-
FlexibleDecay: An automated calculator of scalar decay widths
Authors:
Peter Athron,
Adam Büchner,
Dylan Harries,
Wojciech Kotlarski,
Dominik Stöckinger,
Alexander Voigt
Abstract:
We present FlexibleDecay, a tool to calculate decays of scalars in a broad class of BSM models. The tool aims for high precision particularly in the case of Higgs boson decays. In the case of scalar and pseudoscalar Higgs boson decays the known higher order SM QED, QCD and EW effects are taken into account where possible. The program works in a modified $\bar{\text{MS}}$ scheme that exhibits a dec…
▽ More
We present FlexibleDecay, a tool to calculate decays of scalars in a broad class of BSM models. The tool aims for high precision particularly in the case of Higgs boson decays. In the case of scalar and pseudoscalar Higgs boson decays the known higher order SM QED, QCD and EW effects are taken into account where possible. The program works in a modified $\bar{\text{MS}}$ scheme that exhibits a decoupling property with respect to heavy BSM physics, with BSM parameters themselves treated in the $\bar{\text{MS}}/\bar{\text{DR}}$-scheme allowing for an easy connection to high scale tests for, e.g., perturbativity and vacuum stability, and the many observable calculations readily available in $\bar{\text{MS}}/\bar{\text{DR}}$ programs. Pure BSM effects are taken into account at the leading order, including all one-loop contributions to loop-induced processes. The program is implemented as an extension to FlexibleSUSY, which determines the mass spectrum for arbitrary BSM models, and does not require any extra configuration from the user. We compare our predictions for Higgs decays in the SM, singlet extended SM, type II THDM, CMSSM and MRSSM, as well as for squark decays in the CMSSM against a selection of publicly available tools. The numerical differences between our and other programs are explained. The release of FlexibleDecay officially deprecates the old effective couplings routines in FlexibleSUSY.
△ Less
Submitted 23 November, 2022; v1 submitted 9 June, 2021;
originally announced June 2021.
-
Simple and statistically sound recommendations for analysing physical theories
Authors:
Shehu S. AbdusSalam,
Fruzsina J. Agocs,
Benjamin C. Allanach,
Peter Athron,
Csaba Balázs,
Emanuele Bagnaschi,
Philip Bechtle,
Oliver Buchmueller,
Ankit Beniwal,
Jihyun Bhom,
Sanjay Bloor,
Torsten Bringmann,
Andy Buckley,
Anja Butter,
José Eliel Camargo-Molina,
Marcin Chrzaszcz,
Jan Conrad,
Jonathan M. Cornell,
Matthias Danninger,
Jorge de Blas,
Albert De Roeck,
Klaus Desch,
Matthew Dolan,
Herbert Dreiner,
Otto Eberhardt
, et al. (50 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Physical theories that depend on many parameters or are tested against data from many different experiments pose unique challenges to statistical inference. Many models in particle physics, astrophysics and cosmology fall into one or both of these categories. These issues are often sidestepped with statistically unsound ad hoc methods, involving intersection of parameter intervals estimated by mul…
▽ More
Physical theories that depend on many parameters or are tested against data from many different experiments pose unique challenges to statistical inference. Many models in particle physics, astrophysics and cosmology fall into one or both of these categories. These issues are often sidestepped with statistically unsound ad hoc methods, involving intersection of parameter intervals estimated by multiple experiments, and random or grid sampling of model parameters. Whilst these methods are easy to apply, they exhibit pathologies even in low-dimensional parameter spaces, and quickly become problematic to use and interpret in higher dimensions. In this article we give clear guidance for going beyond these procedures, suggesting where possible simple methods for performing statistically sound inference, and recommendations of readily-available software tools and standards that can assist in doing so. Our aim is to provide any physicists lacking comprehensive statistical training with recommendations for reaching correct scientific conclusions, with only a modest increase in analysis burden. Our examples can be reproduced with the code publicly available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4322283.
△ Less
Submitted 11 April, 2022; v1 submitted 17 December, 2020;
originally announced December 2020.
-
Reinterpretation of LHC Results for New Physics: Status and Recommendations after Run 2
Authors:
Waleed Abdallah,
Shehu AbdusSalam,
Azar Ahmadov,
Amine Ahriche,
Gaël Alguero,
Benjamin C. Allanach,
Jack Y. Araz,
Alexandre Arbey,
Chiara Arina,
Peter Athron,
Emanuele Bagnaschi,
Yang Bai,
Michael J. Baker,
Csaba Balazs,
Daniele Barducci,
Philip Bechtle,
Aoife Bharucha,
Andy Buckley,
Jonathan Butterworth,
Haiying Cai,
Claudio Campagnari,
Cari Cesarotti,
Marcin Chrzaszcz,
Andrea Coccaro,
Eric Conte
, et al. (117 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
We report on the status of efforts to improve the reinterpretation of searches and measurements at the LHC in terms of models for new physics, in the context of the LHC Reinterpretation Forum. We detail current experimental offerings in direct searches for new particles, measurements, technical implementations and Open Data, and provide a set of recommendations for further improving the presentati…
▽ More
We report on the status of efforts to improve the reinterpretation of searches and measurements at the LHC in terms of models for new physics, in the context of the LHC Reinterpretation Forum. We detail current experimental offerings in direct searches for new particles, measurements, technical implementations and Open Data, and provide a set of recommendations for further improving the presentation of LHC results in order to better enable reinterpretation in the future. We also provide a brief description of existing software reinterpretation frameworks and recent global analyses of new physics that make use of the current data.
△ Less
Submitted 21 July, 2020; v1 submitted 17 March, 2020;
originally announced March 2020.
-
Higgs mass predictions of public NMSSM spectrum generators
Authors:
Florian Staub,
Peter Athron,
Ulrich Ellwanger,
Ramona Grober,
Margarete Muhlleitner,
Pietro Slavich,
Alexander Voigt
Abstract:
The publicly available spectrum generators for the NMSSM often lead to different predictions for the mass of the standard model-like Higgs boson even if using the same renormalization scheme and two-loop accuracy. Depending on the parameter point, the differences can exceed 5 GeV, and even reach 8 GeV for moderate superparticle masses of up to 2 TeV. It is shown here that these differences can be…
▽ More
The publicly available spectrum generators for the NMSSM often lead to different predictions for the mass of the standard model-like Higgs boson even if using the same renormalization scheme and two-loop accuracy. Depending on the parameter point, the differences can exceed 5 GeV, and even reach 8 GeV for moderate superparticle masses of up to 2 TeV. It is shown here that these differences can be traced back to the calculation of the running standard model parameters entering all calculations, to the approximations used in the two-loop corrections included in the different codes, and to different choices for the renormalization conditions and scales. In particular, the importance of the calculation of the top Yukawa coupling is pointed out.
△ Less
Submitted 16 February, 2016; v1 submitted 17 July, 2015;
originally announced July 2015.
