Chinese Physics C > 2017, Vol. 41 > Issue(10): 103001 DOI: 10.1088/1674-1137/41/10/103001

A comparison of direct and indirect determinations of the masses of the Higgs Boson and the top quark

J. H. Field

Abstract
HTML
Reference
Related

PDF

Abstract：
The indirect estimation of the Higgs Boson mass from electroweak radiative corrections within the Standard Model is compared with the directly measured value obtained by the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations at the CERN LHC collider. Treating the direct measurement of m _Has input, the Standard Model indirect estimation of the top-quark mass is also obtained and compared with its directly measured value. A model-independent analysis finds an indirect value of m _Hof ≈ 70 GeV, below the directly measured value of 125.7±0.4 GeV and an indirect value: m _t=177.3±1.0 GeV, above the directly measured value:173.21±0.87 GeV. A goodness-of-fit test to the Standard Model using all Z-pole observables and m _Whas a χ ²probability of ≈ 2%. The reason why probability values about a factor of ten larger than this, and indirect estimates of m _Habout 30 GeV higher, have been obtained in recent global fits to the same data is recalled.
- standard electroweak model,
- LEP,
- SLC and LHC data,
- Z-decays,
- Higgs boson and top quark masses

References

[1]	Precision Electroweak Measurements on the Z Resonance, Phys. Rep., 427:257(2006)
[2]	J. Erler and A. Freitas, Electroweak Model and Constraints on New Physics, p139 in:K. A. Olive et al (Particle Data Group), Chin. Phys. C, 38:090001(2014)
[3]	ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B, 716:1(2012)
[4]	CMS Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B, 716:30(2012)
[5]	J. H. Field, Phys. Rev. D, 58:093010(1998)
[6]	J. H. Field, Phys. Rev. D, 61:013010(1999)
[7]	J. H. Field, Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 13:1973(1998)
[8]	J. H. Field, Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 14:1815(1999)
[9]	J. H. Field, Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 15:761(2000)
[10]	J. H. Field, Eur. Phys. J. C, 41:427(2005)
[11]	G. Rodrigo, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.), 54A:60(1997)
[12]	W. Awramik et al, Phys. Rev. Lett., 93:201805(2004)
[13]	W. Awramik et al, Phys. Rev. D, 69:053006(2004)
[14]	M. Davier et al, Eur. Phys. J. C, 71:1515(2011)
[15]	W. Hollik, Renormalization of the Standard Model, in Precision Tests of the Standard Electroweak Model, Ed. P. Langacker (Singapore:World Scientific, 1995) Fig.2b, p.70
[16]	T. Erler and H. Freitas, Electroweak model and constraints on new physics, in Review of Particle Physics, Chinese Phys. C, 38(9):(2014), Section 10.4.5, p.147
[17]	P. B. Renton, Eur. Phys. J. C, 8:585(1999)
[18]	M. S. Chanowitz, Phys. Rev. Lett., 87:231802(2001)
[19]	ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL Collaborations, Phys. Lett. B, 565:61(2003)
[20]	M. Baak et al, arXiv:1407.3792
[21]	M. Ciuchini et al, Nuclear Physics B Proceedings Supplement 00(2014) 1-7; arXiv:1410.6940v2
[22]	T. Aziz and A. Gurtu, Precision testing the Standard Model, hep-ph/0110177
[23]	S. Alekhin, J. Blumlein, and S. Moch, Phys. Rev. D, 89:054028(2014)
[24]	G. P. Zeller et al, Phys. Rev. Lett., 88:091802(2002)
[25]	K. S. McFarland et al, arXiv:hep-ex/0205080v2
[26]	M. S. Chanowitz, Phys. Rev. D, 66:072002(2002)
[27]	W. Loinaz et al, Phys. Rev. D, 67:073012(2003)
[28]	W. Loinaz et al, Phys. Rev. D, 70:113004(2004)
[29]	W. T. Eadie et al, Statistical Methods in Experimental Physics (North-Hollad, Amsterdam, 1971) Sect. 11.6
[30]	M. Baak et al, Eur. Phys. J C, 72:2205(2012)
[31]	G. Altarelli et al, JHEP, 0106:018(2001)
[32]	G. Altarelli and M. W. Grnewald, Phys. Rep., 403-404:189(2004)
[33]	J. Erler, J. L. Feng, and N. Polonsky, Phys. Rev. Lett., 78:3063(1997)
[34]	J. Erler and P. Langacker, Phys. Rev. Lett., 84:212(2000)
[35]	D. Choudhury, T. M. P. Tait and C. E. M. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D, 65:053002(2002)
[36]	X. G.He and G. Valencia, Phys. Rev. D, 66:013004, 079901(E) (2002)
[37]	X. G.He and G. Valencia, Phys. Rev. D, 68:033011(20032)
[38]	J. Cao and J. M. Yang, JHEP, 12:006(2008)

Access

Get Citation

J. H. Field. A comparison of direct and indirect determinations of the masses of the Higgs Boson and the top quark[J]. Chinese Physics C, 2017, 41(10): 103001. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/41/10/103001

J. H. Field. A comparison of direct and indirect determinations of the masses of the Higgs Boson and the top quark[J]. Chinese Physics C, 2017, 41(10): 103001. doi:10.1088/1674-1137/41/10/103001 shu

RIS(for EndNote,Reference Manager,ProCite)

BibTex

Txt

Milestone

Received: 2017-05-11

Article Metric

Article Views(3510)
PDF Downloads(20)
Cited by(0)

Policy on re-use

To reuse of subscription content published by CPC, the users need to request permission from CPC, unless the content was published under an Open Access license which automatically permits that type of reuse.

通讯作者:陈斌, bchen63@163.com

1.
沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院沈阳 110142

A comparison of direct and indirect determinations of the masses of the Higgs Boson and the top quark

J. H. Field

Received Date:2017-05-11
Available Online:2017-10-05

Abstract:The indirect estimation of the Higgs Boson mass from electroweak radiative corrections within the Standard Model is compared with the directly measured value obtained by the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations at the CERN LHC collider. Treating the direct measurement ofm_Has input, the Standard Model indirect estimation of the top-quark mass is also obtained and compared with its directly measured value. A model-independent analysis finds an indirect value ofm_Hof ≈ 70 GeV, below the directly measured value of 125.7±0.4 GeV and an indirect value:m_t=177.3±1.0 GeV, above the directly measured value:173.21±0.87 GeV. A goodness-of-fit test to the Standard Model using all Z-pole observables andm_Whas aχ²probability of ≈ 2%. The reason why probability values about a factor of ten larger than this, and indirect estimates ofm_Habout 30 GeV higher, have been obtained in recent global fits to the same data is recalled.