EF01 and EF02 Contributions Caterina Vernieri >> And we invite the first speaker from the EF01, Caterina, to give her presentation. So, I'm gonna stop  oh. So, we need the next  Anthony is gonna  so, this in principle is supposed to... CATERINA: All right. Can you hear me? >> Yes, very well, thank you. CATERINA: Okay. So, today I'm gonna start by reporting on what EF01 is doing. So, Higgs and Higgs activities on behalf of Sally, Patrick, Isobel. And, of course, like our  our group basically we are starting by  the starting point of our assumption is we have to go beyond the Standard Model and how we can use the Higgs in order to prove new physics effect. So, of course, one of the core of EF01 and EF02 is how to use precision measurement of the Higgs in order to test the new physics effects and interplay with the scalar. And, of course, the all the work that's going into the Global Higgs in order to really analyze the multidimensional level all the efforts going to the Higgs in order to test the new physics scenarios. So, I'm trying to summarize now a little bit what's gonna be in the final report and what is our  our logic into going into the next steps of our process. So, I want to start by really with this slide just setting the stage of what we know the Higgs now and how we go beyond this when we're looking at how we're gonna explore the Energy Frontier in order to advance our understanding of the Higgs sector. So, this is on the right we have the first plot which shows based on like the effect how we are measuring the Higgs standard model particles. And now we have a lot of experimental data that are populating these plots. Now we have tested the capping of the Higgs to the bosons, start exploring the fermion generation, the addition that's been possible just by adding more data to our dataset. But by couplings to the quark is the least thing. We have the boundary now on the capping of the Higgs charm. And analysis is making progress, but we're still far from testing the Standard Model prediction on capping the Higgs. As far as testing Higgs visible, we're far off from testing for selfcoupling. On the selfcoupling I want to make a remark. On the right, you see the expected limit on the production. For CMS, we have singular, and looking at the two states of double Higgs searches. And I want to point out that experimental results based on the data have shown incredible improvement over the first results on the partial dataset. And now we're going close to test three times the standard model prediction here. This is an important ingredient for the considerations of high luminosity and what we can expect with the luminosity in the Higgs production. So, we are now starting to take data hopefully soon. Get more data before high lumi starts. High lumi is supposed to start around  29 now. And that point, we should be able to add a factor 10 on our current dataset that should be allowing us to make a lot of improvements almost of Higgs measurement. So, our understanding has improved over time. By the time of the European  of the Yellow Report, the European strategy, we have projection based on our understanding on the performance of a partial dataset. Now with more data, we have moved from about 36 to 140. Analysis has become more sophisticated. We have a better understanding of the potential. And this reflects also in the papers that have been submitted now. We have the improvement of the measurements. Of course, projections are based on our understanding of the analysis and the high luminosity data taking. And we have to make some assumptions on the systemic. Nevertheless, the improvement we are doing now is informing the better understanding of how the lumi projection will look like. We two talks dedicated to that. I'm going to show the lights. This is the same plot from before showing the capping on the Higgs for the Standard Model. This is the projected sensitivity we had in the Yellow Report. And you can see it's not highlighted, but we have improvement in the Higgs coupling of 2 to 5%. Not featured here, but in the document, we know we have similar uncertainty on the coupling and the charm, we have an undated result, but still a large uncertainty compared to the Standard Model we want to have a test of the selfcoupling. 50% uncertainty, also this projection will be improved with analysis of the updated results that have been submit just last week. But that should be enough to build a Standard Model if the selfcoupling evaluates zero, that kind of position would be able to rule that out in luminosity. and measuring the Higgs with the 5% level. Again, this picture will be hopefully updated as part of our work for Snowmass with new inputs we have received. Just a couple of examples, later this week, Quentin and Sapta will tell you more. We have the first results on the coupling of Higgs to charm. And we have the coupling of the B and the C and the analysis. This is a projection for C mass. And the results also results from ATLAS with the double Higgs production. Using two final states. But really, we have only two final states projecting the projected sensitivity from 3.3 sigma to 4.6 sigma to expected double Higgs production. This is exciting how our understanding of the data is performing better the projected sensitivity. Now moving beyond high luminosity, this is the timeline of where we are. How we're going through a decade of data to highluminosity and improving the projections on the Higgs couplings to 5 to 15% for most of them in the selfcoupling to order of 50%. Or less. Then beyond that, we have on the table a lot of options that we have been discussing over the last few years