1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,a4wide,epsfig}
3: \input{epsf}
4: %\setlength{\topmargin}{-1.5 cm}
5: %\setlength{\evensidemargin}{.0 cm}
6: %\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-.5 cm}
7: %\setlength{\textheight}{24cm}
8: %\setlength{\textwidth}{17.5cm}
9: \parskip = 2ex
10:
11: %definizione slash
12: \def\slash#1{\ooalign{$\hfil/\hfil$\crcr$#1$}}
13: %\esempio:\slash\partial
14:
15: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{0.85}
16: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.1}
17:
18:
19: \renewcommand{\thefigure}{\arabic{figure}}
20:
21: \def\ltap{\raisebox{-.6ex}{\rlap{$\,\sim\,$}}\raisebox{.4ex}{$\,<\,$}}
22: \def\gtap{\raisebox{-.6ex}{\rlap{$\,\sim\,$}}\raisebox{.4ex}{$\,>\,$}}
23: \def\lra{\leftrightarrow}
24: \def\naive{na\"{\i}ve}
25: \newcommand\as{\alpha_{\mathrm{S}}}
26: \newcommand\f[2]{\frac{#1}{#2}}
27: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
28: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
29: \def\beeq{\begin{eqnarray}}
30: \def\eeeq{\end{eqnarray}}
31: \def\bom#1{{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}}
32: \def\to{\rightarrow}
33: \def\ito{\leftarrow}
34: \def\nn{\nonumber}
35: \def\arrowlimit#1{\mathrel{\mathop{\longrightarrow}\limits_{#1}}}
36: \def\res{{\rm res.}}
37: \def\ms{${\overline {\rm MS}}$}
38: \def\msbar{{\overline {\rm MS}}}
39: \def\asp{\f{\as}{\pi}}
40: \def\ptZZ{p_{T}^{ZZ}}
41: \def\ZZ{ZZ}
42: \def\ptcut{p_{T{\rm cut}}}
43:
44:
45: \newcommand\mlbl[1]{{\mbox{\footnotesize #1}}}
46:
47:
48: \begin{document}
49:
50: \begin{titlepage}
51: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
52: \begin{flushright}
53: CP3-08-01
54: \end{flushright}
55: \vspace*{1cm}
56: \begin{center}
57: {\Large \bf Higher-order QCD effects\\
58: \vskip .3cm in the Higgs to $ZZ$ search channel at the LHC}
59: \end{center}
60: \par \vspace{2mm}
61: \begin{center}
62: {\bf Rikkert Frederix}${}^{(a)}$ and {\bf Massimiliano Grazzini}${}^{(b)}$\\
63:
64: \vspace{5mm}
65:
66: ${}^{(a)}$Center for Particle Physics and Phenomenology (CP3),\\
67: Universit\'e catholique de Louvain, B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
68:
69: \vspace{5mm}
70:
71: ${}^{(b)}$INFN, Sezione di Firenze\\ I-50019 Sesto Fiorentino,
72: Florence, Italy\\
73:
74:
75: \vspace{5mm}
76:
77: \end{center}
78:
79: \par \vspace{2mm}
80: \begin{center}
81: {\large \bf Abstract}
82: \end{center}
83: \begin{quote}
84: \pretolerance 10000
85: We present a consistent analysis of the signal
86: as well as the irreducible background for the search of the SM Higgs boson in the $ZZ$ decay channel at the LHC.
87: Soft-gluons effects are resummed up to
88: next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy,
89: and the results are compared to those obtained with fixed
90: order calculations and the MC@NLO event generator.
91: The soft-gluon effects are typically
92: modest but should be taken into account
93: when precise predictions are demanded.
94: Our results show that
95: the signal over background ratio can be
96: significantly enhanced with a cut on the transverse momentum $\ptZZ$
97: of the $ZZ$ pair. We also introduce
98: a fully transverse angular variable that
99: could give information about the CP nature of the Higgs boson.
100: \end{quote}
101:
102: \vspace*{\fill}
103: \begin{flushleft}
104: January 2008
105:
106: \end{flushleft}
107: \end{titlepage}
108:
109: \setcounter{footnote}{1}
110: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
111:
112: \section{Introduction}
113: \label{sec:intro}
114:
115: The elucidation of the mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking is
116: one of the main goals of the LHC physics program. In the Standard
117: Model (SM) and several popular extensions such as SUSY, mass
118: generation is triggered by the Higgs mechanism, which predicts the
119: existence of (at least) one scalar state, the Higgs boson. The search
120: for the Higgs at collider experiments has now being on-going for two
121: decades. The present direct lower limit of the Higgs mass in the SM is
122: 114.4 GeV (at 95\% CL) \cite{Barate:2003sz}, while precision measurements point to a rather
123: light Higgs, $m_h \lesssim 200$ GeV \cite{Alcaraz:2007ri}.
124:
125: At the LHC, the main production mechanism will be $gg \to H$, and if
126: $m_h>180$ GeV, the Higgs decay into two
127: %on-shell
128: Z bosons, $h\to ZZ$,
129: will provide one of the cleanest signatures at hadron colliders, {\em i.e.},
130: four leptons. Such a final state will allow a very accurate mass
131: reconstruction and the best of all possible discovery modes, a sharp
132: peak over a rather flat background. At this stage, accurate predictions
133: from theory will be helpful to design the best analysis but are not
134: essential to claim a discovery as data alone will provide all the
135: necessary information. However, to answer the key questions on the
136: nature of the discovered particle, such as its spin, CP nature and
137: couplings, accurate predictions for both signal and backgrounds will
138: be required.
