EF04 Contributions
      Alberto Belloni
      
      >> And we can move to EF04.
      >> [ Away from microphone ]
      It's going to be on Zoom. It is going to be remote.
      ALESSANDRO: I see Alberto is connected. If you can try your microphone, Alberto. Oh, he needs to be unmuted by the host.
      ALBERTO: Hello. Hi. Great. I hope I can hear me fine. Let me see if I can also  okay. I would like... would you let me share my screen? If you prefer? I cannot 
      ALESSANDRO: Yeah. Can you go ahead and share it? Okay.
      ALBERTO: The  do you want to continue? Yes. Oh, okay. Let me see. Okay. Does this work?
      ALESSANDRO: Yes, it's coming up.
      ALBERTO: Okay. If you wanted, if you let me, I could also start the video. But I think you can also do without seeing me while 
      ALESSANDRO: As you prefer. As you prefer. We see the slides up on the screen. Whenever you're ready, you can start.
      ALBERTO: Perfect. Okay. Thank you very much. So, thank you for this opportunity to present about the summary from the EF04 group. So, I've giving this presentation on behalf of the conveners. Also, the people connected and the people who met with us in the last couple years and allowed us to have interesting results to present today.
      Let me start pedagogically to remind you about the group mandate. The dominant theme of the topics that we cover is the constrains of new physics by performing precision fits to stand model observables. So, this makes ours group linked very tightly with other groups such as EF01 and EF03 which are  from which you heard about earlier  and EF05 which will be a presentation about the content of the group will be presented after the  after the break.
      The specific mandate of the group of EF04 includes the study of multiboson signatures, vectorboson fusion and scattering. So, ultimately, we want to put constraints to the Standard model. Within the EFT framework and see if there are any specific extensions that are of particular relevance for electroweak precision physics.
      So, with this in mind, the big questions that we posed in our draft report are the following here. Just to summarize in bigger strokes. What is the scale of new physics that we can probe? What's the value of the new colliders? The correlations among the experimental observables and theoretical models? What are  if needed  new analysis strategies? What are our needs for Monte Carlo? The critical question is how we can match theoretical and experimental precision. What kind of precision do we need to overcome degeneracies, for example? Ultimately goal is a very nice sneak peek on this in my last slides is the global fit of the Standard Model parameters and the evaluation of the Standard model EFT constraints.
      So, now to dive into the activities and the summary of what happened in EF04 since when we started. So, we held biweekly meetings. Status reports on the activities from our collaborators and the people who participated in our activities. And many open discussions to figure out how to proceed towards the final report.
      Let me note that all meetings have been recorded. We have this on the FNAL DocDB. And for the last meetings, in particular, we also have all the captions saved. So, we took two different approaches. A bottomup approach. A sort of grassroots approach. We collected papers for proposals and contributions. Divided them among themes. Z precision, nonZ electroweak precision, multiboson, Tau, theory. We see some highlights from the white papers that we received and divided into these themes. And we received more than ten white papers. Submitted by the March 15th deadline. And a few more are forthcoming.
      We also had a topdown approach in which we discussed within our community what are the wish  what is our wish list for what we want to put in our report? And the very relevant outcome in this line is that we reached an agreement about systemic uncertainties to be assigned to inputs for our electroweak global fit. Just to make sure  and I think I will underline again these  this part of the work. Because I think that this was a very interesting successful part of the  of our activity.
      So, let me now move to a quick review of the white papers that we received. The first theme is precision. Z and nonZ electroweak physics. So, these are a couple of the white papers that we received. One is about the usage of radiative return at the ILC to measure the symmetry. And the outline, I'm sorry for bringing up the plot of the punchline of the papers. Please read them, they have many results other than what we have here. In this report, we saw there was an estimate to improve by a MAG any constitute the SLC measurement to using the ILC250 data. And showing the systemic and statistical uncertainty and which is similar and dominated by polarization uncertainty. On the right, it's the precision electroweak on the weakneutralcurrent vector and axialvector couples. It's at the LHeC and FC Ceh. And the interesting point that I want to bring up is these are highluminosity machines. And these are diagnostic scattering measurements. We never had such a large data sample to perform them with such a high precision.
      Among the various measurements that can be done, there's an effective weak mixing angle. About three times better than LEP. An interact measurement of the W mass. And also, there is the paper presents a look beyond the Standard Model with the oblique parameters, T, T, and U. And the bottom line is this is really the first chance for a very high precision electroweak measurements in a chargedcurrent interactions.
      Multiboson physics. I think I have a couple of slides. These are  this is a plot from the white paper linked here. Treelevel interference with VBF production of Vh. This is the case for the HLLHC and future lepton colliders. In particular, we see CLIC at 1.5 and 3 TFE. To use the destructive interference between the VBF Zh and Wh to acquire sensitivity to the deviations in Higgs couplings. One interesting point, though I chose a plot in which the interesting point is out of the plot. Is the ability to exclude the BSM extensions in which the sign between the Higgs to W and Higgs to Z couplings is different. In this plot, that would be the Lambda WZ equal minus 1 point. And indeed, this is  this plot shows that you can only look at the part  you can exclude the part in which the sign is negative.
      More multiboson physics. Some searches for limits on anomalous quartic gauge couplings at the muon collider. This shows the anomalous searches in the final sates, WW, and WWmu, mu. At the 6 TFE muon collider. The higher c.m.e. gives the statistics. Because they are essentially a weak boson collider. And they are in effect checking the plots correctly, we estimated limits on anomalous. And they are tighter than the current limits. The two plots here show the expected standard model distribution of events. And the dashed lined show the effect of a normal anomalous quartic gauge coupling.
      More multiboson physics. I think this closes this theme. So, sensitivity to longitudinal vector boson scattering and sync sign W production at hadron colliders. Sensitivity to longitudinally polarized ZZ scattering at the muon collider. In the first paper, the focus is on the 100 TFE machine. Referred to as femtobarn, and the luminosity. And at the end, the precision of the purely longitudinal contribution of W longitudinal, is about 15%.
      In the second paper, we see the estimate projected sensitivity at 15 and 6 TFE. And expect a destination is to be able to set a 5 standarddeviation discovery with 3 femtobarn with the TFE  sorry, 4  6 EFF is possible to surpass the final result of HLLHC.
      Tau physics. One paper on new ways of measuring the Tau polarization at ILC. So, in these, the three plots compare on the Y axis. We have the measure of the polarization on the  on the X axis. The truth value from Monte Carlo. So, the  we go from the traditional cone and midpoint and see that the new method introduced can achieve a much nicer correlation between the two results. I have to confess, though, that final estimations of the final uncertainty which is achievable is still a work in progress.
      A couple slides on the theory studies. Let me start with vector boson fusion at multiTFE muon colliders which presents their review of how the VBF cross sections change as a function of energy from standard model and new physics processes at highenergy muon colluders. The second is vector boson scattering processes: Status and prospects. And has a very comprehensive review of the vector boson scattering at the LHC, HLLHC and future colliders with discussions on the usability of electroweak parton distribution functions and modeling of electroweak parton. And on the right, is taken from the last paper, and shows the multi
      Boson production cross sections for various processes at the new Muon Collider.
      And last slide on the theory studies. Both these papers, the effective vector boson approximation in highenergy muon collisions and the electroweak fragmentation at high energies tackle the issue of how to properly model factorization, resummation, the impact of PDFs, FSR, ISR, in the sector at highenergy lepton, but also very highenergy lepton colliders. And the plot on the left  on the right  is from the second paper and shows the model used for the fragmentation functions in electroweak splittings.
      I think I gave a review of the white papers. Some of the white papers that we received. So, now go to how do we plan to use them.
      ALESSANDRO: 5 minutes.
      ALBERTO: Thanks. The global standard model EFT task force, at least started meeting regularly in midlast year. And the task is to produce fits in a few flavors. Higgs/electroweak, 4fermion operators, add top operators, CPodd operators. It's absolutely necessary for consistency. And the big goal that we achieved, on the next slide, is getting the parties in agreement on the systemic uncertainties. The links here to the inputs that were provided to the global fits. Among which the white papers before, but also the white papers from the various new collaborations, FCCee, ILC, this is a CEPC, muon collider forthcoming muon collider papers.
      Here is one of the tables that we would like to have in our final report. Is the inputs to the global fit. It's  it's scaling. Full of numbers. But trust me. Before the discussion  before the discussions we had, there were many inconsistencies between the various lines and I think that this  this is the  where we are now and we  the vast majority of these conflicts have been solved. This is as close as  this is where we stand right now.
      And here is a  as promised, a quick preview, a small anticipation for the upcoming paper on the global fits. This is a precision on the effective Higgs couplings and the anomalous TGCs on the top and the electroweak couplings on the bottom.
      If you have any questions, please let me ask later. For the EF04 report, we defined the structure of the report. And here is a quick overview of it. Interaction, electroweak precision tests of future colliders, multiboson processes, global fits. I'm putting a link here to the document where we would like to collect your feedback. And the link to our preliminary report which on the top link to the current report, on the bottom a link to our preliminary draft report which contains the bigger questions that need to be addressed.
      And the  let me conclude with a very quick overview of the workshop activities related with the EF04. We will have a session on Wednesday morning on SMEFT fits with a big discussion on the global fits. Followed by one on  focused on electroweak physics and the review of the theory and experimental limits on vector boson, multiboson results. And let me just pass the last  the last slide in the last minute. The deadline for the submission of white papers passed. But we plan to have two meetings from now, midApril, midMay, to discuss the status of the report. And even if you have not submitted a white paper, please work with us to incorporate your results into the  into the EF04 report. Thank you.
      
      ALESSANDRO: Thank you very much, Alberto. It was a very nice overview. And perfectly on time. Thank you again to you and the whole group. Now let's take some questions. We have about 10 minutes for questions. So, let's start from Zoom again. I do not see any questions from Zoom yet. So, maybe, Laura, you want to start from the Zoom?
      >> So, is there any question or comment or suggestions on how to proceed on any of these topics from the room?
      >> So, it was a supernice overview. And I was curious about one thing. As you said, you tried to have both a top down and bottom up and tried to sort of have all these inputs. Are there any critical inputs from some of these main feature facilities that you mentioned that you think are missing and would be very nice to have? I was pretty curious. Because I don't know. One aspect that, of course, I was very interested in is vector boson scattering. And you highlighted different studies that were done. And one looking at longitudinal polarization, one more looking at  one looking at a different collider. So, I was wondering, do you just pick as examples, but you have a relatively homogenous set of inputs? Or is there a wish list that maybe there is still a bit of time to get in?
      ALBERTO: So, we  thanks. Thanks for the  thanks for the question. Let me  let me circulate the information. I think in our last  well, to get to the  very quick answer is we prepared our wish list for the  for what kind of observables we would like to include and could use. And we posted them on the EF04 on the latest EF04 Indico web pages. I propose that I will put a link to them so that we can  we can see the  we don't go based on my memory, but we have the actual list of the  of what we need there with the detail.
      Then in this presentation, we  I also listed the inputs that we did receive from white papers. And there is lots of freedom from  freedom from them. I see  I see Ayres raised their hand.
      >> Yeah, I just, you know, followup on what you already said, Alberto. I don't know exactly where Simone's question was heading. But one thing that EF04 needs is processes for scattering and so forth. The studies that have been worked on, you know, as part of the Snowmass process, unfortunately they are  they didn't manage to proceed to the level where we could include them in the global fit. That is unfortunately the case. They are very labor intensive. You have to generate lots of samples. Make sure they are all validated and so on and so forth. It didn't work out that we can include them in the global fit. But I think they're still interesting lessons to be learned from the work done there.
      ALBERTO: Absolutely.
      >> Okay. Can we take a question from here? Comment? Alessandro?
      ALESSANDRO: There are no questions in Zoom. But let me ask a question.
      >> Wait a second. There is a question here in the hall.
      ALESSANDRO: Okay. Go ahead, please. Yes
      >> Hi, Alberto. You said one of the accomplishments of the group over the year was the agreement on the systemic uncertainties. Like can you give us an example of a systemic uncertainty that involved during the process? What it was at the beginning and how the agreement and what it came down to when you were done?
      ALBERTO: Yep. So, if I remember correctly, the  the biggest issue we had when the QCD theory uncertainties on the  parameters delta  delta, A sub B and A sub C. I believe the different, if I remember correctly, the  we had different collaborations where using uncertainties. They were different. But by an order of magnitude. And essentially, the reason was in some cases there were more or less optimistic as to what we could ultimately achieve.
      And the  we had the discussions. And as a matter of fact, as I was jumping in and myself and made an estimation that was reasonable and was accepted as a proposal for these. I can provide more details. But the short line without revealing any number of it. A sub B, a difference by an order of magnitude got resolved.
      >> Okay. Alessandro, do you have more questions on Zoom?
      ALESSANDRO: No hands raised. But I have maybe a question.
      >> Oh, yeah, you had one.
      ALESSANDRO: You did the work in assessing the uncertainties and making sure all inputs are understood and that's fantastic. You went very quickly on the results of the global fits. Do you want to explain a bit if  how those compare to the European Strategy fits? Is any things you want to highlight on those? Relatively to the previous fits, for example, for European Strategy.
      ALBERTO: Thank you. Thank you, Alessandro. The  let me go  rather than these fits, to this slide. So, I believe that they have in the three  three advancements that we  we hope to be able to introduce our fits with four fermion operators. Top operators and the CPodd operators. These are three  I believe they were not considered in the ESG final report. So, this will be three completely new additions.
      >> Will there with differences also in how these different  all the different observables are considered in the fit? From the theoretical point of view?
      ALBERTO: Of course.
      ALESSANDRO: And actually, as I stand  Junping.
      >> I would like to add more details on the fit since the European custom strategy. I think the fit to one, we tried to treat the A plus, A minus consistently in the EFT. Instead of just like Dom dominance. And also, as was explained, made the input consistent. And that's indeed going to have some impact on the comparison of various e plus/minus. And we included the 4fermion operators for the process. And that was basically ignored.
      So, for the top I think we  for the combined Higgs/electroweak on top, we're not sure that is possible. But at least at the topquark alone, that is I think a significantly updated comparing to SMEFT fit.
      ALESSANDRO: Thank you for the summary and making the changes. That is interesting. We will into that in greater detail. I don't see any more raised hands. Any questions in the room, Laura?
      LAURA: Any comment or questions in the room? Anything on the chat that we should consider? Or not.
      ALESSANDRO: There are some comments in the chat on EF01 talk. But since we are right at the hour, maybe the right place to stop the meeting here.
      LAURA: Okay. So, if there are no more comments or questions in the room. We thank Alberto again, we thank the speakers from this morning and we are adjourned to 1 p.m. 
      ALESSANDRO: So, we take an hour break.
      >> Thank you.
      ALESSANDRO: Thank you.
      [Break]