H+1 jet production revisited

TL;DR

This paper implements Higgs+jet production at NNLO using the N-jettiness slicing method within an EFT framework, and benchmarks the results against established subtraction-based NNLO calculations. By adopting a boosted definition of 1-jettiness, the authors significantly reduce power corrections, though these remain non-negligible at lower jet pT. The work performs detailed, channel-resolved comparisons with NNLOJET and BCMPS, showing good overall agreement and highlighting the remaining sensitivity to power corrections, especially in the inclusive setups. The boosted regime demonstrates strong control over corrections and validates the method's applicability to phenomenology, while the authors advocate analytic power-correction studies to further improve precision.

Abstract

We revisit the next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) calculation of the Higgs boson+1~jet production process, calculated in the $m_t \to \infty$ effective field theory. We perform a detailed comparison of the result calculated using the jettiness slicing method, with published results obtained using subtraction methods. The results of the jettiness calculation agree with the two previous subtraction calculations at benchmark points. The performance of the jettiness slicing approach is greatly improved by adopting a definition of 1-jettiness that accounts for the boost of the Born system. Nevertheless, the results demonstrate that power corrections in the jettiness slicing method remain significant. At large transverse momentum the effect of power corrections is much reduced, as expected.

Figures (8)

• Figure 1: The dependence of the $H+2j$ cross-section on the $\alpha$ parameters, for each of the different partonic fluxes. The points represent the deviation from the default ($\alpha_{II}=\alpha_{IF}=\alpha_{FI}=\alpha_{FF}=1$) when the labelled parameter is set to $10^{-2}$. The cross-sections in this channel, obtained using the default parameters, are indicated in the plots. The dashed lines represent the uncertainty on a fit of the results to a constant, indicating excellent agreement with zero at the level of Monte Carlo statistics.
• Figure 2: $\tau$-dependence of NLO coefficients for the $gg$, $qg$ and $\bar{q} g$ partonic channels, in the NNLOJET setup. The plots on the left show the result when ${\mathcal{T}}_1$ is computed in the hadronic c.o.m. and the ones on the right indicate the corresponding result when evaluating this quantity in the boosted frame. The (blue) solid lines correspond to the fit form in Eq. (\ref{['eq:fitform-nlo1']}), with the dot-dashed lines representing the errors on the asymptotic value of the fit. The exact results, computed in MCFM using dipole subtraction, are shown as the black dashed lines.
• Figure 3:
• Figure 4: $\tau$-dependence of NNLO coefficients for the $gg$, $qg$ and $\bar{q} g$ partonic channels, in the NNLOJET setup. The plots on the left show the result when ${\mathcal{T}}_1$ is computed in the hadronic c.o.m. and the ones on the right indicate the corresponding result when evaluating this quantity in the boosted frame. The (blue) solid lines correspond to the fit form in Eq. (\ref{['eq:fitform-nnlo1']}), with the dot-dashed lines representing the errors on the asymptotic value of the fit. The NNLOJET result, including its associated uncertainty, is shown as the band enclosed by the black dashed lines.
• Figure 5: $\tau$-dependence of NNLO coefficients for the $q \bar{q}$, $qq$ and $\bar{q} \bar{q}$ partonic channels, in the NNLOJET setup, using ${\mathcal{T}}_1$ evaluated in the boosted frame. The (blue) solid lines correspond to the fit form in Eq. (\ref{['eq:fitform-nnlo2']}), with the dot-dashed lines representing the errors on the asymptotic value of the fit. The NNLOJET result, including its associated uncertainty, is shown as the band enclosed by the black dashed lines.