within Snowmass. And we have the Higgs factoring that as a next step beyond, it could improve the Higgs factor to a percent to subpercent level couplings and provide a coupling of 20 . Providing the energy will lead us to improve the understanding of the Higgs selfcoupling and better understanding of the coupling. These are the two things that require high energy. So, our luminosity should go through, if we remember the plots on highluminosity, we left out light in the lumi. And we want to target the precision on the selfcoupling and in order to test really the couplings on the light flavor. And going high energy to test the selfcoupling as well. So, in discussing these factors, what we are consider is leptons. And specifically, if we are targeting precisions, we want to have a preinitial state that's welldefined that really enable precision of a percent or less for the Higgs coupling. And just like here, to make the argument very easy, comparing an even display production event with the precision in the plus or minus. So, really any machine would allow us to have a clean experimental environment where we can really construct all the Higgs boson final states and targeting the precision we need experimentally. Also, another feature is we can operate at that point since we expect one Higgs Boson event every hundred events collisions and not like one every billion like we have in the superinstance. We can conduct in the conditions that would also enable potential  potential room for finding things that are unexpected that we were not accounting for. So, when we are at a plus or minus, then we produce the Higgs changes over the energy drastically. So, we produce the Higgs mostly through the ZH production. And that is dominant to allow us to test most of the Higgs. But if we are interested in the topics with the coupling, then we have to go above 500 GeV where we have ttH that opens up as well as the production of two Higgs with a Zig boson. And that's dominant at that point, it's through double fusion. It's another dataset complementary to the DH where we can study over Higgs illuminated by the production. We can use them. So, now in going forward, the LHC, one question we want to ask ourselves is how to explore the complementary between the high that would lead to the most precise understanding of the Higgs sector. What we want to learn and prioritize in moving forward with HLLHC. And, of course, we want to minimize the gap between the end of HLLHC and what's next. And at that point, I think one of the questions we want to ask ourselves, we have a lot of options that they're targeting Higgs precision measurement at 500 GeV. But then what to test after that? We need to test the production, and the extending of the sector requires at least 500 GeV. So, I think one of the things we also want to ask is how we want to prioritize measurement after the 250 GeV run to go after physics effect. And how relevant is that polarization in that kind of investigations? So, we have several options that we have been provided as cases to study. And in order to study the Higgs here, it's a map that we put together with them at a certain point early in the investigation with Patrick. We had all the machines here that we mapped by the center of energy and number of Higgs Boson. Of course, this has to be taken with a lot of grain of salt because the project parameters are very different. But I think it's very nice to see how the variety and diversity of different energy and reach we have. And depending on the initial state to study the Higgs beyond the luminosity. So, we have circular machine that will collide electron and to si ton. And machines that will allow us to run 250 GeV to allow us to have a Higgs of a percentage level. And we have a couple of options moving forward. We have the machines and hadron colliders. A lot of work has been going into last year in Snowmass that we take into account. And we have the hadron colliders to go high end energy to study high precision Higgs measurement of very high energy. So, our starting point, of course, is this completed map from the European Strategy Report that hopefully will be updated by the end of our study group. So, here we have  we have all of the machines that I just showed. The projected sensitivity for all of them relative to the high luminosity run. So, the ratio of the plot here shows for the value of the Higgs coupling observables, how much we learn on top of the luminosity in all the different scenarios. It's one less study on the Higgs, and advancing beyond. And it is a very  I think there is a very nice complementary between the high luminosity and the next Higgs coupling. There are that require high statistic, studying the photon, still, we provide a huge dataset that is relevant for this  for this particular coupling. While there are couplings like the quark in the bottom that really benefit from having  a machinedesigned propositions. And we can aim for percent accuracy in the next factory. And, of course, the main difference between the machine is mainly when it comes to the topics you have in selfcoupling because they are not accessible unless we go higher on energy for GeV. This plot is now updated. We know for instance the muon is not included here, the new collider results. And we have updated projections to see in the other machines. Hopefully this will be something we can update as a result of our report. So, what is new? I have tried to go through Yukawa and I'm sorry if I missed anything. So far we have received a little more than 20 submissions for EF01/2, there has been the Higgs to charm, Higgs to my, and some measurements have