1: %\documentclass[epj,referee]{svjour}
2: %\documentclass[epj]{svjour}
3: \documentstyle[12pt,epsfig]{article}
4: %\documentclass{elsart}
5: % Remove option referee for final version
6: %
7: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
8: \newcommand{\npb}[3]{Nucl.~Phys.~B #1 (#2) #3}
9: \newcommand{\plb}[3]{Phys.~Lett.~B #1 (#2) #3}
10: \newcommand{\prd}[3]{Phys.~Rev.~D #1 (#2) #3}
11: \newcommand{\prl}[3]{Phys.~Rev.~Lett. #1 (#2) #3}
12: \newcommand{\zpc}[3]{Z.~Phys.~C #1 (#2) #3}
13: \newcommand{\cpc}[3]{Comput.~Phys.~Commun. #1 (#2) #3}
14: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
15: \setlength{\textwidth}{16cm}
16: \setlength{\textheight}{22.cm}
17: \voffset=-1.truecm
18: \hoffset=-1.5truecm
19: \floatsep 0cm
20: \textfloatsep 0.2cm
21: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.1}
22: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{0.9}
23: \thispagestyle{empty}
24: \newcommand{\ccaption}[2]{
25: \begin{center}
26: \parbox{0.85\textwidth}{
27: \caption[#1]{\small{{#2}}}
28: }
29: \end{center}
30: }
31: \begin{document}
32: \begin{titlepage}
33: \nopagebreak
34: {\begin{flushright}{
35: \begin{minipage}{5cm}
36: CERN-TH/2002-287 \\
37: FNT/T-2002/16 \\
38: hep-ph/0210261
39: \end{minipage}}\end{flushright}}
40: \vfill
41: \begin{center}
42: {\Large\bf $\mathbf{b\bar{b}}$ final states in
43: Higgs Production via \\ Weak Boson Fusion at
44: the LHC~\footnote{The work of MLM and FP is
45: supported in part by the EU Fourth Framework Programme
46: ``Training and Mobility of Researchers'', Network ``Quantum
47: Chromodynamics and the Deep Structure of Elementary
48: Particles'', contract FMRX--CT98--0194 (DG 12 -- MIHT). MM and
49: RP acknowledge the financial support of the European Union
50: under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00149.
51: RP thanks the finantial support of MIUR under
52: contract 2001023713-006. ADP is supported by a
53: M. Curie fellowship, contract HPMF-CT-2001-01178.}}
54: \end{center}
55: \vfill
56: \begin{center}
57: {\large
58: M.L.~Mangano$^{(a)}$, M.~Moretti$^{(b)}$, F.~Piccinini$^{(a)}$\footnote{On
59: leave of absence from INFN Sezione di Pavia, Italy.},
60: R.~Pittau$^{(c)}$ and A.D.~Polosa$^{(a)}$}
61: \end{center}
62: \vskip 0.5cm
63: \begin{center}
64: $^{(a)}$ CERN Theory Division, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland\\
65: \vskip 12pt\noindent
66: $^{(b)}$ Dipartimento di Fisica - Universit\`a di Ferrara, and \\
67: INFN - Sezione di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
68: \vskip 12pt\noindent
69: $^{(c)}$ Dipartimento di Fisica - Universit\`a di Torino, and \\
70: INFN - Sezione di Torino, Torino, Italy
71: \end{center}
72: \vfill
73: \begin{abstract}
74: We present a study of the Higgs production at the LHC via Weak Boson
75: Fusion, with the Higgs boson decaying into a $b\bar{b}$ pair. A detailed
76: partonic LO calculation of all the potential backgrounds is
77: performed. We conclude that this channel for Higgs production can be
78: extracted from the backgrounds, and present our estimates of the
79: accuracy in the determination of the $Hb\bar{b}$ Yukawa coupling.
80:
81: \vskip 18pt\noindent
82: {\em PACS:} 12.15.Ji,13.85.Hd\\
83: \noindent
84: {\em Keywords:} Higgs boson, LHC, hadron collisions, Monte Carlo.\\
85: \vskip 1cm
86: \end{abstract}
87: CERN-TH/2002-287\hfill \\
88: Jan 10, 2003 \hfill
89: \vfill
90: \end{titlepage}
91:
92: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
93: \newpage
94:
95: %
96: \section{Introduction}
97: \label{intro}
98: A Higgs boson in the so-called low-mass region ($115<m_H({\rm GeV})
99: <140$) decays predominantly in $b\bar b$ final states.
100: Due to the large inclusive QCD backgrounds, detection of this decay is
101: however extremely challenging. In particular, the extraction of the
102: most copious signal, namely inclusive $gg\to H \to b\bar{b}$
103: production, has never been shown to be viable.
104: The only production channels which have so far been proven to be
105: suitable for a determination of the $Hb\bar{b}$ coupling are
106: the associate production $H t \bar t$ and $HW$~\cite{cmsnote,
107: cmsnote2}.
108:
109: In this note we document a study of the $H\to b\bar{b}$ decay in
110: the electroweak boson fusion (WBF)
111: production channel and of its backgrounds, and we discuss the potential
112: of this process for the determination of the $y_{Hbb}$ Yukawa coupling.
113: The signal rate is proportional to the product of the
114: $y_{HVV}$ coupling, where $V$ denotes
115: a weak $W$ or $Z$ boson, times the ${\cal B}(H\to b\bar{b})$
116: branching ratio. The contamination to the signal coming from
117: QCD production of Higgs plus two jets (mediated by a loop of virtual
118: top quarks) are not included in this analysis. Following the study of
119: ref.~\cite{duca}, these will be
120: suppressed by the particular set of kinematical cuts
121: chosen in our analysis (see Section 2).
122:
123:
124: The results obtained are based on a leading order
125: partonic calculation of the matrix elements (ME) describing signal and
126: background processes. The latter include the following channels:
127: QCD $b \bar b j j$ production,
128: $Z(\to b \bar b) j j$, $W/Z(\to j j) b \bar b$,
129: $t \bar t \to b \bar b + jets$, QCD four jets production (where two
130: light jets are misidentified as generated by $b$ quarks), and
131: contributions from multiple overlapping events.
132:
133: We identify a set of kinematical cuts leading to signal significances
134: in the range of $2-5\sigma$, depending on the Higgs mass.
135: In the lowest mass region, this provides a determination
136: of the ${\cal B}(H\to b \bar{b})$
137: branching ratio with a precision of the order of $20\% $.
138: The $H\to b\bar{b}$ decay in the WBF channel could be used
139: together with other processes already examined in literature for a model
140: independent determination of the ratio of Yukawa couplings
141: $y_{Hbb}/y_{H\tau\tau}$~\cite{zepp}.
142: We therefore conclude that the $H\to b\bar{b}$ channel produced in association
143: with two jets should be considered as an additional channel to be
144: exploited for interesting measurements of the Higgs couplings to fermions.
145:
146: This letter is organized as follows. In Section 2 we describe
147: the kinematical constraints introduced to perform the event selection.
148: Section 3 is devoted to the discussion of signal and backgrounds,
149: while the signal significance and the accuracy of the branching ratio
150: $H\to b\bar{b}$ and Yukawa coupling determination are presented in Section 4.
