you mis-designer, give me a bunch of new icons by tomorrow. And you, Mr. designer, I need this new legal, the new design for the legal page next week, latest. This is perfect. This is how it perfectly doesn't work. This is how the perfect design process does not work. I was thinking a lot, what can I teach? What can I teach you? What can I teach a group of super experts in this user experience area? What can I tell you what you don't know? But then I realized there might be something that could be interesting for you. And these are what I've learned throughout the last seven or eight years, teaching people live a new user-centric culture. And to show you how to overcome the obstacles you will be facing. I've worked with so many great teams, like with hundreds of perfect teams. But I've also worked with three teams which really made me feel like I should stop it. For example, one guy was with Link the whole hours in our workshop. He didn't participate. The most important person in the room just didn't want to participate. And in the end of the workshop he told me, I knew you will fail. I knew this approach doesn't work. Or another guy just hit me with paper on my head. People behaving like kids because I wanted to show him how to change things. How to improve the way we collaborate with the customer. People behaving like kids, don't be frustrated. Don't give up. This is something I want to give you as advice.  You will be frustrated. People won't be willing to change their culture quickly. This is something I want to give you as advice. I will give you a list of three little things you can change to gradually change the culture of your company. I don't want you to be like suppliers of icons and new designs. This is not a meaningful work just to be the afterthought. By giving you these three things I will try to show you how you can make the life of every involved stakeholder more meaningful. They will only accept changes if the changes give value to their life. I will give you these three small things. If you change them you will gradually change the culture. Expecting an important call. Let's start. The first thing I want to teach you. There are some great quotes.  Have all your learnings and use these quotes. I love to use every now and then to show people how we want to live the process of user centricity. The first one I really find most convincing is tell people around you. For the customer the UI is the product. This will make them think. All the developers think the code is the best. The code is what makes our product. For the customer the UI is the product. If the UI is the product how can we hand this task to just one person? If we want to sell this product to thousands of people how can we give this task to just one person? And it sounds like a declaration of war against all of you. Design is too important to be left to designers. It needs to be put into the hands of everyone. This is a quote by Tim Brown, the CEO at Ideal. The company who invented the design thinking approach. So don't give the design to the designer. Hand it to the whole team. Don't do their work for the team. Do it with the team. And this is exactly my first advice to you. Grab everyone who wants you to create a design and ask him to provide his thoughts. You won't be showing any weakness by doing this. It's telling the person I respect your knowledge. I want you to give me your idea. Grab anyone around. Let them just put some ideas on paper. And you will immediately get much more feedback about how the design should look like. This is a small example from a small task we did in Darmstadt. Three people just sketched quickly something. And the person who was responsible for the design immediately learned that his idea was bad. So grab whoever you can reach. Start with small collaborative sessions. Don't do the design for the team. Do it with the team. So my first point is be collaborative as often as possible. Grab people around you and show them it's all about collaboration. This is the usual design the process left at most companies. Someone gives you a feature to a team. Then it will be developed at some point. You will be asked to give me a design for it. I have one, beautify it. Or provide some icon. So they treat you as a supplier for, like give me two bags of usability. This, so you can lift this part collaboratively. But it often will lead to a solution, to a perfect solution for a non-existing problem. Design is problem solving, as you all know. That's why we should start this collaboration much earlier. Our job is to improve, is not to improve the product, it's to improve the people's life. And that's what we want to teach the stakeholders around you. This is what we want to make them believe. We don't want to have a great product. We just want to improve the lives of people we are serving. This is our goal. And you cannot solve what you don't understand. You cannot solve what you don't understand. This is why if you try to change the product, in this case, you probably all know this picture. It's this famous picture sent in every user experience group. If we try to improve the product, we will put some benches and more light on our product. We want to improve their lives. They want to reach this point quickly. So if we create a perfect solution, it will be a perfect solution for a non-existing problem. So improving this product won't help you. That's why we just need to spend much more time on understanding the problem. You cannot solve what you don't understand. Spend as much time as possible in this understanding area. Try everyone around you to understand the problem we will be solving. And this leads from this development process to one where we will be starting in a phase where everyone around us will be trying to understand every aspect of the problem area. And only then, if we really understand everything, we will try to find the easiest solution for just this problem, not nothing more. So instead of working with features, try to tell your product manager we give us a problem to solve, don't give us a feature to build. Do you see the difference? If you start working with problems, pain points, you will be more empathetic. If you tell the team to build a feature, they will create a technical product. If you tell them to solve the problem, they will want to understand the problem. And this all happens before one line of code is implemented. So the second tip I want to give you, the second advice is whenever someone asks you to provide a design, well, yeah, do it collaboratively with them. And then, like a side note, ask them what exactly is the pain we are solving. Describe the pain only with this information I can. We can create the perfect solution.  They often will be able to tell you the pain, but I really, really, really often see teams not knowing the pain. They cannot describe what they are solving. They know the feature. They know the list of acceptance criteria. They know all the technical aspects, use Java, whatever, they know everything about the technical aspect, but they cannot describe the pain. This is like a door opener into user centricity. Ask the stakeholder to perfectly describe the pain. So promise to solve problems, not build feature. And when they cannot describe the problem, then they will understand that it's necessary to find out what the user problem is. They will understand that we need some contact to the customer. So the contact to the customer at this point will be like the solution for the non-existing pain point, or people not knowing about the pain point. And the idea here is to make everyone understand the customer's life. Put them, put people around you into the customer's perspective. You want to see them behaving like this. So watch your customer play with your product. If you see them behaving like these kids, you know you have created a great product. You want to see if they are frustrated or not. You let everyone around experience how the user feels. What is your everyday life? What are daunting repetitive tasks? And search for a pain point. A pain point is not a small problem they will be telling you. A real pain point is something where you feel the frustration and where you see that the customer is willing to do something about this problem. And only then, if you find something like this, only then try to fix it. And don't fix anything else. Do less better. Find out a real pain point and then dig deeper. There is the perfect method of digging deeper called pipe wise. So if you find a problem, just ask why as long as possible. Until you know what the human problem behind it is. Ask people why I frustrated. Sorry. Important call. Sorry I have taked this. Hello. Hello. Hi Adams. Important customer. What's your problem? Yeah, Adams please don't ask me how am I today. I have one feature improvement which will make my life very good. So you know this monitoring tool? Yeah. It has a status button and it always gets lost. So there are so many tool items, tool items, menu items and it just gets lost there. I just need that button to be bigger. That will really make my life good. Please don't ask me how am I today. This is going to screen my life everyday. Sorry about that. I feel your frustration. Sorry about that. He's frustrated. He's losing time. Pain point. But why do you always search for this button? I mean the product just crashes two to three times every day. I need to know what's the status of my monitoring tool. It just crashes every time. Why does the product crash so often? Why? I mean it could be the log files. Most of the time I find that the log files just get building up and I need to delete them manually and then restart my server. So if I don't know what my current status is, I just lose time there. So it will be very, very helpful if that button is just, it stands out with other button. I get that point. Thank you. Do you see the difference? The first pain point where he stated his frustration. He told me I'll lose so much time on finding this button. You could just improve the button. Increase the size, make it like such big to make him see the product crashing every now and then. But it's not the problem you want to solve. You want to solve this issue with log files running while filling your disk space. Ask why as long as possible. If you see frustration, if you see this puzzled face, try to find out the real reason why he's searching for further information. Try to find out what is the reason. Try to find the real pain point. So all you start up companies fix a real pain point in people's life and you will create a successful product. So there are some methods. You could use here, but the point is whenever people ask you to provide something, ask for the pain point. Don't think about methods. These are the small steps how you can change the behavior. Don't try to change the world in one day. It won't be possible. They will always keep telling you we, but we don't have access to customer. So keep asking what is the pain point? At some point they will realize we need access to customer. So don't think you can change the world in one day. And then at this point, they will be sometimes able to describe the pain point. This one team in Darmstadt asked me to improve the quality of this design. So I could have told them, well, I don't understand this icon. I don't, well, the usual usability feedback. But I asked them to describe the pain. And they told me we want to, the customer wants to get rid of waste in his eclipse environment. So why don't you just create a solution like this? After 30 minutes they realized the solution they created is like a huge overkill. We reduce the amount of work in 30 minutes by 90%. It was just one button in the right mouse menu after that. Fix the pain point and nothing more. Don't try to build a complex solution for non-existing pain points. And if you have a complex problem, work with this beautiful method, brain writing. Don't ever brainstorm. Then brainstorming. Brainstorming is bad. You don't want to lose many ideas people have in their heads. So whenever you talk, it will influence his thoughts. The quiet ones won't tell anything. There will be two people speaking 80% of the time. So you will like lose 80% of the information by doing this. So write down whatever you now pass this piece of paper to the person next to you. And steal ideas. This is the magic behind brain writing. In the end, you will end up with a wall full of information. And this is what you want to have. Don't make important decisions with incomplete information. What's on the back of this cube? What's here? You all know Rubik's cube. Which color? Orange. It might be red, it might be white. You just don't know. Don't ever assumption anything.  You will want to know everything about your product. With every assumption, even an obvious one. So everyone in this audience thinks it must be white or whatever. But it isn't.  So you want to have a complete list of information. This is the key here. And only then start to collaboratively find the perfect solution for this one pain point. And this is again the power of collaboration. It's not about the genius, the one who finds the perfect solution. It doesn't work like that. If you want to have a good solution, have many solutions. You can search for a genius who has many solutions and many ideas in his head. But it's much easier to rely on the ideas of everyone around. Why don't you ask people around you? They all now know the problem. They all know how they would fix it. Let's ask them. Just quickly put every idea on paper. Immediately, whenever people start talking about solutions, ask them to grab a piece of paper and sketch the solution, as I showed you. They will immediately realize, I like this solution. Oh yeah, this part of this solution is great. And this won't work. In just five minutes you will find out, yeah, this is great, this is great. So these three great ideas you will find in this first iteration, they will all survive until the real prototype will be created. This is the power of collaboration. And show your stakeholder how it feels like. You involve everyone around and they will be part of the whole process. Everyone feels better in this process. It's way more meaningful. This is a management meeting with directors and vice presidents. They all work with these methods now because they are fun. See them sketching solutions for their problems was fun. And then you have some, well, prototype. And at this point you want to validate if you created the right solution for the right problem. You know you have the right pain point and now you want to validate the solution. And do this step, this prototyping step in front of the whole team. Let them feel the pain the customer has with your product. Or let them feel the joy he has with your product. They will want to fix what's broken. You don't have to create user stories for what's broken. They will want to create a solution for this problem. And use whatever people can use. Like POP prototype on paper where you just take pictures of your paper prototype and connect them. You can use PowerPoint. People use it very often at software AG because they know how to use it. Everyone's contributing to the prototype. Not only the designer. And this was a workshop in Washington this year. This guy is a person who will be using the product. He's testing POP part of the product was on POP and on paper. He wanted to have the product, the solution immediately. And people around him were all clapping, applauding. They feel more engaged in the whole process. These small steps change everything. And this is a quote by me. People at software AG know perfectly I'm the guy who doesn't allow demos. Don't ever demo your product. You lose the first impression of important stakeholders. People keep demonstrating their product to product management. And product management is like I don't like this. I don't like this color. If you let them play with the product, they will either fail or not. They will either be able to go through the task or not. This is what you should think of. The small steps, the small tweaks. So watch your user. Grab your whole team and let them watch the user every six weeks. You will improve the quality of your products in just a few months. It's incredible. There are teams at software AG working like this and I love it. It's great how your team works. And this is key. Just invite everyone to the test session. These small things are important. And this is the third point I wanted to give you. Watch your users. So whenever people tell you I want to teach my team design thinking and I want to have more designers in my team. This won't make your company design first company. You have to change the heads slowly. And the reactions, they react very positively. They really feel that this is the right way to go. They feel the difference. And what I find most important for you, designers, it adds a new dimension to the work of a UI developer. This is what I want to give you. Please, I want to make you more important in the whole process. So these three things will change the quality of the life, the quality of the product, the satisfaction of the user. And it will give more meaningful, it will make your life more meaningful at work. And this is my advice to you.


After doing that cardio, man, I went and had a shower and I honestly felt like just going back to bed. So that's exactly what I did. And then I realized, oh, well, actually, I didn't have any caffeine, did I? So before I go to the gym, obviously I'm gonna have my first dose of caffeine for the day, a bit later in the day than normal, which is actually a good thing, of course. And we're going with gold standard pre-workout.  The pineapple flavor is not strong enough for my liking. And we're gonna mix that with one scoop of BCA's apple flavored, as per about half an hour ago. I had my first meal of the day, which was wheat beaks. I actually forgot that I had this in the cupboard.  So I had four wheat beaks, which is about 250 calories. It's gonna give me about 50 grams of carbs and like 10 grams of protein. As far as other protein, today I've had one scoop of protein powder after I did the cardio, and that's about it. So all up to that, I've probably had 30 grams of protein, 50 grams of carbs and like 10 grams of fat. So we're just about to make up a pre-workout. Oh, stay there, mate. As you guys know, I love my pre-workout with ice in it. It stays nice and cold for the whole workout, not for the whole workout, but for the first half an hour or so. All right, and remember when I told you guys that my fridge would be, well, my freezer would be stopped? Well, there you go. So that is 18 corn nutrition meals, some bread, some veggies, some mixed berries, fish, chicken breast, more bread, and I am stocked up, that's for sure. So that's good.   I just messaged my mate, Dom, the one that has said no to doing legs the last two days. And I wasn't even meant to be training legs today, but I felt like having him on. And I said, yeah, all right. He said he wanted to train.   So I still haven't told him I was actually joking, but I think he's going to the gym anyway to train some chest. So I'll see him there. I trained chest yesterday, so obviously can't do that today. I'm going to do a back workout with no deadlifts and no rack pulls. So we're just going with rows and pull downs.  I'm not going to do any front delt or any pressing movements because I had chest yesterday and you don't need to smash them that much. But yeah, side delts are something I can always sort of knock out, always add on to an end of a workout if I have to. And that's what I want to do today. So we'll end with that. We'll start with back, do rear delts and then side delts. That sounds good. Always, always love doing side delts. Ever since I've started training, it's been obvious to me what exercise you have to do to make your shoulders wider, right? Side delts. And ever since I started training shoulders, man, every single shoulder workout, I've always smashed side delts, like especially in the last three years, you know, there's always drop sets, super sets, anything to get the pump and just, you know, keep ripping it out. So that's definitely one movement I enjoy and it's worked for me, you know, like, but my delts are pretty wide and that's because of side delts. So, you know, don't be scared to do a lot of side delts work. I mean, honestly guys, pressing movements, I think they're overrated. I never feel the tension as well as I do with a front raise or a side raise in a pressing movement. I just never do. It's like, I don't know, it just puts a lot of pressure on my elbows and yeah. I need, like, maybe on a Smith machine, but not on dumbbells. Dumbbells are just, it's too unsteady, especially when I go heavy. On a Smith machine, yeah, it's okay, but then even then, like, that movement of pressing up like that, it just doesn't feel right for me, to be honest. I'd much rather do a raise to hit the front delt than a press, but hey, that's just me. I do do pressing movements, but I won't be doing them today. So, anyways, CCAs, and chuck some shoes on and then head to the gym and take some footage today. It's a Sunday, most people hung over, right?  