been updated. We have a very good new and interesting results from HLLHC that would have to be taken into account. And very new and nice interesting measurement has been Higgs to strange coupling in coupling and the dedicated run with the machine. We have received a few updates in terms of the CP studies, the Higgs invisible. And a very nice set of physics measurements for the muon collider. So, let me try to summarize very quickly before I go to  to the next part which is what is gonna be in our reports. So, here is these flies blocks from Quentin. So, Quentin would be able to talk more about it later this week. It shows how  I think it shows very nicely how our understanding of the analysis has improved over time. And as a result, our understanding of the projected sensitive luminosity. So, we start from the baseline of the Yellow report and you can see how with more sophistication on the analysis enabled by the dataset, we have been able to update our objection conferred to the Yellow Report. Since HLLHC is our baseline of our considerations, it's good to take into account that our baseline has changed. And here also for ILC, I tried to update what we have here. We have different runs with different energy. This is also a nice new set of inputs that will have to be taken into account when looking at the combined measurements for the Higgs machines. And I wanted to align here in terms of one of our questions. Like how much high energy is important. So, the 500 GeV here is motivated by work from these plots. This shows adds functional energy the increase in crosssection and ttH production and the relative improvement on the measurement of the coupling. So, I think it's nice to have this kind of information to show how much high energy is important and which is important to target. So, also there has been a lot of studies already on polarization. So, in our efforts, we can leverage these important pieces of research in order to, you know, trying to derive arguments on how many that affects each measurement. So, for instance, when comparing circulating machine results, the luminosity is very different. But one key we have is polarization. And then when we take into account polarization in the SMEFT, then we have  we are taking into account for a circular machine. And this is  and this is very nice information from these studies in the table showing in the studies how the polarization has an impact. Another thing is that all in these studies, the action is very relevant. But for the positron polarization, it becomes very relevant for high energy. So, here  I don't think I'm making justice to all that have been produced by the muon collider in the first month. But just summarizing this slide, what we have in terms for the Higgs coupling. Assuming a run at 3 TFE  and 125 GeV. This is important for the strategy report that we will have to take into account for our report for Snowmass. Just to also highlight the Higgs to strange coupling result. This was an analysis based on a partial dataset at 250 GeV, plus or minus. Only using 900 inverse instead of the full dataset. Since we are looking at 250 GeV, we are looking at the set of production. And where the P is going to the leptons or the muons. And looking at the Higgs to ss bar, and in extracting the strange coupling on this limit  a limit on the Standard model prediction which is roughly less than 7 times the standard model. So, this is the first result for SS bar from a director search. It's interesting how this could inform the insights on the Higgs measurement to test. And there's work on the study for the Higgs coupling about how Higgs and ss bar can probe the beyond Standard model where you have 2HDM. And allow for flavor violating. This is a map showing how the search for the Higgs bar can improve over Higgs searches. So, there's these kind of searches for scalars. So, it's nice to keep in mind how improved precision on the coupling reflect in terms of searches. And I think this is the kind of plot and summary tables we want to have in our report as well. This is not really, really new. It was in Yukawa last year. But I want to feature it because I think it's a nice update compared to the European Strategy Report on the electron Yukawa on the dedicated run on FCCee. And the Higgs value. Depending, of course, on the spread of the beam, we have the prediction. And it's the luminosity that can be achieved with the beam. And it can be as good as to testing the Standard Model value and 95% confidence level. So, there's been also a lot of activities aren't testing the CP properties of the Higgs and high energy machines. Andrei has given a nice point in one of our topical groups about how we can in these reports try to shock the theoretical expectations and models and interpret the CP properties of the Higgs. With the broader interpretation that can take into account both linear and quadratic effects in the operators. There have been two updated studies that I've noticed. One is about CP measurement using Yukawa coupling that with the 250 GeV run plus or minus, that had a precision of 75mrad. And if we go highenergy, one can also use Higgs producer in order to test the CP effects in the Higgs coupling. But that would require high energy. So, up to 250 GeV, that's how you have a coupling is the most promising way to test those effects. The Higgs top CP structure requires energy, and there's been very nice studies that compared high luminosity of this test of the Standard Model with the muon collider. So, beyond the couplings, of course, one of the big questions we have in the Standard Model is to test the dynamic of the Higgs Boson