1: 

2: %- {{{ header:

3: 

4: \documentclass[twocolumn,prd,aps,nofootinbib,showpacs]{revtex4}

5: 

6: \usepackage{epsf,amsmath,amssymb,mathptmx}

7: 

8: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------

9: \parindent0cm

10: \parskip.2cm

11: 

12: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------

13: \newcommand{\note}[1]{{\tiny (note)}\marginpar {\scriptsize #1}}

14: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

15: \newcommand{\FIGURE}[2][v]{\begin{figure}[#1]#2

16:                                         \end{figure}}

17: \newcommand{\FIGURESTAR}[2][v]{\begin{figure*}[#1]#2

18:                                         \end{figure*}}

19: \newcommand{\vfs}{{\abbrev VFS}}

20: \newcommand{\ffs}{{\abbrev FFS}}

21: \newcommand{\code}{\tt}

22: \newcommand{\abbrev}{\small}

23: \newcommand{\ep}{\epsilon}

24: \newcommand{\vep}{\varepsilon}

25: \newcommand{\api}{\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}}

26: \newcommand{\apib}{\frac{\alpha_s^\bare}{\pi}}

27: \newcommand{\eqn}[1]{Eq.\,(\ref{#1})}

28: \newcommand{\fig}[1]{Fig.\,\ref{#1}}

29: \newcommand{\figs}[1]{Figs.\,\ref{#1}}

30: \newcommand{\tab}[1]{Tab.\,\ref{#1}}

31: \newcommand{\sct}[1]{Sect.\,\ref{#1}}

32: \newcommand{\reference}[1]{Ref.\,\cite{#1}}

33: \newcommand{\refs}[1]{Refs.\,\cite{#1}}

34: \newcommand{\dd}{{\rm d}}

35: \newcommand{\ddoverdd}[1]{\frac{\dd}{\dd #1}}

36: \newcommand{\doverd}[1]{\frac{\partial}{\partial #1}}

37: \newcommand{\order}[1]{{\cal O}(#1)}

38: \newcommand{\bld}[1]{\boldmath{$#1$}}

39: \newcommand{\bsym}{\boldsymbol}

40: \renewcommand{\Re}{{\rm Re}}

41: \renewcommand{\Im}{{\rm Im}}

42: \newcommand{\cf}{C_{\rm F}}

43: \newcommand{\ca}{C_{\rm A}}

44: \newcommand{\tr}{T}

45: \newcommand{\lht}{l_{\higgs t}}

46: \newcommand{\Lx}{\left(}

47: \newcommand{\Rx}{\right)}

48: \newcommand{\LB}{\left[}

49: \newcommand{\RB}{\right]}

50: \newcommand{\Li}[1]{{\mathop{\rm Li}_{#1}\nolimits}}

51: \newcommand{\Di}[1]{{\cal D}_{#1}}

52: \newcommand{\lmut}{l_{\mu t}}

53: \newcommand{\lo}{{\abbrev LO}}

54: \newcommand{\nlo}{{\abbrev NLO}}

55: \newcommand{\nnlo}{{\abbrev NNLO}}

56: \newcommand{\gfermi}{G_{\rm F}}

57: \newcommand{\lnbm}{l_{b}}

58: \newcommand{\ptb}{p_{{\rm T}b}}

59: \newcommand{\muR}{\mu_R}

60: \newcommand{\muF}{\mu_F}

61: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

62: \newcommand{\sprod}[2]{#1\!\cdot\!#2}

63: \newcommand{\matel}[1]{\langle #1\rangle}

64: \newcommand{\msbar}{\overline{\mbox{\small MS}}}

65: \newcommand{\mmsbar}{\overline{\mbox{\scriptsize MS}}}

66: \newcommand{\higgs}{\phi}

67: \newcommand{\shiggs}{h}

68: \newcommand{\phiggs}{A}

69: \newcommand{\mhiggs}{M_\higgs}

70: \newcommand{\pdf}{{\abbrev PDF}}

71: \newcommand{\mahiggs}{M_A}

72: \newcommand{\dglap}{{\abbrev DGLAP}}

73: \newcommand{\mssm}{{\rm\abbrev MSSM}}

74: \newcommand{\qcd}{{\abbrev QCD}}

75: \newcommand{\rge}{{\abbrev RGE}}

76: \newcommand{\lep}{{\abbrev LEP}}

77: \newcommand{\lhc}{{\abbrev LHC}}

78: \newcommand{\coeff}{\tilde C}

79: \newcommand{\opo}{\tilde {\cal O}}

80: \newcommand{\bare}{{\rm B}}

81: \newcommand{\bbar}{b\bar b}

82: \newcommand{\qqbar}{q\bar q}

83: \newcommand{\feynsl}[1]{

84:   \setbox0=\hbox{/} \setbox1=\hbox{$#1$}

85:   \dimen0=\wd0 \advance\dimen0 by -\wd1 \divide\dimen0 by 2

86:   \ifdim\wd0>\wd1 \lower.15ex

87:           \copy0\kern-\wd0\kern\dimen0\copy1\kern\dimen0

88:   \else \kern-\dimen0\lower.15ex

89:           \copy0\kern-\dimen0\kern-\wd1\copy1\fi}

90: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

91: \begin{document}

92: \pacs{14.80.Bn, 14.80.Cp, 12.38.-t, 12.38.Bx}

93: \begin{titlepage}

94: \hspace*{\fill}\parbox[t]{4cm}{

95: BNL-HET-03/4\\

96: CERN-TH/2003-067}

97: 

98: \bibliographystyle{JHEP}

99: 

100: \title{Higgs boson production in bottom quark fusion at

101:   next-to-next-to-leading order}

102: 

103: \author{Robert V. Harlander}

104: \email[Email:]{robert.harlander@cern.ch}

105: \affiliation{TH Division, CERN, CH-1211 Geneva, Switzerland}

106: \author{William B. Kilgore}

107: \email[Email:]{kilgore@bnl.gov}

108: \affiliation{Physics Department, Brookhaven National Laboratory,

109:       Upton, NY 11973, U.S.A.}

110: \date{1 July 2003}

111: \preprint{BNL-HET-03/4}

112: \preprint{CERN-TH/2003-067}

113: \eprint[]{hep-ph/0304035}

114: 

115: \begin{abstract}

116:   The total cross section for Higgs production in bottom-quark

117:   annihilation is evaluated at next-to-next-to-leading order

118:   in \qcd{}. This is the first time that all terms at order

119:   $\alpha_s^2$ are taken into account. We find a greatly reduced scale

120:   dependence with respect to lower order results, for both the

121:   factorization and the renormalization scales. The behavior of the

122:   result is consistent with earlier determinations of the appropriate

123:   factorization scale for this process of $\muF\approx M_H/4$, and

124:   supports the validity of the bottom parton density approach for

125:   computing the total inclusive rate.  We present precise predictions

126:   for the cross section at the Fermilab Tevatron and the CERN Large

127:   Hadron Collider.

128: \end{abstract}

129: 

130: \maketitle

131: \end{titlepage}

132: %- }}}

133: %- {{{ Introduction:

134: 

135: \section{Introduction}

136: 

137: The search for the Higgs boson will be a top priority of the CERN

138: Large Hadron Collider (\lhc{}).  The \lhc's discovery potential for

139: the Standard Model Higgs boson fully covers the mass range from the

140: experimental lower bound established by the \lep{} experiments

141: ($M_H\gtrsim 114$\,GeV) up to $M_H\approx 1$\,TeV, beyond which the

142: concept of the Higgs boson as an elementary particle becomes

143: questionable.  In addition, the Fermilab Tevatron could find evidence

144: for or even discover the Higgs boson if $M_H\lesssim 180$\,GeV and if

145: sufficient luminosity~\cite{lumimoni} can be collected.

146: 

147: The theoretical description of the signal processes for Standard Model

148: Higgs boson production is under good control. For a review,

149: see~\reference{Carena:2002es}. The dominant production mode is gluon

150: fusion, for which the next-to-next-to-leading order (\nnlo{})

151: corrections are now available

152: \cite{Harlander:2002wh,Anastasiou:2002yz} and have recently been

153: reconfirmed by \reference{Ravindran:2003um}.  The radiative

154: corrections for the weak boson fusion channel~\cite{Han:1992hr} and

155: associated production with a weak gauge boson~\cite{Han:1991ia} have

156: been known for several years, rendering the theoretical uncertainty in

157: these processes very small.  Recently, next-to-leading order (\nlo{})

158: corrections have also been evaluated for Higgs boson production in

159: association with top quarks~\cite{

160: Reina:2001sf,Beenakker:2001rj,Dawson:2002tg,Beenakker:2002nc},

161: resulting in a drastic reduction of the scale uncertainty.

162: 

163: These results can be used for supersymmetric Higgs boson production as

164: well.  However, because of the enriched particle spectrum in

165: supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Model, they provide only a

166: part of the full production rate in general.  Additional contributions

167: arise through intermediate supersymmetric

168: partners~\cite{Dawson:1996xz} and modified couplings of the Standard

169: Model particles.  In order to avoid unnecessary generalizations, we

170: will focus on the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (\mssm{}) for

171: the rest of this paper (see, e.g., \reference{Martin:1997ns} for an

172: outline of the \mssm{}).  The extent to which our results can be

173: transferred to other models should be clear from this discussion.

174: 

175: The \mssm{} contains two Higgs doublets, one giving mass to up-type

176: quarks and the other to down-type quarks. The associated vacuum

177: expectation values are labeled $v_u$ and $v_d$, respectively, and

178: they determine the \mssm{} parameter $\tan\beta\equiv v_u/v_d$.  After

179: spontaneous symmetry breaking, there are five physical Higgs bosons,

180: whose mass eigenstates are denoted by $h$ (``light scalar''), $H$

181: (``heavy scalar''), $H^\pm$ (``charged scalars''), and $A$

182: (``pseudoscalar''). One interesting consequence of this more

183: complicated Higgs sector is that, compared to the Standard Model, the

184: bottom quark Yukawa coupling can be enhanced with respect to the top

185: quark Yukawa coupling.  In the Standard Model, the ratio of the $t\bar

186: tH $ and $\bbar H$ couplings is given at the tree-level by

187: $\lambda^{\rm SM}_{t}/\lambda^{\rm SM}_{b} = m_t/m_b\approx 35$. In

188: contrast, in the \mssm{}, it depends on the value of $\tan\beta$.  At

189: leading order,

190: \begin{equation}

191: \label{eq::Yukrat}

192: \frac{\lambda^{\mssm}_{t}}{\lambda^{\mssm}_{b}} =

193: f_\higgs(\alpha)\,\frac{1}{\tan\beta}\cdot \frac{m_t}{m_b}\,,

194: \end{equation}

195: with

196: \[

197: f_\higgs(\alpha) = \left\{

198:   \begin{array}{ll}

199:     -\cot\alpha\,,& \qquad \higgs=h\,,\\

200:     \phantom{-}\tan\alpha\,,& \qquad \higgs=H\,,\\

201:     \phantom{-}\cot\beta\,, & \qquad \higgs=A\,,

202:   \end{array}

203:   \right.

204: \]

205: \FIGURE[t]{

206:     \begin{tabular}{cc}

207:     \epsfxsize=3.6cm

208:     \epsffile[145 450 460 660]{bbHfigs/fig1a.ps}&

209:     \epsfxsize=3.6cm

210:     \epsffile[145 450 460 660]{bbHfigs/fig1b.ps}\\

211:    (a) & (b)

212:     \end{tabular}

213:     \caption[]{\label{fig::bloop}For large $\tan\beta$, the bottom quark

214:       contribution to

215:       the gluon fusion process can be comparable to the top quark

216:       contribution.}  }

217: where $\alpha$ is the mixing angle between the weak and the mass

218: eigenstates of the neutral scalars.  A value of $\tan\beta$ as large

219: as $30-40$ could be accommodated fairly naturally in the \mssm{}.

220: Such an enhancement would have (at least) two important consequences.

221: The first is that in the gluon fusion mode it is no longer sufficient

222: to consider top quark loops as the only mediators between the Higgs

223: boson and the gluons; one must also include the effects of bottom

224: quark loops (see \fig{fig::bloop}).  Since one cannot justify the use

225: of an effective field theory in which the bottom quarks are integrated

226: out, this involves computing massive multi-loop diagrams.  While the

227: massive \nlo{} calculation (including massive two-loop virtual

228: diagrams) was performed some time ago~\cite{Spira:1995rr}, the \nnlo{}

229: result (requiring up to three loops for the virtual correction) is

230: still beyond the limits of current calculational technology.

231: 

232: The second consequence is that Higgs boson production in association

233: with bottom quarks can become an important channel: $p\tilde{p}

234: \to\bbar\higgs$ ($\tilde{p}\in\{p,\bar p\}$ and $\phi\in\{h,H,A\}$

235: here and in what follows).  At first sight, the evaluation of the

236: corresponding cross section is in close analogy to the process

237: $p\tilde{p}\to t\bar t\phi$. But this is only true if the bottom quarks

238: are observed in the detector, and are thus restricted to large

239: transverse momenta. If at least one of the bottom quarks escapes

240: detection, the production rate must be integrated over all transverse

241: momenta of this bottom quark. Since the Higgs boson is much heavier

242: than the bottom quark, this integration leads to collinear logarithms,

243: $\ln(m_b/\mhiggs)$, which require a more careful analysis than in

244: the case of $t\bar t\higgs$ production.

245: 

246: The subject of this paper is the precise prediction of the total cross

247: section for Higgs boson production in association with bottom quarks,

248: where neither bottom quark need be detected.  This requires

249: integrating over the transverse momenta of {\it both} final state

250: bottom quarks.  Each integration gives rise to collinear logarithms of

251: the kind mentioned above. Since the bottom quarks may remain

252: undetected, it is more appropriate to view our result as a part of the

253: total inclusive Higgs production rate $\sigma(p\tilde{p}\to

254: \higgs+X)$. In order to emphasize this point, we shall henceforth

255: denote the fully inclusive process mediated through

256: bottom--antibottom annihilation as $p\tilde{p}\to (\bbar)\higgs+X$.

