and have discussions about 13:36:00 it. 13:36:02 Where is this plot is not a realistic 13:36:05 model point. So how do you include 13:36:07 realistic model points? There is a 13:36:09 variety of things you can do. We're 13:36:12 working on these pMSSM scans and you 13:36:16 can see a talk this weak by Jenn 13:36:19 et updating people on that, where the 13:36:20 work on that is. 13:36:23 So one idea is that maybe for each 13:36:24 collider scenario, you would have two 13:36:27 lines. One which corresponds to 13:36:30 95 percent of the pMSSM models that 13:36:32 are excluded and one that corresponds 13:36:34 to at least 5 percent that are. So you 13:36:37 can see the range of where you start to 13:36:38 have sensitivity to where you really 13:36:40 excluded a large fraction of the pMSSM 13:36:43 models. 13:36:45 And that sort of one of the ideas that 13:36:47 we're thinking about here. It's 13:36:48 possible that you would only just 13:36:51 include the bigger exclusion but I 13:36:53 think it's interesting to include the 13:36:54 range. Because some colliders have 13:36:58 bigger ranges than others. 13:36:59 13:37:02 Okay. Moving on. Here is a compress 13:37:06 ed spectra plot. This is 13:37:08 electroweak only also with NLSP is 13:37:10 here and the mass difference between 13:37:13 the NLSP and LSP is 13:37:14 on this axis. 13:37:17 Natural scenarios often fall in this 13:37:20 lower region here, motivated by 13:37:23 naturalness. And so there are things 13:37:26 that need to be added here. For 13:37:28 instance, these plot, these limits up 13:37:31 here don't extend down to the lowest 13:37:34 masses while at the same time LH 13:37:38 LHLHC has some redictions of analyses 13:37:40 that can reach those masses. 13:37:43 There was a talk this week by D 13:37:46 ibyashree 13:37:48 showing new methods of selection 13:37:51 trying to target this region here with 13:37:55 more of an HLLHC band. 13:37:57 But hopefully we can include 13:38:00 sensitivity on FCC based on that 13:38:00 work. 13:38:02 Another interesting thing is is that 13:38:04 European strategy, there was this line 13:38:07 down here which is based on monojets 13:38:10 monojets and it was -- the study was 13:38:13 targeting when the delta M 13:38:15 was really small and you had no hope 13:38:18 of seeing the K product of the NLSP 13:38:19 decaying to LSP. 13:38:21 You can see the sensitivity is such 13:38:24 that it's interesting to ask how high 13:38:26 up in delta M does this go, because the 13:38:28 sensitivity is pretty good compared to 13:38:31 this other study of not using monojet 13:38:33 but reconstructing the final state with 13:38:36 two leptons. 13:38:38 So it would be interesting to see how 13:38:41 this might change as you go up in mass 13:38:43 because that could really say some 13:38:44 powerful things about what the 13:38:47 sensitivity of such a scenario is in a 13:38:47 broad way. 13:38:49 There are other things like no 13:38:51 disappearing track on this plot. We 13:38:52 might want to consider that. That is 13:38:55 being done in the EF09 group but we 13:38:59 can do a reinterpretation on the 13:39:02 EF08 plot space 13:39:02 . 13:39:05 Okay. Then moving on for composite 13:39:08 ness, we have less, we're still 13:39:11 seeking out what are the right plots 13:39:13 to make. These are the ones from the 13:39:16 European strategy group. I'm asking 13:39:18 more broadly and hopefully people can 13:39:20 give input, what are the right set of 13:39:23 plots? If I had to pick four composite 13:39:26 ness plots and not more, what plots 13:39:29 would I make and can we get limits from 13:39:31 a variety of collider scenarios for 13:39:32 that? 13:39:34 And then there's some overlap questions 13:39:37 that we also have to deal with, with 13:39:39 whether this is an EF08 or potentially 13:39:43 an EF04 topic and it probably depends 13:39:45 on which plot or signatures we talk 13:39:45 about. 13:39:47 For instance, the contact interaction 13:39:49 and things might be an electroweak 13:39:51 thing. But on the other hand new top 13:39:53 partners might be more specifically 13:39:55 oriented towards EF08. 13:39:58 And then we have to ask, well, context 13:40:01 of new top partners, do we need to 13:40:03 make a new set of limits for each 13:40:06 collider scenario for a top, a new top 13:40:10 partner scenario? Or is it 13:40:13 sufficient to look at the top squark 13:40:14 plot because it won't be that 13:40:16 different? So that is something that 13:40:18 we probably need to have some 13:40:20 discussion on. 13:40:22 Then there's other contents that we'd 13:40:24 like to include that are more 13:40:27 qualitative and discussion oriented. 13:40:29 We would like to have a naturalness 13:40:31 discussion because it's a key model 13:40:36 motivator in the energy frontier. 13:40:39 We would like discussion of g-2 and 13:40:41 other anomalies and constraints and 13:40:43 suggestions about models. And also 13:40:45 have some discussion about uncovered 13:40:48 models. It might not be feasible to 13:40:50 have sensitivity limits from a wide 13:40:53 variety of colliders for a wide variety 13:40:55 of models. So we might have a wide 13:40:58 variety of colliders for some specific 13:41:00 models like the ones I showed with the 13:41:03 pMSSM and then a wider variety of 13:41:05 discussion for a wider variety of 13:41:09 models but in a more qualitative 13:41:11 level without sensitivity plots for 13:41:14 every single collider. The square of 13:41:16 the product of collider space times 13:41:20 model space could be very, very large. 