Hi Michael and Chip.

On 10/10/13 4:03 PM, Peskin, Michael E. wrote:

>
> 3.  The language used in the conclusions,  e.g. line 179 of the short
> document, for the triple Higgs coupling measurement at the HL-LHC was
> considered too strong.  "Observation" has a specific connotation (3
> sigma) which we expect will not be met.  However, we agreed that the
> access to the triple Higgs coupling is an important motivation for
> the HL-LHC. We would like to have your suggestions for how to reword
> this conclusion, in line 179 of the short document, and in line 1009
> of the long document.
>

   Experimentalists usually reserve the word "observation" for >=5 sigma 
and "evidence" for >=3 sigma.  We should try to state it as is, and I 
suggest:

   "Studies using only a few decay modes indicate the capability of 
reaching a precision of 50% in the Higgs self-coupling measurement per 
LHC detector, so that first evidence of the Higgs self-coupling would be 
likely using both detectors."

   Having two measurements at 50% precision certainly does not guarantee 
3-sigma evidence, hence the "likely".  However, I do believe that with 
all channels and the usual sophistication with data in hand, it will be 
likely.

   The above is wordy for an executive summary, so I would be okay with 
having "First evidence of the Higgs self-coupling would be likely." in 
the short executive summary, but would really prefer the longer 
descriptive phrasing above for the longer document.

    Regards,
                  Rick


-- 
Rick Van Kooten  \ Telephone: (812) 855-2650  FNAL: (630) 840-3859
Dept. of Physics  \ HEP FAX:  (812) 855-0440
Indiana University \ e-mail:   [log in to unmask]
Swain Hall West 117 \ http://hep.physics.indiana.edu/~rickv/aboutme.html
Bloomington, IN 47405

########################################################################
Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list

To unsubscribe from the SNOWMASS-EF list, click the following link:
https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SNOWMASS-EF&A=1