So hopefully there won't be too many people there and we can get a good workout and get some footage, so. Let's head to the stone. Back session and rear delts. I actually saw Dom in there. He's the one who did the footage for me. And I actually went in there in a bit of a bad mood, eh, to be honest. Like, I was giving him shit, but I was being, like, nasty about it. And I was like, well, why am I being like that? So I ended up saying, stop training chest, bro. Come and train some back with me. So that's what we did. We started off with the seated cable row with the close grip attachment and then went over to the lap pool down with the conventional bar and then we went to a Smith machine bent over row. I used both the overhand and unhand grip, but as I mentioned in a previous video, underhand feels really, really good for me at the moment. It allows me to, like, get everything real tense and, like, nice and tight and just focus on the squeeze and pulling through the elbows. So I do recommend to everyone underhand grip, if you don't use it, at least try it and see how it feels for you. Fuck, it's hot in here.  So we went over to the Pec Deck machine, did some reverse flyers, and then finished off with some bent over dumbbell rear delt flyers, which are a great exercise, but they're tough and not everyone does them.  So you can really focus on your rear delt more. So if I'm, you know, if I'm really struggling, if I'm feeling weak, I will use that technique, putting my head on the front of the incline bench and it feels really good.   So especially after doing back. I don't always include rear delts in my back workouts, but today we did, felt good. It's obviously a similar movement.   Feels good. Got night shift tonight. Be going home soon and making up some meal prep for the night and for tomorrow and then Tuesday we're going to New Zealand, which I can't wait for, obviously. And it'll be good times ahead for two weeks. Two weeks off work, two weeks to relax, to recharge, continue dieting, obviously. And keeping on going to Jake version three full night. All right, so I've just had the great idea, or at least I think it's great, to head up Mount Gillan tonight, just to make the most of my day, really hit some good cardio and I'm going to see if my sister wants to come. Hey mate, what's going on? How's the gym? Pods and hammies, well, you keen to go up Mount Gillan? Really? You can just push yourself really hard today and just hammer them and then recover over the next few days. What, so you do want to go? Well, as early as possible, really. No, well I'm not really now, but I want to get back before it gets too dark, you know what I mean? Are you all right? No. So we can go at any time basically. I don't know man, I just want to just want to get some good cardio and yeah. Really? Yeah. Oh sweet. Yeah, something like that. No, that's all good, sweet. Well, I'll come and pick you up. Done. Sweet, see ya. There you go, see, she's got the gym buzz, man.  Hammer your legs today and then recover. Cause that's what you can do and you know you've got all that work under the belt and the next few days are fantastic. There's nothing, there is no better feeling than having them walking around on sore legs. There really isn't like, how good of a feeling is that? You know you've put in that work and now you're just recovering.  So that is an amazing feeling. Anyway, that's how she's going to be feeling tonight. So that is good. I will be hitting another 6, 700 calories worth of cardio. And I don't know, I'm just really positive actually, I'm just in a good mood.  That's for sure. But today, because I've got night shift tonight, I've got tomorrow off, go to New Zealand soon, I'm getting in good shape. I've got a sister who loves the gym lifestyle now. Everything's, everything's good. So we're going to be heading up the mountain.  All right guys, so post workout meal is as follows. It's one of these core power foods meals. It's one of my favorites, double under. The whole thing is literally 280 calories and it tastes awesome. Lean kangaroo sausages, red wine juice, caramelized onion and sweet potato mash. Now, I'll give you guys a look. I haven't touched it at all. That's just what it came out like.  And, you know, to stick to, yeah, 18 grams of carb, 45 grams of protein and two grams of fat. It's, it's ridiculous. I mean, yeah, so it works for me. I'm going to put a little bit of peanut butter on there as well. Just to sort of create a satay sort of flavor. I love everything satay. It's probably my favorite flavor of food, to be honest. Peanutty. So I'll put a bit of peanut butter on there, just a little bit of added healthy fats. And after this, I'll be going and doing that cardio. So this will tie me over quite nicely. I'm sure I'll still be hungry after it because it's only 300 calories, but it's what you got to deal with when you're dieting and I'll be coming back, making up some meal prep before I go to work and I'll show you guys when I do that, but in the meantime, I'm going to monster this, then go and meet my sister. But it's the end to the base of the rangers and then it's probably about another half an hour up to the top and then all the way back down. So it should be good. I'll see you guys at the top.


OK. Can you hear me? Yes. So I'm presenting X results from on behalf of Atlas and CMS. And so briefly I will describe the data sample collected by Atlas and CMS, then how standard modeling's boson production works at LHC. And I will discuss the boson channels that allow to, for example, to measure the mass and the width and cp and spin. Then I will talk a bit about diaphragmian channels, the case. And then about cross-section, branchy ratios, co-op couplings and a bit of prospects. So, OK. Basically all these measurements are based on the run one dataset that has been collected in 2010, 2012. And the total luminosity is basically 6 inverse phantobarn collected in 2011 and 23 collected with ATV center of mass energy. The six were with seven TV. And this is the delivered luminosity. The collected by single experiments is a bit lower, of course, due to experiment efficiencies. So before going to the X, these are other measurements of standard model cross-sections done at LHC. You can see that we go from total cross-section to jets. We have w and z with and without jets. Then you have here TT bar, for example. And here you have x. So these are all, and here are basically dibosons. So these are all measurements that have been done, in this case by Atlas, you have something similar from CMS and compared to theoretical predictions. And this show over a very wide range of processes and cross-section how more or less well we understand the standard model. So we have a very nice picture of all the processes that are happening. So this is good to understand backgrounds. OK. So going to the X boson production, X boson production occurs basically through these two different processes. The highest cross-section is from the glon glon fusion that is this one. Then you have what is called vector boson fusion in which that is this one. This is characterized by having two jets with rapidity gap in addition to the X in the detector. Then you have associated production of X and W cross-section is shown here. Or it can be W or Z, of course. And finally the TTH production that has low cross-section. So typically uncertainty on the theoretical predictions are a bit higher for the glon glon fusion processes and basically coming from the QCD scale variations and from the PDFs. At least from what regards the QCD scale for the vector boson fusion processes. Also this 8% for glon glon fusion probably is going down with newer calculation. OK. Then on top of production there are decays. So this mass of 125 gV is very interesting because there are more or less all the possible decays with a significant branching ratio. The highest branching ratio is in BB bar. That is a very difficult channel to detect. And following that we have WW and ZZ.  You have tau tau. And if you go farther down you have gamma gamma. That is an important one. And the width of the expected for the X boson and this mass is very small. It's about 4 MeV. So below any experimental resolution. So the first channel I would like to present is the X in 2 for leptons. Basically this is the channel with a very good signal over background ratio. So the main background is standard model for lepton production. And it's a simple analysis. Basically you calculate the invariant mass to lepton pairs. And of course what is important is experimentally is to have a good lepton identification and also a good moment of resolution to resolve the peak. And this is the measured for lepton mass spectrum from Atlas in this case. Here you see essentially there is this peak here that is basically from Z decaying into for leptons. And then at high mass you have the opening of the phase space for 2Z production on shell that is basically dominant in this region. And here you have this peak that is the production of the X that goes in for leptons. And this is basically a very nice signal over a small background. And using this here I show the exclusion range produced by CMS. Basically an X in the range 114 to 832 is excluded except in this small region around 125. And you can try to evaluate the signal strength to compare if the number of X that you serve is compatible with the standard model. So the important point is that there is, this depends on the mass at which you look. So you can make a plane signal strength versus mass. And so depending on the mass that you choose you have a different signal strength. This is to be keep in mind for the next, for all the cases where I show signal strength. In this case for atlas, what is observed is 144. That means that cross-section observed over standard model cross-section is 144 with this error. So it's well compatible with one. And the same for CMS, it's very well compatible with one. OK. So the other important channel is X to gamma gamma. Here, again, one aspects a peak in the diphoton invariant mass. There is a background here. This shows the diphoton invariant mass spectrum from atlas. Here you see the backgrounds mainly. This is jet plus photon. So this includes jets misidentified as photons. And this is the real gamma gamma production. And you can see basically you need a good photon identification to reject jets. And of course there is this background that is not directly cannot be reduced because it's real gamma gamma standard model production. So you have to try to find a peak on top of a smooth background. So what is important is to have a good photon energy resolution but also angular resolution to get the angles at which are produced, the opening angles of the two photons. This is done with two slightly different approaches by CMS and atlas because atlas are admitted to select the hard scattering interaction among the many interactions occurring in the bunch crossing. And while atlas also exploits the longitudinal segmentation of the calorimeter to point toward the correct vertex. And another important point is what is used in this analysis but also in the previous one actually but is particularly important in the X2 gamma gamma is the categorization. So you don't do simply an invariant mass peaks, mass spectrum but you try to classify events into based on expected signal over background kinematics and photon ID variables. So then you can do plots like this in which you weight each event by its signal over sigma plus background and search for a peak. These are the two plots from CMS and atlas. You can clearly see the peaks there. Both have a local significance above five sigmas and if you look at the signal strength or data over standard model rate you see they are very compatible with unity. The other diboson channel is X2WW. This is very sensitive for 130 to 200 gv. And in comparison with the previous channels has the problem that you cannot have a complete reconstruction of the final state because you have the neutrinos that are going away. You have quite large background from standard model WW production but also from TT bar in Relyan. And what one can do to select the signal is exploit the characteristic angular correlation that we have in the production of X and you have that X is scalar and so the spin of the 2Ws have to be back to back and due to the V minus A decay of the Ws you will have that the two leptons tend to go in the same direction. So the analysis requires two opposite side leptons missing in T then categories based on zero, one and two jets then topological cuts on the two leptons mass, PT, phi and what is very important is that you have to use background dedicated background sample to estimate the background use controlled samples because you don't have a clear peak so you need a good estimate of the background from data and when you put all this together you have a plot like this this is the transverse mass of the system you have this distribution is the X signal and this is basically the other WW processes when you subtract the background you have this kind of signal and if you look at the plot signal strength versus mass you can see that these measurements don't give a very strong constraint on the mass so you give this kind of shape so what is done is you take the best mass for the other measurements for example 125 and you look at the signal strength at this point and these are the signal strength from CMS and Atlas again very compatible with one and both the two experiments have significance between 4 and 5 sigma so once you have measured all these three processes what the two collaborations did is to try to get a precise measurement of the mass so what is important is that the response of the detector are to be calibrated and this was done really to very good accuracy at the per millevel exploiting non-dimeon and dielectron resonance from other standard model processes this is for example as a function of PT the mass scale for mions from Atlas where you see Z this is the mass spectra from CMS and compared to Monte Carlo so you see the calibrations are very good so what is left is that the final error is basically statistically dominated and here you have the results from X to gamma gamma Atlas and CMS for leptons, Atlas and CMS so at the end they are basically compatible there is some 2 sigma level fluctuation and when you combine everything you get this mass that is 125.09 with something like .2 statistical and .11 scale uncertainty ok so there of course on top of the mass you can try to measure the width what we said that the the expected width is for MEV so the experimental resolution of these peaks is order 1 to gv so what can be done is only to put upper limits so at the moment the upper limits are 5 gv for X to gamma gamma 2.6 for X to for leptons and where you combine you go below 2 gv ok, what you can do is to use a trick so exploit of shell production to measure the width so basically when you take the bright victim of a resonance you integrate what is in the peak and you look at what is in the tail basically you have that the cross-section in the peak contains the width the cross-section in the tail so you can try to measure the ratio of production in the peak region in the tail and get some some some limit on the width in this way and here you see that actually in the width you have different processes that contribute apart from the X production there is the zz production that is some interference and on top there is the qq bar production of 2z that also contributes and so the analysis is based on zz and 2w production and the results are shown in here so basically ok, this is explains what I was saying and this is the the limits that are obtained basically the limits on the ratio of width of the exit over a standard model width is at the level of 5 and very similar ok, similar results are obtained by both CMS and ATLAS and in both cases these are a bit lower than what would be expected and of course this depends a lot on assumption of what is the cross-section for the other processes like qq to the both so it's a bit indirect measurement ok ok, so what can be done with this sample is also to study spin and cp properties so studying the kinematics and angular decays of these 3 processes one can measure JPC or at least test hypothesis that are alternative to the standard model 0 plus plus 1 so the trick is for example you take the x into 2z in for leptons you have many angular distribution that you can do looking at each one by itself you don't see very much ability to distinguish for example from the standard model and then 0 minus hypothesis when you take many of them together into a multivariate discriminant you start to see some difference that can be distinguished experimentally then you combine the 3 channels and you get very good limits so in practice results is that everything is consistent with the standard model hypothesis spin 1 of course is excluded by the fact that you serve the decay in 2 photons the 0 minus 2 plus hypothesis are all excluded at more than 95% confidence level this is shown in this table basically these are the different hypothesis for in particular for the tensor hypothesis you have to choose different models with different couplings to the quarks for example because these change the distribution ok on top of excluding different particles that are completely different jcp you can also try to check if there are contribution to the X coupling that are different from what you expect from the standard model so you can try to write a generic Lagrangian for a scalar particle then here you have the couplings that correspond to the standard model X but then you have other couplings from that are still cp even but they are not the standard model 1 and then you have cpo the couplings for example what is done is to try to put limits to these extra couplings these are plus for example from Atlas ok for some particular caping like this and this is a summary from CMS that looks at the different channels and this A2 and A3 correspond basically to this particular couplings here and you see that in the end when you combine all the channels you have this green line is what is allowed it is very consistent with the standard model basically ok now we go to the search for the case of the X bosons into fermions and the most promising channel is X2 tau tau so there is of course a large background particularly from Z to tau tau and also from the bosons and in this case we have low cross section and large background so in this search there is a combination of all the different possible channels from tau tau going to leptons but also adronic tau and it is very crucial for all this measurement a good identification of adronic tau this is for example a plot from CMS that show the adronic tau from these where you see the visible mass of the tau and how well this is reproduced by the different by standard model expectation so these experiments are really good identification for tau, ok so these different production models are combined using signal or background in categories as explained below and the other the point is that to reconstruct the mass in the case of tau you have escaping neutrinos so you need some method to exploit the kinematics and the missing energy to reconstruct the mass at best this is an example of reconstructed tau tau mass for a cut base selection in which you see you see basically here the z to tau tau and on top of this this excess and when you subtract the excess from the background you have this kind of thing so some excess here that is broadly compatible with an X expectation these are different mass hypothesis for the X so the results when you do a full multivariate analysis combine the different channels of CMS where you see the results for different channels and the combination you have these combined results that are compatible with the standard model and with precision that are still low I mean these six mass are the three to in this case for sigma level so it's basically an observation of the three sigma level so if you go then to X to BB bar this is a channel where we have very large cross-section but also huge backgrounds from QCD so what is done is that one has to use special production channels like associated production with boson or vector boson fusion to increase the signal of a background and there have been many cross-checks in which one tries also to look at a very similar process of VZ production with the Z decaying into BB bar that is something similar and here we see for example the invariant mass of the BB bar from Atlas where we see the in gray the VZ production and in red what we expect from X and this is the associated production this is the vector boson fusion case from CMS where you see this bump over a very large background so again what is done is a multivariate analysis and you combine different decay modes, different channels and you end up with a combined result that so it's basically a signal at the 2 sigma level for the associated production consistent with the standard model for CMS, Atlas and there is also a result from VBF from CMS that is also there so this is what has been observed now all these things can be used to measure also cross-section and compared to QCD prediction so this is a combined result from Atlas where the cross-section has been measured and combined between 4 leptons and 2 photons and this is compared to theoretical calculation this is the standard one used in most comparison to the X and this is a quite recent calculation done at the entry low level that shows that when you go to this number of loops basically you have a very small uncertainty from the QCD scale that the major cross-section is a bit higher but still very compatible with the expectation if we look at differential cross-section in this case as a function of Pt of the X you see still a very good agreement between data and different calculations ok, now the other important channel is the TTH production where this is important basically because the coupling of X to TT bar is important this is already accessed in the loops of GGH and H gamma gamma but of course in the loops you can have other channels so it's interesting to look at TT at the three level and here the cross-section is really small but the advantage is that the signal of a background is quite good so what is done is again combining all kinds of of decays and these are results from two leptons and three leptons and here you have also with two adronic leptons for example and this is the combination from ATLAS this is something similar from CMS that includes also BB bar and gamma gamma results so at the end the results from CMS is 2.8 plus minus 1 so a bit let's say is 2 sigma higher than the one expected in the standard model from ATLAS are compatible within one sigma but with the standard model and the CMS results so this is something maybe interesting to look in Iran too so once we one has measured all these different channels what can be do is to trying to put together all these measurements and fit couplings and so on so what is done is that for each of the measured channel the data are classified based on the production method using selection dedicated to enhance the signal from a particular production so these are basically the input that goes into the combination and when you do the combination you have basically these results so in this case of ATLAS you have the signal strength for the different decay channels so this is the combination in which you look at the decays so you see all this is compatible with the standard model if you do an overall combined mu you get this that is very close to one from both experiments ok what is a bit more interesting is to analyze this data in some phenomenal let's say in this framework that is called K framework so basically the standard model coupling is parameterized with this KF this K factor that is one in the case of standard model can be different and one put together all the measurement and measure these different K values and for example if one looks at the ratio one looks at GGH that goes to gamma gamma measures this combination of factors so each of the process measures a different combination of these factors to extract them extract the coupling to the different standard model particles basically so what is important is that if you assume that only standard model particles enter in the loop then there are relations that connect the photon and gluon couplings to the to the other KAI this is the example of the x2 gamma gamma in particular in this case you see that there is a negative interference in the top loop and the W loop that allows to also to measure the sign of these couplings so these are results on the on these K factors these couplings with the assumption of no beyond the standard model decays and no beyond the standard model particles in the loops so you see the precision is everything is compatible with standard model the level of precision ranges from 15% to 20% 30% ok, and you can also take these results and put them in this nice at least propapagandistic let's say plot where you put the coupling strength as a function of the particle mass and you see very well that the coupling strength is proportional to the particle mass as expected for for the standard model X another of course you can try to fix these groups of these K K factors for example you can assume that all the couplings to vectors are the same of the same scaling and all the couplings to fermions of the same scaling kv, kf let's say s plane where you can see here that so this is basically yes the difference between yukawa engaged couplings and assuming that there are no beyond the standard model contribution to the width and to the loops you can get this exclusion limits where you have limits from all the different processes and this ellipse is the boundary line limit from atlas here and from cms here this is the best combination this is the standard model point here is the standard model point in the case of atlas both are within one sigma and if you take look just you project this on one of the two axes you have something like 6% precision on the vector and 14% precision ok so these measurements can be used can be used in interpretation on the standard model models for example if you take the 2x 2x models 2x doublet models where you have basically the x plus this extra heavier x the axial x and the charged x so you can see that basically there is a relation between these parameters that are tangent beta and alpha that is the mixing angle between the two scalar x and the parameters that we just constrain so just from this measurement of the different kv, ku you can set limits in the plane tangent beta and cos beta minus alpha for this model and so you see that at low tangent beta more or less there is a almost everything is excluded except the standard model and at large tangent beta you have this region still allowed and you can interpret this in the framework of the minimal supersymmetic standard model that is a particular case of the 2x doublet model and here for example you have the limit on tangent beta versus the mass of the axial x and you see that for large tangent beta basically you have a limit of 400 gv basically and this is a plot basically as been shown in the previous talk before the cost of feedback so this exclusion in kf, kv can also be interpreted in term of the of these compositing models so these are in the case of these particular models basically you can relate psi to these couplings that have been measured and here you have for different values of psi that you move in this direction in the plane and basically this is the region basically allowed that is around 0.01 this is true that in the case of Arlas we have a fluctuation in the opposite direction in the case of cms this is more compatible anyway so we will see in the next round probably now of course one can use these measurements also to check if there are the case of the x into invisible particles basically one can try to sum up all the observed decay and see if there is anything somehow left and basically technically what is done is one takes the fit that I said before and keeps free couplings related to the loops because in this case we allow for non-standard model particles in the loops and also we add a new parameter that is a branchy ratio to invisible and you can fit these parameters and get limits on the invisible branchy ratios that are about 30% so one can do even more so look directly at invisible decays this is done for example looking at z or at w that recoils against anything so something missing so this is missing at t for example in the z in the analysis of invisible x recoiling against that z this is the analysis in the vector boson fusion production mode looking at missing transverse energy from cms and these are the limit that you can obtain for these direct searches that are a bit less stringent than the one shown before for this case for the bbf limits they are again around 30% or 40% let's say if you can read the numbers yourself cms combine the direct and on direct limits and obtain again something like 30% so these limits on the invisible decays can be as many interpretations of course depending on your favorite model one is dark matter so there are these exportal models that somehow predict the coupling of the of these dark particles to the x so you can in these models you can set limits on on dark matter ok, so this this is a dark matter mass these are the limits under different assumption of vector fermion or scalar you see that these limits are very competitive to direct search limits for darmac that produced ok and of course these are only valid below one half of the x mass because you need the x to be able to decay into dark matter stains so just overview of the next towards the next LHC years LHC run 2 this year we will collect probably about 8 inverse femtobars at 13 TV center of mass energy so basically this will allow to confirm the run 1 results and will give also some sensitivity to high mass x beyond the standard model this is particularly true because here you can see the of pattern luminosity is between 13 and ATV you can see that if you stay at the x mass you have a factor 2 so generally x cross section are a factor 2 higher at 13 TV well you start to go at 1 TV you get factor 10 in cross section so for run 2 we expect about to collect in by 2018 100 inverse femtobar so we will have all these channels like ttautao, bb and observe probably also tth at least 3 sigma we can improve all this mass and coupling measurements at the end of run 2 the expectation is to have couplings measured at the level of 10% and of course if there will be a luminosity LHC we will be also able to look at very rare decays like x to mu mu, z photon measure the couplings at the few percent level and also probably have an observation of the 2x productions and of course of all kinds of searches beyond the standard model ok this is a projection of what can be the couplings the precision that we can obtain of the couplings at the end of run 2 and at the end of high luminosity LHC I don't go in the detail because I basically say it the only thing I would like to stress that run 2 has started we already started to collect data 8 inverse picomars so far we have very nice signals this is pet zero signal from from CMS this is the dimune mass spectrum from ASAS where you see all the standard model resonances and this also shows that we have already very good calibration very good data to Monte Carlo agreement so this is very promising and ok these are the conclusion that I don't know if I go through basically is a repetitive ok so there is a very clear exposure signal at a mass of 125.09 gV the spin 1 2 and axial scalar hypothesis are basically excluded we have signals for fermion decays at the 3 sigma levels for Tautao 2 to 3 sigma levels for BB bar and we did all kind of feats using sigma cross section time branch duration for the different channels and everything is consistent with standard model but also allow to constrain the white class already to constrain some model beyond the standard model so the run tools just started and we will get probably better mass in coupling measurements thanks question so you had just a slide before you had some data from CMS so that's a good news that means that they are seeing something they are saying something so you know probably that it was this problem with the magnetic field by zeros you don't need the magnetic field you just measure photons probably you measure them better than with the magnetic field but is there any news about the problem ok, they say that probably ok, I don't know this is not official so I think they say that probably they will ramp soon and this will work it's already working ok, you know better so we have the good news good perfect any question in the meantime or so everybody is happy thank you again