139:
140: As far as the Higgs signal is concerned, QCD corrections at the
141: next-to-leading order (NLO) have been known for some time
142: \cite{Dawson:1991zj,Spira:1995rr}: their effect increases the LO cross
143: section by about 80--100\%. In recent years, even
144: next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) corrections have been computed,
145: first for the total cross section \cite{NNLOtotal}, and more recently
146: implemented in fully exclusive calculations
147: \cite{Anastasiou:2004xq,Catani:2007vq}. Note, however, that all the
148: NNLO results use the large-$m_{top}$ approximation, $m_{top}$ being the mass
149: of the top quark.
150:
151: As far as $ZZ$ production is concerned, NLO corrections have been
152: known for some time
153: \cite{Ohnemus:1990za,Mele:1990bq,Ohnemus:1994ff}. More recent NLO
154: calculations exist that, using the one-loop helicity amplitudes of
155: Ref.~\cite{Dixon:1998py}, fully take into account spin correlations in
156: the $Z$ boson decay \cite{Dixon:1999di,Campbell:1999ah}.
157:
158: The fixed-order calculations provide a reliable estimate of signal and
159: background cross sections and distributions as long as the scales
160: involved in the process are all of the same order. When the total
161: transverse momentum of the $ZZ$ pair is much smaller than its
162: invariant mass the validity of the fixed-order expansion may be
163: spoiled since the coefficients of the perturbative expansion can be
164: enhanced by powers of the large logarithmic terms, $\ln^n
165: M_{ZZ}/\ptZZ$.
166: In the case of the Higgs signal, the resummation of such contributions
167: has been performed up to next-to-next-to-leading-logarithmic (NNLL)
168: accuracy \cite{Bozzi:2003jy,Bozzi:2005wk,Bozzi:2007pn}.
169:
170: The purpose of the present paper is twofold. We first consider
171: transverse momentum resummation for $ZZ$ production at the LHC. The
172: resummation of such logarithmic contributions was first considered in
173: Ref.~\cite{Balazs:1998bm}. Here we use the resummation formalism of
174: Refs.~\cite{Bozzi:2003jy,Bozzi:2005wk} together with the helicity
175: amplitudes of Ref.~\cite{Dixon:1998py} (including finite width effects
176: from the Z bosons, but neglecting single-resonant contributions).
177: Contrary to Ref.~\cite{Balazs:1998bm} we fully include the decay of
178: the $Z$ bosons,
179: keeping track of their polarization in the leptonic decay.
180: In the large $\ptZZ$ region we use LO perturbation theory ($\ZZ$+1
181: parton); in the region $\ptZZ\ll M_{ZZ}$ the large logarithmic
182: contributions are resummed to NLL accuracy. The present study
183: parallels the one performed in Ref.~\cite{Grazzini:2005vw} in the case
184: of $WW$ production. By using these results, we perform a detailed
185: comparison of signal and background cross sections and distributions.
186:
187: The paper is organized as follows. In Sect.~\ref{sec:zz} we analyze
188: the impact of transverse momentum resummation for $ZZ$ production. In
189: Sect.~\ref{sec:sb} we compare signal and background cross sections and
190: distributions for the search of a Higgs boson of mass $m_h=200$ GeV.
191: In Sect.~\ref{summa} we conclude with a summary of our results.
192:
193: \section{Transverse-momentum resummation for $ZZ$ production}
194: \label{sec:zz}
195:
196: In this Section we discuss the effect of transverse-momentum
197: resummation for $ZZ$ production at the LHC, and present a comparison
198: to fixed order NLO results obtained with MCFM \cite{Campbell:1999ah}
199: and to results obtained with MC@NLO \cite{MCatNLO}.
200:
201: We consider the process $pp\to ZZ+X\to e^+e^-\mu^+\mu^-+X$ and perform
202: the all-order resummation of the logarithmically enhanced
203: contributions at small $\ptZZ$. The implementation is completely
204: analogous to the case of $WW$ pair production discussed in
205: Ref.~\cite{Grazzini:2005vw} and is based on the formalism of
206: Refs.~\cite{Bozzi:2003jy,Bozzi:2005wk}. We refer the reader to the
207: above papers for the technical details. The large logarithmic
208: contributions at small transverse momenta of the $ZZ$ pair are
209: resummed up to NLL accuracy. The result is then matched to the fixed
210: order LO calculation valid at large $\ptZZ$, to achieve NLL+LO
211: accuracy.
212:
213: We recall that the formalism of Refs.~\cite{Bozzi:2003jy,Bozzi:2005wk}
214: enforces a unitarity constraint such that resummation effects vanish
215: when total cross sections are considered. As a consequence, at NLL+LO
216: accuracy the integral of our resummed spectra coincides with the total
217: NLO cross section if no cuts are applied.
218:
219: To compute the $ZZ$ cross section we use MRST2002 NLO parton densities
220: \cite{Martin:2002aw} and $\as$ evaluated at two-loop order. Our
221: resummed predictions depend on renormalization, factorization and
222: resummation scales.