151: In the Conclusions we summarise and discuss our final results.
152:
153: \section{Event selection}
154: The choice of selection criteria is guided by two main requirements:
155: the optimization of the signal significance ($S/\sqrt{B}$), and the
156: compatibility with trigger and data acquisition constraints.
157: The main features of the signal, to be exploited in the event
158: selection, are: presence of two, high-$p_{\rm T}$, $b$ jets,
159: showing an invariant-mass
160: peak; presence of a pair of jets in the forward and backward rapidity
161: regions.
162: In principle such a signal could also exhibit rapidity gaps, due to
163: the colour-singlet exchange of EW bosons among the incoming
164: hadrons; this fact has been used recently in~\cite{DeRoeck:2002hk}.
165: Because of the high luminosity (and the large number of
166: overlapping events) required to study this final state,
167: and because of the large emission rate for extra jets in
168: WBF processes (see~\cite{alpgen}), we do not feel comfortable with
169: applying this additional constraint in our study.
170:
171: \begin{figure}
172: \begin{center}
173: \epsfig{file=ptj.eps,width=0.7\textwidth}
174: \vskip -2mm
175: \ccaption{*}{The $p_{\rm T}^j$ distributions are shown: high
176: $p_{\rm T}^j$ regions are more
177: suppressed in the $b\bar{b}jj$ QCD background (solid)
178: with respect to the signal (dashes). The inclusive
179: distributions shown are normalised to the same cross section.
180: \label{fig:ptj}
181: }
182: \end{center}
183: \end{figure}
184:
185: The tagging of the $b$ jets is only possible in the central region
186: $\vert \eta_b \vert<2.5$. The efficiency of the tagging algorithm,
187: furthermore, suggests using a $p_{\rm T}^j$ cut as
188: large as possible. Since the measurement of the Higgs boson in this
189: channel will take place only after its discovery and the
190: determination of its mass, we can optimize the mass requirement by
191: selecting only $b$ pairs in a mass window centred around the known
192: value of $m_H$, up to the dijet mass resolution.
193: These considerations lead to the following set of cuts:
194: \begin{eqnarray}
195: p_{\rm T}^{b} &>& 30~{\rm GeV} \label{eq:bcuts1}\\
196: |\eta_{b}| &<& 2.5 \label{eq:bcuts2}\\
197: \Delta R_{bb}&>&0.7 \label{eq:bcuts3}\\
198: |m_{bb}-m_H |&<& \delta_m\cdot m_H,\ \label{eq:bcuts4}
199: \end{eqnarray}
200: $\delta_m$ being the experimental resolution~$\simeq 12\%$.
201: Given the very small width of the Higgs boson in the mass range we
202: shall consider ($m_H<140$~GeV), this last requirement reduces the
203: signal to 68\% of what obtained with perfect mass
204: resolution.
205: In the following we shall assume a $b$-tagging efficiency $\epsilon_b=0.5$.
206: While harder cuts on $p_{\rm T}^b$ would improve the $S/B$ ratio, they
207: would also risk sculpting the mass distribution, setting a higher
208: value for the dijet mass threshold and therefore making it harder to
209: extract the background shape directly from the data.
210:
211:
212: The large momentum exchange required for the emission of the
213: space-like gauge bosons will lead to a hard $p_{\rm T}^j$ spectrum for the
214: forward and backward light
215: jets. This is clearly shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ptj}\footnote{The distributions shown in
216: the first two figures are obtained by applying no cuts to the signal,
217: and the following minimal cuts on the background: $p_{\rm T}^j>20$~GeV,
218: $|\eta|<5$~GeV, $\Delta R_{jj,bb,jb}>0.2$.},
219: where we see that the jet $p_{\rm T}$
220: peaks at approximately 30~GeV. The spectrum of typical QCD backgrounds
221: will viceversa peak at low $p_{\rm T}^j$.
222: The large momentum of the forward jets, and their large rapidity
223: separation, favours large dijet invariant masses, as can be seen from
224: Fig.~\ref{fig:mjj}. The cuts we select for the two jets are:
225: \begin{eqnarray}
226: p_{\rm T}^{j} &>& 60 \;\rm{or}\; 80~{\rm GeV} \label{eq:jcuts1}\\
227: |\eta_{j_1}-\eta_{j_2}|&>&4.2 \label{eq:jcuts2}\\
228: \Delta R_{jj} ,\Delta R_{jb}&>&0.7 \label{eq:jcuts3}\\
229: m_{jj}&>&1000~{\rm GeV}. \label{eq:jcuts4}
230: \end{eqnarray}
231: \begin{figure}
232: \begin{center}
233: \epsfig{file=mjj.eps,width=0.7\textwidth}
234: \vskip -2mm
235: \ccaption{*}{The distribution for $m_{jj}$ is shown
236: both for the signal (dashes) and for the $b\bar{b}jj$ QCD background
237: (solid). The inclusive distributions shown are
238: normalised to the same cross section.
239: \label{fig:mjj}
240: }
241: \end{center}
242: \end{figure}
243: The large $p_{\rm T}^j$ cut is driven by the requirement that
244: trigger rates be kept at acceptable levels (see later). We present the
245: two cases of 60 and 80~GeV to display the sensitivity to this
246: threshold. A final choice will presumably only be possible with a
247: complete detector simulation, or once the background data will be available.
248: As we will comment later, the cut on $p_{\rm T}^j$ above $80$~GeV is
249: also very efficient in decreasing the backgrounds due to
250: multiple overlapping events.
251: The large mass cut is selected to reduce as much as possible the QCD jet
252: backgrounds. This cut, in addition to the rapidity cut,
253: is also efficient in removing the contamination
254: from the process $gg\to H gg$, as shown in ref.~\cite{duca}.
255:
256: In addition to the above cuts, we shall consider two alternative
257: selection criteria for the light-jet rapidities, labelled $(a)$ and
258: $(b)$. The case $(a)$ is given by:
259: \begin{equation}
260: 2.5 <|\eta_{j}| < 5,\;\;\; \eta_{j_1}\eta_{j_2}<0,\label{eq:etacuta}
261: \end{equation}
262: while for the the case $(b)$, we only have the condition:
263: \begin{equation}
264: |\eta_{j}| < 5.\label{eq:etacutb}
265: \end{equation}
266: In the case $(b)$ we verified that requiring
267: $m_{jj}>1000$~GeV forces the product $\eta_1\cdot
268: \eta_2$ to be negative for the largest fraction of the events.
269:
270: By inspection of the differential distributions for the
271: variable $\Delta R_{bb}$ we find that cutting $\Delta R_{bb}<2$
272: for the configuration $(a)$ gives an additional enhancement
273: of the signal with respect to the backgrounds.
274:
275: \section{The study of signal and backgrounds}
276: The background sources we considered include:
277: \begin{enumerate}
278: \item QCD production of $b\bar{b}jj$ final states, where $j$ indicates a jet originating from a
279: light quark ($u,d,s,c$) or a gluon;
280: \item QCD production of $jjjj$ final states.
