India-CMS Collaboration Meeting

1. July 28 – 29, 2011 BARC, Mumbai India-CMS Collaboration Meeting • News from LHC, CMS • Issues concerning India-CMS • Pledges • Conferences • New institutes in CMS • CMS upgrade • …. KajariMazumdar Link-person (NOT Spokesperson), India-CMS collaboration

2. LHC Operation Machine performance much better than anticipated great time for high energy physics community  many interesting results based on 2010 (~40 pb-1) and 2011 (~ 1 fb-1) data. • Coordinated efforts across LHC experiments to • achieve best possible science. • Standard model Higgs boson is being chased • extensively  lot of attention from media! • Important results by end of 2012 (few fb-1) • Presently, Number of bunches per beam: 1380 •  instantaneous lumi: :1.75 .1033/ cm2/s • Coming days: increasing in bunch charges (protons/bunch ->1.55E11)  • L=3.5 1033/ cm2/s, pile up = 16 • Further adjustment of machine parameters  • L=5.1033/ cm2/s, pile up = 24 • Only test operation with 25 ns bunch spacing in 2011. Heavy ion operation starts in Nov. with 100 ns b.s. Machine energy for 2012 operation yet to be decided

3. News from CMS Physics Very impressive publication list (~ 70 in journals + PAS), conference results (~ 30 in EPS), several updates expected for Lepton Photon conference. • Search for Higgs • Large range of Higgs mass excluded with 2011 data ~ 1 fb-1 • For Lepton Photon conference ATLAS and CMS results will be combined  better reach. • More data required, in general for discovery • ~ 2fb -1 by end of 2011 expected. • Search for Bsm+m- • Lowest order process in standard model involves quantum loops •  branching ratio very small l ~ 3.10-9 • Contribution from New Physics can enhance the BR. • CMS upper limit: ~1.9x10-8 , LHCb:~1.8x10-8 • Expect combined limit ~ 1.2-1.3 x10-8 •  Compare with Tevatron result: Br(Bsm+m-)=1.8(+1.1-0.9)x10-8

4. Standard model Higgs combination results from CMS for 1.1 fb-1 • Low mass: 22 channels, high mass: 18 (PAS HIG-11-011) • Issues for combination: • Higgs boson signal is too small compared to background. • Sensitivity of experiments are at their limits. eg., compare mass resolution of diff. channels with Higgs natural width at different mass values • There are many systematics involved in measurements: nuisances • Use “CLs” construction to be conservative in the presence of background fluctuations. • Consider signal and background events as fn.s of nuisance parameters.

5. Statistical analysis: modelling m: strength of signal for standard model Higgs boson hypothesis  μ=1, only backgroundhypothesis  μ = 0 Θ: nuisance parameter, ie, various systematic uncertainties relevant for different channels, unconstrained by a-priori considerations or measurements. Θ0 : Observed value of nuisance parameter, evaluated from data. The likelihood function built as a product L(data|μ, θ) = Lobs(data|μ, θ) · L(θ0|θ) Prob. of observing the data given μ, θ. In the case of counting experiment with b(θ) background and s(θ) signal it’s just a Poisson( N | μ·s(θ) + b(θ) ) μ = σ/σSM Likelihood of θ0 given θ (Frequentist)Prob. of having θ given measurement θ0if it’s multiplied by a flat prior on θ(Bayesian) Giovanni Petrucciani’s talk at CMS WGM on 19.7.11

6. Statistical Analysis For each value of the signal strength μ = σ/σSM • 1. Evaluate on the data the test statistics • profile likelihood ratio • 2. Determine the values of the nuisance parametersθthat provide a best global fit to data and external measurements (θobs). Do it separately for the case of no signal and for the particular value ofμ. • 3. Use those values to generate an ensemble • of pseudo-experiments for background-only • and signal+background with θobs0 ,θobsm fixed. • In the fit ot evaluate test-statistc, vary them • Around best fitted value, acc. to suitable pdfs. • If CLS< 0.05, then the value of • μ is excluded at 95% CL. • 4. Evaluate test statistics for pseudo-exp, • compare with the one of data.

7. Exclusion Limit Expected exclusion: 127-420 GeV Observed exclusion: 149-206 GeV + 300-440 GeV + parts in between • H gg, effective for mH =110,140 GeV/c2  chance of observing a • maximum excess as large as seen in data ~ 60% (HIG-11-002) • H WW: observed limits in the low mass range below 180 GeV/c2 show a broad 2σ upward deviation, likely to be fluctuation. HIG-11-003 .

8. CMS Issues concerning us • Pledges : shifts and other jobs • Visibility of members of India-CMS • Volunteering for CMS jobs • Presentations in conferences on behalf of CMS collaboration • September 2012 CMS week in India? • Document containing contributions, relevant informations: publication,shifts,.. • (Physics in simple terms, must include colourful pictures) • Needed urgently informations about what all you have done. • Everybody is requested to cooperate by providing as much information. • Looking for volunteers to compile informations • Need to have regular physics meetings within our community. • Physics contacts of each group is requested to arrange for 1 seminar per • month from the group. There are many students! • EVO is still the only possibility, though not satisfactory.