257: 

258: Our calculation is based on the approach of

259: Refs.\,\cite{Dicus:1989cx,Dicus:1998hs,Maltoni:2003pn}, where the

260: leading-order (\lo{}) partonic process is taken to be $\bbar\to

261: \higgs$.  We will refer to this as the {\it variable flavor number

262: scheme\/} (\vfs{}) approach in what follows, as opposed to the {\it

263: fixed flavor number scheme\/} (\ffs{}) approach, where the tree-level

264: process $gg\to \bbar\higgs$ is taken as the lowest-order contribution

265: and bottom quarks cannot appear in the initial state. The initial

266: state bottom quarks in the \vfs{} approach arise (predominantly) from

267: gluon splitting in the proton, parametrized in terms of bottom quark

268: parton distributions~\cite{Barnett:1988jw,Olness:1988ep,

269: Aivazis:1994pi,Thorne:1998ga,Kramer:2000hn,Buza:1996ie,Buza:1998wv,

270: Chuvakin:1999nx,Chuvakin:2000qc,Chuvakin:2000jm,Chuvakin:2000zj}.

271: In this way, the large collinear logarithms that arise due to the fact

272: that the colliding gluons carry a momentum of the order of

273: $\mhiggs/2\gg m_b$ can be resummed through {\dglap} evolution.  The

274: convolution of these bottom quark densities with the partonic cross

275: section leads to the hadronic cross section $\sigma\LB p\tilde{p} \to

276: (\bbar)\higgs+X\RB$.

277: 

278: This process has been a subject of interest for some time. It is

279: currently known up to \nlo{} in the \vfs{} approach

280: \cite{Eichten:1984eu,Gunion:1987pe,Olness:1988ep,Dicus:1989cx,

281: Dicus:1998hs,Maltoni:2003pn}.  In the \ffs{} approach, the calculation

282: is analogous to $t\bar t\higgs$ production, which is also known to

283: \nlo{}~\cite{Raitio:1979pt,Ng:1984jm,Kunszt:1984ri,Reina:2001sf,

284: Beenakker:2001rj,Dawson:2002tg,Beenakker:2002nc}.  The case where one

285: bottom quark is tagged has been computed at \nlo{} in

286: \reference{Campbell:2002zm}; in that case, the \lo{} process in the

287: \vfs{} approach is $bg\to b\higgs$.

288: 

289: There has been an ongoing discussion as to the relative merits of the

290: \vfs{} and \ffs{}

291: approaches~\cite{Dicus:1998hs,Balazs:1998sb,Campbell:2002zm,

292: Maltoni:2003pn,Rainwater:2002hm,Spira:2002rd}, especially because the

293: results of the two approaches disagree by more than an order of

294: magnitude for the scale choice $\muF=\muR=\mhiggs$, where $\muF$ and

295: $\muR$ are the factorization and the renormalization scales,

296: respectively.  Recently, it has been argued~\cite{Maltoni:2003pn},

297: that the proper factorization scale for this process should be

298: $\muF\approx\mhiggs/4$ instead of $\mhiggs$. Indeed, for this choice,

299: the disagreement between the \vfs{} and the \ffs{} approach is

300: significantly reduced.  The result of our paper demonstrates the

301: self-consistency of the \vfs{} approach and confirms the proposed

302: factorization scale of \reference{Maltoni:2003pn} as the appropriate

303: choice.

304: 

305: Given the considerations above, the motivations for a \nnlo{}

306: calculation are manyfold.  One is to examine the assertion that

307: $\muF\approx\mhiggs/4$ is the proper choice for this process at

308: \nlo~\cite{Plehn:2002vy,Maltoni:2003pn}.  If the higher order

309: corrections are minimal at that scale, this would be a strong argument

310: in favor of the validity of the \vfs{} approach to $(\bbar)\higgs$

311: production.  A second motivation, as will be discussed in more detail

312: below, is that the \nnlo{} terms play an exceptional role in the

313: \vfs{} approach to $(\bbar)\higgs$ production due to the fact that

314: they are the first to consistently include the ``parent'' process,

315: $gg\to\bbar\higgs$, and thereby sample the same range of bottom quark

316: transverse momenta as the \lo{} \ffs{} approach.  A third and perhaps

317: dominant motivation for the \nnlo{} calculation is to reduce the

318: sensitivity of the calculation to the unphysical scale parameters

319: $\muF$ and $\muR$, thereby removing a significant source of

320: uncertainty from the theoretical prediction.

321: 

322: In this paper we will present results for the process $p\tilde{p}\to

323: (\bbar)\higgs+X$ at \nnlo{}. As will be shown, they nicely meet all

324: expectations concerning their dependence on the renormalization and

325: factorization scales, thus providing a solid prediction for the total

326: cross section at the \lhc{} and the Tevatron.  The inclusive

327: production cross section could have phenomenological implications for

328: the observation of the supersymmetric $H$ and $A$ bosons, for example,

329: in the $H/A\to\mu^+\mu^-$ decay mode.

330: 

331: The organization of the paper is as follows:

332: In Sec.~\ref{sec:bdist} we discuss the \vfs{} approach to computing the

333: $p\tilde{p}\to (\bbar)\higgs+X$ process and its motivations.  In

334: Sec.~\ref{sec:outline} we describe the actual calculation and in

335: Sec.~\ref{sec:results} we present our numerical results.  Analytic

336: results for the partonic cross sections are presented in the appendix.

337: 

338: 

339: %- }}}

340: %- {{{ Theoretical description:

341: 

342: %- {{{ fig::gghbb:

343: 

344: \FIGURE[ht]{

345: \begin{tabular}{cc}

346: \kern -25pt

347: \epsfxsize=3.6cm

348: \epsffile[150 500 410 670]{bbHfigs/fig2a.ps} &

349: \epsfxsize=3.96cm

350: \epsffile[115 520 380 680]{bbHfigs/fig2b.ps} \\

351: (a) & (b) \\[2em]

352: \kern -25pt

353: \epsfxsize=3.96cm

354: \epsffile[115 520 380 680]{bbHfigs/fig2c.ps} &

355: \epsfxsize=3.96cm

356: \epsffile[115 520 380 680]{bbHfigs/fig2d.ps} \\

357: (c) & (d) \\[2em]

358: \end{tabular}

359: \caption[]{\label{fig::gghbb} Partonic processes for $pp\to\bbar H$.

360:   Not shown are diagrams that can be obtained by crossing the initial

361:   state gluons, or radiating the Higgs off an antibottom quark.}

362: }

363: 

364: %- }}}

365: \section{Theoretical description of the production rate}

366: \label{sec:bdist}

367: %

368: In the \ffs{} approach, the \lo{} partonic process for the production

369: of a Higgs boson in association with a bottom quark pair is of order

370: $\alpha_s^2$. A few typical diagrams are shown in \fig{fig::gghbb}.

371: Because of the large mass difference between the bottom quark and the

372: Higgs boson, the total cross section contains large logarithms of the

373: form

374: \begin{equation}

375: \begin{split}

376: \lnbm \equiv \ln(m_b^2/\mu_\phi^2)\,,

377: \end{split}

378: \end{equation}

379: where $\mu_\phi$ is of the order of $\mhiggs$.  More precisely, every

380: on-shell gluon that splits into a $\bbar$ pair with an on-shell bottom

381: quark generates one power of that logarithm.  Thus,

382: \figs{fig::gghbb}(a) and \ref{fig::gghbb}(b) generate two and one

383: power of $\lnbm$, respectively, while \figs{fig::gghbb}(c) and

384: \ref{fig::gghbb}(d) do not generate any $\lnbm$ terms.  Furthermore,

385: each higher order in perturbation theory brings in another power of

386: $\lnbm$ due to the radiation of gluons from bottom quarks.

387: 

388: Because $\lnbm\sim \ln(m_b^2/\mhiggs^2)$ is rather large,

389: $\alpha_s\lnbm$ is not a good expansion parameter.  It would be better

390: to re-organize the perturbative series such that terms like

391: $(\alpha_s\lnbm)^n$ are resummed to all orders in $n$.  This

392: resummation can be achieved by introducing bottom quark parton

393: distribution functions which contain all the collinear terms arising

394: from the splitting of gluons into $\bbar$ pairs~\cite{Barnett:1988jw,

395: Olness:1988ep,Aivazis:1994pi,Thorne:1998ga,Kramer:2000hn,Buza:1996ie,

396: Buza:1998wv,Chuvakin:1999nx,Chuvakin:2000qc,Chuvakin:2000jm,

397: Chuvakin:2000zj}.  This constitutes the motivation for using the

398: \vfs{} approach.

399: 

400: Convolving the tree-level process of \fig{fig::real1}(a) with these

401: bottom quark distributions will resum the leading logarithms of the

402: form $(\alpha_s\lnbm)^2\cdot(\alpha_s\lnbm)^{n}$, $n\geq 0$. In order

403: to retain subleading logarithms, one has to compute higher

404: orders. For example, including the \nlo{} contributions with all the

405: relevant subprocesses ($\bbar\to h$, $\bbar\to hg$, $gb\to hb$, and

406: $g\bar b\to h\bar b$), resums the terms of order

407: $\alpha_s^2\lnbm\,(\alpha_s\lnbm)^{n}$, $n\geq 0$. In order to

408: retain {\it all} powers of $\lnbm$ at order

409: $\alpha_s^2\,\sum_n(\alpha_s\lnbm)^{n}$, it is necessary to evaluate

410: the cross section up to \nnlo{}.

411: %- {{{ fig::real1:

412: 

413: \FIGURESTAR[ht]{

414: \begin{tabular}{ccc}

415: \epsfxsize=4cm

416: \raisebox{-1em}{\epsffile[150 460 390 670]{bbHfigs/fig3a.ps}}\ \ &

417: \epsfxsize=4cm

418: \epsffile[150 500 410 670]{bbHfigs/fig3b.ps}\ \ &

419: \epsfxsize=4cm

420: \epsffile[150 500 410 670]{bbHfigs/fig3c.ps}\ \ \\

421: (a) & (b) & (c)

422: \end{tabular}

423: \caption[]{\label{fig::real1}Lowest order diagrams contributing to 

424:   (a) $b\bar b\to H$, (b) $b\bar b\to Hg$, and (c) $bg\to Hb$. At

425:   \nnlo{}, these diagrams receive corrections up to two loops in case

426:   (a), and one loop in case (b) and (c).}

427: }

428: 

429: %- }}}

430: Let us briefly review the idea of the \vfs{} in its simplest form.

431: Assume $n_\ell=n_f-1$ massless quark flavors and one massive quark

432: flavor of mass $m_h$. First, one defines parton densities

433: $f^{(n_\ell)}_{i}(x,Q^2)$ for the gluon ($i=g$) and the massless

434: flavors ($i=1,\ldots,n_\ell$) in the standard way, obeying \dglap{}

435: evolution with $n_\ell$ active flavors. The heavy quark density

436: $f^{(n_\ell)}_{n_f}(x,Q^2)$ is assumed to vanish. Partonic processes

437: involving the heavy quark should be evaluated by keeping the heavy

438: quark mass. This is called the $n_\ell$-flavor scheme.

439: 

440: At a certain scale $\mu_h^2$, one relates the $n_\ell$- to the

441: $n_f$-flavor scheme by defining initial conditions for new parton

442: densities $f^{(n_f)}_i$ in terms of the $f^{(n_\ell)}_i$:

443: \begin{equation}

444: \begin{split}

445:   f^{(n_f)}_{i}(x,Q^2=\mu_h^2) &= \sum_j

446:         C_{ij}(\mu_h/m_h)\otimes f^{(n_\ell)}_{j}(x,Q^2=\mu_h^2)\,,\\

447:   i&=g,1,\ldots,n_f \qquad j=g,1,\ldots,n_\ell\,.

448: \label{eq::fini}

449: \end{split}

450: \end{equation}

451: The $C_{ij}$ are determined by the requirement that physical

452: quantities are the same (up to higher orders in $\alpha_s$) in both

453: the $n_\ell$- and the $n_f$-flavor scheme.  (This requirement may be

454: implemented asymptotically or using mass dependent

455: terms~\cite{Aivazis:1994pi,Thorne:1998ga,Buza:1998wv,Chuvakin:1999nx}.)

456: Above the matching scale, the {\dglap} evolution of the

457: $f^{(n_f)}_i(x,Q^2)$ ($i=g,1,\ldots,n_f$) is performed with $n_f$

458: active flavors.

459: 

460: In general, one assumes the $n_\ell$-flavor scheme at scales $Q^2\lesssim

461: m_h^2$ and switches to the $n_f$-flavor scheme at larger values of

462: $Q^2$. It is also convenient to choose the matching scale in

463: \eqn{eq::fini} as $\mu_h^2=m_h^2$, which avoids the occurrence of

464: logarithms of $m_h/\mu_h$.

465: 

466: For our purposes, $m_h^2/Q^2\sim m_b^2/\mhiggs^2\lesssim 0.003$, so

467: threshold effects from the matching prescription should be minimal.

468: For the same reason, it is justified to neglect the bottom quark mass

469: in the partonic process (apart from Yukawa couplings, of course).

470: Indeed, masses must be neglected for initial state bottom quarks in

471: order to avoid violation of the Bloch-Nordsieck theorem (and the

472: consequent failure to fully cancel infrared divergences) at \nnlo{}

473: and beyond~\cite{Catani:1988xy}.

474: 

475: In order to make the following discussion more transparent, let us write

476: the fully inclusive $(\bbar)\higgs$ production rate in the \vfs{}

477: approach schematically as follows:

478: \begin{equation}

479: \begin{split}

480:   \sigma(p\tilde{p}\to& (\bbar)\higgs+X) =\\&

481:   \sum_{n=0}^\infty\left(\alpha_s\lnbm\right)^n\bigg\{

482:    \alpha_s^2\,\left[

483:     c_{n0}\,\lnbm^2 + c_{n1}\,\lnbm + c_{n2}\right]\\

484:    &\qquad+ \alpha_s^3\,d_{n3}

485:    + \alpha_s^4\,d_{n4}

486:    + \alpha_s^5\,d_{n5} +\cdots\bigg\}\,.

487:    \label{eq::sums}

488: \end{split}

489: \end{equation}

490: The sum over $n$ is implicit in the parton densities.  A \lo{}

491: calculation determines the coefficients $c_{n0}$, while \nlo{} adds

492: the coefficients $c_{n1}$. Note that the subprocess $bg\to b\higgs$

493: does not fully determine the coefficients $c_{n1}$; in order to obtain

494: the correct resummation at $\alpha_s^n\lnbm^{n-1}$ ($n\geq 2$), one

495: has to include the real and virtual corrections to the $\bbar\to

496: \higgs$ subprocess as well.  In the same way, the sum of all

497: subprocesses that contribute at second order determines $c_{n2}$

498: ($n\geq 0$), and thus {\it all terms associated with the order

499: $\alpha_s^2\,(\alpha_s\lnbm)^n$}.  The \nnlo{} result is thus the

500: first to include all terms of order $\alpha_s^2$ (as well as higher

501: order terms resummed in the parton distribution functions).  Higher

502: orders in perturbation theory correspond to the coefficients $d_{nk}$;

503: their $\lnbm$ terms are --- formally --- completely contained in the

504: parton densities.  This illustrates once more the exceptional role of

505: the \nnlo{} corrections in this approach.