281: \item Associated production of $Z^*/\gamma^* \to b\bar{b}$ and light
282: jets, where the invariant mass of the $b\bar{b}$ pair is in the Higgs
283: signal region either because of imperfect mass resolution, or because
284: of the high-mass tail of the intermediate vector boson.
285: \item $t\bar{t}$ production
286: \item $t\bar{t}j$ production
287: \item $b\bar{b}jj$ and $jjjj$ production via overlapping events.
288: \end{enumerate}
289: The cases with 4 light-jet events are considered since the experimental
290: resolution leads, for any tagging algorithm, to a finite probability
291: of $b$ tags in light jets ({\em fake tags}). We shall label light jets
292: mistagged as $b$ jets with the notation $j_b$, and assume two
293: possible values of fake tagging efficiencies $\epsilon_{fake}$, 1\%
294: and 5\%. While the first choice is probably optimistic, given the
295: presence of real secondary vertices in jets containing a charm quark,
296: the second is likely to be too conservative. As we shall see, however,
297: the requirement of tagging both $b$ jets renders in any case the
298: backgrounds with real $b$ quarks the dominant ones.
299:
300: The calculation of signal and background events is based on the
301: numerical iterative procedure ALPHA~\cite{alpha}, as implemented in the
302: library of MC codes ALPGEN~\cite{alpgen}. While ALPGEN allows
303: for the full showering of the final states, both in the case of
304: signals and backgrounds, all our calculations are limited to the
305: parton level. This is because a realistic estimate of the rates would
306: anyway require a full detector simulation, which is beyond the scope
307: of this paper.
308:
309:
310: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% I TABLE
311: {\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
312: \begin{table}[h]
313: \begin{center}
314: \ccaption{*}{Signal and background events for configuration (a), with
315: $p_{\rm T}^j>60$~GeV,
316: for three possible values of the Higgs mass.
317: $Q^2=\langle {p_{\rm T}}^2 \rangle$.
318: The $jjjj$ entry includes the
319: squared $b-$mistagging efficiency ($\epsilon_{fake} = 0.01$).
320: The first raw relative to the $Z^*/\gamma^*$ contribution refers to the
321: effect of the physical mass tail, while the second raw refers to the
322: finite experimental $Z$ mass
323: resolution, $(\delta m_Z/m_Z=0.12)$.
324: The integrated luminosity is 600~fb$^{-1}$.
325: The PDF set used is CTEQ4L. See the text for the description of other,
326: smaller, backgrounds.
327: \label{tab:sb60a}
328: }
329: \vskip 2mm
330: \begin{tabular}{||l|l|l|l||}\hline
331: $m_H$ & 115~GeV & 120~GeV & 140~GeV \\
332: \hline
333: Signal & $3.0\times 10^3$ & $2.8\times 10^3$ & $1.1\times 10^3$ \\
334: \hline
335: $b \bar b j j $ & $8.6\times 10^5$ & $8.0\times 10^5$ & $5.7\times 10^5$ \\
336: \hline
337: $j_b j_b j j$ & $6.4\times 10^3$ & $6.1\times 10^3$ & $4.1\times 10^3$\\
338: \hline
339: $(Z^*/\gamma^*\to b\bar{b}) jj$ & $5.5\times 10^2$ & $3.8\times 10^2$ &
340: $1.0\times 10^2$ \\
341: \hline
342: $ (Z\to b\bar{b})_{\rm res}jj $ & $1.3\times 10^3$ & $6.8\times 10^2$
343: & $1.1\times 10^1$ \\
344: \hline
345: $j_b j \oplus j_b j$ & $7.5\times 10^3$ & $7.9\times 10^3$ & $9.0\times 10^3$ \\
346: \hline
347: \end{tabular}
348: \end{center}
349: \end{table}
350: }
351:
352: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% II TABLE
353: {\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
354: \begin{table}[h]
355: \begin{center}
356: \ccaption{*}{Same as Table~\ref{tab:sb60a}, for configuration (b).
357: \label{tab:sb60b}
358: }
359: \vskip 2mm
360: \begin{tabular}{||l|l|l|l||}\hline
361: $m_H$ & 115~GeV & 120~GeV & 140~GeV \\
362: \hline
363: Signal & $1.3\times 10^4$ & $1.2\times 10^4$ & $6.2\times 10^3$ \\
364: \hline
365: $b \bar b j j $ & $6.0\times 10^6$ & $5.3\times 10^6$ & $4.7\times 10^6$ \\
366: \hline
367: $j_b j_b j j$ & $1.2\times 10^5$ & $1.1\times 10^5$ & $1.1\times 10^5$ \\
368: \hline
369: $(Z^*/\gamma^*\to b\bar{b}) jj$ & $4.5\times 10^3$ & $2.8\times 10^3$ &
370: $1.1\times 10^3$ \\
371: \hline
372: $ (Z\to b\bar{b})_{\rm res}jj $ & $1.6\times 10^4$ & $8.3\times 10^3$ & $7.7\times 10^2$ \\
373: \hline
374: $j_b j \oplus j_b j$ & $1.8\times 10^4$ &$1.9\times 10^4$ &$2.3\times 10^4$\\
375: \hline
376: \end{tabular}
377: \end{center}
378: \end{table}
379: }
380: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% I TABLE 80 ptjmin
381: {\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
382: \begin{table}[h]
383: \begin{center}
384: \ccaption{*}{Same as Table~\ref{tab:sb60a}, with
385: $p_{\rm T}^j>80$~GeV.
386: \label{tab:sb80a}
387: }
388: \vskip 2mm
389: \begin{tabular}{||l|l|l|l||}\hline
390: $m_H$ & 115~GeV & 120~GeV & 140~GeV \\
391: \hline
392: Signal & $1.3\times 10^3$ & $1.2\times 10^3$ & $5.2\times 10^2$ \\
393: \hline
394: $b \bar b j j $ & $2.4\times 10^5$ & $2.3\times 10^5$ & $1.9\times 10^5$ \\
395: \hline
396: $j_b j_b j j$ & $2.6\times 10^3$ & $2.3\times 10^3$ & $1.8\times 10^3$\\
397: \hline
398: $(Z^*/\gamma^*\to b\bar{b})jj $ & $1.1\times 10^2$ & $6.6\times 10^1$ &
399: $1.3\times 10^1$ \\
400: \hline
401: $ (Z\to b\bar{b})_{\rm res}jj $ & $6.2\times 10^2$ & $3.4\times 10^2$ & $0.5\times 10^1$ \\
402: \hline
403: $j_b j \oplus j_b j$ &
404: $2.9\times 10^2$ & $3.2\times 10^2$ & $4.5\times 10^2$ \\
405: \hline
406: \end{tabular}
407: \end{center}
408: \end{table}
409: }
410: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% II TABLE PTJ > 80
411: {\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
412: \begin{table}[h]
413: \begin{center}
414: \ccaption{*}{Same as Table~\ref{tab:sb80a}, for configuration (b).