13:41:20 13:41:23 Right now we're still seeking inputs 13:41:24 from the list of plots suggesting 13:41:28 models. Trying to get maybe 13:41:31 one or two RPV plots 13:41:34 that make sense might be a target. 13:41:36 Maybe something more in the 13:41:38 compositeness space. Please give us 13:41:39 suggestions. 13:41:42 And let us know which specific lines on 13:41:45 plots you are pursuing. LOL 13:41:48 are not specific enough. We want to 13:41:50 build a more concrete list of 13:41:51 deliverables and make sure we know what 13:41:53 is coming and incorporate it 13:41:56 appropriately and spot gaps in what is 13:41:56 coming. 13:42:00 The other thing on a more 13:42:01 procedural need is plan your Monte 13:42:03 Carlo needs now. 13:42:05 Because you have to initiate the Monte 13:42:08 Carlo signal correlation. Only the HH 13:42:12 background is generated by the MC task 13:42:14 force. All the signals and 13:42:15 backgrounds from other colliders, you 13:42:17 either need to generate or in some 13:42:19 cases the experiments have generated 13:42:20 them already. 13:42:22 And please come to the EF08 meetings 13:42:26 and give us input. Okay. That's it 13:42:29 . 13:42:30 13:42:32 >> Thank you very much for this very 13:42:34 informative and clear summary of your 13:42:37 plans. That could 13:42:41 very well -- are there 13:42:44 questions? Or comment 13:42:46 s that people would like to add to this 13:42:51 talk? 13:42:59 13:43:01 >> I have a question related to, 13:43:03 probably going from your, the example 13:43:06 you had on composite Higgs 13:43:08 made me think about. This is a 13:43:11 perfect typical example where you 13:43:14 connect to things like the inverse 13:43:17 problem with groups like E 13:43:20 F01 are studying. 13:43:23 Is there any communication on these? 13:43:25 They are going to pick specific models 13:43:28 and study that and you as well as EF 13:43:31 09 would be the natural partners in 13:43:34 that kind of study as well as the EF04. 13:43:37 So are you planning to 13:43:40 pursue these together? 13:43:41 13:43:43 >> Yes, we haven't had much 13:43:45 communication. What kind of model were 13:43:46 you saying. 13:43:48 >> The study of the inverse problem 13:43:51 that EF01 has wrote up as one of 13:43:53 their highlights. Going from the 13:43:55 constraints that you get to constraints 13:43:59 on the EFT operator 13:44:01 to specific models and back. 13:44:02 >> Right. 13:44:04 >> So how they compare, right? 13:44:07 >> Right. So -- 13:44:07 13:44:09 >> Specific models so you come to mind 13:44:12 as the natural 13:44:16 other half of the dialogue 13:44:16 . 13:44:18 >> We haven't had much discussion with 13:44:19 them on that. We did have a little 13:44:22 discussion this week within our group 13:44:25 about how to implement the precision 13:44:28 electroweak and the Higgs coupling 13:44:31 limits. In particular, maybe we could 13:44:33 look, the pMSSM scan might be in place 13:44:37 where we can bring those in, at 13:44:40 least there, it's a fairly 13:44:41 straightforward thing to bring in, for 13:44:43 example the Higgs couplings. 13:44:46 The EFTs I'm less certain 13:44:48 about and that's a good point that 13:44:51 maybe we should try to discuss that. 13:44:52 I like that suggestion? 13:44:54 >> It would be nice to have a 13:44:55 discussion with them. Other questions 13:44:58 or comments? 13:44:59 13:45:02 Not seeing any. Thank you again for 13:45:05 this very nice summary and we'll 13:45:07 discuss more later in the afternoon. 13:45:10 And now we move onto EF 13:45:11 09? 13:45:14 >> Okay. Let me go ahead 13:45:17 and share. 13:45:20 13:45:22 >> We see them and we hear you. 13:45:25 >> Okay. Perfect. 13:45:28 13:45:31 Let me see if I can -- okay 13:45:34 . You should see me now. I wanted to 13:45:37 turn on the video as well. I will 13:45:40 give you a brief highlights 13:45:43 from EF09. Here 13:45:47 is the second of the BSM groups 13:45:47 . 13:45:50 So EF 13:45:53 09 is more focused on more general 13:45:56 explorations and we'll see in a second 13:45:58 what we mean with that. 13:46:01 To start as a reminder, 13:46:04 just before we started -- 13:46:07 we tried to figure out a 13:46:11 few key focus questions that we want 13:46:12 to address. 13:46:15 So here is not a comprehensive 13:46:18 list but it's a representative list of 13:46:22 questions that are the main focus of EF 13:46:24 09. 13:46:27 We look into new interactions 13:46:30 in new matter content that could be 13:46:32 line up of the electroweak scale. And 13:46:35 to what extent experiments can probe 13:46:36 this. 13:46:39 We have interesting long-lived and 13:46:42 feebly-interactioning particles. 13:46:45 Especially trying to understand if 13:46:49 there are requirements for these types 13:46:52 of searches. And then there is, 13:46:55 in this, sort of, broad general 13:46:58 exploration, we also are 13:47:02 looking forward to discuss more 13:47:04 model-independent way to search for 13:47:08 new physics to 13:47:10 make sure -- is covered. 