506: 

507: The leading order terms were evaluated by Eichten {\it et

508: al.}~\cite{Eichten:1984eu}. The leading $bg$ and $gg$ initiated

509: processes (\figs{fig::real1}(c) and \ref{fig::gghbb}(a)) were

510: subsequently added by Dicus and Willenbrock~\cite{Dicus:1989cx}.  Ten

511: years later, Dicus {\it et al.}~\cite{Dicus:1998hs} (see also

512: \reference{Balazs:1998sb}) computed the full \nlo{} contribution to

513: $\bbar\to \higgs$ (and related subprocesses), which leads to the

514: single logarithmically suppressed term $c_{n1}$ for all $n\geq 0$.

515: Setting the renormalization and the factorization scale equal to

516: $\mhiggs$ ($\mu_R=\mu_F=\mhiggs$), they found that the

517: $\order{\alpha_s}$-corrections to the $\bbar \to \higgs$ subprocess

518: and the contribution from the tree level $bg\to \higgs b$ subprocess

519: are quite large, but of opposite sign.  This leads to large

520: cancellations which are particularly drastic at the \lhc{}. They also

521: observed that the contribution from $bg\to \higgs b$ becomes

522: especially large at Higgs boson masses below $\approx 150$\,GeV, meaning

523: that logarithmically suppressed terms become important in this region.

524: %- {{{ fig::real2:

525: 

526: \FIGURESTAR[ht]{

527: \begin{tabular}{ccc}

528: \epsfxsize=4cm

529: \epsffile[150 500 410 670]{bbHfigs/fig4a.ps} &

530: \epsfxsize=4cm

531: \epsffile[150 500 410 670]{bbHfigs/fig4b.ps} &

532: \epsfxsize=4.6cm

533: \epsffile[105 520 380 680]{bbHfigs/fig4c.ps} \\

534: (a) & (b) & (c)\\[2em]

535: \epsfxsize=4cm

536: \epsffile[150 500 410 670]{bbHfigs/fig4d.ps} &

537: \epsfxsize=4.6cm

538: \epsffile[105 520 380 680]{bbHfigs/fig4e.ps} &

539: \epsfxsize=4.6cm

540: \epsffile[105 520 380 680]{bbHfigs/fig4f.ps} \\

541: (d) & (e) & (f)

542: \end{tabular}

543: \caption[]{\label{fig::real2}Diagrams contributing at \nnlo{}.

544:   Note that the Higgs boson can couple to the $b$--quarks at any point;

545:   only representative diagrams are shown.}

546: }

547: 

548: %- }}}

549: 

550: Recently, Maltoni {\it et al.}~\cite{Maltoni:2003pn} revisited the

551: \nlo{} calculation in the light of \reference{Plehn:2002vy}, which gives

552: an argument for the proper choice of the factorization scale when using

553: the bottom quark density approach. Following that argument,

554: they determined the factorization scale for the

555: $(\bbar)\higgs$ process to be $\mu_F\approx\mhiggs/4$. With this choice,

556: both the \nlo{} corrections from the $gb$ and the $\bbar$ initiated

557: process turn out to be very well behaved.

558: 

559: As we will show in \sct{sec:results}, the behavior of the \nnlo{}

560: corrections confirms this choice of scale at \nlo{}, in the sense that

561: the perturbation theory up to \nnlo{} is very well behaved for this

562: choice.  This supports the method of

563: \refs{Plehn:2002vy,Maltoni:2003pn} (see also \reference{Boos:2003yi})

564: for determining the factorization scale in the \vfs{} approach at

565: lower orders.  For the process under consideration, it turns out that

566: the dependence on the unphysical scales of the \nnlo{} result is so

567: weak that the discussion on the proper scale choice becomes

568: irrelevant.  The overall conclusion is that the prediction for Higgs

569: boson production in bottom quark fusion is now under very good

570: control.

571: 

572: %- }}}

573: %- {{{ Outline of the calculation:

574: 

575: \section{Outline of the calculation}\label{sec:outline}

576: %

577: As discussed before, we will neglect the bottom quark mass everywhere

578: except in the Yukawa couplings.  The calculation is thus completely

579: analogous to, say, Drell-Yan production of virtual

580: photons~\cite{Hamberg:1991np,Harlander:2002wh}: One evaluates virtual

581: and real corrections to Higgs production in $\bbar$, $gb$, $gg$, $bb$,

582: $qb$ and $\qqbar$ scattering (and the charge conjugated processes)

583: and then performs ultraviolet renormalization and mass factorization.

584: 

585: The subprocesses to be evaluated at the partonic level are given as

586: follows ($q \in\{ u,d,c,s\}$):\\[.5em]

587: \begin{tabular}{ll}

588: $\bullet$

589:  up to two loops:& $\bbar\to \higgs $ \quad

590:  [\fig{fig::real1}(a)]\\[.2em]

591: $\bullet$

592:  up to one loop:& $\bbar\to \higgs g$,\quad $gb\to \higgs b$ \quad

593:   [\figs{fig::real1}(b), \ref{fig::real1}(c)]\\[.2em]

594: $\bullet$

595:  at tree level:&

596:   \begin{minipage}[t]{35em}

597:      $\bbar\to \higgs gg$, \quad $\bbar \to \higgs q\bar q$,\\[.2em]

598:     $\bbar\to \higgs \bbar$,\quad $gb\to \higgs gb$,\\[.2em]

599:     $bb\to \higgs bb$,\quad $bq\to \higgs bq$\quad

600:     [\figs{fig::real2}(a)--\ref{fig::real2}(f)]\\[.2em]

601:      $gg\to \higgs \bbar$\quad

602:     [\figs{fig::gghbb}(a)--\ref{fig::gghbb}(c)],\\[.2em]

603:     $q\bar q\to \higgs \bbar$\quad [\fig{fig::gghbb}(d)]\\[.2em]

604:   \end{minipage}

605: \end{tabular}

606: We compute the two-loop virtual terms by employing the method of

607: \refs{Baikov:2000jg,Harlander:2000mg}, which maps them onto

608: three-loop two-point functions. In this way, they can be reduced to a

609: single master integral, using the reduction formulas given in

610: \refs{Chetyrkin:1981qh,Larin:1991fz}. The master integral has

611: been computed in \reference{Gonsalves:1983nq}.  The pole parts of this

612: ``$\bbar \higgs$ form factor'' can be compared to the general formula

613: of \refs{Catani:1998bh,Sterman:2002qn} which provides a welcome

614: check.  For the generation of the diagrams we use {\abbrev

615: QGRAF}~\cite{Nogueira:1993ex} as embedded in the automated system {\abbrev

616: GEFICOM}~\cite{Geficom,Steinhauser:2002rq} (see also

617: \reference{Harlander:1998dq}).

618: 

619: The one-loop single emission processes are obtained by computing

620: analytically the full one-loop amplitudes, which are then interfered

621: with the amplitudes of the tree-level processes.  The two-particle

622: phase space integrals are also computed analytically.

623: 

624: For the tree-level double emission processes, we express the matrix

625: elements and phase space measures in terms of the variable

626: $x=\mhiggs^2/\hat s$, where $\hat s$ is the center of mass energy. Then

627: we expand the integrands in terms of $(1-x)$~\cite{Harlander:2002wh}.

628: This leaves us with only one nontrivial phase space integral,

629: independent of the order of the expansion.  The regular integrands and

630: the finite integration region ensure the validity of the interchange of

631: integration and expansion. Keeping of the order of ten terms in the

632: expansion in $(1-x)$ leads to a hadronic result that is already

633: phenomenologically equivalent to the analytic result.  By evaluating the

634: expansion up to sufficiently high orders, however, one can invert the

635: series~\cite{Kilgore:2002sk} by mapping the expansion onto a set of

636: basis functions. The latter can be deduced from the known \nnlo{}

637: Drell-Yan result~\cite{Hamberg:1991np,Harlander:2002wh}.

638: 

639: All algebraic manipulations are performed with the help of the program

640: {\abbrev FORM}~\cite{Vermaseren:2000nd}.

641: 

642: For a consistent treatment of the \nnlo{} process, it is not

643: sufficient to evaluate only the partonic cross section at

644: \nnlo{}. Another ingredient is the proper parton densities, obeying

645: \nnlo{} Dokshitzer-Gribov-Lipatov-Altarelli-Parisi (\dglap)

646: evolution. At present, only approximate evolution kernels are known,

647: derived from moments of the structure

648: functions~\cite{Retey:2000nq,Larin:1994vu,Larin:1997wd}.  On this

649: basis, approximate \nnlo{} parton distribution sets have been

650: evaluated~\cite{Martin:2002dr}. We use this set in all of our

651: numerical analyses below.  Once parton distributions that use exact

652: \nnlo{} evolution become available, it is a straightforward task to

653: update the analysis using the partonic results presented in

654: Appendix~\ref{sec:partresults}.

655: 

656: Let us now turn to the underlying interaction and the renormalization of the

657: partonic results.  We ignore the bottom quark mass and the

658: electroweak interactions, so for our purposes, the Lagrangian is:

659: \begin{equation}

660: \begin{split}

661:   {\cal L}_{b\bar{b}\higgs} &= -\frac{1}{4}F^a_{\mu\nu}F^{a\,\mu\nu}

662:      + \sum_{q} \bar q\,i\feynsl{D}q

663:      + \bar{b}\,i\feynsl{D}b -\lambda_b^\bare \bar{b}\higgs{}b\,,

664: \label{eq::lagbbh}

665: \end{split}

666: \end{equation}

667: where $F^a_{\mu\nu}$ is the gluon field strength tensor, $D_\mu$ is

668: the \qcd{} covariant derivative, and the sum runs over the quarks

669: $u,d,s,c$.  $\lambda_b^\bare$ is a bare bottom Yukawa coupling

670: constant. In the modified minimal subtraction $\Lx\msbar\Rx$ scheme,

671: the scalar coupling is renormalized such that\footnote{We refrain from

672: quoting terms proportional to $\gamma_{\rm E}$ and $\ln4\pi$ that drop

673: out of $\msbar$-renormalized quantities.}

674: \begin{equation}

675: \begin{split}

676:   \lambda_b^\bare &\equiv \lambda_b\,Z_m(\alpha_s)\,,

677:      \hskip 2cm \LB\phi = h,H\RB\\

678:   Z_m(\alpha_s) &=

679:   1 - \api\frac{1}{\ep}\\ + &

680:    \left(\api\right)^2\,

681:    \bigg[\frac{1}{\ep^2}\left(\frac{15}{8} - \frac{n_f}{12}\right)

682:    + \frac{1}{\ep}\left(-\frac{101}{48}  + 

683:          \frac{5}{72}\,n_f\right) \bigg]\\

684:    &+ \order{\alpha_s^3}\,,

685: \end{split}

686: \end{equation}

687: where $\ep=(4-D)/2$ and $D$ is the number of space-time dimensions in

688: which we evaluate the loop (and phase-space) integrals.

689: $Z_m(\alpha_s)$ is identical to the quark mass renormalization

690: constant of \qcd~\cite{Chetyrkin:1997dh,Vermaseren:1997fq}.

691: Here and in the following, we use the short hand notations

692: $\lambda_b\equiv \lambda_b^{(n_f)}(\muR)$ and $\alpha_s\equiv

693: \alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\muR)$ for the $\msbar$-renormalized Yukawa and

694: strong coupling constants, respectively.  $\muR$ is the

695: renormalization scale, and $n_f$ is the number of ``active'' quark

696: flavors. We will set $n_f=5$ in our numerical analyses.

697: 

698: There are (at least) two methods of obtaining the result for

699: pseudoscalar production.  The first is to replace the Yukawa

700: interaction term in \eqn{eq::lagbbh} with a pseudoscalar interaction,

701: \begin{equation}

702:   \lambda_b^\bare \bar{b}\higgs{}b \longrightarrow

703:     i\lambda_b^\bare \bar{b}\higgs\gamma_5{}b\,,

704:   \label{eq::pseudobbh}

705: \end{equation}

706: and proceed by direct calculation.

707: 

708: The second method is to exploit the chiral symmetry of the bottom

709: quarks in \eqn{eq::lagbbh}, which implies that we are free to perform

710: independent left-handed and right-handed phase rotations of the bottom

711: quarks.  If we perform the rotation

712: \begin{equation}

713:   b_R \to i\,b^\prime_R \hskip 3cm b_L \to b^\prime_L\,,

714: \end{equation}

715: the Lagrangian becomes

716: \begin{equation}

717: \begin{split}

718:   {\cal L}_{b\bar{b}\higgs}

719:      \to& -\frac{1}{4}F^a_{\mu\nu}F^{a\,\mu\nu}

720:      + \sum_{q} \bar q\,i\feynsl{D}q

721:      + \bar{b}^\prime\,i\feynsl{D}b^\prime

722:      -i\lambda_b^\bare \bar{b}^\prime\higgs\gamma_5{}b^\prime\,,

723: \label{eq::lagbbh2}

724: \end{split}

725: \end{equation}

726: and we find the same interaction Lagrangian as in \eqn{eq::pseudobbh}.

727: This implies that the cross section for pseudoscalar Higgs boson

728: production, written in terms of the Yukawa coupling $\lambda_b$,

729: is identical to the cross section for scalar Higgs boson

730: production to all orders in $\alpha_s$.

731: 

732: Following the prescription of Larin~\cite{Larin:1993tq}\footnote{Note

733: that only the e-print of \reference{Larin:1993tq} discusses the

734: renormalization of the pseudoscalar current.} for the treatment of

735: $\gamma_5$ in dimensional regularization, we have performed the direct

736: calculation through \nnlo{} and find that this is indeed the case.

737: 

738: Even in the direct calculation, one can see that this identity will

739: hold to all orders in $\alpha_s$ with the following argument.  If we

740: square the amplitude before computing loop integrals, all fermion lines

741: are closed loops.  The fact that we set the bottom quark mass to zero

742: means that both Higgs boson vertices (in both the scalar and

743: pseudoscalar cases) must appear on the same fermion line.  If only

744: one Higgs vertex were to appear on a fermion line, there would be an

745: odd number of $\gamma$ matrices in the fermion trace which would

746: therefore vanish.  In the pseudoscalar case, this means that

747: nonvanishing fermion traces must contain either zero or two

748: $\gamma_5$ matrices.  The prescription of Larin~\cite{Larin:1993tq}

749: allows one to assume anticommutativity of $\gamma_5$ and identify

750: $\gamma_5^2=1$ when two $\gamma_5$-matrices are on the same fermion

751: line.  Thus, the $\gamma_5$-matrices can be eliminated and we see that

752: the calculation for pseudoscalar Higgs boson production is identical,

753: diagram by diagram of the squared amplitude, to that for scalar Higgs

754: boson production, apart from the different Yukawa couplings.

755: 

756: For the sake of completeness, let us remark that the Standard Model

757: value for the coupling constant is given by $\lambda_{b} =

758: \sqrt{2}m_b/v$, where $v\approx 246$\,GeV is the vacuum expectation

759: value for the Higgs boson field, and $m_b$ is the running $\msbar$ mass of

760: the bottom quark, $m_b(\mu_R)$, evaluated at the renormalization scale

761: $\muR$.  In the \mssm{} we have

762: \begin{equation}

763: \begin{split}

764: \lambda_b &= \left\{

765:   \begin{array}{ll}

766:     \displaystyle

767: -\sqrt{2}\frac{m_b}{v}\frac{\sin\alpha}{\cos\beta}\,,

768:    &\hskip 2cm \phi = h\,,\\[15pt]

769:     \displaystyle

770:  \phantom{-}\sqrt{2}\frac{m_b}{v}\frac{\cos\alpha}{\cos\beta}\,,

771:    &\hskip 2cm \phi = H\,,\\[15pt]

772:     \displaystyle

773:  \phantom{-}\sqrt{2}\frac{m_b}{v}\tan\beta\,,

774:    &\hskip 2cm \phi = A\,.

775:  \end{array}

776: \right.

777:    \label{eq::mssmyukawa}

778: \end{split}

779: \end{equation}

780: 

781: The renormalized partonic results have a dependence on the unphysical

782: scales $\mu_F$ and $\mu_R$, both explicitly in terms of logarithms,

783: and implicitly through the parameters $\alpha_s(\mu_R)$ and

784: $\lambda_b(\mu_R)$.  The variation of $\alpha_s$ and $\lambda_b$ with

785: $\mu_R$ is governed by the renormalization group equations

786: (\rge{}s)

787: \begin{equation}

788: \mu_R^2\frac{\dd}{\dd\mu_R^2} a_s =

789: \beta(a_s)\,a_s\,,\quad

790: \mu_R^2\frac{\dd}{\dd\mu_R^2}\lambda_b =

791: \gamma^m(a_s)\,\lambda_b\,,

792: \quad a_s\equiv \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\,,

793: \label{eq::rgalpha}

794: \end{equation}

795: where

796: \begin{equation}

797: \begin{split}

798: \beta(a_s) &= -a_s\beta_0 - a_s^2\beta_1 - a_s^3\beta_2

799:    + \order{a_s^4}\,,\\[.75em]

800: \beta_0 &= \frac{11}{4} - \frac{1}{6}\,n_f\,,\\[.75em]

801: \beta_1 &= \frac{51}{8} - \frac{19}{24}\,n_f\,,\\[.75em]

802: \beta_2 &= \frac{2857}{128} - \frac{5033}{1152}\,n_f

803:   + \frac{325}{3456}\,n_f^2\,,\\[15pt]

804: \gamma^m(a_s) &= -a_s\gamma^m_0 - a_s^2\gamma^m_1 - a_s^3\gamma^m_2

805:    + \order{a_s^4}\,,\\[.75em]

806: \gamma^m_0 &= 1\,,\\[.75em]

807: \gamma^m_1 &= \frac{101}{24} - \frac{5}{36}\,n_f\,,\\[.75em]

808: \gamma^m_2 &= 

809:   \frac{1249}{64} - \left(\frac{277}{216} + \frac{5}{6}\,\zeta_3\right)\,n_f

810:   - \frac{35}{1296}\,n_f^2\,.

811: \label{eq::betgam}

812: \end{split}

813: \end{equation}

814: Here, $\zeta_n\equiv \zeta(n)$ is Riemann's $\zeta$-function ($\zeta_3

815: \approx 1.20206$).  In order to evaluate $\alpha_s(\mu_R)$ from the

816: initial value\footnote{The numerical value of $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ has to

817: be set in accordance with the parton sets that are used, see below.}

818: $\alpha_s(M_Z)$, $\beta(a_s)$ is expanded up to $\alpha_s^\ell$, with

819: $\ell=1$ at \lo{}, $\ell=2$ at \nlo{}, and $\ell=3$ at \nnlo{}.  The

820: resulting differential equation of \eqn{eq::rgalpha} is solved

821: numerically.

822: 

823: In order to evaluate $\lambda_b(\mu)$ from its initial value

824: $\lambda(\mu_0)$, we combine the two \rge{}s of \eqn{eq::rgalpha}

825: to obtain

826: \begin{equation}

827: \begin{split}

828: \lambda_b(\mu) = \lambda_b(\mu_0)\,\frac{c(a_s(\mu))}{c(a_s(\mu_0))}\,,

829: \end{split}

830: \end{equation}

831: with

832: \begin{equation}

833: \begin{split}

834: c(a) = a^{c_0}\bigg\{

835: &1 + (c_1 - b_1c_0)\, a\\&

836: + \frac{1}{2}\left[ (c_1 - b_1c_0)^2 + c_2 - b_1c_1 + b_1^2c_0 -

837:   b_2c_0\right]a^2\\

838:  &+ \order{a^3}\bigg\}\,,\qquad\qquad

839: c_i \equiv \frac{\gamma_{i}^m}{\beta_0}\,,

840: \qquad

841: b_i \equiv \frac{\beta_i}{\beta_0}\,.

842: \label{eq::cx}

843: \end{split}

844: \end{equation}

845: %- {{{ fig::plo:

846: 

847: \FIGURE[ht]{

848:   \begin{tabular}{c}

849:     \epsfxsize=8.cm

850:     \epsffile{bbHfigs/fig5a.ps} \\

851:     (a) \\[1em]

852:     \epsfxsize=8.cm

853:     \epsffile{bbHfigs/fig5b.ps} \\

854:     (b) \\[1em]

855:     \epsfxsize=8.cm

856:     \epsffile{bbHfigs/fig5c.ps} \\

857:     (c)

858:   \end{tabular}

859:     \caption[]{\label{fig::plo}\sloppy

860:       The cross section $\sigma(pp\to (\bbar)H+X)$ (in picobarns) at

861:       (a) \lo{}, (b) \nlo{}, (c) \nnlo{} for the \lhc{}.  The axes

862:       labels are $F=\log_{10}(\muF/M_H)$ and $R=\log_{10}(\muR/M_H)$.

863:       Thus, the point $\muR=M_H$, $\muF=0.25\,M_H$ corresponds to $R=0$,

864:       $F=-0.6$.  The Higgs boson mass is set to $M_H=120$\,GeV.

865:       }}

866: 

867: %- }}}

868: %- {{{ fig::plo_tev:

869: 

870: \FIGURE[ht]{

871:   \begin{tabular}{c}

872:     \epsfxsize=8.cm

873:     \epsffile{bbHfigs/fig6a.ps} \\

874:     (a) \\[1em]

875:     \epsfxsize=8.cm

876:     \epsffile{bbHfigs/fig6b.ps} \\

877:     (b) \\[1em]

878:     \epsfxsize=8.cm

879:     \epsffile{bbHfigs/fig6c.ps} \\

880:     (c)

881:   \end{tabular}

882:     \caption[]{\label{fig::plo_tev}\sloppy

883:       The cross section $\sigma(p\bar p\to (\bbar)H+X)$ (in picobarns)

884:       at (a) \lo{}, (b) \nlo{}, (c) \nnlo{} for

885:       $\sqrt{s}=1.96$\,GeV.  The notation is the same as in \fig{fig::plo}.

886:       The Higgs boson mass is set to $M_H=120$\,GeV.  }}

887: 

888: %- }}}

889: 

890: $\beta_i^m$ and $\gamma_i$ have been defined in \eqn{eq::betgam}.  Both

891: $a_s(\mu)$ and $a_s(\mu_0)$ are calculated from $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ using

892: the procedure described above.  Working at \lo{} (\nlo{}, \nnlo{}), we

893: truncate the term in braces at order $a^0$ ($a^1$, $a^2$).

894: 

895: Convolution of the partonic cross section with the parton densities

896: cancels the $\mu_F$ dependence up to higher orders and results in the

897: physical hadronic cross section. The variation of the hadronic cross

898: section with $\mu_F$ and $\mu_R$ is thus an indication of the size of

899: higher order effects.

900: 

901: %- }}}

902: %- {{{ results:

903: 

904: \section{Results}\label{sec:results}

905: %

906: %- {{{ fig::murf14a:

907: 

908: \FIGURE[ht]{

909:   \begin{tabular}{c}

910:     \epsfxsize=8.cm

911:     \epsffile[110 265 465 560]{bbHfigs/fig7a.ps} \\

912:     (a) \\

913:     \epsfxsize=8.cm

914:     \epsffile[110 265 465 560]{bbHfigs/fig7b.ps} \\

915:     (b)

916:   \end{tabular}

917:     \caption[]{\label{fig::murf14a}\sloppy

918:       Cross section for $pp\to (\bbar)H+X$ at $\sqrt{s}=14$\,TeV,

919:       $M_H=120$\,GeV.  (a) $\muR$ dependence for $\muF=0.25M_H$; (b)

920:       $\muF$ dependence for $\muR=M_H$.  }}

921: 

922: %- }}}

923: %- {{{ fig::murf14b:

924: 

925: \FIGURE[ht]{

926:   \begin{tabular}{c}

927:     \epsfxsize=8.cm

928:     \epsffile[110 265 465 560]{bbHfigs/fig8a.ps} \\

929:     (a) \\

930:     \epsfxsize=8.cm

931:     \epsffile[110 265 465 560]{bbHfigs/fig8b.ps} \\

932:     (b)

933:   \end{tabular}

934:     \caption[]{\label{fig::murf14b}\sloppy

935:       Cross section for $pp\to (\bbar)H+X$ at $\sqrt{s}=14$\,TeV,

936:       $M_H=300$\,GeV.  (a) $\muR$ dependence for $\muF=0.25M_H$; (b)

937:       $\muF$ dependence for $\muR=M_H$.  }}

938: 

939: %- }}}

940: 

941: The analytic expressions for the partonic cross section are quite

942: voluminous and will be deferred to the appendix.  In this section, we

943: study the behavior of the \nnlo{} result with respect to variations of

944: the input parameters, in particular the Higgs boson mass and the

945: collider type (\lhc{} and Tevatron). Special emphasis is placed on the

946: variation of the results with the renormalization and factorization

947: scale, from which we estimate the theoretical uncertainty of the

948: prediction for Higgs boson production in $\bbar$ annihilation.

949: 

950: Because the cross sections for the neutral Higgs bosons in $\bbar$

951: annihilation differ only in the magnitudes of the Yukawa couplings

952: (within our approximations), we will restrict our discussion to the

953: production of a Standard Model Higgs boson.  In the limit that

954: supersymmetric partners are heavy, their virtual contributions are

955: insignificant and the predictions for supersymmetric Higgs bosons can

956: be obtained from the Standard Model values by rescaling them with the

957: proper coupling constants (cf.\ \eqn{eq::mssmyukawa}).

958: 

959: All the numerical results have been obtained using

960: Martin-Roberts-Stirling-Thorne ({\abbrev MRST}) parton distributions.

961: In particular, we use the {\abbrev MRST2001} sets~\cite{Martin:2001es}

962: at \lo{} $\LB\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.130\RB$ and \nlo{} $\LB\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.119\RB$,

963: and {\abbrev MRSTNNLO}~\cite{Martin:2002dr} at \nnlo{}

964: $\LB\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.1155\RB$.

965: 

966: %- {{{ fig::murf2a:

967: 

968: \FIGURE[ht]{

969:   \begin{tabular}{c}

970:     \epsfxsize=8.cm

971:     \epsffile[110 265 465 560]{bbHfigs/fig9a.ps} \\

972:     (a) \\

973:     \epsfxsize=8.cm

974:     \epsffile[110 265 465 560]{bbHfigs/fig9b.ps} \\

975:     (b) 

976:   \end{tabular}

977:     \caption[]{\label{fig::murf2a}\sloppy

978:       Cross section for $p\bar p\to (\bbar)H+X$ at $\sqrt{s}=1.96$\,TeV,

979:       $M_H=120$\,GeV.  (a) $\muR$ dependence for $\muF=0.25M_H$; (b)

980:       $\muF$ dependence for $\muR=M_H$.  }}

981: 

982: %- }}}

983: 

984: %- {{{ fig::bbhnnlo:

985: 

986: \FIGURE[ht]{

987:   \begin{tabular}{c}

988:     \epsfxsize=8.cm

989:     \epsffile[110 265 465 560]{bbHfigs/fig10a.ps}\\

990:     (a) \\

991:     \epsfxsize=8.cm

992:     \epsffile[110 265 465 560]{bbHfigs/fig10b.ps}\\

993:     (b)

994:   \end{tabular}

995:     \caption[]{\label{fig::bbhnnlo}\sloppy

996:       Cross section for Higgs boson production in bottom quark annihilation

997:       at (a) the \lhc{} and (b) the Tevatron (Run~II) at \lo{}

998:       (dotted), \nlo{} (dashed) and \nnlo{} (solid).  The upper

999:       (lower) line corresponds to a choice of the factorization scale

1000:       of $\muF=0.7\,M_H$ ($\muF=0.1\,M_H$). The renormalization scale

1001:       is set to $\muR=M_H$.   }}

1002: 

1003: %- }}}

1004: 

1005: In order to obtain an overall picture of the renormalization and

1006: factorization scale dependence of the cross section, we plot

1007: $\sigma(pp\to (\bbar)H+X)$ for $\sqrt{s}=14$\,TeV as a function of the

1008: two parameters $\muF$ and $\muR$ in \fig{fig::plo}. The corresponding

1009: plot for the Tevatron, i.e., $\sigma(p\bar p\to (\bbar)H+X)$ for

1010: $\sqrt{s}=1.96$\,TeV, is shown in \fig{fig::plo_tev}.  The Higgs boson

1011: mass is fixed to $M_H = 120$\,GeV.  Subpanels (a), (b), and (c) show

1012: the \lo{}, \nlo{}, and \nnlo{} prediction, respectively. Note the

1013: extremely large variation of the scales, by a factor of 10 above and

1014: below $M_H$.  Apart from the region of large $\muF$ and small $\muR$,

1015: one observes a clear reduction of the scale dependence with increasing

1016: order of perturbation theory, both for $\muF$ and $\muR$.  Notably, we

1017: find minimal radiative corrections and a particularly weak dependence

1018: on the renormalization and factorization scales in the vicinity of

1019: $(\muR,\muF)=(\mhiggs,0.25\,\mhiggs) \equiv (\bar \mu_R,\bar \mu_F)$.

1020: This agrees with the observation of \reference{Maltoni:2003pn} that

1021: the proper factorization scale for this process should be around

1022: $\muF=\mhiggs/4$.

1023: 

1024: To illustrate this observation, we display separately the $\muR$- and

1025: $\muF$-variation of the cross section at the \lhc{} in

1026: \fig{fig::murf14a} for $M_H=120$\,GeV, and in \fig{fig::murf14b} for

1027: $M_H=300$\,GeV. In subpanels (a), the factorization scale is fixed

1028: to $\muF=\bar\mu_F=0.25\,M_H$, and the renormalization scale is varied

1029: within $0.1\leq \muR/M_H\leq 10$.  In subpanels (b), the

1030: renormalization scale is fixed to $\muR=\bar\mu_R=M_H$, and the

1031: factorization scale is varied within $0.1\leq \muF/M_H\leq 10$.  The

1032: reduction in the scale dependence with increasing order of

1033: perturbation theory is clearly visible.  As opposed to the lower order

1034: curves which have a monotonic dependence on $\mu_{R/F}$ within the

1035: displayed range, the \nnlo{} curves develop a maximum, so that it is

1036: possible to define a ``point of least sensitivity'' for them. In all

1037: cases, this falls nicely into a region where the radiative corrections

1038: are small. Note also that the central values for the \nnlo{} curves

1039: are perfectly consistent between panels (a) and (b).  These

1040: observations confirm that $\bar\mu_F=0.25\,M_H$ and $\bar\mu_R=M_H$

1041: are indeed the appropriate scale choices for this process.

1042: 

1043: The corresponding curves for Run~II at the Tevatron are shown in

1044: Fig.\,\ref{fig::murf2a} (we only show results at the Tevatron for

1045: $M_H=120$\,GeV).  As opposed to the \lhc{}, the reduction of the

1046: renormalization scale dependence with increasing order of perturbation

1047: theory is less drastic. One even observes a slight increase in the

1048: $\muR$ dependence between \nlo{} and \nnlo{}. However, the absolute

1049: variation is very small. The factorization scale dependence is quite

1050: similar to that observed for the \lhc{}. Again, the central values for

1051: the \nnlo{} curves of subpanels (a) and (b) coincide nicely.

1052: Note that the cross section at the Tevatron is typically about two

1053: orders of magnitude smaller than at the \lhc{}.

1054: 

1055: \fig{fig::bbhnnlo}(a) shows the \lo{}, \nlo{}, and \nnlo{}

1056: predictions for the cross section $\sigma(pp\to (\bbar)H+X)$ at the

1057: \lhc{} as a function of the Higgs boson mass. The two curves at each

1058: order correspond to two different choices of the factorization scale,

1059: $\muF=0.1\,M_H$ and $\muF=0.7\,M_H$. From subpanels (b) of

1060: \figs{fig::murf14a} and \ref{fig::murf14b} one can see that this

1061: roughly defines the maximal $\muF$-variation at \nnlo{} between

1062: $0.1\,M_H$ and $10\,M_H$.  Since the renormalization scale dependence

1063: is very weak [cf.\ subpanels (a) of \figs{fig::murf14a} and

1064: \ref{fig::murf14b}], we fix $\muR=\bar\mu_R=M_H$.  Taking the width of

1065: these bands as an indication of the theoretical uncertainty, we

1066: observe an improvement of the accuracy of the prediction for

1067: $M_H=120$\,GeV from $70\%$ at \lo{} to $40\%$ at \nlo{} to $15\%$ at

1068: \nnlo{}. At larger Higgs boson masses, the scale uncertainty is smaller,

1069: amounting to $40\%$ at \lo{}, $17\%$ at \nlo{}, and $5\%$ at \nnlo{}

1070: for $M_H=300$\,GeV.

1071: 

1072: The cross section for the Tevatron at $\sqrt{s}=1.96$\,TeV

1073: center-of-mass energy is shown in \fig{fig::bbhnnlo}(b).  Here the

1074: renormalization scale dependence within the range $0.1\leq

1075: \muR/M_H\leq 10$ at \nnlo{} is larger than the factorization scale

1076: dependence (cf.\,Fig.\,\ref{fig::murf2a}). Nevertheless, we apply the

1077: same prescription as for the \lhc{} and plot the \lo{}, \nlo{}, and

1078: \nnlo{} cross section at $(\muR,\muF)=(1,0.1)\,M_H$ and

1079: $(\muR,\muF)=(1,0.7)\,M_H$. This is justified since $\muR$-variation

1080: on absolute scales is still very small, in particular if it is

1081: restricted to a more reasonable range of about a factor of five above

1082: and below $M_H$.  We obtain a reduction of the scale uncertainty at

1083: the Tevatron for $M_H=120$\,GeV from around $60\%$ at \lo{}, to $30\%$

1084: at \nlo{}, to $10\%$ at \nnlo{}.

1085: 

1086: %- }}}

1087: %- {{{ Conclusions:

1088: 

1089: \section{Conclusions}

1090: 

1091: We have computed the total cross section for Higgs boson production in

1092: $\bbar$ fusion at \nnlo{} in \qcd{}. We have argued that the \nnlo{}

1093: plays an exceptional role in this process, as it incorporates all

1094: subleading logarithms at order $\alpha_s^2$.  The results are very

1095: stable with respect to changes of the renormalization and

1096: factorization scales. We find that the radiative corrections are

1097: particularly small at factorization scales of around $\muF=\mhiggs/4$,

1098: in agreement with the arguments of \refs{Plehn:2002vy,Maltoni:2003pn}.

1099: 

1100: We conclude that the inclusive cross section for Higgs boson

1101: production in bottom quark annihilation at hadron colliders is under

1102: good theoretical control.

1103: 

1104: \paragraph*{Acknowledgments.}

1105: We would like to thank Scott Willenbrock, Fabio Maltoni, and Zack

1106: Sullivan for their encouragement and valuable comments.  We are

1107: grateful to Tilman Plehn and Werner Vogelsang for enlightening

1108: discussions on bottom quark parton densities.  R.V.H. would like to

1109: thank Andr\'e Turcot for emphasizing the importance of this process,

1110: and Kostia Chetyrkin for useful comments.  The work of W.B.K. was

1111: supported by the U.~S.~Department of Energy under Contract

1112: No.~DE-AC02-98CH10886.

1113: 

1114: %- }}}

1115: %- {{{ appendix:

1116: 

1117: \begin{appendix}

1118: \section{Partonic results}\label{sec:partresults}

1119: 

1120: It is convenient to write the partonic cross section in the following

1121: way:

1122: \begin{equation}

1123: \begin{split}

1124:   \hat\sigma_{ij}(x) &= \sigma^0\,\Delta_{ij}(x)\,,

1125:      \qquad i,j \in \{b,\bar{b},g,q,\bar{q}\}\,,

1126: \end{split}

1127: \end{equation}

1128: where $\hat\sigma_{ij}$ is the cross section for the process $ij \to

1129: \phi+X$. $i$ and $j$ label the partons in the initial state, $\phi$

1130: means either a scalar or pseudoscalar Higgs boson, and $X$ denotes

1131: any number of quarks or gluons in the final state.  Here and in what

1132: follows, $q$ denotes any of the light quarks $u,d,s,c$.  The

1133: normalization factor, $\sigma_0$, is

1134: \begin{equation}

1135: \sigma_0 = \frac{\pi}{12}\frac{\lambda_b^2}{M_\phi^2}\,.

1136: \end{equation}

1137: 

1138: The correction terms are written as a perturbative expansion:

1139: \begin{equation}

1140: \Delta_{ij}(x) = \Delta_{ij}^{(0)}(x)

1141: + \api\,\Delta_{ij}^{(1)}(x) +

1142: \left(\api\right)^2\,\Delta_{ij}^{(2)}(x)

1143: + \order{\alpha_s^3}\,.

1144: \end{equation}

1145: Explicit dependence on the number of active flavors $n_f$ appears only

1146: at \nnlo.  Because the terms are large and cumbersome, it is

1147: convenient to write

1148: \begin{equation}

1149: \Delta_{ij}^{(2)}(x) = \Delta_{ij}^{(2)\,A}(x)

1150:     + n_f\,\Delta_{ij}^{(2)\,F}(x)\,.

1151: \end{equation}

1152: %

1153: All results will be presented for the scale choices

1154: $\muF=\muR=\mhiggs$.  The corresponding expressions for general values

1155: of $\muF$ and $\muR$ can be reconstructed from renormalization scale

1156: invariance of the partonic, and factorization invariance of the

1157: hadronic cross section.\footnote{ The analytic results including all

1158: scale dependences can also be obtained from the authors upon request.}

1159: \vfil\eject

1160: \begin{widetext}

1161: 

1162: \subsection{The $\bbar$ subprocess}

1163: In the \vfs{} approach, the tree-level $\bbar$ annihilation term is the

1164: \lo{} contribution.  Thus, this is the only term for which

1165: $\Delta_{ij}^{(0)}(x)$ does not vanish.  The \lo{} contribution to

1166: $\bbar\to\phi+X$ is

1167: \begin{equation}

1168: \Delta_{\bbar}^{(0)}(x) = \delta(1-x).

1169: \end{equation}

1170: The \nlo{} contribution is

1171: \begin{equation}

1172: \begin{split}

1173: \Delta_{\bbar}^{(1)}(x) = &\ 

1174:        - \frac{4 - 8\,\zeta_2}{3} \, \delta(1-x)%\\&

1175:        + \frac{16}{3} \, \Di1(1-x)%\\&

1176:        - \frac{16 + 8\,x + 8\,x^2}{3} \, \ln\Lx 1-x\Rx%\\&

1177:        + \frac{4\,x - 4\,x^2}{3}%\\&

1178:        - \frac{8}{3} \, \frac{\ln\Lx x \Rx}{1-x}%\\&

1179:        + \frac{8 + 4\,x + 4\,x^2}{3} \, \ln\Lx x \Rx\,,

1180: \end{split}

1181: \end{equation}

1182: where

1183: $\displaystyle\Di{n}(1-x)\equiv\LB\frac{\ln^{n}(1-x)}{1-x}\RB_+$, and

1184: $\zeta_2 \equiv \pi^2/6 \approx 1.64493$, $\zeta_3\approx 1.20206$.

1185: 

1186: At \nnlo, the contributions are ($\zeta_4 \equiv \pi^4/90 \approx

1187: 1.08232$)

1188: \begin{equation}

1189: \begin{split}

1190:    \Delta_{\bbar}^{(2)\,A} =&\

1191:        \frac{115 + 116\,\zeta_2 - 156\,\zeta_3 - 19\,\zeta_4}{18}\,

1192:                   \delta\Lx 1-x \Rx%\\&

1193:        - \frac{404 - 396\,\zeta_2 - 1146\,\zeta_3}{27} \, \Di0\Lx 1-x \Rx\\&

1194:        + \frac{204 - 200\,\zeta_2}{9} \, \Di1\Lx 1-x \Rx%\\&

1195:        - \frac{44}{3} \, \Di2\Lx 1-x \Rx%\\&

1196:        + \frac{128}{9} \, \Di3\Lx 1-x \Rx\\&

1197:        - \frac{128 + 64\,x + 64\,x^2}{9} \, \ln^3\Lx 1-x \Rx%\\&

1198:        + \frac{140 + 40\,x + 92\,x^2 - 8\,x^3}{9} \, \ln^2\Lx 1-x \Rx\\&

1199:        - \frac{248}{9} \, \frac{\ln^2\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\ln\Lx x \Rx}{1 - x}%\\&

1200:        + \frac{248 + 168\,x + 168\,x^2}{9} \,

1201:                    \ln^2\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\ln\Lx x \Rx\\&

1202:        - \frac{604 + 138\,x + 423\,x^2 + 44\,x^3}{27} \, \ln\Lx 1-x \Rx%\\&

1203:        + \frac{200 + 100\,x + 100\,x^2}{9} \, \zeta_2\,\ln\Lx 1-x \Rx\\&

1204:        + 24 \, \frac{\ln\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\ln\Lx x \Rx}{1 - x}%\\&

1205:        - \frac{216 + 110\,x + 160\,x^2 - 24\,x^3}{9} \,

1206:                    \ln\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\ln\Lx x \Rx\\&

1207:        + \frac{148}{9} \, \frac{\ln\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\ln^2\Lx x \Rx}{1 - x}%\\&

1208:        - \frac{148 + 110\,x + 110\,x^2}{9} \, \ln\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\ln^2\Lx x \Rx\\&

1209:        + \frac{20}{9} \, \frac{\ln\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\Li2\Lx 1-x \Rx}{1 - x}%\\&

1210:        - \frac{20 - 78\,x - 78\,x^2}{9} \, \ln\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\Li2\Lx 1-x \Rx\\&