potential. And again, one of the best ways to test the Higgs Boson is to go after the production. We can test the selfcoupling through the production mechanism by taking into account any correction. So, combining single Higgs and double Higgs, we can try to test the selfcoupling at LHC and beyond that. One thing to take that in our group we have tried also to discuss extensively over the last years is how this search for the selfcoupling and double helix production works with the production to result in double Higgs states. And we want to look at the report based on additional sing let and 2HDM models. And that would be accessible at higher energy and which would be tasked based on the exclusion from the HLLHC. And the connection with the electroweak position as well. So, this is just a summary of the projected sensitivity from the projections. So, CMS and ATLAS projections have been updated. This is clearly updated. And this shows as function of the energy in the collider options. The projected sensitivity to the selfcoupling using single and double Higgs and a combination that. And you can see it clearly, we have the high energy that help our understanding of the selfcoupling. This will hopingly be updated by the time of our efforts. We have new projection from LHC. The muon collider provided additional results that hopefully we can take into account. And there were a couple of years ago, FCChh updated their numbers since the European Strategy Report. And they will be included in the update. And the production improved to 25%. So, that's something to take into account. And one thing that was left out from the European Strategy Report is the differential measurement. Or more specific, the Higgs large stressor momentum. Yes, we expect the effect grows with energy. Those are powerful tools in addition to test the Higgs coupling to really go after new physics effect in the Higgs sector. And we have a few examples that we would like to take into account like having the production, Higgs production. And we had a couple of new updates from ATLAS for projected sensitivity that hopefully we can take into account in our global as well. Boast in the VH initial state in looking at Higgs, and looking at Higgs production. Where you can see in the plot the measure. The has been provided in beams for different production modes. And we are able to test how Higgs production is going beyond the GeV. So, now one of the things I said at the beginning is the interesting functioning of how gaining the precision in the Higgs measurement could translate to the Standard Model. There has been a lot of activities around the Higgs inverse problem and how we can translate Higgs measurment into the constraints of specific benchmark. Or informing the scales on physics. This is one example of  of a map that could  starting from our constraints from working on specific models to how we're con trained specific parameters on different benchmarks. And I think this is the kind of direction we want to take for the final report too. To provide some maps for specific benchmarks just to keep in mind how we gain knowledge on the Higgs. What does it say in terms of new physics that it's excluded? And what is left for us to investigate with the searches? This is the kind of maps we want to try to have in our reports. Another example is how we can derive from unitary arguments, independent bounds on new physics. How we can translate the are precision on the couplings into tests of energy  new physics energy scale. So, here just two maps for the coupling for the Boson and the selfcoupling. That coupling, and how it translates in terms of the energy scale we are probing for new physics. So, the draft, I think on Wednesday, we will have a discussion about  I think it's Wednesday. Yes. On our  our report. I want to give you a preview of the outline we have been discussing. Of course, anything that you can include would be great. Just leave it in the slides and hopefully on Wednesday we'll be able to discuss more about the structure of our efforts. And for EF1 and 2, we are very intertwined and we are working towards a joint effort. And we start off with the motivation of the Higgs and why it's important to go after the Higgs beyond the LHC. And looking at different aspects. We would love your input, join our discussion on Wednesday. Actually, it's tomorrow. We can look later. So, we have some of the highlights I wanted to point out on the questions that we are going to discuss tomorrow. It is about how precise our measurements of the Higgs have to be in order to test beyond the Standard Model effect. And how are the searches for Higgslike particles complementary to the precision Higgs coupling? And again, this should be taking into account the complementarity between HLLHC and the next one. And how far we want to go. And in order to test the Higgs, and where the scalar potential for the Standard Model is originated from which is the source of it. We are going after double Higgs production. But it's the only way to test selfcoupling  of course not. Because new physics is related also with the rest of the Higgs sector. So, the interplay between selfcoupling and the knowledge of the other Higgs couplings has to play a role in our mapping of the precision that we want to target for the selfcoupling. And again also, maybe I've not touched in this talk, but, of course, one of the things that we are asking in our final report is with our theory calculations, what are they needed in order to advance our experimental understanding of the sector? And, of course, our work is closely with EF04. And we have a report coming up later today. But really