Some Thoughts on Directly Constraining X  (126)-Z Associated Production with 20 fb -1 of 8 TeV Data Bruce Schumm Andy Kuhl UCSC/SCIPP

At M H = 126 GeV, B(H  )/B(H  bb)  1:250. So forget about anything but H  coupling with H , right?

There is of yet no evidence for X(126)  bb (or any fermionic mode!) X(126)   is coming in a bit high for SM Higgs  Can’t yet really look at production for X(126)  bb signal  Data leaves possibility of somewhat fermiophobic X(126) with relatively enhanced bosonic couplings.

11) The cross section calculations for the gluino grid assume all squarks at infinity, and the squark grid that all gluinos are at infinity (rather than 2.5 GeV as stated in paper). Confirm and change the language in the paper. XXX Osamu/Bruce 12) SPS8 production: From paper the dominant processes are chi^0_2-chi^+_1 and chi^0_2-chi^0_2 which disagrees with some other documentation. Also confirm that strong production is less than 10%?  Confirm and update paper XXX Osamu/Bruce: chi^0_2-chi^+_1 and chi^+_1-chi^-_1 are 90%; paper updated.

ADDRESSING LUCIANO’S COMMENTS XXX = DONE! Section 4 1) PROSPINO cross section the sentence: NLL-fast where available leave me uneasy. What does this mean? XXX Bruce: Added standard SUSY group language from Twiki 2) For UED the MC samples are through Pythia. What about spectrum, decay and cross section? XXX Helenka answered: We implemented the whole thing/model into Pythia some years ago. 3) What about simulation samples of the reducible background? XXX Helenka answered: These are not used in the analysis, so we do not mention them, as in the previous 1.07 fb-1 publication.

Section 6 4) It seems a bit thin section. At least on the most relevant objects for the analysis photons and particularly Etmiss more details should be given. XXX A Bruce: Include discussion of electron/photon ambiguity resolution, pixel-hit veto, and reduced backgrounds. Move HT and dphi definitions from footnote into section. Section 7 5) Consider a data flow table of the gg events for the three regions with the various cuts. XXX A Bruce: Table added 6) Justify why Etmiss is shown for SR C only. XXX Bruce: For signal regions A and B there are very few events at any EtMiss after the HT cut: a couple of dozen for A and only a few for B. The distributions did not strike us as informative.

7) A plot showing Ht and phi for events and signal is extremely welcome XXX A Bruce: Plots added. 8) State that in Fig 1 the shaded area is the total background A Bruce [Luciano: did you mean Figure 2? I’m confused about this one] Section 8 9) The sentence which assign a further 25% of systematic error to the electroweak background is far to be convincing XXX A Bruce: Have added further clarification.

10) A sentence justifying the K factors for the Wgg and Zgg is needed. XXX A Bruce: Have added further clarification Section 9 11) Before talking about limits make a statement that no signal of new physics is observed XXX A Bruce Done. 12) No comparison with CMS ? XXX Bruce: As is often the case, there is an old result that wold be unfair to compare to, while the new result is not yet published, and so not appropriate to reference. As for our 1 fb-1 paper, we thus don't quote a CMS result. 13) Need ET plot for non-leading photon (separate ) XXX Bruce: Plot added

Exploring the “Bump” at 275 < ET < 295

Temporal Dependence

SidebandBump

Sideband Bump

SidebandBump

Sideband Bump

Sideband Bump