      
EF09 Contributions
Simone Pagan Griso

      >> Let's move on to the next talk.
      The next talk will be given by Simone who is here with us.
      SIMONE: Thank you. Thanks. Okay. Let's see if after three years I still remember how to put this on. Okay. Yes. It's a pleasure to be here. And today we'll give you some highlights from EF09. And just as a  let's see if I  oh, there we go. Just as a quick introduction. EF09 is sort of the more modelindependent or I would say the BSM everything else part of the BSM if you want of the three 8, 9, 10 groups. And the opportunity is really collecting for opportunity that ranges from some standard candidates for future accelerators as well as more exotic signatures. And sort of how can we keep our eyes open to sort of what we might not expect to this date. And I would say, this is particularly important because from the current state of particle physics, it really leads to a wide variety of possible explanations to the phenomena for which we haven't yet established a baseline understanding.
      And so, going forward, we want to maintain the flexibility in being able to sort of progress as many phenomena as possible. And so, this led us to at the beginning of this process come up with a set of focused questions. Which we set to discuss in various meetings. here, not gonna list them all. This is a few represent one that ranges from how do we probe new interactions as well as matter content beyond the standard model. There's interacting particles and how do we shape future experiment to make sure they have sensitivity for them. And how do we sort of define what does it really mean, modelindependent going forward and how it's tied into the current understanding of the model? And then finally, very fundamental question about flavor or even validation of the lepton flavor universality will all factored into various discussions and workshops throughout the process.
      So, because of this, we organized the work in four different areas. Heavy bosons that we're exploring new interactions, Z prime, W prime, et cetera, et cetera. New fermions, longlived signatures and the other exotica. And then we looked at the benchmarks and tried to focus on the main physics messages. Now as you can see from the various topics here. And as you can see from given this is the last of the highlights presentation, there is a lot of overlap with several different EF groups. So, this will require  this is requiring quite a lot of coordination writing the reports. But also give us the opportunity to give a nice overview.
      And here basically just wanted to take a minute to show you what is the type of contribution we got. So, we are very happy that the community was very active. At the beginning, just to put that in context, at the beginning of this Snowmass, we actually received about 66 expressions of interest. It was a very informal process. And then later on 73 letters of interest. With a large overlap of the expression of the interest. Now, after this Snowmass pause, we sort of went back and tried to estimate how many of these were still active. And we estimated that about 50 of them. So, a bit less than half  sorry  50 of them. Yeah. It's a bit more than half of them were still sort of in an active state. And we started to keep track of them. And now that they sort of contributed that deadline is passed, we can say the sort of out of this, a bit less than 50% actually submitted a contribution. Either to Snowmass or in the meantime they published a paper and then let us know about the paper. But they didn't submit something directly to Snowmass, okay?
      And then overall, as was mentioned, we have actually 25 direct Snowmass submissions to EF09. But when we tried to sort of figure out what are all the contributed papers that contain information relevant for EF09, this could be also they were submitted to other EF groups or to other Frontiers to just generic EF, all the EF groups. We counted about 63 contributions. And there are about 10 of them from different groups. And then just for sort of gauging an idea, we should be careful drawing many conclusions. But just to gauge an idea, you can see two plots on the righthand of this slide. So, the upper plot, sort of divides the contribution by topic. And so, each contribution can contribute to more than one topic. So, you have Higgs boson, new fermions, longer particles and others. A lot of interest in the long particle sector. And below, more than one can appear in more than one bar. And they can investigate the community. You have to be careful because not on the papers are the same depth and length and the same studies. The studies. But you can see, I think the only point that they wanted to point out here is that you see despite the European Strategy was not that long ago, we have a pretty large momentum and interest in the physics. And the high luminosity physics. That's by large the largest number of contributions submitted. And that's I think an important message.
      Okay. So, the  I wanted to say a couple of words towards the report. So, the BSM report will include sections on these four main areas. And because of the large amount of the contributions that we expected, we sort of invited after an open call a few experts to in this key areas to help us summarize into looking into literature each of the specific areas. So, you can see they are named here, listed in these three different areas, heavy bosons, new fermions and longlived signatures. And the people on the report. And also, they will be leading the discussion on each of these three topics on the EF09 parallel session that is coming up this week.
      And for this session, actually, we also asked an additional  we've added an additional expert to guide the discussion on other exotica. And I'm going to give you a flavor of some of the contributions in this area. Apologies, I will not be comprehensive due to the number of contributions we received. And we are still really going through all the material. It's a lot of interesting material. So, we tried to just give you a flavor of the type of contribution we received.
      And so, starting from new bosons. This is sort of  the thing we wanted to focus here is really on the prime candidate for future accelerator. This is part of the European Strategy. The question is are there new options that we want to update? It's a very simple model ins it minimal form and it's a very good benchmark for machines. And yeah. In its minimal characterization, just a mass production coupling and decay coupling and the parameters should matter. For the parameter, we also plan to explore the diversity of models and channels can be probed for like new interactions. And so, we sort of receive a lot of contributions. W prime, of course, axionlike particles has quite a lot of interest, dijet resonances, so on and so forth. The report will be a bit more comprehensive. And we wanted to show an example, Z prime. This was done in record time I can will say from the contribution we received. Where various machines in different states are ordered from the bottom to the top in increasing Z prime sensitivity from, again, the inputs we received.
      It's  the other nice thing is that in the last two columns, you see two different numbers. One is the discovery reach with the 5 sigma, and the other is the expected 2 sigma sensitivity for setting limits which have  which is also very important point when we talk about different type of  of future colliders.
      Okay. Moving on, on new matter content. I wanted to show you a couple of different things for new fermis. We got some contribution on vectorlike quarks. Here just a few highlights about both conventional searches, the sort of we have high luminosity protection, luminosity protection for the top, for instance, going to Z to Z and tops. But those are unconventional decays. As well as very unconventional production modes. Here the challenge is we got quite a few different inputs that are interesting. But it's difficult to make that homogenous across the different options. We will be more set in a few interesting pieces of work but will be hard to make them very harmonious.
      Heavyneutral leptons. We have seen this a few times my bow. There was quite some interest. And I think we have a lot of interesting material. That's a very good thing. For instance, TypeI seesaw, we have meeting the limits from the EIC, and then you have the medium range, and then very high machines for the very high mass range. And we can see if we can complement this with other options.
      Similar, we had some contribution about Majorana fermions, as well as some like Jim was mentioned with complementary searches and other experiments. Overall, there was a summary paper that was submitted only to the neutrino frontier and we had to kind of fish. But it had some very nice, I don't know, several pages of summary of collider searches as well. So, it's very nice how different frontiers sort of look at the same problem in different angles. And I think we can learn a lot from that. So, I just wanted to point it out here because it may not be treated just looking at the energy frontier.
      And, of course, for this heavyneutral lepton, depending on the coupling and the mixing parameters that you see in this X axis, the signature can become either prompt or longlived. It goes in between the two different areas that I mentioned.
      And talking about longlived, we actually have two main areas. Sort of one part looks at heavy longlived particles, with heavy new particles that are longlived. And so, this  overall the longlived particles are a very big contribution. But part of having a longlived particle in the current experiments, they are considered part of the core program. And they are being considered part of the core program for the future. And in poses some interesting requirements for detectors. And we have seen quite some interest. You can see, we have started from the muon collider. Heavy scalar, this is an example on ILC. Exotica decay is another example for FCCee. I took benchmarks from a variety of process. This information is halfway good in the sense that the benchmark choices is not very large. There is some set of benchmark that have been chosen more or less consistently. And we tried to have discussion on these during the process. However, on the heavy longlived particles side, we have some assumptions. But the others, they tend to sort of have some small missing information here on there. From an initial look. This is one part where we might need to solicit a little bit more information and push it to the edge and have a very nice summary plot.
      And I wanted to mention light longlived particle. Because this is actually a place where there is a huge amount of interest. We received a lot of contribution. Also, exploring not only the core of the detectors, but also the detector, for instance, the LHC. This is one aspect where people have looked at both the LHC and future collider. But it can have an impact to Snowmass in the shortterm. These are things that can be exploited at HLLHC. And if we don't push on the side, the US will not have the impact it would have otherwise. This is an important example. There are several examples. We heard about Codex many times. And this physics facility we heard a few times today already. It has a very diverse program. And so, all of them have pro and cons. And sort of are good in their own things. And so, that's something that we hope that we can give justice to in the report.
      Finally, just to mention a couple of other exotica here. I will not spend time other than to say there are several connections with other groups in other Frontiers that go from low mass scalars to final state, to leptonflavor valuation. Where there is a summary led by the Frontier that we hope will be ready very shortly. This is something that we sort of look forward to  to sort of summarizing this in this additional section. But it is essentially a lot of the things that are led by different other groups. But it's nice to have sort of some  some overview.
      And then looking at even more exotic phenomena, we've heard already about dark showers and in general a sort of stronglycoupled dark sector can give rise to interesting phenomenologies. And there has been a nice comprehensive summary and view that was  that was mentioned already also. And on Friday, we will have a contribution session summarizing this. I hope you can join. And on the rightmost is the other topic I mentioned at the begin which is the model independence one. And how we can make sure that we will be ready to discover what we might not know now.
      Okay. So, with that, my last comment before concluding is that in a lot of contribution we received actually there has been also a lot of emphasis with the interplay with the detector in terms of like development and needs  the R&D needs for the future. So, there have been contribution the submitted about how you can  what is the potential using time layer and the requirements you can put there. Requirements for finding the edge that are sort of coming from stronger coupled dark sector. And on the rightmost side, you also see design interesting requirements that you can put on the granularity of calorimeter for future collider due to the very highpT jets you can expect there. There are many more studies like this. But it's very nice you can see how this sort of  all of this  my point I want to make here is that a lot of the projection did not find a number of physics we see dependent on some of those core assumptions. And we have to be a little bit careful in  in these. And I think we have a lot of input that tries to sort of clarify and give even some experimentindependent/some requirements. Or try to set requirements for future experiments rather than making assumption and just coming to conclusion. It's very nice. It's a lot of nice work.
      Okay. So, before concluding, just a reminder of what's happening this week that is relevant for EF09 and BSM in general. Tomorrow we'll have a BSM discussion which is sort of the big picture of B SM landscape. And we hope to have your input to shape the main messages in the BSM and how to communicate those messages. On Wednesday, we have the EF09 parallel session. You can see the schedule here. But basically, the various areas we'll go through in a bit more detail with more time. The contribution and what summary plots we think we have enough material to make. And on Thursday and Friday, we have the BSM plenary sessions. We talk already about some of the summaries. Stefan will give a talk about the synergy with RF6 about longlived particle searches. And we will have a speaker who will give a summary of the parallel session for EF09 in case you missed it. But you shouldn't miss it because it will be a lot of fun.
      And on Friday, finally, we will have a brief summary and closing remarks. So, to the conclusion, overall we saw large interest and breadth of topics for the group which we are very happy about. And we  there has been quite some effort during Snowmass to set some common benchmarks. Some of the places where this paid off, and places where we are not quite there. But we might be close enough. We have to push to get there. Finally, please join us to the many opportunities this week. We hope to really hear your input and hope this can help us framing the report. And ultimately framing the future of BSM and particle physics. Thank you.
      [ Applause ]
      >> Okay. We're ready to take questions. Maybe we can start from Zoom.
      >> No hands yet on Zoom.
      >> Okay. We have a couple hands in the room.
      >> If a Higgs factory plus or minus 250 were in our future, do we need a stronger case for BSM Higgs decays and stuff? Is that going to be mostly in your domain or EF2 or whatever the other thing is? You did allude to some of it. But mostly in terms of longlived particles. But they don't have to necessarily be longlived.
      SIMONE: Correct. I think a more comprehensive analysis. 
      >> The question is there enough material to justify that part? We need to make a strong case.
      SIMONE: There is quite some material. If that's enough, I honestly didn't have enough time to go into details to see if when you piece it together. So, I don't know if someone has the time to go through that on casebycase. But I have seen some material. Just not enough time to go through detailed enough to answer that. That's, for instance, a very fair question. I think it's a question that we need to look at once in the report. We should probably from the materials. Hopefully I hope we can answer that.
      >> Thanks. Nice overview. It's a similar question about this. So, you mentioned for the light longlived particles, there are all the experiments around the surrounding points. They should address exotic Higgs decays.
      SIMONE: Yeah.
      >> Are they using the same benchmarks that you can make meaningful comparisons?
      SIMONE: Yes. Here I have to give a lot of credit. I mean, starting from the physics beyond collider working group at Surgeon. It's an international working group in the end. key topics there. But they did a tremendous job in organizing those benchmarks. And that work I would say is very long standing. And so, this was picked up by RF6 very heavily. So, again, a lot of credit to them to the work they've done. And, you know, we tried to sort of help and keep an eye on and publicize that. And from what I have seen so far, it did work pretty well. There are some  let's say  there are always  there is more than I'm aware of in talking with people you find. But overall, I call that part a pretty success.
      >> There is presumably a case to have some of these, but maybe not all of them.
      SIMONE: Some of these I hope so. Exactly. For the exactly Higgs decays on the longlived particle side, once  the prompt one, we might be a little bit better. On the long ones, you get to the longlived particle side. I think the coverage is a little bit more touchy. Just because many different things. But those assumptions are what you want. So, that's the part I'm less sure we can do a nice thing. But yeah. Needs time to go through the results more carefully. Yes.
      >> Just a comment about the physics beyond colliders. The asterisks become very large when you go at a higher square root of S, right? Because these  the physics beyond  with the exception of the out model which is basically what we call heavy pseudoscalar, the other  the scalar and the Z prime both like either mix with the xebos on or with the Higgs. And you tend to be dominated by Higgs decays or, you know, Z decays, you know. You know, when you're not like  I guess  I guess in the limit of high mass, the dark photon and the Z prime kind of merge. But like the scalar kind of goes away. And, you know, fine. It's  you can ask the question of, you know, should the scalar mix with the Higgs or not? But, you know, it's  it kind of destroys the phenomenology and basically focuses everything on Higgs decays. When I think there's a richer phenomenology that can be explored. Especially in these final states. I'm a little wary having done the kind of reconciliation for the invisible final states for the physics beyond collider and the kind of LHC simplified models. There's some serious caveats here. And I don't think they really apply at high square root of S.
      SIMONE: I think we need to be a bit careful what we're aiming for, right? Because here we're not trying to dwell on a comprehensive view or phenomenology, are we missing everything, are we covering everything? That's not what we're trying to do. Yeah. We are trying to give some  how can I put it? We are trying to give some significant examples. I think we can find a better word. But you understand what they mean. That tell us if you're heading the in the right direction. And what type of sort of efforts can help us go into that direction. All of what you've said is a concern. Is work that needs to be done 100%. I just don't think Snowmass is the right place to do it
      I think the right expert is in the working group, maybe with the physics beyond collider version 3, et cetera.
      What I was trying to say here when I was kind of sounded a bit too optimistic for that. I didn't want to undervalue the huge amount of work people are doing to sort of get to the details that have. That's superimportant. I didn't want to diminish that. What I wanted to say is that having a broad overview from all these areas, I can tell you, I wish I had the same consistency in many other areas. In most of the other areas, here is my model that nobody but me have thought about. And that's why I'm proud and I would submit this one. Times 10. What do you do with that? Compared to that, I'm superhappy on how the benchmarks and the particle model situation is for the purpose of Snowmass.
      >> Okay. I agree that the benchmarks are nice and easy to compare. But I think they might do a disservice to the Energy Frontier. Because they're really intended for kind of lower square root of S, right?
      SIMONE: Yes. Yes. And so, this is the other  the other part, right? Which like when we then look at things like the heavy longlivid particle part, okay? Which is a reason  which is one of the regions where  well, okay. When you talk about Higgs decay, it's a different thing, yes. Then it's more complicated. And 
      >> I mean, just to take the Higgs  like the Higgs dark sector, physics model. If you try to actually compute the relic density for that, there's basically no parameter space that's allowed, right? Zero. Right? And this is  and, you know, you can  it's a nice motivator. But even like the physics beyond collider group is questioning whether they even want to carry this as a standalone model by itself, right? Because there are no  like, you know, we would not be on Earth right now, right?
      >> I really, really hope you can join us on the parallel session. Because this we can discuss it much more in detail. The thing I wanted to say maybe is similar we have been worried much more let's say on the heavy part, longer particle side. Because that's also the situation where it's actually even worse than the current situation. But we are in the region where we hope to be able to push it enough to sort of get it there. A Higgs type of thing, the exotic Higgs case goes back to the question on the longlived particle side. I don't know if we can push it above threshold.
      But yeah. There will be a summary of sort of what type of contribution we have. So, if you have time to come, I think we have the time on  on Wednesday to really sit down and say, do we have enough to go above threshold? Thank you.
      >> Okay. Thank you. I saw a hand raised on Zoom.
      >> Yeah, there's a hand on Zoom.
      >> Yeah, I just wanted to jump in. I think Simone has summarized well what we have been thinking from the EF09 perspective. However, I also see, you know, this thing related to BSM and the Higgs is sort of more of a something that comes  will come through, hopefully in our full Energy Frontier report. Because there are certain aspects related to exotic Higgs as well as exotic Higgs decays which are being covered by EF2, and then Higgs portal and dark matter, and then the longlivid, which is EF9. Which is as we get to the point of putting the Energy Frontier report using the individual topical group reports, that's where we have to really make a comprehensive case for I would say BSM related to the Higgs. And then so I think what we are discussing today and hopefully this will continue will bring forth, I think, that summary. 
      >> Thank you.
      >> Okay. Thank you. More questions? In the room? What about on Zoom?
      >> No other questions on Zoom so far.
      >> Okay. Great. So, we can close this session. Let's thank Simone.
      [Captioner disconnecting]