understanding how to include observables. We have new measurements that we want to provide after inputs from the global Snowmass. And make scenarios and connection with clearer data that was not explored that much in the European report. And how the complementary between the searches is something we would like to analyze in the final reports. So, ah, okay. I got confused. On Wednesday we will have the discussion on the reports and on the summary tables and plots. And, of course, this is very interesting but important for us to convey our message in a way that it's clear to the outside. So, providing some plots and tables that can really highlight how we can map Higgs precisions to now physics is really important. And just providing some examples that we have been discussing over the last years. But it would be important to try to sharpen the message in those meetings. We have been evaluating new physics benchmarks and double Higgs production. And that's something we would like to make sure we have community feedback on. And in terms of the Higgs coupling, it's clear that we have to update those plots. We have new machines that were not considered in the European Strategy. We want to look at some probably assumptions that were injected in the maps like from the flavor. And so, clearly we're gonna have new global feeds and a new way to present them and a way to come up with new inputs here. I think that was the last. Thank you so much. Now time for questions. >> So, I think we can go first with Zoom. So, if there is a question on Zoom, Alessandro, go ahead. ALESSANDRO: Yes. Thank you. Caterina, we have three or four hands up. What we'll do, alternate questions from Zoom and from the room. Let's start from Zoom. Markus has a question and is first. MARKUS: Okay. Thanks, Caterina, for this very nice talk. There's a number of new and interesting results. Can you please go back to slide 7? I just wanted to make a point which I think is important. So, when we think about new facilities and Higgs measurements, I think we have to be as precise as possible when it comes to the high lumi LHC. You say 5 to 15% of the Higgs couplings. The couplings are not directly accessed. But thinking about the coupling modifiers, and the numbers should be 2 to 5%. Which is significantly different from the numbers here. It's always difficult to make predictions, especially about the future. But I can predict that the 50% on the Higgs selfcoupling is a serious underestimate. And you mentioned this yourself, right? There is new studies going on and need to be combined and results need to be put forward. But we just look at the recent results from ATLAS and CMS on the nonresident Higgs searches. You see that the lumi scaling by itself is off by a factor of two whether you compare results using 2016 to the run datasets. That gives you an illustration and what kind of potential there is for this kind of measurement using the high luminosity. The point is you have to make a good job, the best possible job to understand the highluminosity LHC potential, and then the next machine has to be significantly better than that. CATERINA: Thank you, Markus. You summarized well. I think the takeaway should be that highluminosity has to be evaluated. The baseline is changed. And we have a lot of results. And actually there are two dedicated talks this week just to the amount of work that's been done from ATLAS and CMS to update those results. This is a sketch. Clearly when we want to look at the results from HLLHC, we want to use the maps that show the precision on the various machines. This is updated as well. But I think updating these maps in the new measurements, it's one of the jobs we have now. >> Yeah. And it's true that the highline can do better than 5% on some couplings. CATERINA: And, I mean, it shows here. I think I have this plot for Quentin. Where was it? I think it was later. It really shows how the projection has improved over time. It's impressive. So, clearly we have  we have improved our understanding of LHC. Also for the other couplings and we want to take that into account. >> Yeah. For some couplings it's going to play  yeah. Question from the audience now. No question from the audience? LAURA: If not, there are questions in Zoom. >> Let's go to Zoom again. LAURA: Okay. Jenny, you're next. JENNY: Hello. the unmuting worked. Yes. Thanks for the very nice talk. I have a comment on slide 7, but the overlay one. Because I think we can debate the exact percentages at the bottom for a long time. But I think on your top level wish list in the box above, I think one important thing is missing. Namely, that we wanted to model independent way you get an absolute normalization on the total width and thus on all the couplings. And I think that is really the qualitatively thing we need beyond highluminosity LHC. CATERINA: Thank you. That's a very important point. >> Let's see if there is a question from the audience. If not, go to the next question on Zoom. LAURA: Yes. Next one is Kevin. KEVIN: Yes, thanks. Thanks for the nice summary. I just also had a question about how to do the relative comparisons between different proposed machines. Because some of them, it's clear that they're running at a different center of mass energy. Some of them have perhaps different luminosity projections based on what one expects to get. But it's unclear to me, is there a uniform set of assumptions? Or how much of the differences you see and here are really related to some parameters of the machine? And how many are just differences in which the assumptions over, you know, the particular study or the particular detector that they assumed