223: The resummation scale parametrizes the arbitrariness in the resummation procedure, and is set equal to the invariant mass $M_{ZZ}$
224: of the $ZZ$ pair. Variations around this central value can give an idea
225: of the size of yet uncalculated higher-order logarithmic contributions.
226: Renormalization and factorization scales are set to
227: $2M_Z$. The latter choice allows us to exploit our unitarity
228: constraint and to exactly recover the total NLO cross section when no
229: cuts are applied. At NLO we consistently use $\mu_F=\mu_R=2M_Z$ as
230: default choice, whereas in MC@NLO $\mu_F$ and $\mu_R$ are set to the
231: default choice, the average transverse mass of the $Z$ bosons.
232:
233: The predictions of resummation are implemented in a partonic Monte
234: Carlo program which generates the full 5-body final state
235: ($e^+e^-\mu^+\mu^-$ + 1 parton). Nonetheless, since the resummed
236: cross section we use is inclusive over rapidity, we are not able to
237: apply the usual rapidity cuts on the leptons. To the purpose of the
238: present work, we do not expect this limitation to be essential.
239:
240: We start by considering the inclusive cross sections.
241: Our NLL+LO
242: result is 33.76 fb, and agrees with the NLO one (33.99 fb) to about
243: $1\%$. With MC@NLO we obtain 34.60 fb. As expected, the MC@NLO cross
244: section is slightly larger because $ZZ$ production is calculated
245: in the narrow width approximation, while in the NLO and NLL+LO calculations, finite width effects are included.
246:
247: In Fig.~\ref{fig:ptzz} we show
248: the corresponding $p^{ZZ}_T$ distribution,
249: computed at NLL+LO (solid), with MC@NLO (dashed) and at NLO (dots).
250: As is well known, the NLO result diverges to $+\infty$ as $\ptZZ\to 0$,
251: and this divergence is cancelled by the (negative) weight of the first bin, due to the virtual contribution.
252: On the contrary, the
253: NLL+LO and MC@NLO results are well behaved as $\ptZZ\to 0$
254: and are very close to each other, showing a peak
255: around $\ptZZ\sim 5$ GeV.
256:
257: %==========================================
258: \begin{figure}[tb]
259: \begin{center}
260: \epsfig{file=ptzz_nocuts.ps, scale=0.65}
261: \end{center}
262: \vspace{-20pt}
263: \caption{\label{fig:ptzz}{\em Comparison of the transverse momentum
264: spectra of the $ZZ$ pair obtained at NLL+LO (solid) with MC@NLO
265: (dashes) and NLO results (dots). No cuts are applied.}}
266: \end{figure}
267: %=========================================
268:
269: In order to study the perturbative uncertainties affecting our resummed
270: calculation, we have varied the renormalization and factorization scale by a factor 2 around the
271: central value. We find that the effect of $\mu_R$ and $\mu_F$ variations is rather small,
272: of the order of $\pm 1\%$, and comparable with the estimated accuracy of our
273: numerical code. Similar effects are found at NLO.
274:
275: %==========================================
276: \begin{figure}[tb]
277: \begin{center}
278: \epsfig{file=ptzz_nocuts_Q.ps, scale=0.65}
279: \end{center}
280: \vspace{-20pt}
281: \caption{\label{fig:ptzz_Q}{\em Comparison of the transverse momentum
282: spectra of the $ZZ$ pair obtained at NLL+LO for different values of the resummation scale $Q$. No cuts are applied.}}
283: \end{figure}
284: %=========================================
285:
286:
287: The dependence of our NLL+LO results on the resummation scale $Q$ is instead
288: stronger. In Fig.~\ref{fig:ptzz_Q} we show the NLL+LO prediction for different
289: choices of the resummation scale $Q$. We see that varying the resummation scale
290: the effect on the $\ptZZ$ spectrum is visible and amounts to about $\pm 10\%$
291: at the peak. For lower (higher) values of $Q$ the effect of resummation
292: is confined to smaller (larger) values of $\ptZZ$. Thanks to our unitarity constraint,
293: the total rate is instead insensitive to resummation scale variations,
294: within the numerical accuracy of our code.
295:
296: As in the case of Higgs \cite{Bozzi:2005wk} and $WW$ \cite{Grazzini:2005vw} production, we find that the choice $Q=2M_{ZZ}$ gives (slightly) negative cross sections at very large $\ptZZ$. In order to
297: define a range of variations of $Q$, we prefer to avoid values that give a
298: bad behaviour at large $\ptZZ$. For this reason, in the following,
299: we will consider resummation scale variations in the range $M_{ZZ}/4\leq Q\leq M_{ZZ}$.
300:
301: We now consider the selection cuts designed for the search of a Higgs
302: boson of mass $m_h=200$ GeV in the $e^+e^-\mu^+\mu^-$ channel
303: \cite{cmsnote}. The final-state leptons, ordered according to
304: decreasing $p_T$, should fulfil the following thresholds:
305: \begin{equation}
306: p_{T1}>22~{\rm GeV}~~~p_{T2}>20~{\rm GeV}~~~p_{T3}>15~{\rm GeV}~~~p_{T4}>7~{\rm GeV},
307: \end{equation}
308: the invariant mass of the $e^+e^-$ and the $\mu^+\mu^-$ pairs should
309: be between
310: \begin{equation}
311: 60~{\rm GeV}<M_{e^+e^-\!,\,\mu^+\mu^-}<105~{\rm GeV}
312: \end{equation}
313: and the invariant mass
314: of the $ZZ$ pair should fulfil
315: \begin{equation}
316: 190~{\rm GeV}<M_{ZZ}<210~{\rm GeV}.
317: \end{equation}
318: With these cuts the NLL+LO result is 5.42 fb, which is about 2\% smaller
319: than the NLO one (5.51 fb). The cross section from MC@NLO is about 11\%
320: larger (6.01 fb). This is mainly due to the fact that MC@NLO calculates the
321: cross section in the narrow width approximation, and therefore the cuts
322: on the invariant masses of the $e^+e^-$ and $\mu^+\mu^-$ pairs are
323: always fulfilled. As in the inclusive case,
324: the effect of scale variations on the rate is very small, of the order of $\pm 1\%$.
325:
326: We point out that single-resonant contributions are neglected in our
327: calculation. We have used MadGraph/MadEvent \cite{madgraph} to check
328: that these contributions are indeed small and found that at LO the
329: effects are smaller than the permille level. Effects from off-shell
330: photons $pp\to Z\gamma^*\to e^+e^-\mu^+\mu^-$ are larger. At NLO they
331: decrease the cross section by about 1\% with the cuts described above,
332: due to negative interference between the $Z$ boson and the photon.
333: The shapes of the distributions are, however, not significantly
334: changed. Hence, it is safe to neglect these two contributions in the
335: NLL+LO approximation with the cuts described above. For selection cuts
336: used in Higgs searches where its mass is smaller than the $ZZ$
337: threshold, the effects from off-shell photons cannot be neglected and
338: have to be included.
339:
340:
341: In Fig.~\ref{fig:ptz_cuts} we show the $p_T$ distribution of one of
342: the $Z$ bosons, computed at NLL+LO, NLO and with MC@NLO. Contrary to
343: the $\ptZZ$ spectrum, this distribution is well behaved at NLO but the
344: effect of resummation is still visible on its shape. This is evident
345: from the lower part of the plot, showing the NLO and MC@NLO result normalized to
346: NLL+LO.
347:
348: %==========================================
349: \begin{figure}[tb]
350: \begin{center}
351: \epsfig{file=ptZ_cuts.ps, scale=0.60}
352: \end{center}
353: \vspace{-20pt}
354: \caption{\label{fig:ptz_cuts}{\em Comparison of the transverse
355: momentum spectra of one of the $Z$ at NLL+LO (solid) with NLO (dots)
356: and MC@NLO (dashed) results. The lower part of the plot shows the NLO and MC@NLO
357: results normalized to NLL+LO.}}
358: \end{figure}
359: %=========================================
360:
361: In Fig.~\ref{fig:ptleptons_cuts} we show the $p_T$ distributions of
362: the charged leptons, ordered according to decreasing $p_T$. Here the
363: NLO prediction is in good agreement with the NLL+LO one. MC@NLO, however,
364: predicts slightly softer leptons.
365:
366: The effect of scale variations is still very small for the above distributions. Only in the high-$p_T$
367: tail of the $p_T^Z$ distribution resummation scale variations give a visible effect,
368: being of about $\pm 10\%$ at $p_T^Z\sim M_Z$.
369:
370: %==========================================
371: \begin{figure}[tb]
372: \begin{center}
373: \epsfig{file=ptleptons_cuts.ps, scale=0.80}
374: \end{center}
375: \vspace{-20pt}
376: \caption{\label{fig:ptleptons_cuts}{\em Transverse momentum spectra of
377: the leptons: NLL+LO (solid), MC@NLO (dashes) and NLO (dots).}}
378: \end{figure}
379: %=========================================
380:
381:
382: In Fig.~\ref{fig:dphi_cuts} we consider the distribution in
383: the variable $\Delta\phi_T$ defined as follows. We consider the
384: separation between the $e^-$ and the $\mu^-$ where their momenta are
385: taken in the rest frame of their parent $Z$ boson, by neglecting all
386: the longitudinal components.
387: In this way the $\Delta\phi_T$ is manifestly
388: longitudinally invariant. As will be illustrated later, see
389: Sect.~\ref{sec:sb}, this angle is sensitive to the CP nature of a
390: Higgs boson resonance. Due to the fully transverse nature of this
391: angle, it can potentially be reconstructed also if only three leptons
392: are detected together with missing $E_T$.
393:
394:
395: %==========================================
396: \begin{figure}[tb]
397: \begin{center}
398: \epsfig{file=dphi_cuts.ps, scale=0.60}
399: \end{center}
400: \vspace{-20pt}
401: \caption{\label{fig:dphi_cuts}{\em Same as in
402: Fig.~\ref{fig:ptleptons_cuts} but for the $\Delta\phi_T$
403: distribution.}}
404: \end{figure}
405: %=========================================
406:
407: We see that the shapes of the NLO and NLL+LO distributions are
408: qualitatively similar. Both decrease with increasing separation angle,
409: the NLL+LO prediction slightly more at small angles before it flattens
410: out, while the NLO prediction has a more constant slope. The
411: differences are, however, small. The effect of scale variations on the NLO and NLL+LO results
412: is again of the order or smaller than $1\%$.