13:47:13 And of course, we try to address how to 13:47:15 compare the different results and 13:47:19 ensure that they are complementary 13:47:23 . And so on. And we 13:47:26 also have been looking to lepton 13:47:28 flavor universality. So if it's 13:47:30 related, what is the interplay between 13:47:34 the high energy searches and other 13:47:37 constraints that come, especially 13:47:42 in the -- process frontier. We 13:47:44 interact with them on this kind of 13:47:46 topic. 13:47:48 To address these questions, we have 13:47:51 been dividing our work into four 13:47:54 main areas 13:47:58 . Loosely defined like you see here 13:48:00 . And these are essentially heavy 13:48:04 bosons, so where you look for new type 13:48:07 of interactions and it includes the 13:48:10 Z prime, W prime searches. 13:48:13 New matter content. So new fermion 13:48:17 fermions. Heavy neutral leptons and 13:48:20 vector-like Quarks and so on. 13:48:23 And then we have 13:48:25 one area dedicated to long-lived 13:48:28 signatures. And this is per se 13:48:32 a huge chapter 13:48:35 because it's significant if such a 13:48:39 new particle is heavy or light and it 13:48:40 has a huge interplay with the detector 13:48:41 design. 13:48:44 And then finally we have this extra 13:48:47 category 13:48:52 under Exotic 13:48:55 a. Inclusive BSM searches 13:48:59 and interest in machine learning 13:49:02 and detection methods and I will show 13:49:03 you some examples. 13:49:06 Now we're in a space where we're trying 13:49:08 to identify important benchmarks, 13:49:12 explore new collider options that were 13:49:15 not as much studied before. And the 13:49:17 idea is to really then try to focus on 13:49:20 the physics message connected to the 13:49:24 focus questions I mentioned before. 13:49:24 13:49:27 And so in general before 13:49:34 -- during the LOL period 13:49:37 , we received more than 70LOIs 13:49:40 and before that more than 60 13:49:42 expression of interest. The two are 13:49:45 heavily correlated but not completely. 13:49:48 That was quite some time ago. In the 13:49:51 meantime, some of these LOIs 13:49:54 have results. Some made progress but 13:49:57 don't have yet final results. Some 13:50:00 actually paused, some efforts 13:50:02 paused but new ones have started. 13:50:03 To understand a little bit the 13:50:06 situation, we launched a survey to 13:50:08 gather a bit of information about how 13:50:10 the LOIs were going, if there were new 13:50:13 projects and so on. So we want to 13:50:15 thank everyone who actually answered 13:50:19 this survey that was very helpful for 13:50:22 us in planning the next meetings. 13:50:24 We will highlight some of the 13:50:26 contributions during this talk in the 13:50:29 following slides. If you haven't done 13:50:32 so already, let us know by filling 13:50:34 in this form. This will help us in 13:50:35 the future. 13:50:38 I also wanted to mention that we had 13:50:41 the parallel session with the EF08 13:50:45 during this workshop with a few updates 13:50:48 on selected representative studies. 13:50:50 And we had a discussion on benchmarks 13:50:54 and main study plots. This was 13:50:57 a kick start of this discussion and 13:51:00 more of this will come in the next 13:51:03 months. 13:51:04 13:51:06 So before reviewing a little bit by 13:51:09 area the activities, I wanted to also 13:51:11 highlight just a couple of 13:51:12 organizational things. 13:51:16 We are resuming our bi-weekly meeting. 13:51:18 Very likely the first one will be on 13:51:20 September 17th. And the new time is 13:51:23 noon to 1:30 p.m. eastern time. This 13:51:26 is Friday, yes, before Snowmass 13:51:29 the time is shifted by one hour. 13:51:32 We think this bi-weekly meeting is 13:51:34 crucial for us. It provides continuous 13:51:37 feedback in both direction, both from 13:51:40 the community to us and allow us to 13:51:43 give feedback to the community studies 13:51:46 and provides a forum to hear everyone's 13:51:49 ideas. Especially early career member 13:51:53 s. We are happy with the three 13:51:56 updates during the parallel 13:51:59 session, two of which were given by 13:52:00 early career members. 13:52:03 We want to make sure the results are 13:52:10 homogeneous in how their presented and 13:52:14 of course, help newcomers to get 13:52:14 started. 13:52:17 Our plan for the next months is to 13:52:19 dedicate each meeting to one area and 13:52:22 try to really go deeper in discuss 13:52:25 ing both benchmarks and summary plots 13:52:27 as well as having updates for the 13:52:29 respective area. So we hope this helps 13:52:33 in focusing the meetings. And 13:52:37 we hope that you will also convince 13:52:40 you to attend the meetings when an 13:52:44 area of your interest is discussed. 13:52:44 13:52:46 We also wanted to take the occasion to 13:52:50 advertise that we are planning a 13:52:53 workshop joint with EF08, 09 and 13:52:56 10 during the first months of 2022. 13:52:58 This will be useful to define the 13:53:01 many high-priority items. It follows 13:53:05 the steps of a very useful workshop 13:53:08 that we had in the past. Like 13:53:11 dark sector, lepton flavor violations 13:53:14 , dark showers and so on. 13:53:15 More information on this will be 13:53:18 available soon and distributed. Just a 13:53:20 heads up that this is coming. 