415: \label{tab:sb80b}
416: }
417: \vskip 2mm
418: \begin{tabular}{||l|l|l|l||}\hline
419: $m_H$ & 115~GeV & 120~GeV & 140~GeV \\
420: \hline
421: Signal & $6.5\times 10^3$ & $6.4\times 10^3$ & $3.1\times 10^3$ \\
422: \hline
423: $b \bar b j j $ & $2.8\times 10^6$ & $2.2\times 10^6$ & $2.1\times 10^6$ \\
424: \hline
425: $j_b j_b j j$ & $5.6\times 10^4$ & $5.3\times 10^4$ & $5.2\times 10^4$ \\
426: \hline
427: $(Z^*/\gamma^*\to b\bar{b})jj$ & $3.0\times 10^3$ & $1.9\times 10^3$ &
428: $7.5\times 10^2$ \\
429: \hline
430: $ (Z\to b\bar{b})_{\rm res}jj$ & $1.1\times 10^4$ & $6.0\times 10^3$ & $5.6\times 10^2$ \\
431: \hline
432: $j_b j \oplus j_b j$ & $1.1\times 10^4$& $1.2\times 10^4$ &$1.6\times 10^4$ \\
433: \hline
434: \end{tabular}
435: \end{center}
436: \end{table}
437: }
438: The event rates are obtained using the parametrization of parton
439: densities CTEQ4L. Given the overall uncertainties of the background
440: estimates, the results are not sensitive to this choice. The
441: renormalization and factorization scales have been chosen equal
442: ($Q$). In order to be conservative in the background estimates, we
443: selected as a default for our study a rather low scale, namely
444: $Q^2=\langle p_{\rm T}^2 \rangle$, where the average is taken over all
445: light and $b$ jets in the event\footnote{We also repeated our analyses
446: with $Q^2=m_H^2$, finding comparable results.}. In view of the large
447: $\hat{s}$ values of the elementary processes involved, due in particular
448: to the large mass threshold for the pair of forward jets, we
449: believe that our background rates may be overestimated by a factor of
450: at least 2. In spite of this we prefered the conservative approach, in
451: order to present a worse-case scenario.
452: The backgrounds are much more sensitive to the scale choice than the
453: signal, due to the larger power of $\alpha_s$. The background
454: uncertainty will not however be a limitation to the experimental
455: search, since the background rate should be determined directly from the
456: data, as we shall discuss.
457:
458: Tables~\ref{tab:sb60a}-\ref{tab:sb80b} present our results
459: for signal and backgrounds, for
460: the following cases: ({\em{i}}) $p_{\rm T}^j>60$~GeV and rapidity
461: configuration (a); ({\em{ii}}) $p_{\rm T}^j>60$~GeV and rapidity
462: configuration (b); ({\em{iii}}) $p_{\rm T}^j>80$~GeV and rapidity
463: configuration (a); ({\em{iv}}) $p_{\rm T}^j>80$~GeV and rapidity
464: configuration (b). The numbers correspond to
465: $600$~fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity, namely
466: the expected value for three years of running of ATLAS and CMS
467: with an instantaneous luminosity of
468: $10^{34}{\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm sec}^{-1}$. The numbers relative to final
469: states with mistagged jets include the square of the mistagging
470: probability $\epsilon_{fake}=0.01$.
471:
472: We shall now discuss each individual background contribution in detail.
473:
474: \subsection{Single-interaction events}
475: The 4-jet backgrounds originating from a single hard collision are
476: shown in the second and third rows of Tables~\ref{tab:sb60a}-\ref{tab:sb80b}.
477: In the case of the $j_b j_b jj$ background, we accept all events in which at
478: least one pair of light jets passes the cuts in
479: eqs.(\ref{eq:bcuts1})-(\ref{eq:bcuts4}), and the other two jets satisfy
480: eqs.(\ref{eq:jcuts1})-(\ref{eq:jcuts4}), in addition to the
481: appropriate rapidity cut (eq.(\ref{eq:etacuta}) or
482: (\ref{eq:etacutb})). As anticipated, the contribution from real $b$
483: jets is the dominant one, even assuming $\epsilon_{fake}=0.05$.
484:
485: From the numbers in the Tables~\ref{tab:sens60} and \ref{tab:sens80},
486: we see that the $S/\sqrt{B}$ can be as
487: large as $5$. However, the ratio $S/B$ is only a fraction of a
488: percent. This implies that the background itself will have to be known
489: with accuracies at the permille level. There is no way that this
490: precision can be obtained from theoretical calculations. The
491: background should therefore be determined entirely from the data. We
492: expect our kinematical thresholds to be low enough not to sculpt the
493: shape of the $b\bar{b}$ mass distribution at masses close to the Higgs
494: mass. This is true for the leading 4 jet backgrounds, as shown in
495: Fig.~\ref{fig:mbb}. The $b\bar{b}$ invariant mass of the simulated
496: $b\bar{b}jj$ background is shown here to be well behaved in the
497: $[100,150]$~GeV region. The distribution in the case of the $j_bj_bjj$
498: final states is similar. As a result, we expect that the sidebands of
499: the Higgs signal (the regions of mass below $m_H(1 - \delta_m)$ and
500: above $m_H(1 + \delta_m)$) can be safely interpolated in the region
501: under the Higgs peak, similarly to what was done by UA2 in the
502: extraction of the $W/Z\to jj$ decay~\cite{Alitti:1990kw}.
503:
504: For this extraction to be possible, however, full background samples
505: have to be collected. The large rate of untagged $jjjj$ events could
506: therefore give problems with the triggers and with the data
507: acquisition. This is because the $b$ tagging algorithm is typically
508: applied only offline, and therefore a number of untagged $jjjj$ events
509: larger than what is acceptable by the trigger and by the data
510: acquisition would force higher cuts, or a trigger prescaling, strongly
511: reducing the number of recorded signal events. Removing the
512: fake-tagging probability from the numbers in the
513: Tables~\ref{tab:sb60a}-\ref{tab:sb80b},
514: leaves untagged $jjjj$ rates in the range of few$\times 10^7$ and
515: $10^9$, depending on whether configuration (a) or (b) is chosen. Since
516: the mass window for the signal is approximately 30~GeV wide, these
517: rates must be increased by a factor of 3-4, to allow for a sufficient
518: coverage of the sidebands of the $b\bar{b}$ mass distribution,
519: coverage which is required to enable the interpolation of the
520: background rate under the Higgs mass peak. The numbers in the
521: Tables~\ref{tab:sb60a}-\ref{tab:sb80b}
522: refer to 6 years of data taking, corresponding to $6\times 10^7$s,
523: distributed among the two experiments. The result is a rate of events
524: to tape in the range of 1~Hz (for configuration (a) with 80~GeV jet
525: threshold) up to 50~Hz (for configuration (b) with 60~GeV jet
526: threshold). While a 1~Hz rate to tape is acceptable, 50~Hz would almost
527: saturate the expected data acquisition capability of 100~Hz. In this
528: last case, some extra information would have to be brought into the
529: trigger. The best candidate is some crude $b$-tagging. If a rejection
530: against non-$b$ jets at the level of 20\% per jet could be achieved at
531: the trigger level, the rates would be reduced by a factor of 20, down
532: to perfectly acceptable levels.