for that? CATERINA: No, that's a very good point. It's part of our job while collating all this information together in the summary plots and the efforts to make sure we are as unified as possible in terms of assumptions on luminosity and detector performance. Even like the condition that we're taking and so on. I think probably we will be asking me questions as we go into more detail diving into the results to make sure we can provide a uniform as possible picture. >> Yeah. And this is one of the things we need to discuss for the summaries, right? For the Frontier, right? Just to have these kinds of summaries is one of the main goals. It will be. Yeah, yeah. Michael. >> Michael: Kevin, I would like to give a partial answer to this question. If you look in the ILC report for the European Strategy, that's on the archive in March 2019. There's a section in there that compares the Higgs coupling projections for various colliders. And the way we did that was not to ask each individual group to give their projections. But we just took the ILC experimental projections for all the colliders and scaled them to the claimed energies and luminosities that were in their proposal. And so, that's maybe not the optimal way, but it's a very direct way to compare the various energy and luminosity run plans. And actually, the results are that ILC, FCCee, CPC, give almost identical result when is you do that. You can have a look at this chapter and see what you think of it. >> Other comments on this point? Suggestions? Yeah. >> Just as a quick followup, I think you raised  I mean, that is exactly a very interesting exercise. Because it can give a really good reference. And you can do that for certain groups of machines. In this case, plus and minus. They have a similar environment. Of course, you couldn't plug in a Hadron machine parameters. The environment is very different, that will be very different. But then similarly, yeah, I think we should try to do something more  I mean, some more exercises like that also. So, not only on the Higgs side, but maybe in some other groups. That could be very interesting. Especially when we see sort of differences in the reported results. So, I guess my less obvious thing is that we sort of need some handles of people who are familiar enough with some of these frameworks to then help in running some numbers in the next few months to make that happen because not all the results would be there. So, that could be  just more a comment. But the thing we need to reach out to a few people. >> Probably this has already been happening. Different machines have looked at and not just rescaling, but just looked directly. >> I agree this is a very interesting thing to do. Of course, it would be really important if you rescaled the number and got something different than the collaboration was predicted to iterate with them and understand the difference. >> Alessandro, do you have more on Zoom? ALESSANDRO: Yeah, there's another one. Keisho Hidaka. >> Question. I have a question. Page 15. You say page 15 was before or after? I have a question, what is the difference between ILC 500 GeV and ILC  what's the difference with the CQ, without the QQ? What's the difference? The energy or something? CATERINA: Well, in terms of physics, nothing. ILC500 and CLQ, provide probably similar results, assuming similar energy. The only difference is in the topYukawa coupling. That's why I made a small note on the slide. The point of the energy run is the 50 GeV. That's shown in the plot in the bottom there. You get a factor to improvement on the topYukawa coupling. In determines of Higgs, there's no difference here. I just made a note. >> Okay. Just the gain is the effect of the addition? CATERINA: Yes. This is studied extensively now. You will see in one of the papers that I cited on the slide, there is a nice scan as functional energy. That's something that the ILC community has been studied. >> Okay. Thank you. I understand. Thank you. CATERINA: Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. And again, I would just like to clarify this for Hadaka sans sake. It's normally a 500 GeV machine. But that number was given before the Higgs was discovered and before we knew the mass. So, eventually there will be a study of what is the optimal second stage for the ILC. Obviously, there's not enough time or manpower to do that study yet. But obviously, we put in a proposal for 250 GeV machine with the possibility of an upgrade. And it's going to be carefully studied what the optimal upgrade energy is. For CQ, we just arbitrarily chose this 550 GeV figure. But it's not really differences between the machines. We'll find out what the right upgrade measurement is. CATERINA: It was chosen because of the study, and we can work it out. Again, it's one of the questions that we want to align on the report. After the 250 run, I think I had it here at the begin, what kind of measurements are important to test new physics contribution effect. And, of course, it's the topYukawa, and the Higgs, and other CP measurements we want to do. We have a bunch of things that require energy. So, I think we can try to in our report summarize this report into just  which the energy targets should be for beyond the 250 run. >> Okay. So, I think we  unless you see other questions on Zoom, Alessandro. ALESSANDRO: No. It's perfect time to move on to the next speaker. >> Yeah. ALESSANDRO: Thank you. >> Let's thank Caterina again. [ Applause ] And as she was saying, there will be plenty of other opportunities during the week to discuss exactly the same kind of questions that was raised here. Move on to EF05. So, top physics.