413:
414: We also plotted the prediction for
415: this angle by MC@NLO, although we remind the reader that MC@NLO does
416: not include spin correlations in the $Z$ decay.
417: Despite this fact, the shape of this distribution is not too different
418: from those obtained at NLO and NLL+LO.
419:
420: \section{Signal and background}
421: \label{sec:sb}
422:
423: In this Section we perform a consistent comparison of signal and
424: background cross sections for the Higgs search
425: in the $gg\to h\to ZZ\to e^+e^-\mu^+\mu^-$
426: channel at the LHC. We consider a Higgs boson with mass $m_h=200$ GeV
427: and use the numerical program of
428: Refs.~\cite{Bozzi:2003jy,Bozzi:2005wk} to compute its transverse
429: momentum spectrum. To be consistent with the background\footnote{In our simplified analysis, we consider only the $ZZ$
430: irreducible background. We neglect other sources of reducible
431: background like $t{\bar t}$ and $Zb{\bar b}$ which are known to give a
432: much smaller contribution \cite{cmsnote}.}, we work at NLL+LO accuracy
433: and we generate a set of events containing a Higgs boson which is then
434: let decay using the MadGraph package \cite{madgraph}. We use
435: the same cuts as in Sect.~\ref{sec:zz}.
436:
437: The signal cross section is 7.74 fb.
438: %\footnote{This number is obtained
439: %by multiplying the total $gg\to H$ NLO cross section, 14.543 pb by the
440: %branching ratio for $H\to ZZ\to 4l$, 0.00117 and by a factor 1/2 since we
441: %consider only the $e^+e^-\mu^+\mu^-$ final state. This number is then
442: %multiplied by the efficiency of the cuts, {\it i.e.}, 91\%.}.
443: Comparing with the
444: background we get $S/B=1.43$.
445: In Fig.~\ref{fig:ptleptonssb} we plot the $p_T$ spectra of the leptons
446: for signal and background. We see that the spectrum of the leading
447: lepton tends to be slightly harder for the signal, compared to the
448: background, whereas the opposite happens for the lepton with the
449: minimum $p_T$.
450:
451: %==========================================
452: \begin{figure}[tb]
453: \begin{center}
454: \epsfig{file=ptleptons_signal.ps, scale=0.80}
455: \end{center}
456: \vspace{-20pt}
457: \caption{\label{fig:ptleptonssb}{\em Leptons $p_T$ spectra for Higgs
458: signal (dashes) and $ZZ$ background (solid).}}
459: \end{figure}
460: %=========================================
461:
462: In Fig.~\ref{fig:dphisb} we plot the $\Delta\phi_T$ distribution
463: defined in Sect.~\ref{sec:zz} for signal and background. Since this
464: distribution is expected to be sensitive to the CP nature of the Higgs, we also consider the case of a pseudo-scalar Higgs boson.
465: As in the case of the scalar, the events are generated starting from
466: the transverse momentum spectrum at NLL+LO and then
467: letting the Higgs boson decay using
468: the MadGraph package \cite{madgraph}.
469: The computation of the spectrum for the pseudoscalar has been done
470: by using a modified version of the
471: numerical program of Refs.~\cite{Bozzi:2003jy,Bozzi:2005wk}, using
472: the results of Ref.~\cite{Kauffman:1993nv}\footnote{The spectrum
473: for the pseudoscalar at NLL+LO accuracy can be
474: easily obtained by using the fact that the real corrections
475: (in the large-$m_{top}$ approximation)
476: are the same as for the scalar. As such, the only difference from the case of the scalar is in the finite part of the virtual corrections \cite{Kauffman:1993nv}.}.
477:
478: From Fig.~\ref{fig:dphisb} we see that the shape of
479: the distribution shows remarkable differences in the three cases.
480: As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dphi_cuts}, for the background the distribution is rather flat. On the contrary, for the pseudoscalar,
481: the distribution is peaked
482: at central values of $\Delta\phi_T$, whereas for the scalar the distribution has a minimum in this region.
483: We conclude that this angular variable
484: has a good discriminating potential to assess the CP nature of
485: the Higgs boson.
486:
487: %==========================================
488: \begin{figure}[tb]
489: \begin{center}
490: \epsfig{file=dphisb.ps, scale=0.60}
491: \end{center}
492: \vspace{-20pt}
493: \caption{\label{fig:dphisb}{\em The $\Delta\phi_T$ distribution for
494: scalar (dashes), pseudo-scalar (dots) and $ZZ$ background (solid) at NLL+LO.}}
495: \end{figure}
496: %=========================================
497:
498: We finally consider the possibility to apply an additional cut on the
499: total transverse momentum of the four leptons. This idea is inspired
500: by a comparison of the transverse momentum spectra of the Higgs boson
501: and of the $ZZ$ pair in Fig.~\ref{fig:ptzz_cuts}.
502:
503: %==========================================
504: \begin{figure}[tb]
505: \begin{center}
506: \epsfig{file=ptzz_cuts.ps, scale=0.60}
507: \end{center}
508: \vspace{-20pt}
509: \caption{\label{fig:ptzz_cuts}{\em Comparison of $p_T$ spectra of
510: signal and background at NLL+LO, when standard cuts are applied.}}
511: \end{figure}
512: %=========================================
513:
514: We see from Fig.~\ref{fig:ptzz_cuts} that the Higgs signal is
515: definitely harder than the $ZZ$ background, being peaked at $p_T\sim
516: 17$ GeV. The $ZZ$ background is instead peaked at $p_T\sim 5$ GeV. As
517: such, a cut on the total transverse momentum of the leptons may
518: increase the statistical significance. Starting with the standard set
519: of cuts used in the rest of the paper, we compute the efficiency of
520: the additional cut by defining
521: \begin{equation}
522: \epsilon(\ptcut)=\sigma_{p_{T}>\ptcut}/\sigma\, .
523: \end{equation}
524:
525: In Fig.~\ref{fig:eff} we plot the efficiency as a function of
526: $\ptcut$ for the signal and the background. We see that the
527: efficiency of this additional cut decreases more rapidly for the
528: background than for the signal. As should be expected, the
529: resummation effect is crucial in this case.
530: The fixed order NLO efficiencies, not shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:eff},
531: become unphysically larger than unity for
532: small values of $\ptcut$.
533: Due to the fact that the efficiency of the background
534: decreases more rapidly
535: compared to the signal, the signal over background ratio increases
536: with increasing $\ptcut$, as can also be seen from the lower left
537: plot of Fig.~\ref{fig:eff}. The lower right plot shows the
538: statistical significance
539: for an integrated luminosity of 10 fb$^{-1}$,
540: We observe that the statistical significance
541: is maximum when $\ptcut\sim 15$~GeV.
542:
543: %==========================================
544: \begin{figure}[tb]
545: \begin{center}
546: \epsfig{file=eff.ps, scale=0.6}
547: \end{center}
548: \vspace{-20pt}
549: \caption{\label{fig:eff}{\em The upper plot shows the NLL+LO efficiency as a function of
550: $\ptcut$ for the Higgs signal (dashed) and the
551: $ZZ$ background (solid). The lower left plot shows the
552: signal over background ratio and the lower right
553: the statistical significance for an
554: integrated luminosity of 10 fb$^{-1}$.}}
555: \end{figure}
556: %=========================================
557:
558: The latter point, however, requires a word of caution.
559: The predictions presented
560: in the present paper are based on resummed calculations obtained in a purely perturbative framework.
561: Intrinsic-$p_T$ effects are
562: known (see e.g. Ref.~\cite{Collins:va}
563: and references therein)
564: to affect transverse-momentum distributions,
565: particularly
566: at small transverse momenta.
567: These effects
568: are not taken into account in our calculation.
569:
570: As noted in Ref.~\cite{Bozzi:2005wk},
571: these non-perturbative effects
572: have the same qualitative impact
573: as the inclusion of higher-order logarithmic contributions, {\em i.e.}, they tend
574: to make the resummed $p_T$ distribution harder.
575: The quantitative results shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:eff} will certainly
576: depend on these effects, although the qualitative picture should not
577: change dramatically.
578:
579: \section{Summary}
580: \label{summa}
581:
582: Higgs boson production by gluon-gluon fusion, followed
583: by the decay mode $h\to ZZ\to 4$ leptons, provides the best
584: discovery channel at the LHC for Higgs masses above 180 GeV. For a
585: precise determination of the properties of the Higgs resonance, such
586: as its mass and CP nature, detailed theoretical predictions for the
587: signal and backgrounds are necessary.
588:
589: In this work we considered a Higgs boson with mass $m_h=200$ GeV and
590: performed the resummation of multiple soft-gluon emission for the $ZZ$ background.
591: We then compared the results with those for the signal
592: in the case of a (pseudo-)scalar Higgs boson. The effects from the
593: resummation of soft gluons are modest for observables like the
594: transverse momentum of the final state leptons. However,
595: the transverse momentum spectra of the $Z$ bosons and
596: of the $ZZ$ pair are sensitive to these effects.
597:
598: An angle $\Delta\phi_T$ that is sensitive to the CP nature of the
599: Higgs signal is also introduced. This angle is defined in a fully
600: transverse way, such that it is longitudinally boost invariant. This
601: angle can potentially be reconstructed also if only three leptons
602: are detected together with missing $E_T$.
603:
604: We also argued that an additional cut on the transverse
605: momentum of the $ZZ$ pair may significantly increase the signal over
606: background ratio and the statistical significance. The impact of resummation is of course crucial in this case. The above cut
607: could be helpful to claim an early discovery or to obtain
608: an easier determination of the nature of the discovered particle.
609:
610:
611:
612: \subsection*{Acknowledgements}
613: We wish to thank Fabio Maltoni for valuable comments and
614: useful discussions and suggestions. We would also like to thank Andrea Giammanco and Sasha Nikitenko for
615: enlightening discussions and Stefano Catani for comments on the manuscript. MG thanks the Center for Particle Physics and Phenomenology of Louvain University for the kind hospitality extended to him at various stages of this work. RF is partially supported by the Belgian
616: Federal Science Policy (IAP 6/11).
617:
618: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
619:
620: \bibitem{Barate:2003sz}
621: R.~Barate {\it et al.} [The LEP Collaborations and the LEP Working
622: Group for Higgs boson searches],
623: %``Search for the standard model Higgs boson at LEP,''
624: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 565} (2003) 61.
625: %[arXiv:hep-ex/0306033].
626: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0306033;%%
627:
628:
629: %\cite{Alcaraz:2007ri}
630: \bibitem{Alcaraz:2007ri}
631: J.~Alcaraz {\it et al.} [LEP Collaboration],
632: %``Precision Electroweak Measurements and Constraints on the Standard Model,''
633: report CERN-PH-EP/2007-039,
634: arXiv:0712.0929 [hep-ex].
635: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0712.0929;%%
636:
637:
638: % Higgs NLO
639:
640: \bibitem{Dawson:1991zj}
641: %\item \label{Dawson:1991zj}
642: S.~Dawson,
643: %``Radiative corrections to Higgs boson production,''
644: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 359} (1991) 283;
645: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B359,283;%%
646: %\ref{Djouadi:1991tk}
647: %\item \label{Djouadi:1991tk}
648: A.~Djouadi, M.~Spira and P.~M.~Zerwas,
649: %``Production of Higgs bosons in proton colliders: QCD corrections,''
650: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 264} (1991) 440.
651: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B264,440;%%
652:
653: \bibitem{Spira:1995rr}
654: %\item \label{Spira:1995rr}
655: M.~Spira, A.~Djouadi, D.~Graudenz and P.~M.~Zerwas,
656: %``Higgs boson production at the LHC,''
657: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 453} (1995) 17.
658: %[hep-ph/9504378].
659: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9504378;%%
660:
661: % Higgs at NNLO: total cross section
662:
663: \bibitem{NNLOtotal}
664: %\item \label{NNLOtotal}
665: %\ref{Harlander:2002wh}
666: %\item \label{Harlander:2002wh}
667: R.~V.~Harlander and W.~B.~Kilgore,
668: %``Next-to-next-to-leading order Higgs production at hadron colliders,''
669: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 88} (2002) 201801;
670: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201206;%%
671: %\ref{Anastasiou:2002yz}
672: %\item \label{Anastasiou:2002yz}
673: C.~Anastasiou and K.~Melnikov,
674: %``Higgs boson production at hadron colliders in NNLO QCD,''
675: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 646} (2002) 220;
676: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207004;%%
677: %\cite{Ravindran:2003um}
678: %\bibitem{Ravindran:2003um}
679: V.~Ravindran, J.~Smith and W.~L.~van Neerven,
680: %``NNLO corrections to the total cross section for Higgs boson production
681: %in hadron hadron collisions,''
682: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 665} (2003) 325.
683: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0302135].
684: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0302135;%%
685:
686:
687: % Higgs at NNLO: fully exclusive
688:
689: %\cite{Anastasiou:2004xq}
690: \bibitem{Anastasiou:2004xq}
691: C.~Anastasiou, K.~Melnikov and F.~Petriello,
692: %``Higgs boson production at hadron colliders: Differential cross sections
693: %through next-to-next-to-leading order,''
694: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 93} (2004) 262002,
695: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0409088].
696: %%CITATION = PRLTA,93,262002;%%
697: %\cite{Anastasiou:2005qj}
698: %\bibitem{Anastasiou:2005qj}
699: % C.~Anastasiou, K.~Melnikov and F.~Petriello,
700: %``Fully differential Higgs boson production and the di-photon signal through
701: %next-to-next-to-leading order,''
702: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 724} (2005) 197.
703: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0501130].
704: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B724,197;%%
705:
706: %\cite{Catani:2007vq}
707: \bibitem{Catani:2007vq}
708: S.~Catani and M.~Grazzini,
709: %``An NNLO subtraction formalism in hadron collisions and its application to
710: %Higgs boson production at the LHC,''
711: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 98} (2007) 222002.
712: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0703012].
713: %%CITATION = PRLTA,98,222002;%%
714:
715:
716: % ZZ at NLO
717:
718: %\cite{Ohnemus:1990za}
719: \bibitem{Ohnemus:1990za}
720: J.~Ohnemus and J.~F.~Owens,
721: %``An Order alpha-s calculation of hadronic Z Z production,''
722: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 43} (1991) 3626.
723: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D43,3626;%%
724:
725: %\cite{Mele:1990bq}
726: \bibitem{Mele:1990bq}
727: B.~Mele, P.~Nason and G.~Ridolfi,
728: %``QCD radiative corrections to Z boson pair production in hadronic
729: %collisions,''
730: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 357} (1991) 409.
731: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B357,409;%%
732:
733: %\cite{Ohnemus:1994ff}
734: \bibitem{Ohnemus:1994ff}
735: J.~Ohnemus,
736: %``Hadronic Z Z, W- W+, and W+- Z production with QCD corrections and leptonic
737: %decays,''
738: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 50} (1994) 1931.
739: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9403331].
740: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D50,1931;%%
741:
742: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
743:
744: % Helicity aplitudes
745:
746: %\cite{Dixon:1998py}
747: \bibitem{Dixon:1998py}
748: L.~J.~Dixon, Z.~Kunszt and A.~Signer,
749: %``Helicity amplitudes for O(alpha(s)) production of W+ W-, W+- Z, Z Z, W+-
750: %gamma, or Z gamma pairs at hadron colliders,''
751: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 531} (1998) 3.
752: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9803250].
753: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803250;%%
754:
755: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
756:
757: % ZZ at NLO with full spin correlations
758:
759: %\cite{Dixon:1999di}
760: \bibitem{Dixon:1999di}
761: L.~J.~Dixon, Z.~Kunszt and A.~Signer,
762: %``Vector boson pair production in hadronic collisions at O(alpha(s)): Lepton
763: %correlations and anomalous couplings,''
764: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60} (1999) 114037.
765: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9907305].
766: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907305;%%
767:
768:
769: %\cite{Campbell:1999ah}
770: \bibitem{Campbell:1999ah}
771: J.~M.~Campbell and R.~K.~Ellis,
772: %``An update on vector boson pair production at hadron colliders,''
773: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60} (1999) 113006.
774: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9905386].
775: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905386;%%
776:
777: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
778:
779: % Higgs qt resummation
780:
781: \bibitem{Bozzi:2003jy}
782: %\cite{Bozzi:2003jy}
783: %\bibitem{Bozzi:2003jy}
784: G.~Bozzi, S.~Catani, D.~de Florian and M.~Grazzini,
785: %``The q(T) spectrum of the Higgs boson at the LHC in QCD perturbation
786: %theory,''
787: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 564} (2003) 65.
788: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0302104].
789: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0302104;%%
790:
791:
792: %\cite{Bozzi:2005wk}
793: \bibitem{Bozzi:2005wk}
794: G.~Bozzi, S.~Catani, D.~de Florian and M.~Grazzini,
795: %``Transverse-momentum resummation and the spectrum of the Higgs boson at the
796: %LHC,''
797: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 737} (2006) 73.
798: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0508068].
799: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B737,73;%%
800:
801:
802: %\cite{Bozzi:2007pn}
803: \bibitem{Bozzi:2007pn}
804: G.~Bozzi, S.~Catani, D.~de Florian and M.~Grazzini,
805: %``Higgs boson production at the LHC: transverse-momentum resummation and
806: %rapidity dependence,''
807: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 791} (2008) 1.
808: %[arXiv:0705.3887 [hep-ph]].
809: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B791,1;%%
810:
811:
812:
813: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
814:
815: %\cite{Balazs:1998bm}
816: \bibitem{Balazs:1998bm}
817: C.~Balazs and C.~P.~Yuan,
818: %``Higgs boson production at hadron colliders with soft gluon effects. I:
819: %Backgrounds,''
820: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59} (1999) 114007
821: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 059902].
822: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9810319].
823: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9810319;%%
824:
825: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
826:
827: \bibitem{MCatNLO}
828: %\cite{Frixione:2002ik}
829: %\bibitem{Frixione:2002ik}
830: S.~Frixione and B.~R.~Webber,
831: %``Matching NLO QCD computations and parton shower simulations,''
832: JHEP {\bf 0206} (2002) 029;
833: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0204244].
834: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204244;%%
835: %\cite{Frixione:2003ei}
836: %\bibitem{Frixione:2003ei}
837: S.~Frixione, P.~Nason and B.~R.~Webber,
838: %``Matching NLO QCD and parton showers in heavy flavour production,''
839: JHEP {\bf 0308} (2003) 007.
840: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0305252].
841: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0305252;%%
842:
843:
844:
845: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
846:
847: %\cite{Grazzini:2005vw}
848: \bibitem{Grazzini:2005vw}
849: M.~Grazzini,
850: %``Soft-gluon effects in W W production at hadron colliders,''
851: JHEP {\bf 0601} (2006) 095.
852: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0510337].
853: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0601,095;%%
854:
855: % Pdf
856:
857: %\cite{Martin:2002aw}
858: \bibitem{Martin:2002aw}
859: A.~D.~Martin, R.~G.~Roberts, W.~J.~Stirling and R.~S.~Thorne,
860: %``Uncertainties of predictions from parton distributions. I: Experimental
861: %errors. ((T)),''
862: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 28} (2003) 455.
863: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0211080].
864: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211080;%%
865:
866:
867: %\cite{Maltoni:2002qb}
868: \bibitem{madgraph}
869: F.~Maltoni and T.~Stelzer,
870: %``MadEvent: Automatic event generation with MadGraph,''
871: JHEP {\bf 0302} (2003) 027;
872: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0208156].
873: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0302,027;%%
874: %\bibitem{Alwall:2007st,
875: J.~Alwall {\it et al.},
876: %``MadGraph/MadEvent v4: The New Web Generation,''
877: JHEP {\bf 0709} (2007) 028.
878: %[arXiv:0706.2334 [hep-ph]].
879: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0709,028;%%
880:
881:
882: \bibitem{cmsnote}
883: D.~Futyan, D.~Fortin and D.~Giordano,
884: %``Search for the standard model Higgs boson in the two-electron and two-muon
885: %final state with the CMS detector,''
886: J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 34} (2007) N315.
887: %%CITATION = JPHGB,G34,N315;%%
888:
889: %\cite{Kauffman:1993nv}
890: \bibitem{Kauffman:1993nv}
891: R.~P.~Kauffman and W.~Schaffer,
892: %``QCD corrections to production of Higgs pseudoscalars,''
893: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49} (1994) 551.
894: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9305279].
895: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D49,551;%%
896:
897: %\cite{Collins:va}
898: \bibitem{Collins:va}
899: J.~C.~Collins and D.~E.~Soper,
900: %``Back-To-Back Jets: Fourier Transform From B To K-Transverse,''
901: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 197} (1982) 446.
902: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B197,446;%%
903:
904: \end{thebibliography}
905:
906: \end{document}