Resummation prescriptions and ambiguities in SCET vs. direct QCD: Higgs production as a case study
We perform a comparison of soft-gluon resummation in SCET vs. direct QCD (dQCD), using Higgs boson production in gluon fusion as a case study, with the goal of tracing the quantitative impact of each source of difference between the two approaches. We show that saddle-point methods enable a direct q...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Published: |
Springer
2015
|
| _version_ | 1797100841780379648 |
|---|---|
| author | Bonvini, M Forte, S Ridolfi, G Rottoli, L |
| author_facet | Bonvini, M Forte, S Ridolfi, G Rottoli, L |
| author_sort | Bonvini, M |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | We perform a comparison of soft-gluon resummation in SCET vs. direct QCD (dQCD), using Higgs boson production in gluon fusion as a case study, with the goal of tracing the quantitative impact of each source of difference between the two approaches. We show that saddle-point methods enable a direct quantitative comparison despite the fact that the scale which is resummed in the two approaches is not the same. As a byproduct, we put in one-to-one analytic correspondence various features of either approach: specifically, we show how the SCET method for treating the Landau pole can be implemented in dQCD, and how the resummation of the optimal partonic scale of dQCD can be implemented in SCET. We conclude that the main quantitative difference comes from power-suppressed subleading contributions, which could in fact be freely tuned in either approach, and not really characteristic of either. This conclusion holds for Higgs production in gluon fusion, but it is in fact generic for processes with similar kinematics. For Higgs production, everything else being equal, SCET resummation at NNLL in the Becher-Neubert implementation leads to essentially no enhancement of the NNLO cross-section, unlike dQCD in the standard implementation of Catani et al. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-07T05:43:23Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:e65dcfd9-d08e-495a-b742-95a55ccbfefc |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-07T05:43:23Z |
| publishDate | 2015 |
| publisher | Springer |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:e65dcfd9-d08e-495a-b742-95a55ccbfefc2022-03-27T10:30:32ZResummation prescriptions and ambiguities in SCET vs. direct QCD: Higgs production as a case studyJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:e65dcfd9-d08e-495a-b742-95a55ccbfefcSymplectic Elements at OxfordSpringer2015Bonvini, MForte, SRidolfi, GRottoli, LWe perform a comparison of soft-gluon resummation in SCET vs. direct QCD (dQCD), using Higgs boson production in gluon fusion as a case study, with the goal of tracing the quantitative impact of each source of difference between the two approaches. We show that saddle-point methods enable a direct quantitative comparison despite the fact that the scale which is resummed in the two approaches is not the same. As a byproduct, we put in one-to-one analytic correspondence various features of either approach: specifically, we show how the SCET method for treating the Landau pole can be implemented in dQCD, and how the resummation of the optimal partonic scale of dQCD can be implemented in SCET. We conclude that the main quantitative difference comes from power-suppressed subleading contributions, which could in fact be freely tuned in either approach, and not really characteristic of either. This conclusion holds for Higgs production in gluon fusion, but it is in fact generic for processes with similar kinematics. For Higgs production, everything else being equal, SCET resummation at NNLL in the Becher-Neubert implementation leads to essentially no enhancement of the NNLO cross-section, unlike dQCD in the standard implementation of Catani et al. |
| spellingShingle | Bonvini, M Forte, S Ridolfi, G Rottoli, L Resummation prescriptions and ambiguities in SCET vs. direct QCD: Higgs production as a case study |
| title | Resummation prescriptions and ambiguities in SCET vs. direct QCD: Higgs production as a case study |
| title_full | Resummation prescriptions and ambiguities in SCET vs. direct QCD: Higgs production as a case study |
| title_fullStr | Resummation prescriptions and ambiguities in SCET vs. direct QCD: Higgs production as a case study |
| title_full_unstemmed | Resummation prescriptions and ambiguities in SCET vs. direct QCD: Higgs production as a case study |
| title_short | Resummation prescriptions and ambiguities in SCET vs. direct QCD: Higgs production as a case study |
| title_sort | resummation prescriptions and ambiguities in scet vs direct qcd higgs production as a case study |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT bonvinim resummationprescriptionsandambiguitiesinscetvsdirectqcdhiggsproductionasacasestudy AT fortes resummationprescriptionsandambiguitiesinscetvsdirectqcdhiggsproductionasacasestudy AT ridolfig resummationprescriptionsandambiguitiesinscetvsdirectqcdhiggsproductionasacasestudy AT rottolil resummationprescriptionsandambiguitiesinscetvsdirectqcdhiggsproductionasacasestudy |