533:
534: \begin{figure}
535: \begin{center}
536: \epsfig{file=mbb.eps,width=0.7\textwidth}
537: \vskip -2mm
538: \ccaption{*}{The distribution of the invariant mass of
539: the system $b\bar{b}$ in the $b\bar{b}jj$ QCD background (solid line),
540: and in overlapping events of the type
541: $(b \bar b) \oplus (j j)$ (dashed line).
542: The curves are normalised to the same cross section. \label{fig:mbb}
543: }
544: \end{center}
545: \end{figure}
546:
547:
548: While the above processes represent the largest contribution to the
549: backgrounds, the smoothness of their mass distribution in the signal
550: region allows to estimate their size with statistical accuracy,
551: without significant systematic uncertainties. The situation is
552: potentially different in the case of the backgrounds from the tails of
553: the $Z$ decays. The $Z$ mass peak is sufficiently close to $m_H$,
554: especially in the case of the lowest masses allowed by current limits,
555: to possibly distort the $m_{bb}$ spectrum and spoil the ability to
556: accurately reconstruct the noise level from the data. The size of the
557: two possible effects (smearing induced by the finite experimental
558: energy resolution and the intrinsic tail of the Drell-Yan spectrum)
559: are given in the 4th and 5th rows of the
560: Tables~\ref{tab:sb60a}-\ref{tab:sb80b}. Aside from the case of the
561: largest $m_H$ value, where these backgrounds are anyway negligible,
562: the dominant effect is given by the detector resolution. For the
563: configurations (a) these backgrounds represent a fraction of the order
564: of at most 40\% of the signal, at small $m_H$, rapidly decreasing at
565: higher $m_H$. For the configuration (b), the rates are comparable to
566: the signal at low $m_H$. A 10\% determination of these final states,
567: which should be easily achievable using the $(Z\to \ell^+\ell^-)jj$
568: control sample and folding in the detector energy resolution for jets,
569: should therefore be sufficient to fix these background levels with the
570: required accuracy. As for the contribution of the on-peak $(Z\to
571: b\bar{b})jj$ events to the determination of the sideband rates, we
572: verified that their impact is negligible. We obtain a number of the order of
573: 60K events with 600~fb$^{-1}$ in the mass range 83-100 GeV, for
574: configuration (b) and $p_T>80$~GeV for the forward jets. These events
575: can therefore be subtracted from the sidebands with a statistical
576: accuracy better than 1\% using the measurement of the on-peak $(Z\to
577: \ell^+\ell^-)jj$ final states. It should be pointed out that
578: extrapolating from the leptonic to the $b\bar{b}$ rates with this
579: accuracy requires a matching precision in the knowledge of the tagging
580: efficiencies, something which remains to be proven.
581:
582: Before concluding the list
583: of single-interaction backgrounds, we briefly comment on the smaller
584: contributions, $pp\to t\bar{t}$ and $pp\to t\bar{t} j$, with $t$
585: decaying hadronically. Before applying the cuts, we adopt a
586: clustering algorithm for the jets coming from the decay of a $W$. We
587: sum the four-momenta every time the separation between the two jets is
588: below the threshold $\Delta R = 0.4$. This happens quite often, since
589: in order to have a pair of jets in the event with an invariant mass
590: above 1~TeV at least one of the two $W$s coming from the $t$ decays
591: must have a large boost. After this clustering algorithm, using the
592: event selection $(b)$, about $300$ $t \bar t j$ events survive the
593: cuts at $600$~fb$^{-1}$, while the number of $t \bar t $ events is
594: negligible. The configuration $(a)$ leads to even smaller rates. The
595: absolute rate can be fixed using the data, by reconstructing the
596: individual tops. This should be particularly simple, since the request
597: of large dijet mass forces the $t$ and $\bar{t}$ to be very well
598: separated, and the large momentum of the $W$'s will reduce the
599: combinatorial background in the association of the $b$ jets with the
600: $W$ jets.
601:
602: \subsection{Overlapping events}
603: We come now to the study of events due to the superposition of
604: multiple $pp$ interactions. The reason why these events are a
605: potential problem is that while production of large dijet invariant
606: masses in individual events is strongly suppressed energetically,
607: these can accidentally appear when mixing jets produced in separate
608: events (after all the overall energy available in 2 collisions is
609: twice that for a single $pp$ collisions): for example, we can consider
610: two events, one in which a small-mass dijet pair is produced with
611: large positive rapidity, the other in which a low-mass pair is
612: produced at large negative rapidity; the pairing of jets from the two
613: events will lead to large rapidity separations, and to large dijet
614: masses.
615:
616: In the simplest case of two overlapping events, we have four possible
617: combinations of events leading to a $b\bar{b}jj$ background:
618: $(jj)~\oplus~( b \bar{b})$, $(jj)~\oplus~(j_b j_b)$, $(jj_b)~\oplus~(
619: j j_b)$ and $(b \bar{b})~\oplus~( b \bar{b})$, where $(ab)\equiv pp\to
620: ab$. Since we do not veto on the presence of extra jets, triple
621: events such as $(j_1j_b)~\oplus~ (jj_2)~\oplus~( j_bj)$ are also
622: possible. The probability of having $n$ simultaneous events with a
623: $jj$ final state during a bunch crossing, assuming a bunch crossing
624: frequency of $(25$ ns)$^{-1}$, is given by the Poisson probability
625: distribution function $\pi_n(\mu)$ with average $\mu = 0.25
626: \times \sigma (pp\to jj)/{\rm mbarn} \times {\cal L}/{\cal
627: L}_0$, where ${\cal L}$ is the instantaneous luminosity and ${\cal
628: L}_0 = 10^{34}{\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm sec}^{-1}$.
629:
630: To estimate the rates, we first generate a sample of unweighted events
631: of the type $pp\to jj$. We then randomly extract from this sample
632: $n$-tuples of dijet events, which are associated to events where $n$
633: dijet pairs from $n$ proton-proton collisions are created in the same
634: bunch crossing. The background can be then estimated as:
635: \begin{equation}
636: N_{bg} \; = \; B\times(\pi_2(\mu)p_2+\pi_3(\mu)p_3+...),
637: \end{equation}
638: where B is the number of bunch crossings accumulated during the run
639: time, and $p_n=f_n/N_n,~(n=2,3)$, where $N_n$ is the total
640: number of $n$-tuple events generated,
641: $f_2,f_3$ are the number of double and triple events
642: passing the selection cuts found in the sample of generated events.
643: Ellipses denote simultaneous collisions of higher order.
644: Since $\pi_n(\mu)$ drops quite rapidly with increasing $n$, we limit
645: our analysis at $n=3$. The above formula can be easily modified to
646: include the presence of $\sigma(pp\to b\bar{b})$ events.
647: All numbers given below refer to the case of high luminosity, namely
648: $10^{34}$cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$. Since these rates scale quadratically,
649: they should be reduced by a factor of 100 in the case of
650: $10^{33}$cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$.
651:
652: \begin{figure}
653: \begin{center}
654: \epsfig{file=mjbjb.eps,width=0.7\textwidth}
655: \vskip -2mm
656: \ccaption{*}{The distribution of the invariant mass of
657: the system $b\bar{b}$ in the $j_b j \oplus j_b j$ multiple-collision
658: QCD background, for configuration (a).
659: \label{fig:mjbjb}
660: }
661: \end{center}
662: \end{figure}
663: We verified that the most dangerous background comes from events of
664: the type $(jj_b) \oplus (jj_b)$. The main reason is as follows: since
665: the forward, non-tagged jets are required to have a large $p_{\rm T}$
666: threshold (60 or 80~GeV), the fake $b$ jets in the central region will
667: inherit the same transverse momentum cut, as they are produced
668: back-to-back with the related forward jet. As a result, the invariant
669: mass spectrum of the $j_bj_b$ pair will have a shape peaked at about
670: twice the cut, and therefore right in the middle of the signal
671: region. Typical shapes of the $m_{bb}$ spectra are given in
672: Fig.~\ref{fig:mjbjb}, for configuration (a) (The shapes for
673: configuration (b) are very similar).
674: In the case of 60~GeV, the signal regions are
675: right in the middle of the background peak, or on its rising slope;
676: this makes the
677: background estimate very sensitive to the assumed energy resolution,
678: both in the forward region (since the energy scale in the forward
679: region affects the onset of the trigger for the forward jets, thus
680: affecting the spectra of the central jets recoiling against them) and
681: in the central region as well (since the mass spectrum is rapidly
682: rising in the 100-150~GeV range. Our results were obtained by assuming
683: a forward jet energy resolution given by $\sigma_{fwd}=\sqrt{E} \
684: \oplus 0.07\, E$, in addition to the 12\% mass resolution used earlier for
685: the central jets. The distributions in Fig.~\ref{fig:mjbjb} include
686: this resolution smearing. The rates obtained after including the resolution
687: effects are approximately twice as large as those obtained with
688: perfect resolution, stressing the importance of these effects.
689: In absolute terms, the Tables~\ref{tab:sb60a}-\ref{tab:sb80b}
690: show that these contributions are of the same order of
691: magnitude as the signal when $p_{\rm T}^j>60$~GeV is used, but much
692: smaller when the higher $p_{\rm T}^j$ thereshold is used. In the former
693: case, these final states are a
694: potential threat, unless a way can be found to estimate from the data
695: their exact size. This cannot be done using the mass spectrum in the
696: sideband regions, since the rate is too small compared to the leading
697: 4-jet processes. We believe that it should be possible however to use
698: the distribution of the $z$ vertex separation between the two events
699: as a diagnostic tool. Since the two tagged jets come from different
700: $pp$ events, and given that the spread of the interaction point in $z$
701: is of the order of few cm, the fraction of overlapping events where
702: the $z$ positions of the two vertices cannot be separated should be of
703: the order of 10\%, a number measurable by
704: extrapolating the $\Delta z$ distribution from large values, down to
705: the range in which $\Delta z$ is of the order of the experimental
706: resolution.
707:
708:
709: Other sources of backgrounds from overlapping events are less
710: dangerous. Events where the $b \bar{b}$ or $j_b j_b$ pair comes from
711: the same hard interaction ($(b\bar{b})\oplus (jj)$ and $(j_bj_b)
712: \oplus (jj)$)
713: have a smooth mass spectrum in the
714: 100-150~GeV region, and rates smaller than
715: those of the
716: single-interaction $b\bar{b}jj$ or $j_bj_b jj$ events. The mass
717: spectrum of $(b\bar{b})\oplus (jj)$ events is shown in
718: Fig.~\ref{fig:mbb}\footnote{The sharp threshold at approximately 70~GeV is due
719: to the fact that the $b$ and $\bar{b}$ are mostly produced
720: back-to-back, coming from a $2\to 2$ scattering; in the case of the
721: single-interaction $b\bar{b}jj$ events the $b$ and $\bar{b}$ can be
722: produced at relative angles as small as allowed by the $\Delta R_{bb}>0.7$ cut,
723: and the threshold onset is smoother.}.
724: Their contribution can
725: therefore be estimated precisely from the data\footnote{Of course
726: their individual contribution may not be easily obtained; what can be
727: estimated is the overall rate of 4-jet events, including both double-
728: and single-collision contributions.}. In the specific case of
729: $m_H=120$~GeV, for example, we obtain the following numbers of events:
730: $10^5$ and $4\times 10^5$
731: $ (jj)~\oplus~ (b\bar{b})$ events
732: for $p_{\rm T}^j>60$~GeV in the configurations (a) and (b), respectively;
733: $6 \times 10^4$ and $2\times 10^5$
734: $ (jj)~\oplus~ (b\bar{b})$ events
735: for $p_{\rm T}^j>80$~GeV in the configurations (a) and (b), respectively.
736: The contributions from $(jj)\oplus (j_bj_b)$ final state are smaller
737: by a factor of approximately 12, independently of the configuration
738: and transverse momentum thresholds, and assuming
739: $\epsilon_{fake}=0.01$.
740:
741: Events of the kind $pp\to b\bar{b}~\oplus~pp\to b\bar{b}$ turn out to
742: be totally negligible, at the level of 40 with the
743: $p_{\rm T}^j>80$~GeV cut.
744:
745: The events from three separate $pp$ collisions
746: contribute less than 10\% of the two-collision rates shown in the
747: Tables~\ref{tab:sb60a}-\ref{tab:sb80b}, at $10^{34}$~cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$.
748:
749: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% III TABLE
750: \begin{table}[h]
751: \begin{center}
752: \ccaption{*}{\label{tab:sens60}
753: The sensitivity, defined as the ratio of the number of signal events
754: divided by the square root of the number of the background events.
755: The mistagging efficiency of
756: light jets, $\epsilon_{fake}$, is $\epsilon_{fake}=0.01$.
757: The integrated
758: luminosity is 600~fb$^{-1}$ for both configurations (a),(b),
759: and the transverse momentum cut on jets is $p_{\rm T}^j > 60$~GeV.
760: }
761: \vskip 2mm
762: \begin{tabular}{||l|l|l|l||}\hline
763: $m_H$ & 115~GeV & 120~GeV & 140~GeV \\
764: \hline
765: $(a)~S/\sqrt{B}$
766: %& $3.3$ & $3.2$ & $1.5$ \\
767: & $3.0$ & $2.9$ & $1.4$ \\
768: \hline
769: $(b)~S/\sqrt{B}$
770: %& $5.6$ & $5.4$ & $3.1$ \\
771: & $5.1$ & $5.2$ & $2.7$ \\
772: \hline
773: \end{tabular}
774: \end{center}
775: \end{table}
776:
777: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% III TABLE pt80
778: \begin{table}[h]
779: \begin{center}
780: \ccaption{*}{\label{tab:sens80}
781: The same as Table~\ref{tab:sens60}, with $p_{\rm T}^j > 80$~GeV.}
782: \vskip 2mm
783: \begin{tabular}{||l|l|l|l||}\hline
784: $m_H$ & 115~GeV & 120~GeV & 140~GeV \\
785: \hline
786: $(a)~S/\sqrt{B}$
787: %& $2.4$ & $2.3$ & $1.1$ \\
788: & $2.4$ & $2.3$ & $1.0$ \\
789: \hline
790: $(b)~S/\sqrt{B}$
791: %& $4.1$ & $4.1$ & $2.3$ \\
792: & $3.7$ & $4.1$ & $2.0$ \\
793: \hline
794: \end{tabular}
795: \end{center}
796: \end{table}
797:
798: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% IV TABLE
799: \begin{table}[h]
800: \begin{center}
801: \ccaption{*}{\label{tab:sens605}
802: The same as Table~\ref{tab:sens60} but with a mistagging
803: efficiency of $\epsilon_{fake}=0.05$. }
804: \vskip 2mm
805: \begin{tabular}{||l|l|l|l||}\hline
806: $m_H$ & 115~GeV & 120~GeV & 140~GeV \\
807: \hline
808: $(a)~S/\sqrt{B}$
809: %& $2.7$ & $2.7$ & $1.2$ \\
810: & $2.5$ & $2.4$ & $1.1$ \\
811: \hline
812: $(b)~S/\sqrt{B}$
813: %& $4.5$ & $4.4$ & $2.4$ \\
814: & $4.4$ & $4.2$ & $2.1$ \\
815: \hline
816: \end{tabular}
817: \end{center}
818: \end{table}
819:
820: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% IV TABLE PT>80
821: \begin{table}[h]
822: \begin{center}
823: \ccaption{*}{ \label{tab:sens805}
824: The same as Table~\ref{tab:sens80} but with a mistagging
825: efficiency of $\epsilon_{fake}=0.05$. }
826: \vskip 2mm
827: \begin{tabular}{||l|l|l|l||}\hline
828: $m_H$ & 115~GeV & 120~GeV & 140~GeV \\
829: \hline
830: $(a)~S/\sqrt{B}$
831: %& $2.2$ & $2.2$ & $1.0$ \\
832: & $2.2$ & $2.1$ & $1.0$ \\
833: \hline
834: $(b)~S/\sqrt{B}$
835: %& $3.5$ & $3.5$ & $1.9$ \\
836: & $3.1$ & $3.3$ & $1.6$ \\
837: \hline
838: \end{tabular}
839: \end{center}
840: \end{table}
841:
842: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% V TABLE
843: \begin{table}[h]
844: \begin{center}
845: \ccaption{*}{\label{tab:ssig60}
846: The statistical significance of the determination of
847: the branching ratio $\Gamma_b / \Gamma$ and of the
848: $b$-quark Yukawa coupling
849: in the configurations (a) and (b).
850: A luminosity of $600$~fb$^{-1}$ is assumed;
851: the transverse momentum cut on jets
852: is $p_{\rm T}^j > 60$~GeV. Here $\epsilon_{fake}=0.01$.
853: Using $\epsilon_{fake}=0.05$ will worsen these estimates by
854: approximately 20\%.}
855: \vskip 2mm
856: \begin{tabular}{||l|l|l|l|l||}\hline
857: & $m_H$ & 115~GeV & 120~GeV & 140~GeV \\
858: \hline
859: $(a)$ & $\delta \Gamma_b/\Gamma$ & $0.33$ & $0.35$ & $0.71$ \\
860: & $\delta y_{Hbb}/y_{Hbb}$ & $0.58$ & $0.51$ & $0.56$ \\
861: \hline
862: $(b)$ & $\delta \Gamma_b/\Gamma$ & $0.20$ & $0.19$ & $0.37$ \\
863: & $\delta y_{Hbb}/y_{Hbb}$ & $0.36$ & $0.30$ & $0.29$ \\
864: \hline
865: \end{tabular}
866: \end{center}
867: \end{table}
868:
869:
870: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% V TABLE pt > 80
871: \begin{table}[h]
872: \begin{center}
873: \ccaption{*}{\label{tab:ssig80}
874: The same as Table~\ref{tab:ssig60} with $p_{\rm T}^j > 80$~GeV.}
875: \vskip 2mm
876: \begin{tabular}{||l|l|l|l|l||}\hline
877: & $m_H$ & 115~GeV & 120~GeV & 140~GeV \\
878: \hline
879: $(a)$ & $\delta \Gamma_b/\Gamma$ & $0.42$ & $0.43$ & $1$ \\
880: & $\delta y_{Hbb}/y_{Hbb}$ & $0.76$ & $0.68$ & $0.72$ \\
881: \hline
882: $(b)$ & $\delta \Gamma_b/\Gamma$ & $0.27$ & $0.24$ & $0.50$ \\
883: & $\delta y_{Hbb}/y_{Hbb}$ & $0.47$ & $0.40$ & $0.36$ \\
884: \hline
885: \end{tabular}
886: \end{center}
887: \end{table}
888:
889: \section{Results}
890: Tables~\ref{tab:sens60}-\ref{tab:sens805} summarize our results for
891: the sensitivity defined as the ratio of the number of signal events
892: divided by the square root of the number of background events
893: for different values of the mistagging
894: efficiency $\epsilon_{fake}$.
895: Tables~\ref{tab:ssig60},\ref{tab:ssig80} show our results on
896: the determination of the branching ratio ${\cal B}(H \to b \bar{b})$
897: and accordingly on the $H b\bar{b}$ Yukawa coupling
898: $y_{Hbb}$, assuming the knowledge of the $HWW$
899: coupling. This can be determined using other channels, as discussed
900: in the literature~\cite{HWW}. These results rely also on the
901: assumption of $SU(2)$ invariance to relate the contributions to the
902: signal coming from the $HWW$ and $HZZ$ couplings, which can not be
903: experimentally disentangled in the WBF production mechanism.
904: With a
905: total luminosity of 600~fb$^{-1}$, a relative precision of about 20\%
906: on the ${\cal B}(H\to b\bar{b})$ branching ratio can be
907: attained. This represents an improvement with respect to what
908: obtained in other channels~\cite{zeppcoupl,belyaevreina}. As for the
909: $Hb\bar{b}$ Yukawa coupling, a statistical significance of at best
910: $30\%$ is reachable~\footnote{The statistical significance of
911: the $b$-quark Yukawa coupling is linked to the one of the branching
912: ratio by the following formula: $\delta y_{Hbb}/y_{Hbb} =
913: \delta {\cal B} / (2 {\cal B} ({1 - \cal B}))$, where ${\cal B}$ stands for
914: the branching ratio $H \to b \bar b$.}. The significance is rather
915: flat in the 115-140~GeV mass range, as a result of the compensation
916: between overall rate (which decreases at larger masses) and
917: sensitivity of the BR to the Yukawa coupling (sensitivity which
918: increases at smaller BR, for larger masses). The effect of applying
919: a larger cut (80~GeV) on the transverse momentum of forward jets is to
920: reduce by approximately 10\% the statistical accuracy of the
921: measurement. This choice could however turn out to be more reasonable
922: in view of the reduced experimental difficulties at larger $p_{\rm T}^j$.
923:
924: The $H\to b\bar{b}$ decay in the WBF channel also allows for a
925: model independent determination of the ratio of
926: widths $\Gamma(H\to b\bar{b})/\Gamma(H\to \tau^+\tau^-)$ when combined
927: with the $qq\to qq(H\to \tau^+\tau^-)$ mode~\cite{zepp2}.
928: This determination can be compared with what obtained in the $t\bar{t}H$
929: production channel by~\cite{belyaevreina}.
