75-th Higgs Task Force meeting, Thursday, 8th April, 1999 
This is a new version of the minutes Tue Apr 20

Agenda
1.- General
--------
o Online exclusion                                          Jason Nielsen
o Discovery exercise, using Hqq cuts            Pedro Teixeira-Dias
2.- Analysis
--------
o A Few Developments in Hvv                    Jennifer Kile
 
 
 
 
 

Online exclusion

 
 Jason presented a proposal for a system which will be able to run
     the analyses online.
     The analyses used are those used to provide the 99' Moriond
     conf-note.
     This follows the proposal sent around by Nikos&Pascal  on 5 April.
     It is intended to use these analyses for Summer conf and End of Run LEPC
     results; and to at least give their results for Winter Conf and
     publication (together with the results of possible improved analyses).
 
     The architecture proposed consists in four tasks.
     a) create the cards from scanbook; get the integrated luminosity.
     b) run the analyses, collect information about the selected
     candidates
     c) compute expected and observed Confidence levels
     d) provide plots and other stats.

 
     Presently the implemented version takes into account  the NN
     analyses used for Moriond99 results, handles hA/hZ overlap and also
     the combination of analyses in the missing energy channel.
     It includes the CL calculations from the likelyhood ratio estimator
     using the FFT method by Hongbo.
     Jason stated that the authors will include the cut analyses
     and the standard Clevel calculation.

discussion

  - The Confidence Level is computed only with the FFT method
     (presented before by Hongbo).
     It is now publically available and an ALEPH note is promised emminently.
     As it was stated in the previous meeting, the online analyses will
     anyway provide the material for the ALEPH results presented to the
     milestones (Summer conf, End of Run LEPC, Winter Confs) and will
     be performed using the old clevel calculation following the
     guideline which states "we need a back-up solution in anycase" .

     Only for clarification, because not directly related to the online
     analyses, in case of winter Confs improvements can also be under
     consideration if they are accepted (x-checks and approval) and the
     deadline are met. The 20 November deadline was proposed and it is
     still under consideration.

    Some discussion was raised to understand what amount of change
    would be allowed for the online result w.r.t. the Moriond 99 version.
    It is proposed by the convenors to limit changes to the absolute minimum
    i.e. only Ecm, and in case or serious detector malfunction,
    and to take systematic errors of last year for now.
 
     The FFT method could be considered as
     an improvement and will follow the above statements (decision
     and approval). No such decision occurs during the meeting.
     FFT was already used by their authors as  an
     alternative tool for different studies ( e.g. limit distribution and
     elsewhere effect) where the increase of the speed of this
     method presents an advantage. The FFT method is presently available
     for general test and people are invited to test it as soon as
     possible. Meanwhile it is proposed that
     the standard CL will remain our main result.
 
     Only pieces of discussion were exchanged for information; The
     discussion is not closed and will continue next meeting.
     - shapes of the discriminant variables distribution are needed.
     Frederique and Pedro would accept to be in charge of the signal MC
     production.
     - more control plots will be included, b-tags ones for instance;
     workers in each analyses are invited to indicate that they
     estimate to be the most useful inputs.
 
 

     It was noted that for the first part such a similar system was
     elaborated last year by Marumi and was used during the last
     data-taking . It was proposed to nominate for the responsibility
     of the "online system"  Jason and Marumi (if they accept).
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Discovery exercise, using Hqq cuts

 Cl curves in presence of signal lead to CL_sb^obs lower than
     expected. CL_b^obs tends to be high throughout m_H but there is no
     other information about the Higgs boson mass.
     Pedro used three fake data  samples, based on the Poisson
     statistics to indicate the fraction of the various backgrounds and
     signal. The real data set is the fourth data sample.  In order to
     know where is an excess, he constructed the significance of the
     ratio data/MC per five GeV bin in m_H. The maximum value defines
     the guessestimate of m_h. To cross-check these estimations of m_H
     the Sandard Model Higgs cross-sections were used. An estimate of
     m_His given by the Higgs boson mass which corresponds to the
     equality between the number of observed data and the sum of
     expected background and signal number of events. The two kind of
     estimates are roughly compatible. Next step will be to combine the
     fake data with similar ones for other channels.
     It was suggested to plot the log(likelihood ratio) as function
     of Mh as this gives a signal estimator AND a mass estimate.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Few Developments in Hvv
 
 Jennifer gave a brief description of the cocktail training for an
     11 variables NNet used by Wisconsin. The simulated Higgs bosons
     masses used are 85, 90 and 95 GeV. The training and variables are
     similar to the previous Wisconsin NNet except that no
     reconstructed mass was used in the training.
     Alain commented that maybe one should establish whether this is a
     good thing to do and why and then stabilise this point.
 
     The optimisation was performed using the usual receipe (80% qq and
     WW subtraction, mass as discriminating variable). The working point
     obtained corresponds
     to an efficiency of 35% and 5.6 expected events from the
     background processes (175.5pb-1). Jen came to the comparison
     between the cocktail and the Hvv combination. Whatever one or two
     discriminating variable are used, the cocktail leads to similar
     performances. The cocktail is better than the combination only in
     low Higgs boson masses while the combination is better when a 95
     GeV Higgs boson mass is assumed. With such a hypothesis on the
     Higgs boson mass, the CL is 18% for the combination and 20.1% in
     case of the cocktail. When two discriminating variables are used
     in the CL computation, a very small gain is obtained with respect
     to the only variable calculation (less than 10MeV and only for
     sin2(b-a) values less than 0.1). The cocktail training for low
     masses will not help MSSM analyses. When the hvv combination is
     used, the improvement of the final limit is around  100 MeV on the
     hZ limit  [sin2(b-a)=1.]