1211:        + \frac{4640 + 1017\,x + 2958\,x^2 + 721\,x^3}{324}%\\&

1212:        - \frac{140 - 15\,x + 147\,x^2 - 8\,x^3}{9} \, \zeta_2\\&

1213:        - \frac{382 + 191\,x + 191\,x^2}{9} \, \zeta_3%\\&

1214:        - \frac{146}{9} \, \frac{\ln\Lx x \Rx}{1 - x}%\\&

1215:        + \frac{164}{9} \, \frac{\zeta_2\,\ln\Lx x \Rx}{1 - x}%\\&

1216:        - \frac{23}{3} \, \frac{\ln^2\Lx x \Rx}{1 - x}%\\&

1217:        - \frac{44}{27} \, \frac{\ln^3\Lx x \Rx}{1 - x}\\&

1218:        + \frac{876 + 249\,x + 444\,x^2 + 38\,x^3}{54} \, \ln\Lx x \Rx%\\&

1219:        - \frac{164 + 126\,x + 126\,x^2}{9} \, \zeta_2\,\ln\Lx x \Rx\\&

1220:        + \frac{138 + 73\,x + 115\,x^2 - 12\,x^3}{18} \, \ln^2\Lx x \Rx%\\&

1221:        + \frac{44 + 21\,x + 21\,x^2 + 4\,x^3}{27} \, \ln^3\Lx x \Rx\\&

1222:        + \frac{\Li2\Lx 1-x \Rx}{1 - x}%\\&

1223:        + \frac{58}{9} \, \frac{\Li2\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\ln\Lx x \Rx}{1 - x}%\\&

1224:        - \frac{142}{9} \, \frac{\Li3\Lx 1-x \Rx}{1 - x}%\\&

1225:        - \frac{64}{9\,\Lx 1-x \Rx} \, \Li3\Lx - \frac{1 - x}{x} \Rx\\&

1226:        + \frac{7 - 51\,x - 10\,x^2 + 10\,x^3}{9} \, \Li2\Lx 1-x \Rx%\\&

1227:        - \frac{58 + 88\,x + 88\,x^2 + 2\,x^3}{9} \,

1228:                    \Li2\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\ln\Lx x \Rx\\&

1229:        - \frac{x - 2\,x^2 - 2\,x^3}{9} \, \Li2\Lx 1-x^2 \Rx%\\&

1230:        + \frac{x^3}{3} \, \Li2\Lx 1-x^2 \Rx\,\ln\Lx x \Rx\\&

1231:        + \frac{142 + 37\,x + 37\,x^2 + 6\,x^3}{9} \, \Li3\Lx 1-x \Rx%\\&

1232:        + \frac{64 + 94\,x + 94\,x^2 - 6\,x^3}{9} \,

1233:                    \Li3\Lx - \frac{1 - x}{x} \Rx\\&

1234:        - \frac{7\,x^3}{18} \, \Li3\Lx 1-x^2 \Rx%\\&

1235:        - \frac{x^3}{18} \, \Li3\Lx - \frac{1 - x^2}{x^2} \Rx%\\&

1236:        - \frac{2\,x^3}{3} \, \LB \Li3\Lx \frac{1 - x}{1 + x} \Rx

1237:                    - \Li3\Lx - \frac{1 - x}{1 + x} \Rx\RB\,,

1238: \end{split}

1239: \end{equation}

1240: \begin{equation}

1241: \begin{split}

1242:    \Delta_{\bbar}^{(2)\,F} =&\

1243:        \frac{2  - 10\,\zeta_2 + 18\,\zeta_3}{27} \, \delta\Lx 1-x \Rx%\\&

1244:        + \frac{56 - 72\,\zeta_2}{81} \, \Di0\Lx 1-x \Rx%\\&

1245:        - \frac{40}{27} \, \Di1\Lx 1-x \Rx%\\&

1246:        + \frac{8}{9} \, \Di2\Lx 1-x \Rx\\&

1247:        - \frac{8 + 4\,x + 4\,x^2}{9} \,\ln^2\Lx 1-x \Rx%\\&

1248:        + \frac{40 + 8\,x + 32\,x^2}{27} \,\ln\Lx 1-x \Rx%\\&

1249:        - \frac{16}{9} \, \frac{\ln\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\ln\Lx x \Rx}{1 - x}\\&

1250:        + \frac{16 + 8\,x + 8\,x^2}{9} \,\ln\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\ln\Lx x \Rx%\\&

1251:        + \frac{10}{9} \, \frac{\ln\Lx x \Rx}{1 - x}%\\&

1252:        + \frac{2}{3} \, \frac{\ln^2\Lx x \Rx}{1 - x}%\\&

1253:        - \frac{2}{9} \, \frac{\Li2\Lx 1-x \Rx}{1 - x}%\\&

1254:        - \frac{56 + x + 55\,x^2}{81} \\&

1255:        + \frac{8 + 4\,x + 4\,x^2}{9} \, \zeta_2%\\&

1256:        - \frac{10 + 3\,x + 7\,x^2}{9} \,\ln\Lx x \Rx%\\&

1257:        - \frac{12 + 7\,x + 7\,x^2}{18} \,\ln^2\Lx x \Rx%\\&

1258:        + \frac{2}{9} \, \Li2\Lx 1-x \Rx\,.

1259: \end{split}

1260: \end{equation}

1261: Note that the $\Di{n}$ terms in this result could also be derived by

1262: other methods~\cite{Kramer:1998iq,Vogt:2000ci,Harlander:2001is,

1263: Catani:2001ic,Kidonakis:2003tx,Magnea:1991qg,Contopanagos:1997nh}.

1264: 

1265: \subsection{The $bg$ subprocess}

1266: The $bg\to\phi+X$ subprocess first enters at \nlo, where the

1267: contribution is

1268: \begin{equation}

1269: \begin{split}

1270:    &\Delta_{bg}^{(1)} = \Delta_{\bar{b}g}^{(1)} =

1271:        \frac{x - 2\,x^2 + 2\,x^3}{2} \, \ln\Lx 1-x\Rx%\\&

1272:        - \frac{3\,x - 10\,x^2 + 7\,x^3}{8}%\\&

1273:        - \frac{x - 2\,x^2 + 2\,x^3}{4} \, \ln\Lx x \Rx\,.

1274: \end{split}

1275: \end{equation}

1276: 

1277: At \nnlo, the contribution is

1278: \begin{equation}

1279: \begin{split}

1280:    &\Delta_{bg}^{(2)\,A} = \Delta_{\bar{b}g}^{(2)\,A} =\\&\phantom{+}

1281:        \frac{257\,x - 514\,x^2 + 514\,x^3}{144} \, \ln^3\Lx 1-x \Rx\\&

1282:        + \frac{16 - 59\,x + 272\,x^2 - 237\,x^3}{16} \, \ln^2\Lx 1-x \Rx%\\&

1283:        - \frac{11\,x - 94\,x^2 + 62\,x^3}{8} \,

1284:                    \ln^2\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\ln\Lx x \Rx\\&

1285:        + \frac{16 + 28\,x - 731\,x^2 + 726\,x^3}{48} \, \ln\Lx 1-x \Rx%\\&

1286:        - \frac{35\,x - 70\,x^2 + 70\,x^3}{12} \, \zeta_2\,\ln\Lx 1-x \Rx\\&

1287:        + \frac{65\,x - 508\,x^2 + 774\,x^3}{24} \,

1288:                    \ln\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\ln\Lx x \Rx%\\&

1289:        - \frac{3\,x + 174\,x^2 - 98\,x^3}{24} \,

1290:                    \ln\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\ln^2\Lx x \Rx\\&

1291:        + \frac{77\,x + 134\,x^2 - 86\,x^3}{24} \,

1292:                    \ln\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\Li2\Lx 1-x \Rx%\\&

1293:        + \frac{3\,x + 6\,x^2 + 6\,x^3}{4} \,

1294:                    \ln\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\Li2\Lx 1-x^2 \Rx\\&

1295:        - \frac{208 - 411\,x - 1350\,x^2 + 1781\,x^3}{288}%\\&

1296:        - \frac{16 - 31\,x + 176\,x^2 - 169\,x^3}{16} \, \zeta_2%\\&

1297:        + \frac{161\,x - 322\,x^2 + 322\,x^3}{48} \, \zeta_3\\&

1298:        + \frac{32\,x + 536\,x^2 - 993\,x^3}{48} \, \ln\Lx x \Rx%\\&

1299:        + \frac{7\,x - 230\,x^2 + 134\,x^3}{24} \, \zeta_2\,\ln\Lx x \Rx\\&

1300:        - \frac{47\,x - 604\,x^2 + 1028\,x^3}{96} \, \ln^2\Lx x \Rx%\\&

1301:        - \frac{35\,x + 146\,x^2 + 12\,x^3}{144} \, \ln^3\Lx x \Rx\\&

1302:        + \frac{48 - 43\,x + 152\,x^2 + 236\,x^3}{24} \, \Li2\Lx 1-x \Rx%\\&

1303:        - \frac{10\,x + 34\,x^2 - 17\,x^3}{6} \,

1304:                    \Li2\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\ln\Lx x \Rx\\&

1305:        - \frac{19\,x + 40\,x^2 + 21\,x^3}{48} \, \Li2\Lx 1-x^2 \Rx%\\&

1306:        - \frac{9\,x + 18\,x^2 + 10\,x^3}{12} \,

1307:                    \Li2\Lx 1-x^2 \Rx\,\ln\Lx x \Rx\\&

1308:        - \frac{14\,x + 8\,x^2 + 9\,x^3}{3} \, \Li3\Lx 1-x \Rx%\\&

1309:        + \frac{13\,x + 118\,x^2 - 18\,x^3}{12} \,

1310:                    \Li3\Lx - \frac{1 - x}{x} \Rx\\&

1311:        + \frac{9\,x + 18\,x^2 - 14\,x^3}{48} \, \Li3\Lx 1-x^2 \Rx%\\&

1312:        + \frac{9\,x + 18\,x^2 - 14\,x^3}{48} \,

1313:                    \Li3\Lx - \frac{1 - x^2}{x^2} \Rx\\&

1314:        + \frac{3\,x + 6\,x^2 + 6\,x^3}{2} \,

1315:                    \LB \Li3\Lx \frac{1 - x}{1 + x} \Rx

1316:                    - \Li3\Lx - \frac{1 - x}{1 + x} \Rx\RB\,,

1317: \\[1em]

1318: \Delta_{bg}^{(2)\,F} = &\ \Delta_{\bar bg}^{(2)\,F} = 0\,.

1319: \end{split}

1320: \end{equation}

1321: 

1322: \subsection{The $bq$ subprocess}

1323: All remaining components contribute only at \nnlo{} and beyond.  The

1324: contribution to $bq\to\phi+X$, where $q$ is a light ($u$,$d$,$s$ or

1325: $c$) quark, is:

1326: \begin{equation}

1327: \begin{split}

1328:    \Delta_{bq}^{(2)\,A} = &\ \Delta_{\bar{b}q}^{(2)\,A} = 

1329:    \Delta_{b\bar{q}}^{(2)\,A} = \Delta_{\bar{b}\bar{q}}^{(2)\,A} =

1330:        \frac{4 + 3\,x - 3\,x^2 - 4\,x^3}{9} \, \ln^2\Lx 1-x \Rx\\&

1331:        + \frac{2\,x + 2\,x^2}{3} \, \ln^2\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\ln\Lx x \Rx%\\&

1332:        + \frac{4 - 57\,x + 75\,x^2 - 22\,x^3}{27} \, \ln\Lx 1-x \Rx\\&

1333:        - \frac{x - 4\,x^2 - 4\,x^3}{3} \, \ln\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\ln\Lx x \Rx%\\&

1334:        - \frac{2\,x + 2\,x^2}{3} \, \ln\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\ln^2\Lx x \Rx\\&

1335:        + \frac{4\,x + 4\,x^2}{3} \, \ln\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\Li2\Lx 1-x \Rx%\\&

1336:        - \frac{208 - 915\,x + 1410\,x^2 - 703\,x^3}{648}\\&

1337:        - \frac{4 + 3\,x - 3\,x^2 - 4\,x^3}{9} \, \zeta_2%\\&

1338:        + \frac{93\,x - 264\,x^2 + 20\,x^3}{108} \, \ln\Lx x \Rx%\\&

1339:        - \frac{2\,x + 2\,x^2}{3} \, \zeta_2\,\ln\Lx x \Rx\\&

1340:        - \frac{3\,x + 15\,x^2 + 40\,x^3}{72} \, \ln^2\Lx x \Rx%\\&

1341:        + \frac{x + x^2}{36} \, \ln^3\Lx x \Rx%\\&

1342:        + \frac{16 - 3\,x + 21\,x^2 + 8\,x^3}{18} \, \Li2\Lx 1-x \Rx\\&

1343:        - \Lx x + x^2 \Rx \, \Li2\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\ln\Lx x \Rx%\\&

1344:        - \frac{2\,x + 2\,x^2}{3} \, \Li3\Lx 1-x \Rx%\\&

1345:        + \frac{2\,x + 2\,x^2}{3} \, \Li3\Lx - \frac{1 - x}{x} \Rx\,,

1346: \\[1em]

1347: \Delta_{bq}^{(2)\,F} = &\ \Delta_{\bar{b}q}^{(2)\,F} = 

1348: \Delta_{b\bar q}^{(2)\,F} = \Delta_{\bar{b}\bar q}^{(2)\,F} = 0\,.

1349: \end{split}

1350: \end{equation}

1351: 

1352: \subsection{The $gg$ subprocess}

1353: The contribution to $gg\to\phi+X$ is:

1354: \begin{equation}

1355: \begin{split}

1356:   \Delta_{gg}^{(2)\,A} =&\

1357:        - \Lx x + 2\,x^2 - 3\,x^3 \Rx \, \ln^2\Lx 1-x \Rx%\\&

1358:        - \frac{x + 4\,x^2 + 4\,x^3}{2} \, \ln^2\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\ln\Lx x \Rx\\&

1359:        + \frac{23\,x + 52\,x^2 - 75\,x^3}{8} \, \ln\Lx 1-x \Rx%\\&

1360:        + \frac{5\,x + 16\,x^2 - 4\,x^3}{4} \, \ln\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\ln\Lx x \Rx\\&

1361:        + \frac{x + 4\,x^2 + 4\,x^3}{4} \, \ln\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\ln^2\Lx x \Rx%\\&

1362:        - \Lx x + 4\,x^2 + 4\,x^3 \Rx \, \ln\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\Li2\Lx 1-x \Rx\\&

1363:        - \frac{163\,x + 1528\,x^2 - 1691\,x^3}{128}%\\&

1364:        + \Lx x + 2\,x^2 - 3\,x^3 \Rx \, \zeta_2\\&

1365:        - \frac{54\,x + 312\,x^2 - 223\,x^3}{64} \, \ln\Lx x \Rx%\\&

1366:        + \frac{x + 4\,x^2 + 4\,x^3}{2} \, \zeta_2\,\ln\Lx x \Rx\\&

1367:        - \frac{16\,x + 111\,x^2 - 43\,x^3}{64} \, \ln^2\Lx x \Rx%\\&

1368:        + \frac{7\,x + 25\,x^2 + 34\,x^3}{48} \, \ln^3\Lx x \Rx\\&

1369:        - \frac{4\,x - 15\,x^2 - 62\,x^3}{16} \, \Li2\Lx 1-x \Rx%\\&

1370:        + \frac{11\,x + 44\,x^2 + 30\,x^3}{16} \,

1371:                    \Li2\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\ln\Lx x \Rx\\&

1372:        + \frac{x^2 - 6\,x^3}{32} \, \Li2\Lx 1-x^2 \Rx%\\&

1373:        + \frac{3\,x + 6\,x^2 + 38\,x^3}{64} \,

1374:                    \Li2\Lx 1-x^2 \Rx\,\ln\Lx x \Rx\\&

1375:        + \frac{x + 3\,x^2 + 18\,x^3}{8} \, \Li3\Lx 1-x \Rx%\\&

1376:        - \frac{15\,x + 60\,x^2 + 30\,x^3}{16} \,

1377:                    \Li3\Lx - \frac{1 - x}{x} \Rx\\&

1378:        - \frac{5\,x + 10\,x^2 + 74\,x^3}{128} \, \Li3\Lx 1-x^2 \Rx%\\&

1379:        - \frac{3\,x + 6\,x^2 + 70\,x^3}{128} \,

1380:                    \Li3\Lx - \frac{1 - x^2}{x^2} \Rx\\&

1381:        - \frac{x + 2\,x^2 + 2\,x^3}{32} \,

1382:                    \LB \Li3\Lx \frac{1 - x}{1 + x} \Rx

1383:                     - \Li3\Lx - \frac{1 - x}{1 + x} \Rx\RB\,,

1384: \\[1em]

1385:   \Delta_{gg}^{(2)\,F} =&\ 0\,.

