This comment is related with file LHCHWG-2024-001, version 1
Dear colleagues,
Thank you for producing this important update for 13.6 TeV. I had a few questions and comments on this version.
1. It would be appropriate to add a sentence in the introduction saying that only the total cross sections have been updated here. Will the differential cross sections follow in the more complete derivation in progress.
2. How is the linear fit to the ggF cross section motivated? A sentence of explanation would be appropriate here. The reader notes that the VH result is a quadratic fit.
3. There is a typo in the VBF section: "do not include s-channel".
Thank you very much for reading the note and for your comments. Here are our reply:
1. We've made it clear in the introduction and abstract that these are inclusive cross sections. Some sub-groups are working on providing more differential information, based on current experimental needs. We anticipate an updat on cross sections in the boosted regime for instance, along with differential distribtuions for VBF.
2. We checked against a full computation for a few points. The error is below 1 permille, so no need to go further. We've added a sentence to this effect. For the other production modes, the sub-group conveners were not given any strict directions, hence they differ. Given the proximity of 13.6 TeV to 13 and 14 TeV, we do however expect any interpolation error to be much below any theoretical error.
Thanks for putting together important interim numbers for the Run3, 13.6 TeV.
The document should be a nice reference for a while.
I have only a few minor comments.
In the bbH section, a detailed analysis using the ML technique has been introduced. ([62])
The analysis looks very interesting but I'm not sure those sentences are needed in this note since it's a bit beyond the bbH prediction measurement. I don't have strong opinion but I would avoid it if that reference is not relevant for the prediction.
Also, the last sentence of the bbH section sounds beyond the note.
Again, it's not a strong opinion from my side. But please consider it.
Table 3
For W+H and W-H cross-sections, such many digits are not necessary given uncertainties. You could round accordingly.
Thanks for putting together important interim numbers for the Run3, 13.6 TeV.
The document should be a nice reference for a while.
I have only a few minor comments.
In the bbH section, a detailed analysis using the ML technique has been introduced. ([62])
The analysis looks very interesting but I'm not sure those sentences are needed in this note since it's a bit beyond the bbH prediction measurement. I don't have strong opinion but I would avoid it if that reference is not relevant for the prediction.
Also, the last sentence of the bbH section sounds beyond the note.
Again, it's not a strong opinion from my side. But please consider it.
Table 3
For W+H and W-H cross-sections, such many digits are not necessary given uncertainties. You could round accordingly.
best regards,
Tatsuya
Dear Tasuya
In addition to what Michael wrote above, we have adjusted the numbers for WH to reflect the overall precision. Thanks for noticing this.
Thanks for updating the table.
For the final sign-off, can you upload the updated version (update on WH table and bbH section) on CDS?
Other SC members will take a look and send comments if necessary.
thank you very much for your comments to the bbH section.
I have introduced the second-to-last sentence about ML to build up an open basis for the reader's
view about the potential to determine the bottom Yukawa coupling even at SM strength from the
production process due to the previous sentences about the overwhelming competing processes. I
think it is justified for the reader's mind.
The last sentence about BSM is due to the fact that even if the bbH process is not relevant for
the SM Higgs boson, it will be highly relevant for BSM people, since they are also using these
numbers. Remember that bbH is a subgroup of WG3 now.
I do not have a strong opinion about to omit or leave these sentences. We are discussing about two
sentences in the whole document.
Dear colleagues,
Thank you for producing this important update for 13.6 TeV. I had a few questions and comments on this version.
1. It would be appropriate to add a sentence in the introduction saying that only the total cross sections have been updated here. Will the differential cross sections follow in the more complete derivation in progress.
2. How is the linear fit to the ggF cross section motivated? A sentence of explanation would be appropriate here. The reader notes that the VH result is a quadratic fit.
3. There is a typo in the VBF section: "do not include s-channel".
Sincerely,
Jason Nielsen
Dear Jason,
Thank you very much for reading the note and for your comments. Here are our reply:
1. We've made it clear in the introduction and abstract that these are inclusive cross sections. Some sub-groups are working on providing more differential information, based on current experimental needs. We anticipate an updat on cross sections in the boosted regime for instance, along with differential distribtuions for VBF.
2. We checked against a full computation for a few points. The error is below 1 permille, so no need to go further. We've added a sentence to this effect. For the other production modes, the sub-group conveners were not given any strict directions, hence they differ. Given the proximity of 13.6 TeV to 13 and 14 TeV, we do however expect any interpolation error to be much below any theoretical error.
3. Fixed.
Best,
Alexander
Dear Authors,
Thanks for putting together important interim numbers for the Run3, 13.6 TeV.
The document should be a nice reference for a while.
I have only a few minor comments.
In the bbH section, a detailed analysis using the ML technique has been introduced. ([62])
The analysis looks very interesting but I'm not sure those sentences are needed in this note since it's a bit beyond the bbH prediction measurement. I don't have strong opinion but I would avoid it if that reference is not relevant for the prediction.
Also, the last sentence of the bbH section sounds beyond the note.
Again, it's not a strong opinion from my side. But please consider it.
Table 3
For W+H and W-H cross-sections, such many digits are not necessary given uncertainties. You could round accordingly.
best regards,
Tatsuya
Tatsuya Masubuchi wrote on 22 Jan 2024, 05:34:
Dear Tasuya
In addition to what Michael wrote above, we have adjusted the numbers for WH to reflect the overall precision. Thanks for noticing this.
Best,
Alexander
Thanks for updating the table.
For the final sign-off, can you upload the updated version (update on WH table and bbH section) on CDS?
Other SC members will take a look and send comments if necessary.
best,
Tatsuya
Dear Tatsuya,
thank you very much for your comments to the bbH section.
I have introduced the second-to-last sentence about ML to build up an open basis for the reader's
view about the potential to determine the bottom Yukawa coupling even at SM strength from the
production process due to the previous sentences about the overwhelming competing processes. I
think it is justified for the reader's mind.
The last sentence about BSM is due to the fact that even if the bbH process is not relevant for
the SM Higgs boson, it will be highly relevant for BSM people, since they are also using these
numbers. Remember that bbH is a subgroup of WG3 now.
I do not have a strong opinion about to omit or leave these sentences. We are discussing about two
sentences in the whole document.
Best regards, Michael.