9. Our service/tasks in CMS • Task Force wants a report • about how we are serving • in the collaboration. • Please enter urgently in • the ESP tool the jobs you • are involved in. Thanks to students who have also contributed in this! • Though we have overshot in our “contribution” there are rooms to increase visibilty • in about 4000 strong collaboration, mainly through physics at this stage. • + for physicists, opting for review of analyses of individual liking. • + Conference talks/posters by everybody  contact subgroup leaders NOW!. • Collaboration board discusses possibilities for various job openings which may also • contribute to ESP (eg.documentation for the Workbook). • CB members please circulate such mails as well as other interesting ones!.

10. Presentation of CMS results in International Conference How do you know about availability of a conference talk?  get familiar with CINCO, subscribe to hn-cms-confAnnounce@cern.ch  nominate yourself and arrange for others to nominate you, if possible  also let me know  Task Force is ready to approve extra deputation for this purpose  group’s budget may be utilised, no extra resources, usually.  Organizers are sometimes kind to waiver some of the expenses, must try for that • Few members of India-CMS collab. • have represented CMS in important • conferences always, including • Quark Matter, Moriond, EPS 2011, …. • Contributions from India includes • chairing of physics sessions in • international conferences. • In Lepton Photon conference there • will be many posters. • We need to be proactive for sustained • visibility: I shall try to help as much as • possible being in Conf. committee now. Jan, 2011

11. Physics requirement of upgraded CMS detector

12. Upgrade of LHC machine and CMS detector • Commissioning of LHC machine triggered upgrade plan of whole LHC injector • complex to be proposed! • Presently includes ancient, crucial machines in the chain  almost all need • to be replaced. Phase1: LINAC4 etc. • Phase2: upgrade of crucial components in main LHC ring for higher energy, • much higher instantaneous luminosity. • Shutdown plans of LHC are decided by physics output • CMS has planned for subsystem upgrades acc. to physics needs but guided by LHC schedule and parameters. • Much of CMS does not need significant upgradation! • Phase1: only pixel, HCAL and RPC mainly • For HCAL: replace HPDs and PMTs with SiPMs (HO most urgent) • For RPC: main motivation is to increase the trigger capacity (lowering of threshold) • For pixels easy replacement already foreseen during design convenient now. • Presently, BARC+ PU in RPC • TIFR, SINP, PU in HCAL barrel upgrade, HO upgrade by TIFR

13. New group in India-CMS

14. Backup

15. Phase 1 : Muons ME4/2 upgrade motivation • Compare 3/4 vs. 2/3 stations: • (Triggering on n out of n stations is inefficient and uncertain) • Recent simulation with & without the ME4/2 upgrade: • The high-luminosity Level 1 trigger threshold is reduced from 48  18 GeV/c Target Rate 5 kHz Rick Wilkinson, Ingo Bloch 15 J. Nash - CMS Ugrades 1 July 2008

16. Upgrade of CMS tracking detector during Phase1: only pixel Easy replacement already forseen during design  Convenient now. Phase 2: 4 barrel layers Contribution in trigger

17. Key Issues for experiments and required planning • Phase 1 • How well do detector components handle the increasing luminosity? • Both instantaneous and integrated effects • What detector elements will need replacement/modification to cope? • Detectors will record >500 fb-1, can they withstand this? • Phase 2 • What detector elements will need replacement? • Is there a requirement for a long shutdown? • How long – 18 Months? (1 Full calendar year without beam +) • When – sometime after the middle of the next decade • Developing and building new tracking detectors will take many years • ATLAS and CMS must agree on the dates • No sense in having two long shutdowns • Current planning • ATLAS earliest date around 2015, CMS not earlier than 2017 • Reach 700 fb-1(potential limit) – most optimistic 2015, conservative 2017

18. Summary of limits There is not any evidence for a SM Higgs yet (but we have some nice fluctuations)

19. CLs of SM Higgs hypothesis Exclusion @95% CL: 149-206 GeV + 300-440 GeV + pieces in between Expected exclusion: 127-420 GeVExclusion @90% CL: 145-480 GeV Giovanni Petrucciani (UCSD)

20. The compatibility between the data and the backgroud model is quantified using p-values, computed comparing the prediction from (SM without higgs) w.r.t. (SM with a higgs of unknown cross section) In the gaussian limit, we’re doing a fit of all the data to extract a value of μ = σ/σSM. The significance for μ ± Δμ is then Z = μ/Δμ In the combination, channels with little or no sensitivity contribute little or zero to p-value. Excesses not signal-like do not contribute. All channels are constrained to the same cros section:up and down fluctuations can compensate The p-value does not evaluate compatibility with the SM higgs boson signal (and can’t be made to do it).In PAS, p-values have been paired with plots of best fit cross section, to show how far from SM-like they are.