1386: \end{split}

1387: \end{equation}

1388: 

1389: \subsection{The $bb$ subprocess}

1390: The contribution to $bb\to\phi+X$ is:

1391: \begin{equation}

1392: \begin{split}

1393:    \Delta_{bb}^{(2)\,A} =&\ \Delta_{\bar{b}\bar{b}}^{(2)\,A} =

1394:         \frac{8 + 6\,x - 6\,x^2 - 8\,x^3}{9} \, \ln^2\Lx 1-x \Rx%\\&

1395:        + \frac{4\,x + 4\,x^2}{3} \, \ln^2\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\ln\Lx x \Rx\\&

1396:        + \frac{8 - 138\,x + 174\,x^2 - 44\,x^3}{27} \, \ln\Lx 1-x \Rx%\\&

1397:        - \frac{10\,x - 20\,x^2 - 24\,x^3}{9} \, \ln\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\ln\Lx x \Rx\\&

1398:        + \frac{4}{9} \, \frac{\ln\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\ln^2\Lx x \Rx}{1 + x}%\\&

1399:        - \frac{16}{9} \, \frac{\ln\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\Li2\Lx 1-x \Rx}{1 + x}%\\&

1400:        + \frac{8}{9} \, \frac{\ln\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\Li2\Lx 1-x^2 \Rx}{1 + x}\\&

1401:        - \frac{4 + 10\,x + 14\,x^2}{9} \, \ln\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\ln^2\Lx x \Rx%\\&

1402:        + \frac{16 + 16\,x + 32\,x^2}{9} \, \ln\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\Li2\Lx 1-x \Rx\\&

1403:        - \frac{8 - 4\,x + 4\,x^2}{9} \, \ln\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\Li2\Lx 1-x^2 \Rx%\\&

1404:        - \frac{52 - 357\,x + 510\,x^2 - 205\,x^3}{81}\\&

1405:        - \frac{8 + 6\,x - 6\,x^2 - 8\,x^3}{9} \, \zeta_2%\\&

1406:        + \frac{117\,x - 279\,x^2 + 20\,x^3}{54} \, \ln\Lx x \Rx%\\&

1407:        - \frac{4\,x + 4\,x^2}{3} \, \zeta_2\,\ln(x)\\&

1408:        - \frac{x + 11\,x^2 + 34\,x^3}{36} \, \ln^2(x)%\\&

1409:        + \frac{28 - 12\,x + 17\,x^2}{54} \, \ln^3\Lx x \Rx%\\&

1410:        - \frac{14}{27} \, \frac{\ln^3\Lx x \Rx}{1 + x}\\&

1411:        + \frac{4}{3} \, \frac{\Li2\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\ln\Lx x \Rx}{1 + x}%\\&

1412:        - \frac{8}{9} \, \frac{\Li2\Lx 1-x^2 \Rx\,\ln\Lx x \Rx}{1 + x}%\\&

1413:        - \frac{4}{3} \, \frac{\Li3\Lx 1-x \Rx}{1 + x}%\\&

1414:        + \frac{4}{3\,\Lx 1+x \Rx} \, \Li3\Lx - \frac{1 - x}{x} \Rx\\&

1415:        + \frac{1}{3} \, \frac{\Li3\Lx 1-x^2 \Rx}{1 + x}%\\&

1416:        + \frac{1}{9\,\Lx 1+x \Rx} \, \Li3\Lx - \frac{1 - x^2}{x^2} \Rx%\\&

1417:        + \frac{20}{9\,\Lx 1+x \Rx} \, \LB \Li3\Lx \frac{1 - x}{1 + x} \Rx

1418:                    - \Li3\Lx - \frac{1 - x}{1 + x} \Rx\RB\\&

1419:        + \frac{16 - 12\,x + 16\,x^2 + 11\,x^3}{9} \, \Li2\Lx 1-x \Rx%\\&

1420:        - \frac{12 + 8\,x + 29\,x^2}{9} \, \Li2\Lx 1-x \Rx\,\ln\Lx x \Rx\\&

1421:        + \frac{x}{9} \, \Li2\Lx 1-x^2 \Rx%\\&

1422:        + \frac{16 - 11\,x + 11\,x^2}{18} \, \Li2\Lx 1-x^2 \Rx\,\ln\Lx x \Rx%\\&

1423:        + \frac{12 - 27\,x + 5\,x^2}{9} \, \Li3\Lx 1-x \Rx\\&

1424:        - \frac{12 - 16\,x - 9\,x^2 - 2\,x^3}{9} \,

1425:                    \Li3\Lx - \frac{1 - x}{x} \Rx%\\&

1426:        - \frac{12 - 13\,x + 13\,x^2}{36} \, \Li3\Lx 1-x^2 \Rx\\&

1427:        - \frac{4 - 3\,x + 3\,x^2}{36} \, \Li3\Lx - \frac{1 - x^2}{x^2} \Rx%\\&

1428:        - \frac{20 - 13\,x + 13\,x^2}{9} \,

1429:                    \LB \Li3\Lx \frac{1 - x}{1 + x} \Rx - \Li3\Lx

1430:                    - \frac{1 - x}{1 + x} \Rx\RB\,,

1431: \\[1em]

1432: \Delta_{bb}^{(2)\,F} =&\ \Delta_{\bar{b}\bar{b}}^{(2)\,F} = 0\,.

1433: \end{split}

1434: \end{equation}

1435: 

1436: \subsection{The $\qqbar$ subprocess}

1437: The contribution to $\qqbar\to\phi+X$ is ($q\in\{u,d,s,c\}$):

1438: \begin{equation}

1439: \begin{split}

1440:    \Delta_{q\bar{q}}^{(2)\,A} = &\ 

1441:        - \frac{2\,x - 8\,x^2 + 6\,x^3}{9}%\\&

1442:        - \frac{x - 2\,x^2 - 3\,x^3}{9} \, \ln\Lx x \Rx%\\&

1443:        + \frac{x^3}{9} \, \ln^2\Lx x \Rx\hskip 1in\\&\ 

1444:        - \frac{4\,x^3}{9} \, \Li2\Lx 1-x \Rx%\\&

1445:        + \frac{2\,x^3}{9} \, \Li2\Lx 1-x^2 \Rx\,,\\[1em]

1446:    \Delta_{q\bar{q}}^{(2)\,F} = &\ 0\,.

1447: \end{split}

1448: \end{equation}

1449: 

1450: 

1451: \vskip 2cm{}

1452: \end{widetext}

1453: \end{appendix}

1454: 

1455: %- }}}

1456: %- {{{ bibliography:

1457: 

1458: \providecommand{\href}[2]{#2}\begingroup\raggedright\begin{thebibliography}{10}

1459: 

1460: \bibitem{lumimoni}

1461:  The luminosity monitor of {Tevatron} Run~{II} can be found at {\tt

1462:   http://www.fnal.gov/pub/now/tevlum.html}.

1463: 

1464: \bibitem{Carena:2002es}

1465: M.~Carena and H.~E. Haber, {\it {Higgs} boson theory and phenomenology},

1466:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0208209}{

1467:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0208209}.

1468: 

1469: \bibitem{Harlander:2002wh}

1470: R.~V. Harlander and W.~B. Kilgore, {\it Next-to-next-to-leading order {Higgs}

1471:   production at hadron colliders},  {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 88} (2002)

1472:   201801,

1473:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0201206}{

1474:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0201206}].

1475: 

1476: \bibitem{Anastasiou:2002yz}

1477: C.~Anastasiou and K.~Melnikov, {\it {Higgs} boson production at hadron

1478:   colliders in {NNLO} {QCD}},  {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B646} (2002) 220--256,

1479:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0207004}{

1480:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0207004}].

1481: 

1482: \bibitem{Ravindran:2003um}

1483: V.~Ravindran, J.~Smith, and W.~L. van Neerven, {\it {NNLO} corrections to the

1484:   total cross section for {Higgs} boson production in hadron hadron

1485:   collisions},

1486:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0302135}{

1487:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0302135}.

1488: 

1489: \bibitem{Han:1992hr}

1490: T.~Han, G.~Valencia, and S.~Willenbrock, {\it Structure function approach to

1491:   vector-boson scattering in {$pp$} collisions},  {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf

1492:   69} (1992) 3274--3277,

1493:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9206246}{

1494:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9206246}].

1495: 

1496: \bibitem{Han:1991ia}

1497: T.~Han and S.~Willenbrock, {\it {QCD} correction to the {$pp \to WH$} and

1498:   {$ZH$} total cross-sections},  {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B273} (1991) 167--172.

1499: 

1500: \bibitem{Reina:2001sf}

1501: L.~Reina and S.~Dawson, {\it Next-to-leading order results for {$t\bar{t}h$}

1502:   production at the {Tevatron}},  {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 87} (2001)

1503:   201804,

1504:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0107101}{

1505:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0107101}].

1506: 

1507: \bibitem{Beenakker:2001rj}

1508: W.~Beenakker {\em et.~al.}, {\it {Higgs} radiation off top quarks at the

1509:   {Tevatron} and the {LHC}},  {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 87} (2001) 201805,

1510:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0107081}{

1511:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0107081}].

1512: 

1513: \bibitem{Dawson:2002tg}

1514: S.~Dawson, L.~H. Orr, L.~Reina, and D.~Wackeroth, {\it {Associated} top

1515:   quark-{Higgs} boson production at the {LHC}},  {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D67}

1516:   (2003) 071503,

1517:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0211438}{

1518:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0211438}].

1519: 

1520: \bibitem{Beenakker:2002nc}

1521: W.~Beenakker {\em et.~al.}, {\it {NLO} {QCD} corrections to {$t\bar{t}H$}

1522:   production in hadron collisions},  {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B653} (2003)

1523:   151--203,

1524:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0211352}{

1525:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0211352}].

1526: 

1527: \bibitem{Dawson:1996xz}

1528: S.~Dawson, A.~Djouadi, and M.~Spira, {\it {QCD} corrections to {SUSY} {Higgs}

1529:   production: {The} role of squark loops},  {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 77}

1530:   (1996) 16--19,

1531:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9603423}{

1532:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9603423}].

1533: 

1534: \bibitem{Martin:1997ns}

1535: S.~P. Martin, {\it A supersymmetry primer},

1536:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9709356}{

1537:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9709356}.

1538: 

1539: \bibitem{Spira:1995rr}

1540: M.~Spira, A.~Djouadi, D.~Graudenz, and P.~M. Zerwas, {\it {Higgs} boson

1541:   production at the {LHC}},  {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B453} (1995) 17--82,

1542:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9504378}{

1543:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9504378}].

1544: 

1545: \bibitem{Dicus:1989cx}

1546: D.~A. Dicus and S.~Willenbrock, {\it {Higgs} boson production from heavy quark

1547:   fusion},  {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D39} (1989) 751.

1548: 

1549: \bibitem{Dicus:1998hs}

1550: D.~Dicus, T.~Stelzer, Z.~Sullivan, and S.~Willenbrock, {\it {Higgs} boson

1551:   production in association with bottom quarks at next-to-leading order},  {\em

1552:   Phys. Rev.} {\bf D59} (1999) 094016,

1553:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9811492}{

1554:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9811492}].

1555: 

1556: \bibitem{Maltoni:2003pn}

1557: F.~Maltoni, Z.~Sullivan, and S.~Willenbrock, {\it {Higgs}-boson production via

1558:   bottom-quark fusion},  {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D67} (2003) 093005,

1559:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0301033}{

1560:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0301033}].

1561: 

1562: \bibitem{Barnett:1988jw}

1563: R.~M. Barnett, H.~E. Haber, and D.~E. Soper, {\it Ultraheavy particle

1564:   production from heavy partons at hadron colliders},  {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf

1565:   B306} (1988) 697.

1566: 

1567: \bibitem{Olness:1988ep}

1568: F.~I. Olness and W.-K. Tung, {\it When is a heavy quark not a parton? charged

1569:   {Higgs} production and heavy quark mass effects in the {QCD} based parton

1570:   model},  {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B308} (1988) 813.

1571: 

1572: \bibitem{Aivazis:1994pi}

1573: M.~A.~G. Aivazis, J.~C. Collins, F.~I. Olness, and W.-K. Tung, {\it

1574:   Leptoproduction of heavy quarks. {II}. a unified {QCD} formulation of charged

1575:   and neutral current processes from {fixed-target} to collider energies},

1576:   {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D50} (1994) 3102--3118,

1577:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9312319}{

1578:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9312319}].

1579: 

1580: \bibitem{Thorne:1998ga}

1581: R.~S. Thorne and R.~G. Roberts, {\it An ordered analysis of heavy flavour

1582:   production in deep inelastic scattering},  {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D57} (1998)

1583:   6871--6898,

1584:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9709442}{

1585:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9709442}].

1586: 

1587: \bibitem{Kramer:2000hn}

1588: M.~{Kr\"amer}, F.~I. Olness, and D.~E. Soper, {\it Treatment of heavy quarks in

1589:   deeply inelastic scattering},  {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D62} (2000) 096007,

1590:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0003035}{

1591:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0003035}].

1592: 

1593: \bibitem{Buza:1996ie}

1594: M.~Buza, Y.~Matiounine, J.~Smith, R.~Migneron, and W.~L. van Neerven, {\it

1595:   Heavy quark coefficient functions at asymptotic values {$Q^2 \gg m^2$}},

1596:   {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B472} (1996) 611--658,

1597:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9601302}{

1598:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9601302}].

1599: 

1600: \bibitem{Buza:1998wv}

1601: M.~Buza, Y.~Matiounine, J.~Smith, and W.~L. van Neerven, {\it Charm

1602:   electroproduction viewed in the variable-flavour number scheme versus

1603:   fixed-order perturbation theory},  {\em Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C1} (1998)

1604:   301--320,

1605:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9612398}{

1606:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9612398}].

1607: 

1608: \bibitem{Chuvakin:1999nx}

1609: A.~Chuvakin, J.~Smith, and W.~L. van Neerven, {\it Comparison between variable

1610:   flavor number schemes for charm quark electroproduction},  {\em Phys. Rev.}

1611:   {\bf D61} (2000) 096004,

1612:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9910250}{

1613:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9910250}].

1614: 

1615: \bibitem{Chuvakin:2000qc}

1616: A.~Chuvakin and J.~Smith, {\it Modified minimal subtraction scheme parton

1617:   densities with nnlo heavy flavor matching conditions},  {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf

1618:   D61} (2000) 114018,

1619:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9911504}{

1620:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9911504}].

1621: 

1622: \bibitem{Chuvakin:2000jm}

1623: A.~Chuvakin, J.~Smith, and W.~L. van Neerven, {\it Bottom quark

1624:   electroproduction in variable flavor number schemes},  {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf

1625:   D62} (2000) 036004,

1626:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0002011}{

1627:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0002011}].

1628: 

1629: \bibitem{Chuvakin:2000zj}

1630: A.~Chuvakin, J.~Smith, and B.~W. Harris, {\it Variable flavor number schemes

1631:   versus fixed order perturbation theory for charm quark electroproduction},

1632:   {\em Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C18} (2001) 547--553,

1633:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0010350}{

1634:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0010350}].

1635: 

1636: \bibitem{Eichten:1984eu}

1637: E.~Eichten, I.~Hinchliffe, K.~D. Lane, and C.~Quigg, {\it Super collider

1638:   physics},  {\em Rev. Mod. Phys.} {\bf 56} (1984) 579--707.

1639: 

1640: \bibitem{Gunion:1987pe}

1641: J.~F. Gunion, H.~E. Haber, F.~E. Paige, W.-K. Tung, and S.~S.~D. Willenbrock,

1642:   {\it Neutral and charged {Higgs} detection: Heavy quark fusion, top quark

1643:   mass dependence and rare decays},  {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B294} (1987) 621.

1644: 

1645: \bibitem{Raitio:1979pt}

1646: R.~Raitio and W.~W. Wada, {\it {Higgs} boson production at large transverse

1647:   momentum in {QCD}},  {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D19} (1979) 941.

1648: 

1649: \bibitem{Ng:1984jm}

1650: J.~N. Ng and P.~Zakarauskas, {\it {QCD}-parton calculation of conjoined

1651:   production of {Higgs} bosons and heavy flavors in {$p\bar{p}$} collisions},

1652:   {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D29} (1984) 876.

1653: 

1654: \bibitem{Kunszt:1984ri}

1655: Z.~Kunszt, {\it Associated production of heavy {Higgs} boson with top quarks},

1656:   {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B247} (1984) 339.

1657: 

1658: \bibitem{Campbell:2002zm}

1659: J.~Campbell, R.~K. Ellis, F.~Maltoni, and S.~Willenbrock, {\it {Higgs} boson

1660:   production in association with a single bottom quark},  {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf

1661:   D67} (2003) 095002,

1662:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0204093}{

1663:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0204093}].

1664: 

1665: \bibitem{Balazs:1998sb}

1666: C.~Balazs, H.-J. He, and C.~P. Yuan, {\it {QCD} corrections to scalar

1667:   production via heavy quark fusion at hadron colliders},  {\em Phys. Rev.}

1668:   {\bf D60} (1999) 114001,

1669:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9812263}{

1670:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9812263}].

1671: 

1672: \bibitem{Rainwater:2002hm}

1673: D.~Rainwater, M.~Spira, and D.~Zeppenfeld, {\it Higgs boson production at

1674:   hadron colliders: Signal and background processes},

1675:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0203187}{

1676:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0203187}.

1677: 

1678: \bibitem{Spira:2002rd}

1679: M.~Spira, {\it {Higgs} and {SUSY} particle production at hadron colliders},

1680:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0211145}{

1681:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0211145}.

1682: 

1683: \bibitem{Plehn:2002vy}

1684: T.~Plehn, {\it Charged {Higgs} boson production in bottom gluon fusion},  {\em

1685:   Phys. Rev.} {\bf D67} (2003) 014018,

1686:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0206121}{

1687:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0206121}].

1688: 

1689: \bibitem{Catani:1988xy}

1690: S.~Catani, {\it Violation of the {Bloch-Nordsieck} mechanism in general

1691:   nonabelian theories and {SUSY} {QCD}},  {\em Z. Phys.} {\bf C37} (1988) 357.

1692: 

1693: \bibitem{Boos:2003yi}

1694: E.~Boos and T.~Plehn, {\it Higgs-boson production induced by bottom quarks},

1695:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0304034}{ hep-ph/0304034}.

1696: 

1697: \bibitem{Hamberg:1991np}

1698: R.~Hamberg, W.~L. van Neerven, and T.~Matsuura, {\it A complete calculation of

1699:   the order {$\alpha_s^2$} correction to the {Drell-Yan} {$K$}-factor},  {\em

1700:   Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B359} (1991) 343--405.

1701: 

1702: \bibitem{Baikov:2000jg}

1703: P.~A. Baikov and V.~A. Smirnov, {\it Equivalence of recurrence relations for

1704:   {Feynman} integrals with the same total number of external and loop momenta},

1705:    {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B477} (2000) 367--372,

1706:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0001192}{

1707:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0001192}].

1708: 

1709: \bibitem{Harlander:2000mg}

1710: R.~V. Harlander, {\it Virtual corrections to {$gg \to H$} to two loops in the

1711:   heavy top limit},  {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B492} (2000) 74--80,

1712:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0007289}{

1713:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0007289}].

1714: 

1715: \bibitem{Chetyrkin:1981qh}

1716: K.~G. Chetyrkin and F.~V. Tkachov, {\it Integration by parts: the algorithm to

1717:   calculate beta functions in 4 loops},  {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B192} (1981)

1718:   159--204.

1719: 

1720: \bibitem{Larin:1991fz}

1721: S.~A. Larin, F.~V. Tkachov, and J.~A.~M. Vermaseren, ``The {FORM} version of

1722:   {MINCER}.'' {Report} {No.} {NIKHEF}-H-91-18, 1991.

1723: 

1724: \bibitem{Gonsalves:1983nq}

1725: R.~J. Gonsalves, {\it Dimensionally regularized two-loop on-shell quark form

1726:   factor},  {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D28} (1983) 1542.

1727: 

1728: \bibitem{Catani:1998bh}

1729: S.~Catani, {\it The singular behaviour of {QCD} amplitudes at two-loop order},

1730:   {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B427} (1998) 161--171,

1731:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9802439}{

1732:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9802439}].

1733: 

1734: \bibitem{Sterman:2002qn}

1735: G.~Sterman and M.~E. Tejeda-Yeomans, {\it Multi-loop amplitudes and

1736:   resummation},  {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B552} (2003) 48--56,

1737:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0210130}{

1738:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0210130}].

1739: 

1740: \bibitem{Nogueira:1993ex}

1741: P.~Nogueira, {\it Automatic {Feynman} graph generation},  {\em J. Comput.

1742:   Phys.} {\bf 105} (1993) 279--289.

1743: 

1744: \bibitem{Geficom}

1745: K.~G. Chetyrkin and M.~Steinhauser, ``{GEFICOM}: Automatic generation and

1746:   computation of {Feynman} diagrams.'' unpublished.

1747: 

1748: \bibitem{Steinhauser:2002rq}

1749: M.~Steinhauser, {\it Results and techniques of multi-loop calculations},  {\em

1750:   Phys. Rept.} {\bf 364} (2002) 247--357,

1751:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0201075}{

1752:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0201075}].

1753: 

1754: \bibitem{Harlander:1998dq}

1755: R.~Harlander and M.~Steinhauser, {\it Automatic computation of {Feynman}

1756:   diagrams},  {\em Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.} {\bf 43} (1999) 167--228,

1757:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9812357}{

1758:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9812357}].

1759: 

1760: \bibitem{Kilgore:2002sk}

1761: W.~B. Kilgore, {\it {Higgs} boson production at hadron colliders},

1762:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0208143}{

1763:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0208143}. Proceedings of the {XXXI}st

1764:   International Conference on High Energy Physics, {Amsterdam}, {The

1765:   Netherlands}, 24-31 {July}, 2002.

1766: 

1767: \bibitem{Vermaseren:2000nd}

1768: J.~A.~M. Vermaseren, ``New features of {FORM}.'' {Report} {No.}

1769:   {NIKHEF}-00-0032, 2000.

1770: 

1771: \bibitem{Retey:2000nq}

1772: A.~Retey and J.~A.~M. Vermaseren, {\it Some higher moments of deep inelastic

1773:   structure functions at next-to-next-to leading order of perturbative {QCD}},

1774:   {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B604} (2001) 281--311,

1775:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0007294}{

1776:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0007294}].

1777: 

1778: \bibitem{Larin:1994vu}

1779: S.~A. Larin, T.~van Ritbergen, and J.~A.~M. Vermaseren, {\it The

1780:   next-next-to-leading {QCD} approximation for {non-singlet} moments of deep

1781:   inelastic structure functions},  {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B427} (1994) 41--52.

1782: 

1783: \bibitem{Larin:1997wd}

1784: S.~A. Larin, P.~Nogueira, T.~van Ritbergen, and J.~A.~M. Vermaseren, {\it The

1785:   {$3$}-loop {QCD} calculation of the moments of deep inelastic structure

1786:   functions},  {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B492} (1997) 338--378,

1787:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9605317}{

1788:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9605317}].

1789: 

1790: \bibitem{Martin:2002dr}

1791: A.~D. Martin, R.~G. Roberts, W.~J. Stirling, and R.~S. Thorne, {\it {NNLO}

1792:   global parton analysis},  {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B531} (2002) 216--224,

1793:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0201127}{

1794:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0201127}].

1795: 

1796: \bibitem{Chetyrkin:1997dh}

1797: K.~G. Chetyrkin, {\it Quark mass anomalous dimension to {${\cal

1798:   O}(\alpha_s^4)$}},  {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B404} (1997) 161--165,

1799:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9703278}{

1800:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9703278}].

1801: 

1802: \bibitem{Vermaseren:1997fq}

1803: J.~A.~M. Vermaseren, S.~A. Larin, and T.~van Ritbergen, {\it The 4-loop quark

1804:   mass anomalous dimension and the invariant quark mass},  {\em Phys. Lett.}

1805:   {\bf B405} (1997) 327--333,

1806:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9703284}{

1807:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9703284}].

1808: 

1809: \bibitem{Larin:1993tq}

1810: S.~A. Larin, {\it The renormalization of the axial anomaly in dimensional

1811:   regularization},  {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B303} (1993) 113--118,

1812:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9302240}{

1813:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9302240}].

1814: 

1815: \bibitem{Martin:2001es}

1816: A.~D. Martin, R.~G. Roberts, W.~J. Stirling, and R.~S. Thorne, {\it {MRST2001}:

1817:   partons and {$\alpha_s$} from precise deep inelastic scattering and

1818:   {Tevatron} jet data},  {\em Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C23} (2002) 73--87,

1819:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0110215}{

1820:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0110215}].

1821: 

1822: \bibitem{Kramer:1998iq}

1823: M.~{Kr\"amer}, E.~Laenen, and M.~Spira, {\it Soft gluon radiation in {Higgs}

1824:   boson production at the {LHC}},  {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B511} (1998)

1825:   523--549,

1826:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9611272}{

1827:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9611272}].

1828: 

1829: \bibitem{Vogt:2000ci}

1830: A.~Vogt, {\it Next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic threshold resummation for

1831:   deep inelastic scattering and the {Drell-Yan} process},  {\em Phys. Lett.}

1832:   {\bf B497} (2001) 228--234,

1833:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0010146}{

1834:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0010146}].

1835: 

1836: \bibitem{Harlander:2001is}

1837: R.~V. Harlander and W.~B. Kilgore, {\it Soft and virtual corrections to {$p p

1838:   \to H + X$} at {NNLO}},  {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D64} (2001) 013015,

1839:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0102241}{

1840:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0102241}].

1841: 

1842: \bibitem{Catani:2001ic}

1843: S.~Catani, D.~de~Florian, and M.~Grazzini, {\it {Higgs} production in hadron

1844:   collisions: Soft and virtual {QCD} corrections at {NNLO}},  {\em JHEP} {\bf

1845:   05} (2001) 025,

1846:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0102227}{

1847:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0102227}].

1848: 

1849: \bibitem{Kidonakis:2003tx}

1850: N.~Kidonakis, {\it A unified approach to {NNLO} soft and virtual corrections in

1851:   electroweak, {Higgs}, {QCD}, and {SUSY} processes},

1852:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0303186}{

1853:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0303186}.

1854: 

1855: \bibitem{Magnea:1991qg}

1856: L.~Magnea, {\it All order summation and two loop results for the {Drell-Yan}

1857:   cross-section},  {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B349} (1991) 703--713.

1858: 

1859: \bibitem{Contopanagos:1997nh}

1860: H.~Contopanagos, E.~Laenen, and G.~Sterman, {\it Sudakov factorization and

1861:   resummation},  {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B484} (1997) 303--330,

1862:   [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9604313}{

1863:   http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9604313}].

1864: 

1865: \end{thebibliography}\endgroup

1866: 

1867: %- }}}

1868: 

1869: \end{document}

1870: