Abstract
We present the calculation of the decay Hto boverline{b}j at next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) accuracy in QCD. We treat the bottom quarks as massless with a non-zero Higgs Yukawa coupling yb. We consider contributions in which the Higgs boson couples directly to bottom quarks, i.e. our predictions are accurate to order mathcal{O}left({alpha}_s^3{y}_b^2right) . We calculate the various components needed to construct the NNLO contribution, including an independent calculation of the two-loop amplitudes. We compare our results for the two-loop amplitudes to an existing calculation finding agreement. We present additional checks on our two-loop expression using the known infrared factorization properties as the emitted gluon becomes soft or collinear. We use our results to construct a Monte Carlo implementation of Hto boverline{b}j and present jet rates and differential distributions in the Higgs rest frame using the Durham jet algorithm.
Highlights
Standard Model (BSM) could lead to significant changes in the shape of the electroweak symmetry breaking potential, and lead to deviations from the SM predictions
In order to account for some of the effects of the missing b-mass terms we evolve the b-quark mass to the Higgs scale using the two-loop running for NLO predictions, and three-loop running for next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) predictions
In this paper we have presented the calculation of H → bbj at NNLO
Summary
Standard Model (BSM) could lead to significant changes in the shape of the electroweak symmetry breaking potential, and lead to deviations from the SM predictions. At the LHC the H → bb process can be accessed through associated production channels pp → V H followed by a subsequent H → bb decay [6, 7] or directly, by using jet substructure techniques and by looking in the high-pT H +j channel [8], where the backgrounds can be controlled to such a level as to make this measurement a possibility. In both situations precise predictions are mandatory to ensure that theoretical calculations have a similar or smaller uncertainty than the experimental counterparts. We perform this calculation in a companion paper [26]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