13:53:23 Okay. So just briefly going through 13:53:26 the area, just giving a few highlight 13:53:26 s. 13:53:28 Starting from new resonances, here 13:53:31 we're trying to narrow down and set in 13:53:35 stone what simplified models we want 13:53:38 to use in final states like dilepton, 13:53:41 dijets and dibosons. 13:53:44 And here the hope and aim is to layout 13:53:47 the basic reach for the standard 13:53:49 on future colliders in a very 13:53:51 comprehensive way as much as possible. 13:53:54 So you can see examples 13:53:57 on the plot, an example of a C 13:54:00 prime model. And here you can see 13:54:05 (Z) a muon collider. 13:54:08 We need energy and collider 13:54:12 benchmarks to use for these plots. 13:54:12 13:54:15 We also want to make sure that we like 13:54:18 the interplay between direct and 13:54:21 indirect searches. There is an 13:54:25 example on the plot on the bottom 13:54:25 right. 13:54:28 And emphasis and have 13:54:30 scanning energy collider parameters 13:54:34 and maybe explore more realistic, 13:54:37 say, more complicated 13:54:39 models. 13:54:42 So the aim is to update these type 13:54:45 of plots from the EP 13:54:46 S strategies. 13:54:50 Just to give you 13:54:53 an example of updates we had since the 13:54:56 post. This is a few examples. This 13:54:58 is update on dijet resonances. One of 13:55:01 the points I was mentioning, in this 13:55:04 case the reach is given for discovery 13:55:06 on the left and exclusion on the right 13:55:08 plot. 13:55:11 As a function, for instance, of 13:55:14 PP collider center of mass energy as 13:55:18 well as integrate the luminosity. 13:55:20 This is extremely helpful to give a 13:55:23 nice overview of what the future might 13:55:25 look like and there are several models 13:55:29 that are being considered. 13:55:31 Similarly for new fermions, we're 13:55:35 trying to converge on a few selected 13:55:38 benchmark models and come up with 13:55:40 summary plots like the one shown here 13:55:42 as an example. This is a current 13:55:44 summary plot and we hope to produce 13:55:46 similar ones in the future. 13:55:49 This is important because 13:55:52 some topologies were not much studies 13:55:55 so we really hope that we can make 13:55:57 statements on those topologies. 13:56:00 And there are many new results. 13:56:03 Even for instance on muon collider, 13:56:07 there is a nice paper on leptoquark 13:56:11 s and we also have a few gaps that we 13:56:14 hope to list and call for 13:56:15 contributions very soon. 13:56:17 So that we can actually have enough 13:56:21 input to make such summary plots. 13:56:21 13:56:24 And again, just as another 13:56:25 example, this is another contribution 13:56:28 that we wanted to highlight, a summary 13:56:31 of another contribution to highlight. 13:56:34 They are making quite some progress 13:56:37 looking for top Quarkness decays and 13:56:40 diboson and Z resonance 13:56:44 s. You see highlighted in red that 13:56:47 they really are looking also for 13:56:48 interest experimentalists to join and I 13:56:51 think this is part of our follow up to 13:56:53 make sure that we can put in contact 13:56:57 the right people together to have the 13:56:58 highest possible quality of 13:57:00 contributions. I wanted to mention 13:57:01 this. 13:57:04 Moving to long-lived particle. There 13:57:07 is quite strong community interest. 13:57:10 We had 30LOIs on the top 13:57:13 topic of long-lived particles that we 13:57:14 received. 13:57:17 This is a strong interplay with the 13:57:21 detector design, especially, sort of 13:57:24 , we want to understand basically 13:57:27 which signatures have more 13:57:30 demand in terms of experimental needs. 13:57:32 How can we take advantage of new 13:57:34 detector technologies so you have an 13:57:37 impact as well as, sort of, when 13:57:41 it is, it's important to consider this 13:57:43 type of signature at the early stage of 13:57:44 detector design. 13:57:47 Here is just an example, so there is 13:57:50 a very large synergy between the 13:57:53 energy frontier and accelerator 13:57:59 , in cosmic frontier for these 13:58:00 long-lived particle signatures. Here I 13:58:02 wanted to show an example of a study, 13:58:06 in this case for 13:58:10 FCCHH. To understand the physics 13:58:13 benchmark of long-lived particles. 13:58:15 For more information we have a nice 13:58:18 session during the CP 13:58:21 M meeting and Caterina showed a 13:58:23 presentation on Monday where you can 13:58:25 find more information about this. 13:58:27 In addition, we also want to make sure 13:58:30 we compare future collider options. So 13:58:33 we are trying to identify some must 13:58:35 -have signatures that we want to 13:58:38 compare comprehensively. Here is just 13:58:40 an example from a slide that we used 13:58:42 during the discussion in the parallel 13:58:45 session on some short list of models 13:58:48 and we'll have 13:58:50 to further trim this down. Maybe one 13:58:53 thing to highlight is we have tried to 13:58:56 choose models that can be useful for 13:58:59 other topical groups as well so we 13:59:02 don't -- the different benchmarks 13:59:03 across the groups. 13:59:06 And then finally 13:59:10 , one other very important task for 13:59:12 long-lived particles is we want to 13:59:14 achieve comprehensive coverage with 13:59:18 existing or near term accelerator 13:59:20 facilities. 13:59:24 So we build out of the 13:59:26 benchmarks that existed already. Here 13:59:28 we wanted to highlight a couple of 13:59:31 recent contributions. One example 13:59:35 is the -- projections 13:59:38 , which was publish 13:59:41 ed. And another item that we had a 13:59:44 lot of progress, there were two 13:59:46 workshops with several different 13:59:49 experiments that target long-lived 13:59:50 particle signatures. 13:59:53 And we had a lot of progress towards 13:59:56 TTR for experiment proposals like Ma 14:00:00 thusla and other LL 14:00:03 P dedicated experiments. This is 14:00:06 an extremely exciting field that has 14:00:08 been providing a lot of interesting 14:00:10 things that we think we should 14:00:10 highlight. 14:00:13 This is one or two examples 14:00:17 of updates. This is a 14:00:19 nice efforts, future E plus E minus 14:00:22 colliders where having a 14:00:26 hidden lepton sector is, like, what 14:00:28 is the interplay with the detector 14:00:30 design. This is extremely interesting 14:00:33 because it's been looking 14:00:36 at Z plus Z minus as well. 14:00:38 We have a contribution of novice 14:00:41 signatures and how they may sort of 14:00:44 make us rethink a bit how to look for 14:00:47 long-lived particle in different 14:00:50 signatures. So this is sort of a set 14:00:53 of cascades with displace 14:00:56 ed vertices as an example. I don't 14:00:59 want to go into the details but just 14:01:00 wanted to mention. 14:01:03 At the same time, finally, we really 14:01:07 want to make sure to look ahead early 14:01:10 onto do our best effort to make sure 14:01:14 we don't miss unexpected new physics. 14:01:17 Here are new techniques that are 14:01:20 being used, for instance, machine 14:01:20 learning tools. 14:01:23 You can see a cartoon on 14:01:27 the bottom left with you see 14:01:29 different model independence and 14:01:30 different strategies that are being 14:01:31 used. 14:01:35 And on the right, you see another 14:01:38 example of very complicate 14:01:41 complicated phenomenonnologists that 14:01:44 can give rise to unexpected 14:01:44 signatures. 14:01:46 And here just to highlight a couple of 14:01:51 examples, we had a nice talk from Julia 14:01:54 during the parallel session showing 14:02:00 aanomaly detection with radiative 14:02:03 return. This shows how you can 14:02:05 advance such searches. 14:02:08 And then we have updates on track- 14:02:11 based trigger signature looking at the 14:02:13 shorter term as well as the longer 14:02:17 term. In this case, a study 14:02:20 that shows a strong interplay with the 14:02:23 detector design and this is looking at 14:02:25 several different models that you can 14:02:28 see highlighted on the right here. 14:02:34 And studies related [indiscernible] 14:02:35 . 14:02:36 And much more than this. I don't have 14:02:38 the time to go through, but we have 14:02:43 studies on high energy E plus E 14:02:46 minus colliders and tau signatures and 14:02:49 novice strategies to cover compressed 14:02:52 spaces of top Quark 14:02:56 ness for instance in 14:02:58 the right corner here. 14:03:01 Before concluding, we just wanted to 14:03:04 say one additional word. As we've 14:03:05 seen during this highlights this week, 14:03:08 there is a lot of interesting options 14:03:11 for future colliders that went 14:03:14 beyond the European strategy. One is 14:03:17 physics for muon colliders. We have at 14:03:20 least, I counted more than ten papers 14:03:24 since Snowmass. And more than 14:03:26 20 since Snowmass started. 14:03:29 And we think this is very important to 14:03:32 combine the phenomenology study that 14:03:35 try to be as compressed as possible and 14:03:37 realistic studies to prove the 14:03:40 assumptions that we make are reasonable 14:03:44 . Here at the bottom are examples of a 14:03:46 study looking at leptoquarks at muon 14:03:51 collider, to understand if we can 14:03:54 reconstruct disappearing tracks. And 14:03:57 right shows a study done into 14:04:00 beam induced background at muon 14:04:01 colliders. 14:04:04 We have some interesting very high 14:04:08 energy E plus E minus gamma/gamma 14:04:11 . We lack comprehensive 14:04:14 coverage but we should have it because 14:04:17 it allows us to make some very key 14:04:18 message. 14:04:21 So concluding, as I said we have 14:04:24 four key areas we are focusing 14:04:29 . New results 14:04:31 produced and we look forward to the 14:04:34 developments of other ones in the next 14:04:35 few months. 14:04:38 We want to increase the focus on in 14:04:41 -depth discussions on key summary plot 14:04:44 s. And we also put in some 14:04:47 emphasis on varying energy and collide 14:04:50 er parameters and interplay with 14:04:52 detector design. And there are still 14:04:55 many activities that are in need of new 14:04:58 contributions. We tried to spell that 14:04:59 out as clearly as possible. 14:05:02 It's a great occasion for early career 14:05:04 to get involved at this stage and make 14:05:06 a very big impact. 14:05:09 And finally, a reminder, we start our 14:05:11 meetings again every two weeks on 14:05:14 Fridays. So we hope to see you there 14:05:17 soon. And the BSM workshop is coming 14:05:20 up as well. Thank you. 14:05:24 14:05:26 >> Thank you for this very illustrative 14:05:30 talk on all the activities that are 14:05:33 going on in EF09. It's nice 14:05:36 to see this workshop being organized 14:05:40 for next year. It's very timely and we 14:05:42 need this communication to come up 14:05:45 with a cohesive view from the BSM group 14:05:46 s. 14:05:49 We have time for maybe a few 14:05:52 questions or comments. Are there any? 14:05:57 14:06:00 I also think it's very nice that 14:06:04 EF09 has been involving young people 14:06:07 , early career people. 14:06:07 14:06:09 This is a letter that goes out to 14:06:11 everybody to try to boost that during 14:06:14 this new restart phase-up of Snowmass 14:06:19 . 14:06:20 14:06:21 >> I don't see any. 14:06:24 >> I don't see other comments. Because 14:06:27 we will have more discussion later. 14:06:29 Probably nobody has a quick comment 14:06:31 right now. 14:06:33 So we thank you, 14:06:37 again, and move onto EF 14:06:41 10, dark matter colliders 14:06:51 ? 14:06:54 >> So this is 14:06:58 a top certificate together 14:07:01 with Yen-Jie. 14:07:04 And you might have seen this before 14:07:05 . 14:07:08 But the follow los few is we 14:07:09 start work according to guiding 14:07:12 principles to organize the wealth of 14:07:14 dark matter studies at colliders. We 14:07:17 need to do that to coordinate the 14:07:20 work. Benchmark models can give 14:07:22 different signatures so you have 14:07:24 different searches that live in 14:07:25 topical groups. 14:07:28 We need some guiding 14:07:30 principles to put our studies in a 14:07:34 broader context. So we categorize and 14:07:36 analyze and do community work in two 14:07:39 categories. The first is testing the 14:07:42 WIMP paradigm and exploring dark 14:07:44 matter beyond WIMPs. 14:07:47 This is something that was already 14:07:51 said by, in a parallel 14:07:54 session. We need broad and 14:07:57 comprehensive search strategies because 14:07:59 we're not sure that any individual 14:08:01 strategies is correct. But we want to 14:08:04 highlight what we think is plausible 14:08:06 . And informed by potential 14:08:08 considerations that were also mentioned 14:08:12 in the EF08 talk. 14:08:12 14:08:15 We organized the work around benchmarks 14:08:18 . Because we end up sharing work with 14:08:21 other topical groups and frontiers, we 14:08:23 want to be as inclusive as possible and 14:08:25 keep the eye on the big picture. We 14:08:28 look at dark matter interpretation of 14:08:31 things that, of searches that are 14:08:33 potentially shared with other topical 14:08:36 groups. So we want to have studies 14:08:40 of common dark matter benchmarks where 14:08:43 the benchmarks are studied by other 14:08:44 groups and frontiers. 14:08:47 This is what leads to the big plots. 14:08:50 For this week, try to provide technical 14:08:51 help to collaborations and interested 14:08:54 parties who are starting work. This is 14:08:56 something that we get the help of the 14:09:00 Snowmass early career, 14:09:01 both organizers and participant 14:09:05 participants to make this liaison 14:09:06 . 14:09:08 We want to not just have common 14:09:11 benchmarks but have studies that tie 14:09:13 up potential differences. These are 14:09:16 not going to be comprehensive because 14:09:19 we can't study them all but we can 14:09:21 highlight different -- with different 14:09:21 signatures. 14:09:24 We want to study, point 14:09:27 ing out novel and less explored dark 14:09:28 matter models. For example 14:09:32 highlighting uncovered phase space. 14:09:35 Following these three guiding 14:09:38 ideas for our report, we have three 14:09:40 focus questions. The first one is how 14:09:44 can we best test the WIMP 14:09:47 paradigm? In three ways, we can do it 14:09:51 through the simplist and minimal 14:09:54 models. We can also use 14:09:57 more generic simple mediator model 14:10:01 s. They don't necessarily have 14:10:03 fixed early electroweak interactions 14:10:06 or don't belong to a SUSY for 14:10:06 example. 14:10:09 The third one is through the Higgs 14:10:12 portal. This is shared with the EF01, 14:10:15 2 and 14:10:15 3. 14:10:18 Beyond WIMP scenario, 14:10:20 we can't be come principle hencive but 14:10:22 we can see what there is. One idea is 14:10:26 to use portals, privilege 14:10:29 ed light dark sectors and dark matter. 14:10:33 Focusing on less-explored signatures of 14:10:36 dark sectors that can highlight 14:10:40 present and future blind spots 14:10:43 and then synergies and complement 14:10:46 tarty between dark matter colliders 14:10:48 and others. 14:10:51 In terms of detector data 14:10:54 acquisition 14:10:55 and design. 14:10:58 I talked about the electroweak 14:11:01 multiplets, simplified mediator and 14:11:04 Higgs portal. We had comprehensive 14:11:07 meetings before the break on 14:11:10 the first two topics and we want to 14:11:13 organize with the Higgs energy topical 14:11:15 groups. 14:11:17 And beyond the WIMP, this is something 14:11:20 with different masses and couplings 14:11:24 with represent to WIMP. Strongly 14:11:26 interacting light or dark matter. And 14:11:27 different portals with respect to the 14:11:31 simplified models LHC. This has 14:11:35 connections with rare de-quays because 14:11:40 we're probing different sides of the 14:11:41 same portals. 14:11:43 So before the break, there has been a 14:11:46 lot of work on the LOIs. There is 44L 14:11:49 OIs and you can find the links and 14:11:54 titles in the link. 14:11:54 14:11:55 And what we were expecting is that most 14:11:59 of the LOIs are cross listed with E 14:12:03 F09 and CF. We have WI 14:12:06 MP, nine 14:12:09 , alternate 2, et cetera. We 14:12:12 had a lot of meetings and we need to 14:12:15 do the displaced and dark sector. So 14:12:16 hopefully we can organize something 14:12:18 with the EF09. 14:12:21 And the LOIs, of course, most of the L 14:12:24 OIs except for some 14:12:28 , have been unopposed. And 14:12:31 we need to resume this course that we 14:12:34 had before. 14:12:35 14:12:37 What happened during the break. We 14:12:40 worked on other things that are 14:12:44 relevant for Snowmass. And we didn't 14:12:47 organize a conversation meeting, we 14:12:49 organized other efforts. 14:12:52 There is a Snowmass dark shower 14:12:55 group. It's a number of people around 14:12:58 the LOI on dark showers 14:13:00 showers but they also invite people to 14:13:03 their meetings. People that have 14:13:05 related LOIs. 14:13:08 And we had a talk at our 14:13:10 meeting yesterday. There's been a lot 14:13:13 of activities on muon colliders 14:13:16 , especially WIMP 14:13:20 at muon colliders. We had some 14:13:25 connections with RFO6 but focus 14:13:28 on LOI that allows this comparison 14:13:32 between WIMPs that are generally high 14:13:34 mass and also light or dark matter. 14:13:37 This is something that these talks 14:13:39 will cover also in the next slides. 14:13:42 There is going to be a 14:13:45 new wino and Higgsino studies going on 14:13:47 . 14:13:50 So the contributed talks, this is a 14:13:52 short summary of what we saw. This is 14:13:55 a god summary of the most active things 14:13:57 that happened. 14:14:01 Wino and Higgsino muon colliders 14:14:04 . You set the density of dark matter 14:14:05 through the electroweak interaction, so 14:14:08 in a way you have masses of -- 14:14:10 parameter for some of these models but 14:14:13 owe know where the mass will give you 14:14:15 the correct density. 14:14:17 And the interesting thing, there are 14:14:18 many different signatures at muon 14:14:21 colliders. There is the ones that 14:14:24 we're used to that are easy to 14:14:27 recoil against visible objects. But 14:14:29 there are more exotic ones. 14:14:32 The one that was recently brought up is 14:14:34 if you have the right energy, you can 14:14:35 make a resonance from dark matter 14:14:37 particle bound states and then decaying 14:14:40 to visible particles. Then you have 14:14:41 disappearing tracks. 14:14:44 The results can be put into the context 14:14:46 of direct and indirect detection. And 14:14:48 there are lessons learned from the 14:14:51 studies that can be brought back to, F. 14:14:53 Beam background is very significant at 14:14:55 muon colliders. This is maybe 14:14:57 something that we need to understand 14:14:58 how to harmonize. 14:15:00 On the right-hand side plots you see 14:15:02 summaries of papers that came out 14:15:04 recently. There are also more papers 14:15:07 outs there and more workshops that show 14:15:10 also the muon collider is competitive 14:15:13 with FCC-hh 14:15:16 for thermal WIMP scenarios. 14:15:20 There can be direct action and 14:15:23 direct detection 14:15:26 that was only possible -- there 14:15:29 is work on the LHC working group. 14:15:31 We need to extend the current 14:15:34 benchmarks in the European strategy. 14:15:36 We use the couplings of order one. 14:15:40 This is something that attracted a bit 14:15:43 of criticism from other experiments 14:15:46 because they said it's too easy. The 14:15:49 reality is we're able to exclude lower 14:15:53 couplings but it was computationally 14:15:55 intensive to do so. 14:15:58 So doing this more efficiently means to 14:16:00 rescale analytically the existing 14:16:03 constraints. And there is a Snowmass 14:16:05 white paper about this with a reference 14:16:07 document that covers different 14:16:09 topologies and provides the tools to do 14:16:11 this. 14:16:13 So there will be a co-repository as 14:16:16 well. And the message for our white 14:16:18 paper is that future colliders can 14:16:20 probe lower couplings not just order 14:16:23 one couplings and also enable joint 14:16:25 discoveries with other experiments in 14:16:26 this phase space. 14:16:29 And finally on the beyond WIMP 14:16:31 , we had the dark showers project 14:16:33 updates. The motivation for this 14:16:36 signature is that you can have 14:16:40 non-abelian QCD-like theories 14:16:43 , with dark confiner. A 14:16:47 dark QCD and dark piles can be 14:16:49 a dark matter candidate. The 14:16:51 challenge is we know the QCD that we've 14:16:54 seen before. The QCD is complicated 14:16:56 and needs a standard model. 14:16:58 There is a lot of possible free 14:17:00 parameters and they're leading to a 14:17:02 fairly different signature space as you 14:17:05 see in the bottom right plot. There 14:17:08 is from trackless jets, emerging jet 14:17:12 s, invisible jets and no jets. This 14:17:14 needs a bit of tidying up. There is 14:17:17 common work going on for existing 14:17:20 benchmarks and they're trying to figure 14:17:22 out which benchmarks we want to use. 14:17:24 There is a meeting on September 15th 14:17:25 that will start a conversation with 14:17:27 some of the theorists that are experts 14:17:28 in this. 14:17:30 There is, of course, no decisions made 14:17:32 in this group but something could 14:17:35 emerge to say and encourage other 14:17:37 different experimental collaborations 14:17:39 to check a smaller number of Ben. 14:17:42 Marks. A lot of times they don't check 14:17:44 because there is too many of them. The 14:17:48 group is preparing repositories. 