930: Moreover, comparing the WBF mechanism studied in this paper with
931: the associated $W(H\to b\bar{b})$ production,
932: one could test the $SU(2)$ relation between the SM $HWW$ and $HZZ$ couplings
933: for low Higgs masses.
934:
935:
936:
937: \section{Conclusions}
938: In this letter we examined
939: $(H\to b\bar{b})jj$ production at the LHC, with the goal
940: of assessing the potential accuracy in the determination of
941: the $y_{Hbb}$ Yukawa coupling.
942: A study of the observability of this channel has also been presented in
943: ref.~\cite{DeRoeck:2002hk}. We believe our paper provides a more
944: realistic evaluation of the experimental challenges of this
945: measurement, and find less optimistic results.
946:
947: In particular, we identified two main sources of backgrounds:
948: \begin{itemize}
949: \item 4 jet final states: these are over 100 times larger than the
950: signal, but could be evaluated with accuracy using the sidebands of
951: the $b\bar{b}$ mass spectrum. This requires however some tagging
952: information to be available at the trigger level, to reduce to
953: acceptable levels the data storage needs for inclusive, untagged, 4
954: jet final states.
955: \item 4 jet final states from multiple collisions: a large
956: contribution comes from events of the type $(jj_b) \oplus (jj_b)$,
957: where the $b\bar{b}$ mass spectrum has a broad peak in the middle of
958: the signal region. The absolute rate of these events (of the order of
959: the signal rate, when using the lower transverse momentum threshold of
960: 60~GeV) can be determined if the distribution of the $z$ vertex separation
961: between the two overlapping events can be determined with a resolution of
962: the order of 5-10mm. These events are significantly reduced in number
963: when using the higher threshold of 80~GeV for the forward jets.
964: \end{itemize}
965: Our parton-level analysis should be completed with a full detector
966: simulation, but, already at this stage, it provides a strong
967: indication for the relevance of this channel for the ${\cal B}(H\to
968: b\bar{b})$ branching ratio. We have shown in fact that the ${\cal
969: B}(H\to b\bar{b})$ can be measured with a $20\%$ precision for an
970: Higgs mass around $120$~GeV assuming that the coupling $HWW$ is the
971: one predicted by the Standard Model or determined in other reactions
972: already studied in the literature. We also observe that the WBF
973: channel we study, combined with other processes, can be used for a
974: model independent determination of the $y_{Hbb}/y_{H\tau\tau}$ ratio
975: and for a test of the ratio of the couplings $g_{HWW}/g_{ZWW}$ for low
976: Higgs masses.
977:
978: To conclude, we should point out that all statistical accuracies
979: listed in this study should be matched by an excellent control over
980: experimental systematics, including the knowledge of $b$-tagging
981: efficiencies (needed for example to allow the determination of $Z\to
982: b\bar{b}$ backgrounds from the measurement of $Z\to \ell^+\ell^-$
983: final states) and their dependence on the $b$ momentum, and of forward
984: jet tagging efficiencies and fake (pile-up or calorimeter noise) rates.
985: On the other hand, as
986: mentioned at the beginning, we expect our estimates of the physics
987: backgrounds to be very conservative, being based on very low $Q^2$
988: scales for the evaluation of the strong coupling constant;
989: furthermore, we anticipate that more sophisticated analyses based on
990: kinematical correlations in the event (exploiting for example the
991: scalar nature of the $Hb\bar{b}$ coupling) will help improving the
992: signal significance.
993: \newpage
994: {\bf Acknowledgements} \par We wish to thank A. Djouadi, F. Gianotti,
995: K. Jakobs and G. Polesello for useful discussions. FP thanks the Pavia
996: Gruppo IV of INFN for access to the local computing resources.
997: We thank in particular A. Djouadi for pointing out a silly mistake in
998: our evaluation of the Yukawa coupling significance in the first
999: version of this work.
1000:
1001: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
1002:
1003: \bibitem{cmsnote} V. Drollinger, T. M\"uller and D. Denegri,
1004: hep-ph/0111312; hep-ph/0201249.
1005:
1006: \bibitem{cmsnote2} E. Richter-Was, Acta. Phys. Pol {\bf B30},
1007: 1001 (1999); ibid. {\bf B31}, 1973 (2000).
1008:
1009: \bibitem{duca} V. Del Duca, W. Kilgore, C. Oleari, C. Schmidt
1010: and D. Zeppenfeld, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 122001 (2001).
1011:
1012: \bibitem{zepp} D. Rainwater, D. Zeppenfeld and K. Hagiwara, Phys. Rev.
1013: {\bf D59}, 014037 (1999).
1014:
1015: \bibitem{DeRoeck:2002hk}
1016: A.~De Roeck, V.A.~Khoze, A.D.~Martin, R.~Orava and M.G.~Ryskin,
1017: %``Ways to detect a light Higgs boson at the LHC,''
1018: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ {\bf C25} (2002) 391
1019: [arXiv:hep-ph/0207042]; V.A.~Khoze, M.G.~Ryskin,
1020: W.J.~Stirling, P.H.~Williams, hep-ph/0207365.
1021: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207042;%%
1022:
1023: \bibitem{alpgen} M.L. Mangano, M. Moretti, F. Piccinini, R. Pittau
1024: and A.D. Polosa, hep-ph/0206293;
1025: M.L.~Mangano, M.~Moretti and R.~Pittau,
1026: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B632}, (2002) 343.
1027:
1028: \bibitem{alpha}
1029: F.~Caravaglios and M.~Moretti, \plb{358}{1995}{332};
1030: F. Caravaglios, M.L. Mangano, M. Moretti and R. Pittau,
1031: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B539}, 215 (1999).
1032:
1033: \bibitem{Alitti:1990kw}
1034: J.~Alitti {\it et al.} [UA2 Collaboration],
1035: Z.\ Phys.\ {\bf C49} (1991) 17.
1036:
1037: \bibitem{HWW}
1038: D.~Rainwater and D.~Zeppenfeld, Phys. Rev. {\bf D60}, 113004 (1999);
1039: N.~Kauer, T.~Plehn, D.~Rainwater, and D.~Zeppenfeld,
1040: Phys. Lett. {\bf B503}, 113 (2001).
1041:
1042: \bibitem{zeppcoupl} D.~Zeppenfeld, hep-ph/0203123.
1043:
1044: \bibitem{belyaevreina} A.~Belyaev and L.~Reina, hep-ph/0205270.
1045:
1046: \bibitem{zepp2} D.~Zeppenfeld, R.~Kinnunen, A.~Nikitenko and
1047: E.~Richter-Was, Phys. Rev. {\bf D62}, 013009 (2000).
1048:
1049:
1050:
1051:
1052:
1053: \end{thebibliography}
1054:
1055:
1056:
1057:
1058:
1059:
1060: \end{document}
1061:
1062:
1063:
1064:
1065:
1066:
1067:
1068:
1069:
1070:
1071:
1072:
1073:
1074:
1075:
1076:
1077:
1078:
1079:
1080:
1081:
1082:
1083:
1084:
1085:
1086:
1087:
1088:
1089:
1090:
1091:
1092:
1093:
1094:
1095:
1096:
1097:
1098: