Hadronic production of a Higgs boson in association with two jets at ...
Hadronic production of a Higgs boson in association with two jets at ...
Hadronic production of a Higgs boson in association with two jets at ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
6.4. Tev<strong>at</strong>ron results 152m H [GeV] 150 160 165 170 180Γ H [GeV] 0.0174 0.0826 0.243 0.376 0.629σ LO [fb] 0.329 +92%−45%0.345 +92%−44%0.331 +92%−44%0.305 +92%−44%0.245 +91%−44%σ NLO [fb] 0.447 +37%−30%0.476 +35%−31%0.458 +36%−31%0.422 +41%−30%0.345 +37%−31%R 1.098 ± 0.003 1.113 ± 0.003 1.122 ± 0.004 1.130 ± 0.005 1.149 ± 0.005Table 6.2: Cross section for <strong>Higgs</strong> + 2 jet <strong>production</strong> and decay <strong>in</strong>to W − (→µ −¯ν)W + (→ νe + ) <strong>at</strong> √ s = 1.96 TeV. Only the cuts <strong>of</strong> Eq. (6.11) are applied. Thecorrection factor for each <strong>Higgs</strong> mass, given by Eq. (6.4), is also shown.range, m H /2 < µ < 2m H . As can be seen from the table, even though <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>gthe next-to-lead<strong>in</strong>g order corrections leads to a considerable improvement <strong>in</strong> thetheoretical error, the rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g error is still quite sizeable. We do not <strong>in</strong>clude afactor to correct for the f<strong>in</strong>ite top mass, but <strong>in</strong> order to facilit<strong>at</strong>e comparison <strong>with</strong>other calcul<strong>at</strong>ions we also tabul<strong>at</strong>e this factor R (computed us<strong>in</strong>g Eq. (6.4)) us<strong>in</strong>ga value for the top quark mass <strong>of</strong> m t = 172.5 ± 2.5 GeV.In the spirit <strong>of</strong> Ref. [214], we can now estim<strong>at</strong>e the theoretical uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty on thenumber <strong>of</strong> <strong>Higgs</strong> signal events orig<strong>in</strong><strong>at</strong><strong>in</strong>g from gluon fusion. By us<strong>in</strong>g the fractions<strong>of</strong> the <strong>Higgs</strong> cross section <strong>in</strong> the different multiplicity b<strong>in</strong>s taken from Ref. [215], wecan upd<strong>at</strong>e Eq. (4.3) <strong>of</strong> Ref. [214] (for a <strong>Higgs</strong> <strong>boson</strong> <strong>of</strong> mass 160 GeV) <strong>with</strong>,∆N signal (scale)N signal= 60% · (+5%−9%)+ 29% ·( +24%−23%)+ 11% ·( +35%−31%) (=+13.8%)−15.5%(6.12)This equ<strong>at</strong>ion represents the scale vari<strong>at</strong>ion associ<strong>at</strong>ed <strong>with</strong> the <strong>Higgs</strong> plus 0-, 1-and ≥ 2-jet cross sections us<strong>in</strong>g NNLO (0-jet) and NLO (1- and 2-jet) PDFs. Eachterm is weighted by the % <strong>of</strong> events <strong>with</strong> the relevant jet multiplicities reported bythe CDF collabor<strong>at</strong>ion. Only the uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty on the <strong>Higgs</strong> + ≥ 2 jet b<strong>in</strong> has beenmodified, us<strong>in</strong>g the results from Table 6.2. The correspond<strong>in</strong>g determ<strong>in</strong><strong>at</strong>ion us<strong>in</strong>gthe LO uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty <strong>in</strong> the <strong>Higgs</strong> + ≥ 2 jet b<strong>in</strong> is (+20, 0%, −16.9%) [214], so thisrepresents a modest improvement <strong>in</strong> the overall theoretical error.The correspondence <strong>of</strong> our results <strong>with</strong> those <strong>of</strong> Anastasiou et al. is somewh<strong>at</strong>obscured by the fact th<strong>at</strong> the total <strong>Higgs</strong> width used <strong>in</strong> Ref. [214] is about 7%smaller <strong>at</strong> m H = 160 GeV than the value given <strong>in</strong> our Table 6.2. Tak<strong>in</strong>g this fact