14:17:49 They have shared meetings and 14:17:52 presentations on different LOIs. 14:17:55 They have -- they participanted in the 14:17:57 LLP working group joint sessions 14:18:01 including discussions about new physics 14:18:03 and they worked on a tutorial. 14:18:05 And this project example that is on 14:18:07 going, that's the one that we see more 14:18:09 likely to converge, that distributions 14:18:12 in the colliders can vary depending on 14:18:15 the parameters of the models. So do 14:18:18 a 14:18:20 mini scan of how the signatures can 14:18:22 look like if one change it is 14:18:24 parameters of the model. 14:18:26 And hopefully we get pointers to 14:18:28 signatures in the white paper. It's 14:18:30 not sure if we'll be able to have 14:18:32 projections in time because there are 14:18:34 not many people working on this. 14:18:36 We have a parallel session that was on 14:18:38 Tuesday where we talked about summary 14:18:41 plots that can be joined to RF 14:18:43 06ment they're organizing their 14:18:46 benchmark in final state plus portal. 14:18:47 You can see how the dark matter is 14:18:51 produced and the decays and the 14:18:53 structure of dark sector. 14:18:55 This is something that will be 14:19:00 discussed in RF06 but our simplified 14:19:02 motheds are fitting in those boxes. 14:19:04 We can make joint plots, for example, 14:19:06 the vector port where you have a ratio 14:19:07 between a mediator and the dark matter 14:19:10 on the X axis and some combination of 14:19:12 the couplings and the mass on the Y 14:19:14 axis where you see the different mass 14:19:18 and coupling ranges are reached 14:19:20 by different kinds of experiments. 14:19:22 So you have the precision experiments 14:19:25 and also there is going to be the 14:19:26 direct detection experiments on this 14:19:29 side but if you want to go with higher 14:19:32 masses, you need high energy 14:19:32 colliders. 14:19:34 This is an improvement from the 14:19:36 European strategy where we didn't have 14:19:37 these plots. 14:19:40 There are various complementarity in 14:19:42 Higgs portals. There are models where 14:19:45 the work was focused 14:19:48 on high L-LH 14:19:51 C but there is much more work down in 14:19:54 the context of the European strategy. 14:19:57 This is the standard plot on the 14:19:59 right-hand side of the Higgs portal 14:20:03 compared to direct detection. And then 14:20:06 the inner coupled model, it gives a 14:20:07 different message. Different 14:20:09 experiments can prove different 14:20:11 parameters of the same model. 14:20:13 In some specific model you can do 14:20:16 global fits together with direct 14:20:20 detection or indirect detection and 14:20:23 find model points that are available. 14:20:26 What are we doing next? Resuming 14:20:28 monthly meetings. We're doing that 14:20:30 also because we want to attend more of 14:20:31 the other frontiers and let our 14:20:34 contributors attend more of the other 14:20:37 frontiers and the topical group 14:20:39 meetings. So we show up at your 14:20:42 meetings rather than have too many of 14:20:45 ours. This is our schedule 14:20:48 until November. To potential 14:20:52 contributors, gone hesitate to bring 14:20:54 them to our attention. 14:20:56 We will not be able to include in white 14:20:59 papers what we don't know about. So 14:21:00 come to us, please. 14:21:02 We are expecting to resume the 14:21:06 discussion for dark matter complement 14:21:08 tearty. I think we're starting more of 14:21:10 less this month. And we're discussing 14:21:13 as you've seen for joint EF 14:21:17 8, 9, and 10 workshop in early 2022. 14:21:20 Thanks. 14:21:23 14:21:26 >> Thank you Caterina for this nice 14:21:30 summary of the many activities that E 14:21:32 F10 has been doing. 14:21:35 There is a lot of interconnection 14:21:37 between so many different things and 14:21:40 frontiers and topical groups 14:21:42 . 14:21:45 Before we go on 14:21:49 break for a short while and resume our 14:21:53 discussion all together, do we have 14:21:56 questions specific for EF 14:21:59 10? 14:22:08 14:22:11 I don't see any hand raising. So 14:22:14 I guess we can stop 14:22:18 now and resume at 3 p.m. where 14:22:21 we will have a common discussion all 14:22:25 together about the final -- and 14:22:27 how to present results. 14:22:30 So we will resume at 3 p.m. in the 14:22:33 same Zoom room. Thank you, everybody 14:22:36 . 14:22:42 14:22:43 >> Thank you, Laura. 14:22:46 >> Thank you. 14:22:49 For the closed captioning, I think this 14:22:52 would be the last session, right? 14:22:52 14:22:54 >> Yes, I think so. Because the next 14:22:56 is discussion (. 14:22:57 Captioner: Thank you very much. Have 14:23:01 a good weekend. 14:23:04 14:23:07 You're very welcome. 14:23:08 14:23:11 >> Thank you very much to everyone 14:23:14 at White Coat Captioning