SciPost Submission Page
Precise predictions for boosted Higgs production
by Kathrin Becker, Fabrizio Caola, Andrea Massironi, Bernhard Mistlberger, Pier F. Monni, Xuan Chen, Stefano Frixione, Thomas Gehrmann, Nigel Glover, Keith Hamilton, Alexander Huss, Stephen P. Jones, Alexander Karlberg, Matthias Kerner, Kirill Kudashkin, Jonas M. Lindert, Gionata Luisoni, Michelangelo L. Mangano, Stefano Pozzorini, Emanuele Re, Gavin P. Salam, Eleni Vryonidou, Christopher Wever
This is not the latest submitted version.
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Alexander Karlberg · Gavin Salam |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | scipost_202306_00010v1 (pdf) |
| Date submitted: | 2023-06-08 12:25 |
| Submitted by: | Karlberg, Alexander |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics Core |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
| Approach: | Phenomenological |
Abstract
Inclusive Higgs boson production at large transverse momentum is induced by different production channels. We focus on the leading production mechanism through gluon fusion, and perform a consistent combination of the state of the art calculations obtained in the infinite-topmass effective theory at next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) and in the full Standard Model (SM) at next-to-leading order (NLO). We thus present approximate QCD predictions for this process at NNLO, and a study of the corresponding perturbative uncertainties. This calculation is then compared with those obtained with commonly used event generators, and we observe that the description of the considered kinematic regime provided by these tools is in good agreement with state of the art calculations. Finally, we present accurate predictions for other production channels such as vector boson fusion, and associated production with a gauge boson, and with a tt pair. We find that, at large transverse momentum, the contribution of other production modes is substantial, and therefore must be included for a precise theory prediction of this observable.
Current status:
Reports on this Submission
Report #2 by Anonymous (Referee 2) on 2023-8-22 (Invited Report)
- Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:scipost_202306_00010v1, delivered 2023-08-22, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.7696
Strengths
1- The paper presents a detailed study of the Higgs boson production in the important kinematic regime of large transverse momenta.
2- The paper provides a detailed comparison with the state-of-the-art theoretical predictions. The comparison can be very useful for experimental analyses.
3- The paper provides an estimate of theoretical uncertainties from missing higher orders and from finite top mass effects.
4- The paper explains the advantages and limitations of the various theoretical predictions.
Weaknesses
1- The originality of the paper is not particularly high. A deeper and broader study of the comparison between theoretical predictions would have been useful for increasing the relevance of the manuscript.
2- In some points the authors introduce different prescriptions for scale choices (central values and variation) without justificationsor comments.
3- There are some sentences that may be obscure to a non expert reader.
Report
The paper covers an interesting an important topic for the physics of the Large Hadron Collider. Higher-order corrections are essential to provide
accurate theoretical predictions to be compared with precise
experimental data.
The results are interesting and very useful. The paper is well written and very well organised. In my opinion it deserves to be published with minor corrections. I give below some suggestions for improving the manuscript.
Requested changes
1- I suggest to motivate the use of a given scale choice. It could be sufficient to provide references where the choice has been motivated.
2- The authors should clearly describe the technical aspect (e.g. the meaning of 3, 7 and 9 point scale variation or the merging scale). Again references to the literature should suffice.
3- I suggest complete Table 3 with the missing uncertainties and Table 5 with the missing entry.
Report #1 by Anonymous (Referee 1) on 2023-8-11 (Invited Report)
- Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:scipost_202306_00010v1, delivered 2023-08-11, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.7646
Strengths
1. The paper focuses on an important channel for studying the Higgs boson
2. The paper provides clear and well supported recommendations for appropriately handling the theoretical predictions by experimentalists
3. The paper has all the details needed to reproduce the results and very clearly lays out all assumptions and approximations made
Weaknesses
1. There are some inconsistencies in how scale variations are handled between different predictions with no reasoning to support this.
Report
Overall, the paper covers a very important and relevant topic for the LHC. The paper provides a detailed study of the precision for the inclusive rate of Higgs boson production in a boosted regime. They investigate how the rates change as a function of the minimum transverse momentum cut. I would recommend this paper for publication with a few additional modifications listed below.
Requested changes
1. While I agree that it is "well known that the pure EFT computation fails to describe the $p_\perp$ spectrum for transverse momenta larger than ~200 GeV," I believe the authors should still supply a reference for less familiar readers.
2. In Figure 1, the authors have uncertainty bands associated with scale variations and simply mention that it is the 7-point scale. It is not until later in the paper that this scheme is introduced. I recommend that this point be moved earlier in the paper to before the first reference to this scale.
3. In the comparison to event generators for gg fusion, Sherpa is not included. Is there an explanation for why Sherpa is not included in this section but is included in the later sections for non-gluon fusion processes and EW corrections? Since Sherpa is another major event generator, I think it is important to include it in the gluon fusion comparisons.
4. In Table 3, only the total column has uncertainties. This is the only table that does not include uncertainties on all the numbers. The authors should add those values into the table.
5. When discussing the results from MG5_MC@NLO, the authors switch to a 9-point scale with no motivation for the change just for MadGraph. This should either be justified or changed to the 7-point scale for consistency.
6. Additionally, when discussing the VH production the authors only consider the 3-point scale variation without any justification for not using the 7-point scale. Again they should either justify this choice or use the 7-point scale.
7. In the caption of Figure 4, it is unclear what is mean by "as a function of the lowest Higgs boson transverse momentum." I think it would be made more clear to change to "as a function of the Higgs boson transverse momentum cut".