4.4 Article

Resummation ambiguities in the Higgs transverse-momentum spectrum in the Standard Model and beyond

期刊

JOURNAL OF HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS
卷 -, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/JHEP01(2016)090

关键词

Higgs Physics; Beyond Standard Model; Resummation; QCD

资金

  1. Italian PRIN
  2. European Investment Bank EIBURS grant
  3. European Commission through the HiggsTools Initial Training Network [PITN-GA-2012-316704]
  4. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [200020-141360]
  5. BMBF [05H2012]
  6. European Union as part of the FP7 Marie Curie Initial Training Network MCnetITN [PITN-GA-2012-315877]
  7. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [200020_141360] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We study the prediction for the Higgs transverse momentum distribution in gluon fusion and focus on the problem of matching fixed- and all-order perturbative results. The main sources of matching ambiguities on this distribution are investigated by means of a twofold comparison. On the one hand, we present a detailed qualitative and quantitative comparison of two recently introduced algorithms for determining the matching scale [1, 2]. On the other hand, we apply the results of both methods to three widely used approaches for the resummation of logarithmically enhanced contributions at small transverse momenta: the MC@NLO and POWHEG Monte Carlo approaches, and analytic resummation. While the three sets of results are largely compatible in the low-p perpendicular to region, they exhibit sizable differences at large p perpendicular to. We show that these differences can be significantly reduced by suitable modifications of formally subleading terms in the Monte Carlo implementations. We apply our study to the Standard Model Higgs boson and to the neutral Higgs bosons of the Two-Higgs-Doublet Model for representative scenarios of the parameter space, where the top- and bottom-quark diagrams enter the cross section at different strengths.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据