02 October 2025 Thursday

W: 5 DW: 1 OT: 1 ex

• H gets his neck stuck in the seat belt
• Have to cut it off

• Send PGSS
• Send DiHiggs

Hi Mauro, Meng,

(Appologies, I had to miss the meeting where this discussion happened). The Run-2 UL VBF samples were not available when the analysis was first designed. Because of the missing samples, the relative importance of Boosted over the Resolved in VBF, and the emphasis on ZZ/ZH, we decided to not have a dedicated VBF category in the Run-2 resolved re-analysis.

Its great that the Run2 UL VBF samples are now available. We have run over them and will have the corresponding data cards soon. Just to be clear, we were not planning to add a dedicated VBF region for the Run-2 re-analysis. This would be a significant amount of work and time for little gain (quantified below).

Alejandro has put some slides together here: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1_yKZWLeznEyrOtMPhxunYc-1qMfYNTBZUbLWor-nxbk/edit?slide=id.g384e2c4bcd0_1_21#slide=id.g384e2c4bcd0_1_21

Our suggestion: -) When quoting only ggF limits, we should use Run-2 reanalysis in combination -) When quoting only VBF limlts: we should 20-005 for the combination

When simultaneously fitting ggF and VBF separately (eg: in mu_VBF vs mu_ggF plots) we have a number of options a) Only do the Run-3 combination (Boosted and Resolved) for the mu_VBF mu_ggF plot b) Do not include the VBF signal in the Run-2 resolved in the combination (~4% loss in combined VBF sensitivity) c) Include the new VBF signal samples in the Run-2 resolved re-analysis (should be simliar to b) b/c no dedicated VBF reigon) d) Use the VBF region of 20-005 for the Run-2 resolved VBF and the Run-2 reanalysis for ggF.

For this case, we have no strong opinions about which option to choose. Slight preference agaist d) as there is slight (O(%)) overlap of the signal regions.

john

• Moss all good
• Neutrons on Indium

• Bottom closed gaurd, counter attacks when top stands up.
• OK. Party of 3

• I am probably under-valuing reading papers, vs books.