CERN Accelerating science

Christoph Paus wrote on 27 Mar 2019, 22:14:

The last paragraph (summary and conclusion) in the note is somewhat vague. I think it leaves open whether the presented results are good enough for experimenters to use or whether really more studies are needed.

It seems that the recommendations are fine within the quoted uncertainties. The additional studies would be needed if one wanted to make more preceise predictions. Correct?

We have extended the conclusion section with more details on implications
   for interpreting the measurement and added other potential sources of
   uncertainty. Indeed, a more refined study would be required for
   high-precision predictions, as emphasised in the conclusions

Fabio Cerutti wrote on 28 Mar 2019, 14:26:

Dear Colleagues,

thanks for the very nice note.

 

I don't have major comments, only a couple of very minor suggestions that I hope can help.

 

- VBF predicitons in Table7 ad Table8 are slightly different, I guess this is N3LO vs NNLO in QCD? Could it be make more clear in the text?

- You report separately EW correction in Table 9. Would be nice also add an additional table with the predicted cross-sections with all corrections (QCDxEW) included (as a reference)?

 

Thansk anfd congratulations Fabio

 

(Answer by Fabrizio, inserted by Paolo)

 the format has been made more homogeneous in V2, and everything has
   been properly documented [see later for EW comment]

Alexander Karlberg wrote on 08 Apr 2019, 14:38:

Hello!

It is not clear from the note that the setup for the VBF/VH/ttH contributions is the same as for ggF (PDF4LHC, MH=125 etc). This should probably be made clear.

To answer the question above, the difference for the VBF predictions in the two tables are indeed due to one of them being N3LO and the other NNLO. I agree that this is not clear.  

Cheers

Alexander

(Reply by Fabrizio, inserted by Paolo)

implemented

Tania Natalie Robens wrote on 23 Sep 2020, 11:31:

Hi

just a couple of brief remarks:

- for figure 1, I am sure this is discussed in the original work, but LO and NLO dont overlapp, maybe this should be commented somewhere

- similarly for figure 2, between pure NNLO and the 2 improved versions...

- in tables 3 and 4, is there a reason there is no MG5_MC@NLO entry ?

- then below table 3, there is a sentence "inspecting the last 2 rows..." (comment re parton shower). However, if I see it correctly, all results from tab 3 are presented in tab 4 with parton shower inclusion. Why concentrate on the last 2  (or did you mean columns) ?

- in table 5, which top mass scheme was used for the minlo predictions ?

- footnote 3: correction -> corrections

- in the summary: it is true from the numbers presented in tables 6/ 7 other production modes should be considered as well. However, naively I would assume that the additional production modes coming with additional jets/ electroweak vector bosons/ b-jets would not necessarily be part of the signal region if this is assumed to come e.g. BSM in gg fusion production(depending on experimental signatures that are considered). Maybe this should be mentioned...

- finally, ref [10] is superseeded by now

 

I hope I did not oversee answers to the comments below which are already within the document.

 

Best wishes  Tania

(Comment by Fabrizio, inserted by Paolo)

-- on the large K-factor: this is well-known in Higgs physics. Since
   this is a technical note, we do not think it is necessary to discuss
   this issue
-- the MG5_aMC@NLO results are reported in Table 5
-- comment 4 -> fixed
-- comment 5 -> HJ-MiNLO with top-mass effects, as can be seen from Tab. 4.
   Caption updated to reflect this
-- comment 6 -> fixed
-- comment 7 -> we have now a more detailed conclusion
-- comment 8 -> reference updated

Fabio Cerutti wrote on 25 Sep 2020, 08:47:

Dear Colleagues,

thanks for the iupdated document.

I only have two very minor suggestions/quesions:

- Why don;t you also produce a version of Table 6 that includes QCDxEW for non-ggF producitn modes (of coruse one ca derive it multiplying the numbers in Table 6 and Table 7 but it would be useful to have it).

- Why the errors associated to EW corrections reported in Table 7 are nto mentioned?

 

That's all form my side. Congratulation for thsi very important piece of work,

 Fabio.

(answered by Fabrizio, inserted by Paolo)

-- The question of EW correction in the boosted region is delicate.
   A full analysis (including ggF) is not possible, and a proper error
   assessment would require further studies. Because of this, we prefer
   to provide EW numbers separately