text:
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}

The search for the Higgs boson and, hence, for the origin of electroweak
symmetry breaking and fermion mass generation, remains one of the premier
tasks of present and future high energy physics experiments. Fits to
precision electroweak (EW) data have for some time suggested a relatively
small Higgs boson mass, of order 100~GeV~\cite{EWfits}. This is one of the
reasons why the search for an intermediate mass Higgs boson is particularly
important~\cite{reviews}.

For the intermediate mass range, most of the literature has focussed on
Higgs boson production via gluon fusion~\cite{reviews} and
$t\bar{t}H$~\cite{ttH} or $WH(ZH)$~\cite{WH} associated production. Cross
sections for Standard Model (SM) Higgs boson production at the LHC are
well-known~\cite{reviews}, and while production via gluon fusion has the
largest cross section by almost one order of magnitude, there are substantial
QCD backgrounds. A search for the very clean four-lepton signature from
$H\to ZZ$ decay can find a Higgs boson in the mass region
$m_H \gtrsim 130$~GeV, but due to the small branching fraction of this mode
very large integrated luminosities, up to 100~fb~$^{-1}$ or more, are
required. One can search for $gg\to H$ via
$H\to W^{(*)}W^{(*)} \to e^{\pm} \mu^{\mp} \sla{p_T}$ decays with much lower
luminosity~\cite{glo_will_hww,DittDrein,bpz_minijet}, but with lower
signal-to-background ratios.

The second largest production cross section is predicted for weak-boson
fusion (WBF), $qq \to qqVV \to qqH$. These events contain additional
information in their observable quark jets. Techniques like forward jet
tagging~\cite{Cahn,BCHP,DGOV} can then be exploited to significantly reduce
the backgrounds. WBF and gluon fusion nicely complement each other:
together they allow for a measurement of the $t\bar{t}H/WWH$ coupling ratio.

Another feature of the WBF signal is the lack of color exchange between the
initial-state quarks. Color coherence between initial- and final-state gluon
bremsstrahlung leads to suppressed hadron production in the central region,
between the two tagging-jet candidates of the signal~\cite{bjgap}. This is in
contrast to most background processes, which typically involve color exchange
in the $t$-channel and thus lead to enhanced hadronic activity between the
tagging jets. We exploit these features, via a veto of soft jet activity
in the central region~\cite{bpz_minijet}.

While some attention has been given to intermediate-mass $H\to W^{(*)}W^{(*)}$
searches at the LHC in the framework of gluon
fusion~\cite{glo_will_hww,DittDrein},
production via weak boson fusion for the same decay mode has not yet been
discussed in the literature.
Thus, we provide a first analysis of intermediate-mass
$VV\to H\to W^{(*)}W^{(*)}$ at the LHC (and of the main physics and
reducible backgrounds) which demonstrates the feasibility of Higgs boson
detection in this channel, with very low luminosity.
$H\to W^{(*)}W^{(*)}$ event characteristics are analyzed for dual leptonic
decays to $e^{\pm}\mu^{\mp}$ only, to avoid backgrounds from
$Z,\gamma \to e^+e^-,\mu^+\mu^-$.

Our analysis is a parton-level Monte Carlo study, using full tree-level
matrix elements for the WBF Higgs signal and the various backgrounds.
In Section~\ref{sec:calc} we describe our calculational tools, the
methods employed in the simulation of the various processes, and important
parameters. Extra minijet activity is simulated by adding the emission of one
extra parton to the basic signal and background processes. Generically we call
the basic signal process (with its two forward tagging jets) and the
corresponding background calculations ``2-jet'' processes, and refer to the
simulations with one extra parton as ``3-jet'' processes. In
Section~\ref{sec:analysis}, using the 2-jet programs for the backgrounds, we
demonstrate forward jet tagging, a $b$ veto and other important cuts which
combine to yield an $\approx \;$2/1 to 1/2 signal-to-background (S/B) ratio,
depending on the Higgs mass.

In Section~\ref{sec:minijet} we analyze the different minijet patterns in signal
and background, using both the truncated shower approximation (TSA)~\cite{TSA}
to regulate the cross sections, and the gluon exponentiation model to estimate
the minijet multiplicity~\cite{CDFjets}. By exploiting the two most important
characteristics of the extra radiation, its angular distribution and its
hardness, the QCD backgrounds can be suppressed substantially by a veto on
extra central jet emission. Within the TSA and exponentiation models,
probabilities are estimated for vetoing signal and background events, and are
combined with the production cross sections of the previous section to predict
signal and background rates in Table~\ref{summary}.
These rates demonstrate the feasibility of extracting a very low background
$H\to W^{(*)}W^{(*)}$ signal at the LHC.

Our signal selection is not necessarily optimized yet. The variables we
identify for cuts are the most distinctive, but deserve a multivariate
analysis with detector simulation. We do construct an additional variable in
Section~\ref{sec:disc} which is not used for cuts, but rather can be used to
extract the Higgs boson mass from the final event sample.

\section{Calculational Tools}
\label{sec:calc}

We simulate $pp$ collisions at the CERN LHC, $\protect\sqrt{s} = 14$~TeV.
All signal and background cross sections are determined in terms of full
tree level matrix elements for the contributing subprocesses and are
discussed in more detail below.

For all our numerical results we have chosen ${\rm sin}^2\theta_W = 0.2315$,
$M_Z = 91.19$~GeV, and $G_F = 1.16639\cdot 10^{-5}\;{\rm GeV}^{-2}$, which
translates into $M_W = 79.94$~GeV and $\alpha(M_Z) = 128.74$ when using
the tree-level relations between these input parameters. This value of $M_W$
is somewhat lower than the current world average of $\approx 80.35$ GeV.
However, this difference has negligible effects on all cross sections, e.g.
the $qq\to qqH$ signal cross section varies by about $0.5\%$ between these two
$W$ mass values. The tree level relations between the input parameters are
kept in order to guarantee electroweak gauge invariance of all amplitudes.
For all QCD effects, the running of the strong coupling constant is
evaluated at one-loop order, with $\alpha_s(M_Z) = 0.118$. We employ
CTEQ4L parton distribution functions~\cite{CTEQ4_pdf} throughout. Unless
otherwise noted the factorization scale is chosen as $\mu_f =$ min($p_T$)
of the defined jets.

\subsection{The $qq\to qqH(g)$ signal process}
\label{sec:qqH}

The signal can be described, at lowest order, by two single-Feynman-diagram
processes, $qq \to qq(WW,ZZ) \to qqH$, {\em i.e.} $WW$ and $ZZ$ fusion where
the weak bosons are emitted from the incoming quarks~\cite{qqHorig}. Because of
the small Higgs boson width in the mass range of interest, these events can
reliably be simulated in the narrow width approximation.
From previous studies of $H\to\gamma\gamma$~\cite{RZ_gamgam} and
$H\to\tau\tau$~\cite{RZ_tautau} decays in weak boson fusion we know several
features of the signal, which can be exploited here also:
the centrally produced Higgs boson tends to yield central decay products
(in this case $W^+W^-$), and the two quarks enter the detector at large
rapidity compared to the $W$'s and with transverse momenta in the
20 to 100 GeV range, thus leading to two observable forward tagging jets.

For the study of a central jet veto, we utilize the results of previous
studies where we simulated the emission of at least one extra
parton~\cite{RZ_tautau,RSZ_vnj}. This was achieved by calculating the
cross sections for the process $qq\to qqHg$, {\em i.e.} weak boson fusion with
radiation of an additional gluon, and all crossing related processes.

An important additional tool for distinguishing the
$H\to e^\pm\mu^\mp\sla{p_T}$
signal from various backgrounds is the anti-correlation of the $W$ spins, as
pointed out in Ref.~\cite{DittDrein}. This is due to the preservation of
angular momentum in the decay of the spin-0 Higgs boson. Of course, we can
observe only the angular distributions of the charged decay leptons, but this
is sufficient. The decay rate is proportional to
$(p_{\ell^-}\cdot p_{\nu})(p_{\ell^+}\cdot p_{\bar\nu})$. In the rest frame of
the Higgs boson, in which the $e^-\bar\nu$ or $e^+\nu$ pairs are emitted
back-to-back for $W^+W^-$ production at threshold, this product is a maximum
for the charged leptons being emitted parallel. This characteristic is
preserved and even enhanced when boosted to the lab frame, as the Higgs
boson in weak boson fusion is typically emitted with $p_T \approx 60-120$~GeV.

\subsection{The QCD $t \bar{t} + jets$ backgrounds}
\label{sec:ttnj}

Given the H decay signature, the main physics background to our
$e^{\pm}\mu^{\mp}\sla p_T$ signal arises from $t\bar{t} + jets$ production,
due to the large top production cross section at the LHC and because
the branching ratio $B(t\to Wb)$ is essentially $100\%$.

The basic process we consider is $pp\to t\bar{t}$, which can be either $gg$-
or $q\bar{q}$-initiated, with the former strongly dominating at the LHC.
QCD corrections to this lead to additional real parton emission, {\em i.e.}
to $t\bar{t} + j$ events. Relevant subprocesses are
\begin{equation}\label{QCD_tt}
g q  \to t \bar{t} q \, , \qquad g \bar{q} \to t \bar{t} \bar{q} \, , \qquad
q \bar{q} \to t \bar{t} g \, , \qquad g g \to t \bar{t} g \, ,
\end{equation}
and the subprocesses for $t\bar{t} + jj$ events can be obtained similarly.
For the case of no additional partons, the $b$'s from the decaying top quarks
may be identified as the tagging jets. In this case, calculating the cross
section for $t\bar{t} + j$ where the $b$'s are explicitly identified as the
tagging jets serves to estimate the effect of additional soft parton emission,
{\em i.e.} minijet activity in the central detector; this is described
in detail in Sec.~\ref{sec:minijet}. At the same time, we can identify a
distinctly different, perturbative region of phase space, where the
final-state light quark or gluon gives rise to one tagging jet, and one of
the two decay $b$'s is
identified as the other tagging jet. In this case, $t\bar{t} + jj$ may be used
to estimate minijet activity for the hard process $pp\to t\bar{t} + j$.
Finally, there is a third distinct region of phase space, for the perturbative
hard process $pp\to t\bar{t} + jj$, where the final state light quarks or
gluons are the two tagging jets.

Thus, the ``$t\bar{t}j$'' and ``$t\bar{t}jj$'' calculations serve a dual
purpose: to obtain the cross sections for the contribution of the perturbative
processes where light quark or gluon jets lie in the region of phase space
where they are experimentally identified as far-forward/backward tagging jets;
and to estimate the additional QCD radiation patterns for the next-lower-order
perturbative $t\bar{t} + jets$ process. The $t\bar t$ and $t\bar tj$ matrix
elements were constructed using MadGraph~\cite{Madgraph}, while the
$t\bar{t}jj$ matrix elements are from Ref.~\cite{Stange}.

Decays of the top quarks and $W$'s are included in the matrix elements;
however, while the $W$'s are allowed to be off-shell, the top quarks are
required to be on-shell. Energy loss from $b\to\ell\nu X$ is included to
generate more accurate $\sla{p}_T$ distributions. In all cases, the
factorization scale is chosen as $\mu_f =$ min($E_T$) of the massless
partons/top quarks. The overall strong coupling constant factors are taken
as $(\alpha_s)^n = \prod_{i=1}^n \alpha_s(E_{T_i})$, where the product runs
over all light quarks, gluons and top quarks; {\em i.e.} the transverse
momentum of each additional parton is taken as the relevant scale for its
production, irrespective of the hardness of the underlying scattering event.
This procedure guarantees that the same $\alpha_s^2$ factors are used for
the hard part of a $t\bar{t} + jets$ event, independent of the number of
additional minijets, and at the same time the
small scales relevant for soft-parton emission are implemented.

\subsection{The QCD $WW+jj$ background}

The next obvious background arises from real-emission QCD corrections
to $W^+W^-$ production. For $W^+ W^- jj$ events these background processes
include~\cite{VVjj}
\begin{equation}\label{QCD_WW}
q g \to q g W^+ W^- \, , \qquad  q q' \to q q' W^+ W^- \, ,
\end{equation}
which are dominated by $t$-channel gluon exchange, and all crossing
related processes, such as
\begin{equation}
q \bar{q} \to g g W^+ W^- \, , \qquad g g \to q \bar{q} W^+ W^- \;.
\end{equation}
We call these processes collectively the ``QCD $WWjj$'' background. We do not
calculate cross sections for the corresponding $WW+3$-jet processes, but
instead follow the results of our analysis of the radiation patterns of QCD
$Z + jets$ processes, detailed in Sec.~\ref{sec:minijet}, and apply those
results here to estimate minijet veto probabilities.

The factorization scale is chosen as for the Higgs boson signal. The strong
coupling constant factor is taken as
$(\alpha_s)^2 = \alpha_s(p_{T_1})\alpha_s(p_{T_2})$, {\em i.e.}, the
transverse momentum of each additional parton is taken as the relevant scale
for its production. Variation of the scales by a factor 2 or $1\over 2$ reveals
scale uncertainties of $\approx 35\%$, however, which emphasizes the need for
experimental input or NLO calculations.

The $WW$ background lacks the marked anti-correlation of $W$ spins seen in
the signal. As a result the momenta of the charged decay leptons will be
more widely separated than in $H\to W^{(*)}W^{(*)}$ events.

\subsection{The EW $WW+jj$ background}

These backgrounds arise from $W^+W^-$ bremsstrahlung in
quark--(anti)quark scattering via $t$-channel electroweak boson exchange,
with subsequent decay $W^+W^-\to\ell^+\ell^-\sla p_T$:
\begin{equation}
qq' \to qq' W^+W^-
\label{eq:EW_WW}
\end{equation}
Na\"{\i}vely, this EW background may be thought of as suppressed compared
to the analogous QCD process in Eq.~(\ref{QCD_WW}). However, it includes
electroweak boson fusion, $VV \to W^+W^-$ via $s$- or $t$-channel
$\gamma/Z$-exchange or via $VVVV$ 4-point vertices, which has a momentum
and color structure identical to the signal. Thus, it cannot easily be
suppressed via cuts.

The matrix elements for these processes were constructed using
MadGraph~\cite{Madgraph}. We include charged-current (CC) and neutral-current
(NC) processes, but discard s-channel EW boson and t-channel quark exchange
processes as their contribution was found to be $\approx 1\%$ only, while
adding significantly to the CPU time needed for the calculation. In general,
for the regions of phase space containing far-forward and -backward tagging
jets, s-channel processes are severely suppressed. We refer collectively to
these processes as the ``EW $WWjj$'' background. Both $W$'s are allowed to
be off-shell, and all off-resonance graphs are included. In addition, the
Higgs boson graphs must be included to make the calculation well-behaved at
large $W$-pair invariant masses. However, these graphs include our signal
processes and might lead to double counting. Thus, we set $m_H$ to 60~GeV in
the EW $WWjj$ background to remove their contribution. A clean separation of
the Higgs boson signal and the EW $WWjj$ background is possible because
interference effects between the two are negligible for the Higgs boson mass
range of interest.

Again we will need an estimate of additional gluon radiation patterns.
This was first done for EW processes in Ref.~\cite{DZ_IZ_minijet}, but for
different cuts on the hard process, and again for EW $\tau\tau jj$ processes in
Ref.~\cite{RZ_tautau}. We reanalyze the EW $\tau\tau jj$ case in
Sec.~\ref{sec:minijet} and directly apply the resulting minijet emission
probabilities here. The EW $\tau\tau jj$ and EW $WWjj$ backgrounds are
quite similar kinematically, which justifies the use of the same veto
probabilities for central jets.

\subsection{The QCD and EW $\tau^+\tau^-$ backgrounds}
\label{sec:tau}

The leptonic decay of $\tau$'s provides a source of electrons, muons and
neutrinos which can be misidentified as $W$ decays. Thus, we need to study
real-emission QCD corrections to the Drell-Yan process
$q\bar{q} \to (Z,\gamma) \to \tau^+\tau^-$.
For $\tau^+ \tau^- jj$ events these background processes include~\cite{Kst}
\begin{equation}\label{QCD_tau}
q g \to q g \tau^+ \tau^- \, , \qquad  q q' \to q q' \tau^+ \tau^- \, ,
\end{equation}
which are dominated by $t$-channel gluon exchange, and all crossing-related
processes, such as
\begin{equation}
q \bar{q} \to g g \tau^+ \tau^- \, , \qquad g g \to q \bar{q} \tau^+ \tau^- \;.
\end{equation}
All interference effects between virtual photon and $Z$-exchange are included.
We call these processes collectively the ``QCD $\tau\tau jj$'' background. The
cross sections for the corresponding $\tau\tau+3$-jet processes, which we need
for our modeling of minijet activity in the QCD $\tau\tau jj$ background, have
been calculated in Refs.~\cite{HZ,BHOZ,BG}. Similar to the treatment of the
signal processes, we use a parton-level Monte-Carlo program based on the work
of Ref.~\cite{BHOZ} to model the QCD $\tau\tau jj$ and $\tau\tau jjj$
backgrounds.

From our study of $H\to\tau\tau$ in weak boson fusion~\cite{RZ_tautau}, we
know that the EW (t-channel weak boson exchange) cross section will be
comparable to the QCD cross section in the phase space region of interest.
Thus, we consider those processes separately, in a similar manner as for the
EW $WWjj$ contribution. We use the results of Ref.~\cite{CZ_gap} for modeling
the EW $\tau\tau jj$ background.

The dual leptonic decays of the $\tau$'s are simulated by multiplying the
$\tau^+\tau^-jj$ cross section by a branching ratio factor of $(0.3518)^2/2$
and by implementing collinear tau decays with helicity correlations included as
in our previous analysis of $H\to\tau\tau$~\cite{RZ_tautau}.

\subsection{Detector resolution}

The QCD processes discussed above lead to steeply falling jet transverse
momentum distributions. As a result, finite detector resolution can have a
sizable effect on cross sections. These resolution effects are taken into
account via Gaussian smearing of the energies of jets/$b$'s and charged
leptons.  We use
\begin{equation}
{\triangle{E} \over E} =
{5.2 \over E} \oplus {0.4 \over {\sqrt E}} \oplus .009 \; ,
\end{equation}
for jets (with individual terms added in quadrature), based on ATLAS
expectations~\cite{CMS-ATLAS}. For charged leptons we
use
\begin{equation}
{\triangle{E} \over E} = 2\% \; .
\end{equation}

In addition, finite detector resolution leads to fake
missing-transverse-momentum in events with hard jets. An ATLAS
analysis~\cite{ATLAS_tau} showed
that these effects are well parameterized by a Gaussian distribution of
the components of the fake missing transverse momentum vector,
$\vec\sla p_T$, with resolution
\begin{equation}
\sigma(\sla p_x,\sla p_y) = 0.46 \cdot \sqrt{\sum{E_{T,had}}} \; ,
\end{equation}
for each component. In our calculations, these fake missing transverse
momentum vectors are added linearly to the neutrino momenta.

\section{Higgs signal and real $W^+W^-$ backgrounds}
\label{sec:analysis}

The $qq\to qqH, \; H\to W^{(*)}W^{(*)} \to e^\pm \mu^\mp \nu \bar{\nu}$ dual
leptonic decay signal is characterized by two forward jets and the $W$ decay
leptons ($e,\mu$). Before discussing background levels and further
details like minijet radiation patterns, we need to identify the search region
for these hard $Hjj$ events. The task is identical to the Higgs searches in
$qq\to qqH,\;H\to\gamma\gamma,\tau\tau$ which were considered
previously~\cite{RZ_gamgam,RZ_tautau}. We can thus adopt the strategy of these
earlier analyses and start out by discussing a basic level of cuts on the
$qq\to qqH,\;H\to W^{(*)}W^{(*)}$ signal. Throughout this section we assume a
Higgs mass of $M_H = 160$~GeV, but we do not optimize cuts for this mass.

The minimum acceptance requirements ensure that the two jets and two charged
leptons are observed inside the detector (within the hadronic and
electromagnetic calorimeters, respectively), and are well-separated from each
other:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:basic}
& p_{T_j} \geq 20~{\rm GeV} \, ,\qquad |\eta_j| \leq 5.0 \, ,\qquad
\triangle R_{jj} \geq 0.7 \, , \nonumber\\
& p_{T_\ell} \geq 20~{\rm GeV} \, ,\qquad
|\eta_{\ell}| \leq 2.5 \, , \qquad \triangle R_{j\ell} \geq 0.7 \, .
\end{eqnarray}
A feature of the QCD $WWjj$ background is the generally higher
rapidity of the $W$'s as compared to the Higgs signal: weak boson
bremsstrahlung occurs at small angles with respect to the parent quarks,
producing $W$'s forward of the jets. Thus, we also require both $\ell$'s to
lie between the jets with a separation in pseudorapidity
$\triangle \eta_{j,\ell} > 0.7$, and the jets to occupy opposite hemispheres:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:lepcen}
\eta_{j,min} + 0.7 < \eta_{\ell_{1,2}} < \eta_{j,max} - 0.7 \, , \qquad
\eta_{j_1} \cdot \eta_{j_2} < 0
\end{equation}
Finally, to reach the starting point for our consideration of the signal and
various backgrounds, a wide separation in pseudorapidity is required between
the two forward tagging jets,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:gap}
\triangle \eta_{tags} = |\eta_{j_1}-\eta_{j_2}| \geq 4.4 \, ,
\end{equation}
leaving a gap of at least 3 units of pseudorapidity in which the $\ell$'s can
be observed. This technique to separate weak boson scattering from various
backgrounds is
well-established~\cite{bpz_minijet,Cahn,BCHP,DGOV,RZ_gamgam,RZ_tautau,RSZ_vnj},
in particular for heavy Higgs boson searches. Line 1 of Table~\ref{WW_data}
shows the effect of these cuts on the signal and backgrounds for a SM Higgs
boson of mass $m_H = 160$~GeV. Overall, about $28\%$ of all
$H\to W^{(*)}W^{(*)} \to e^\pm \mu^\mp \nu \bar{\nu}$ events generated in weak
boson fusion are accepted by the cuts of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:basic}-\ref{eq:gap})
(for $m_H = 160$~GeV).

Somewhat surprisingly, the EW $WWjj$ background rate reaches 2/3 of the QCD
$WWjj$ background rate already at this level. This can be explained by the
contribution from $W,Z,\gamma$ exchange and fusion
processes which can produce central $W$ pairs and are therefore kinematically
similar to the signal. This signal-like component remains after the forward
jet tagging cuts.

As is readily seen from the first line of Table~\ref{WW_data}, the most
worrisome background is $W$ pairs from $t\bar{t} + jets$ production. Of the
1080 fb at the basic cuts level, 12 fb are from $t\bar{t}$, 310 fb are from
$t\bar{t}j$, and the remaining 760 fb arise from $t\bar{t}jj$ production.
The additional jets (corresponding to massless partons) are required to be
identified as far forward tagging jets. The $t\bar{t}jj$ cross section is
largest because the $t\bar{t}$ pair is not required to have as large an
invariant mass as in the first two cases, where one or both $b$'s from the
decay of the top
quarks are required to be the tagging jets.

For the events where one or both of the $b$'s are not identified as the
tagging jets, they will most frequently lie between the two tagging jets, in
the region where we search for the $W$ decay leptons. Vetoing events with
these additional $b$ jets provides a powerful suppression tool to control the
top background. Note that this does {\it not} require a $b$-tag, merely
rejection of any events that have an additional jet, which in this case would
be from a hadronically decaying $b$. We discard all events where a $b$ or
$\bar b$ jet with $p_T > 20$~GeV is observed in the gap region between the
tagging jets,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:bveto}
p_{T_b} > 20 {\rm GeV} \, , \qquad
\eta_{j,min} < \eta_{b} < \eta_{j,max} \, .
\end{equation}
This leads to a reduction of $t\bar{t}j$ events by a factor 7 while $t\bar{t}jj$
events are suppressed by a factor 100. This results in cross sections of 43 and
7.6 fb, respectively, at the level of the forward tagging cuts of
Eqs.~(\ref{eq:basic}-\ref{eq:gap}), which are now comparable to the other
individual backgrounds. This is shown in the second line of Table~\ref{WW_data}.
Note that the much higher $b$ veto probability for $t\bar{t}jj$ events results
in a lower cross section than that for $t\bar{t}j$ events, an ordering which
will remain even after final cuts have been imposed (see below).

QCD processes at hadron colliders typically occur at smaller invariant masses
than EW processes, due to the dominance of gluons at small Feynman $x$ in the
incoming protons. We observe this behavior here, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Mjj}.
The three $t\bar{t} + jets$ backgrounds have been combined for clarity, even
though their individual distributions are slightly different. We can thus
significantly reduce much of the QCD background by imposing a lower bound on the
invariant mass of the tagging jets:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:mjj}
m_{jj} > 650~{\rm GeV} \; .
\end{equation}

\begin{figure}[t]
\vspace*{0.5in}
\begin{picture}(0,0)(0,0)
\special{psfile=Mjj.www.ps
         voffset=-220 hoffset=470 hscale=55 vscale=55 angle=90}
\end{picture}
\vspace{6.5cm}
\caption{Normalized invariant mass distribution of the two tagging jets for
the signal (red) and various backgrounds: $t\bar{t} + jets$ (blue),
QCD $WWjj$ (solid green), EW $WWjj$ (solid purple),
QCD $\tau\tau +jj$ (dashed green) and EW $\tau\tau +jj$ (dashed purple).
The cuts of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:basic}-\ref{eq:bveto}) are imposed.}
\vspace*{0.2in}
\label{fig:Mjj}
\end{figure}

Another significant difference is the angular distribution of the charged
decay leptons, $e^\pm$ and $\mu^\mp$, relative to each other. In the case
of the Higgs
signal, the $W$ spins are anti-correlated, so the leptons are preferentially
emitted in the same direction, close to each other. A significant fraction of
the various backgrounds does not have anti-correlated $W$ spins.
These differences are demonstrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:angdist}, which shows the
azimuthal (transverse plane) opening angle, polar (lab) opening angle, and
separation in the lego plot. We exploit these features by establishing the
following lepton-pair angular cuts:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ang}
\phi_{e\mu} < 105^{\circ} \, , \, \, \,
{\rm cos} \; \theta_{e\mu} > 0.2 \, , \, \, \,
\triangle R_{e\mu} < 2.2 \, .
\end{equation}
It should be noted that while these cuts appear to be very conservative, for
higher Higgs boson masses the $\phi_{e\mu}$ and $\triangle{R}_{e\mu}$
distribution broadens out to higher values, overlapping the backgrounds more.
For $m_H \sim 180-200$~GeV these cuts are roughly optimized and further
tightening would require greater integrated luminosity for discovery at this
upper end of the mass range. Because of the excellent signal-to-background
ratio achieved below, we prefer to work with uniform acceptance cuts, instead
of optimizing the cuts for specific Higgs boson mass regions.

\begin{figure}[t]
\vspace*{0.5in}
\begin{picture}(0,0)(0,0)
\special{psfile=angdist.www.ps
         voffset=-210 hoffset=520 hscale=70 vscale=80 angle=90}
\end{picture}
\vspace{5.5cm}
\caption{Normalized angular distributions of the charged leptons: azimuthal
opening angle, lab opening angle, and separation in the lego plot. Results
are shown for a Higgs boson mass of 160~GeV and 190~GeV
(solid and dashed red lines)
and for the various backgrounds as in Fig.~\ref{fig:Mjj}. Lepton angular
separation is clearly smaller for the $m_H = 160$~GeV scenario. The cuts of
Eqs.~(\ref{eq:basic}-\ref{eq:bveto}) are imposed.}
\vspace*{0.1in}
\label{fig:angdist}
\end{figure}

We also examine the distributions for lepton-pair invariant mass, $m_{e\mu}$,
and maximum lepton $p_T$, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mllptl} for the case
$m_H = 160,\; 190$~GeV. As is readily seen, the QCD backgrounds and EW $WWjj$
background prefer significantly higher values for both observables. Thus, in
addition to the angular variables, we find it useful to restrict the
individual $p_T$ of the leptons, as well as the invariant mass of the pair:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:adv}
m_{e\mu} < 110 \; {\rm GeV} \, , \, \, \,
p_{T_{e,\mu}} < 120 \; {\rm GeV}  \, .
\end{equation}
These are particularly effective against the top backgrounds, where the large
top mass allows for very high-$p_T$ leptons far from the tagging jets, and
against the EW $WWjj$ background, where the leptons tend to be well-separated
in the lego plot. Again, the cuts are set quite conservatively so as not to
bias a lower Higgs boson mass. Results after cuts~(\ref{eq:mjj}-\ref{eq:adv})
are shown on the third line of Table~\ref{WW_data}, for the case of a 160~GeV
Higgs boson.

\begin{figure}[t]
\vspace*{0.5in}
\begin{picture}(0,0)(0,0)
\special{psfile=mllptl.www.ps
         voffset=-230 hoffset=550 hscale=75 vscale=75 angle=90}
\end{picture}
\vspace{6.5cm}
\caption{Normalized distributions of the dilepton invariant mass and maximum
charged lepton momentum after the cuts of
Eqs.~(\ref{eq:basic}-\ref{eq:bveto}). Results are shown for a Higgs boson
mass of 160~GeV and 190~GeV (solid and dashed red
lines) and for the various backgrounds as in Fig.~\ref{fig:Mjj}. The
$m_H = 160$~GeV curve peaks at lower values of $m_{e\mu}$ and
$p_{T_{\ell,max}}$. }
\vspace*{0.1in}
\label{fig:mllptl}
\end{figure}

\begin{table}
\caption{Signal rates $\sigma\cdot B(H\to e^\pm\mu^\mp\sla{p_T})$ for
$m_H = 160$~GeV and corresponding background cross sections, in $pp$ collisions
at $\protect\sqrt{s}=14$~TeV. Results are given for various levels of cuts and
are labeled by equation numbers discussed in the text. On lines six the minijet
veto is included. Line five gives the survival probabilities for each process,
with $p_T^{veto} = 20$~GeV. The expected tagging jet identification efficiency
is shown on the last line. All rates are given in fb.}
\vspace{0.15in}
\label{WW_data}
\begin{tabular}{l|cccccc|c}
cuts & $Hjj$ & $t\bar{t} + jets$ & QCD $WWjj$ & EW $WWjj$
     & QCD $\tau\tau jj$ & EW $\tau\tau jj$ & S/B \\
\hline
forward tagging (\ref{eq:basic}-\ref{eq:gap})
& 17.1 & 1080 & 4.4  &  3.0 & 15.8 & 0.8  & $\approx$1/65 \\
+ $b$ veto (\ref{eq:bveto})
&      &   64 &      &      &      &      & 1/5.1 \\
+ $M_{jj}$, angular cuts (\ref{eq:mjj}-\ref{eq:adv})
& 11.8 & 5.5  & 0.54 & 0.50 & 3.6  & 0.4  & 1.1/1 \\
+ real $\tau$ rejection (\ref{eq:tau})
& 11.4 & 5.1  & 0.50 & 0.45 & 0.6 &  0.08 & 1.7/1 \\
$P_{surv,20}$
& ${\it\times 0.89}$ & ${\it\times 0.29}$ & ${\it\times 0.29}$
& ${\it\times 0.75}$ & ${\it\times 0.29}$ & ${\it\times 0.75}$ & - \\
+ minijet veto (\ref{eq:mjveto})
& 10.1 & 1.48 & 0.15 & 0.34 & 0.18 & 0.07 & 4.6/1 \\
+ tag ID efficiency (${\it\times 0.74}$)
&  7.5 & 1.09 & 0.11 & 0.25 & 0.13 & 0.05 & 4.6/1 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

At this level of cuts we now observe the combined QCD and EW $\tau\tau jj$
backgrounds to remain large, contributing almost $40\%$ of the total.
We can take advantage of the fact that in these backgrounds, the $Z$ or
$\gamma$ is emitted with quite high $p_T$, on the order
of 100~GeV, which contributes to large $\tau$ boosts and causes the $\tau$
decay products to be nearly collinear in the lab frame. Within the collinear
approximation, the $\tau$ momenta can be reconstructed knowing the charged
lepton momenta and the missing transverse momentum
vector~\cite{RZ_tautau,ATLAS_tau}. Labeling by $x_{\tau_1},x_{\tau_2}$ the
fraction of $\tau$ energy each charged lepton takes with it in the $\tau$
decay,
$\sla{p}_{T,x},\sla{p}_{T,y}$ can be used to solve the two equations (x,y
transverse directions) for the two unknowns $x_{\tau_{1,2}}$. For real $\tau$
decays, the $\sla{p_T}$ vector must lie between the two leptons, and apart
from finite detector resolution the reconstruction must yield
$0 < x_{\tau_{1,2}} < 1$. For the $Hjj$ signal and other backgrounds, the
collinear approximation is not valid because the $W$'s receive modest boosts
in the lab only. In this case, the $\sla{p_T}$ vector will rarely lie
between the two leptons, and an attempt to reconstruct a $\tau$ pair will
result in $x_{\tau_1} < 0$ or $x_{\tau_2} < 0$ for $95\%$ of the
events.~\footnote{Conversely, requiring $x_{\tau_1} > 0$, $x_{\tau_2} > 0$
largely eliminates $WW$ backgrounds and promises clean isolation of
$H\to\tau\tau\to e^\pm \mu^\mp \sla{p}_T$~\cite{RPZ_prep}.}
Additionally, the ``$\tau$ pair'' invariant mass that is reconstructed does
not peak at $m_Z$, even when it is positive.
We can therefore apply a highly efficient cut against the QCD and EW
$\tau\tau jj$ backgrounds by vetoing events where an attempt to reconstruct a
$\tau$ pair in the collinear decay approximation results in two ``real''
$\tau$'s near the Z pole:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:tau}
x_{\tau_1} , \; x_{\tau_2} > 0 \; , \qquad
m_Z - 25\ {\rm GeV}\; < m_{\tau\tau} < \; m_Z + 25\ {\rm GeV} \, .
\end{equation}
The results of this final cut are shown in line four of Table~\ref{WW_data}.
The $\tau$ backgrounds are virtually eliminated, while the signal and the
other backgrounds each lose $\approx 5\%$.

\section{Radiation patterns of minijets}
\label{sec:minijet}

If we are to veto central $b$ jets to reduce the $t\bar t + jets$ background
to a manageable level, we must take care to correctly estimate higher-order
additional central partonic emission in the signal and backgrounds.
Fortunately, due to the absence of color exchange between the two scattering
quarks in EW processes, which includes our $Hjj$ signal, we expect soft gluon
emission mainly in the very forward and very backward directions. However, for
QCD processes, which are dominated by $t$-channel color octet exchange, soft
gluon radiation occurs mainly in the central detector. Thus, when we estimate
additional central radiation with $p_T \geq 20$~GeV to match our $b$ veto
condition, we will reject QCD background events with much higher probability
than the EW processes. Our $b$ veto is then automatically also a minijet veto,
a tool for QCD background suppression which has been previously studied in
great detail for $Hjj$ production at hadron
colliders~\cite{bpz_minijet,RZ_tautau,DZ_IZ_minijet}.

Largely following the analysis of Ref.~\cite{RSZ_vnj} for
the analogous EW $Zjj$
process which would be used to ``calibrate'' the tool at the LHC,
we veto additional central jets in the region
\begin{mathletters}
\label{eq:mjveto}
\begin{eqnarray}
p_{Tj}^{\rm veto} \; & > & \; p_{T,{\rm veto}}\;, \label{eq:ptveto} \\
\eta_{j,min}^{\rm tag} \; & < & \eta_j^{\rm veto}
< \; \eta_{j,max}^{\rm tag} \; , \label{eq:etaveto}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{mathletters}
where $p_{T,\rm veto}$ may be chosen based on the capability of the detector.
For the LHC we take this to be 20~GeV.

For $p_{T,\rm veto} \approx 40$~GeV we are already leaving the validity range
of fixed-order perturbation theory in QCD processes: the cross section with
one additional parton starts to exceed the hard tree-level cross section. As
a result it becomes difficult to provide reliable theoretical estimates of
minijet emission rates for the QCD backgrounds. However, gluon emission is
governed by very different scales in signal as compared to background
processes, due to their different color structures. Thus, a parton shower
approach does not immediately give reliable answers unless both color
coherence and the choice of scale are implemented correctly, matching the
answer given by QCD matrix elements for sufficiently hard partons.

While the necessary information on angular distributions and hardness of
additional radiation is available in the ``3-jet'' and $t\bar t + jets$
processes discussed in Section~\ref{sec:calc}, we must either regulate or
reinterpret these divergent cross sections. We use the truncated shower
approximation (TSA)~\cite{TSA} for the former, treating the ``2-jet'' cross
sections as the inclusive rate. Details of this procedure can be found in
Refs.~\cite{RZ_tautau,RSZ_vnj}, but here we improve upon the determination
of veto probabilities. In our previous studies, TSA matching
was performed without enforcement of
the forward tagging cuts of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:lepcen},\ref{eq:gap}), even though
tagging jet candidates were chosen for the purpose of identifying the veto
candidate; tagging jet candidates were selected as the two most
energetic~\cite{RSZ_vnj} or two highest-$p_T$~\cite{RZ_tautau} defined jets
($p_T > 20$~GeV), in opposite detector hemispheres. Without the
additional forward tagging cuts, in particular without the large rapidity
separation of the two tagging jets, this favors QCD background events with
high $p_T$ central quark jets which in turn lead to a harder gluon emission
spectrum than is present after all final cuts are imposed. A harder gluon
spectrum goes hand-in-hand, however, with an increased minijet emission
probability.
A more realistic estimate of the minijet $p_T$ spectrum is obtained by
applying the matching condition (or calculating $\bar{n}$) only in the
phase space region where a comparison of signal and background will take
place: after all acceptance cuts, determined at the two-jet level, have
been imposed.

Once the full level of cuts for a given search scenario are imposed, one may
examine different tagging jet selection algorithms to optimize the veto.
Ideally, the outgoing quarks would always be selected, so that the additional
gluon radiation is always the veto candidate. In practice, this is impossible,
but for the Higgs signal various algorithms can achieve ``proper'' quark tagging
with about $75\%$ efficiency, a high success rate. Briefly, these might be the
two highest-$p_T$ jets, or the two jets closest to the reconstructed Higgs.
Most algorithms have very little difference from each other in the case of the
WBF signature. Thus, we choose an algorithm that allows more suppression of the
QCD backgrounds. The final algorithm we chose is to select the highest-$p_T$ jet
as the first tagging jet, since it will almost always be part of the hard
scattering, and then select the other tagging jet such that the event is more
likely to pass the forward tagging cuts: look for jets with $p_T > 20$~GeV in
the opposite hemisphere, such that the candidate Higgs decay products are
between the tagging jets, satisfying Eq.~(\ref{eq:lepcen}). This performs
somewhat superior to merely choosing the two highest-$p_T$ jets.

Also in contrast to our previous studies~\cite{RZ_tautau,RSZ_vnj}, the veto
candidates are defined jets ($p_T > 20$~GeV) anywhere between the tagging jets,
{\em i.e.} they are searched for in a somewhat larger rapidity region than the
$W$ decay leptons (see Eq.~(\ref{eq:lepcen}),
which have to be at least 0.7 units of rapidity
away from the tagging jets.  The choice of Eq.~(\ref{eq:etaveto}) allows for
more suppression of the backgrounds than the more restrictive selection.
The resulting veto probabilities are summarized in line six of
Table~\ref{WW_data}. We
emphasize that while these probabilities are estimates only, they can be
independently determined at the LHC in processes like $Zjj$ and $Wjj$
production~\cite{RSZ_vnj,CZ_gap}.

For the $t\bar{t} + jets$ backgrounds, it is simpler instead to reinterpret the
divergent higher-order cross sections. For this we assume that additional soft
parton emission, which will be dominated by soft gluons, exponentiates like soft
photon emission. This approximation has been shown well to describe multijet
events at the Tevatron~\cite{CDFjets}. In this model, the probability to observe
$n$ soft jets in the veto region is given by a Poisson distribution with
\begin{equation}
\bar n = \bar n(p_{T,\rm veto}) = {1 \over \sigma_2}\;
\int_{p_{T,\rm veto}}^{\infty} dp_{T3}\;
{d\sigma_3 \over dp_{T3}}\; ,
\end{equation}
where the unregularized three-parton cross section is integrated over the veto
region of Eq.~(\ref{eq:mjveto}) and then normalized to the 2-jet cross section
$\sigma_2$, regarded as inclusive. We call this model the ``exponentiation
model''. A rough estimate of the multiple emission probability is thus provided
by
\begin{equation}
\label{Pvetoexp}
P_{exp}(p_{T,\rm veto}) = 1-P_0 = 1- e^{-\bar n(p_{T,\rm veto})}
\end{equation}
which is the probability to veto the event. We find veto survival probabilities
of $P_{surv} = 46\%$ for $t\bar{t}$ events and $P_{surv} = 12\%$ for
$t\bar{t}j$ events. Both of these results disagree with our other estimates of
$P_{surv}$ for QCD processes. This may be understandable for $t\bar{t}$ events,
as at tree level this component does not contain any t-channel gluon exchange
processes, which all of the other QCD backgrounds do. We also observe that the
additional radiation in $t\bar{t}$ events typically falls outside the central
gap. We did not explore this any further as the $t\bar{t}$ component is
negligible. That the value of $P_{surv}$ found for $t\bar{t}j$ events is so
much smaller than that for other QCD backgrounds may be understood because the
large mass of the tops produced requires significant $p_T$, but as this is not
yet fully explored we prefer to remain conservative and assume the value
$P_{surv} = 0.29$ for all QCD backgrounds, including top quark pair production.
For a Higgs boson mass of 160~GeV we are left with a signal cross section of
7.5~fb compared to a total background of 1.6~fb.

So far we have considered a single Higgs boson mass of 160~GeV only. Since we
have largely avoided mass-specific cuts, we can immediately extend our results
to a larger range of $m_H$. The expected number of signal events for
115~GeV~$\leq m_H \leq 200$~GeV and an integrated luminosity of 5~fb$^{-1}$
are shown in Table~\ref{summary}. For the same luminosity, 8.1 background
events are expected. In the second row of Table~\ref{summary} the Poisson
probabilities for this background to fluctuate up to the signal level are
given, in terms of the equivalent Gaussian significances which can be
expected in the experiment on average.

\begin{table}
\caption{Number of expected events for the $Hjj$ signal, for 5~${\rm fb}^{-1}$
integrated luminosity and application of all efficiency factors and cuts,
including a minijet veto, but for a range of Higgs boson masses. The total
background is 8.1 events. As a measure of the Poisson probability of the
background to fluctuate up to the signal level, the second line gives
$\sigma_{Gauss}$,the number of Gaussian equivalent standard deviations.}
\vspace{0.15in}
\label{summary}
\begin{tabular}{c|cccccccccc}
$m_H$            & 115 & 120 & 130 & 140  & 150  & 160  & 170  & 180  & 190  & 200  \\
\hline
no. events       & 2.0 & 3.6 & 8.8 & 15.8 & 24.0 & 37.5 & 36.3 & 29.9 & 20.8 & 16.3 \\
$\sigma_{Gauss}$ & 0.5 & 1.0 & 2.6 &  4.4 &  6.3 &  9.0 &  8.8 &  7.5 &  5.5 &  4.5 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:disc}

While we have demonstrated a series of kinematic cuts and a minijet veto, based
on the physics of the processes involved, that reduce the background well below
the level of the signal, we have not performed a detailed detector simulation.
A full simulation is clearly needed eventually, but we do not expect our
results to change dramatically since CMS and ATLAS will be highly efficient
detectors. For a more realistic estimate of the signal significance we do take
one major reduction factor into account in the last line of Table~\ref{WW_data},
the reconstruction efficiency for tagging jets. This is expected to be 0.86 at
CMS for each tagging jet, resulting in a net efficiency of
$\epsilon_{tag} = (0.86)^2 = 0.74$. Even after this nontrivial loss of total
rate, it is clear that the method we propose still works beautifully.

As the $H\to WW$ mode is likely to be the discovery channel for the mass range
130~GeV~$< m_H <$~200~GeV, we wish to be able to reconstruct the Higgs boson
mass. At threshold, the two (virtual) $W$'s are at rest in the Higgs boson
center-of-mass frame, resulting in $m_{e\mu} = m_{\nu\bar\nu}$, so we can
calculate the transverse energy of both the charged lepton and invisible
neutrino systems,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:E_T}
E_{T_{e\mu}} = \sqrt{\vec{p}_{T_{e\mu}}^2 + m_{e\mu}^2} \,  , \qquad
\sla{E}_T = \sqrt{\vec\sla{p}_T^2 + m_{e\mu}^2} \,  .
\end{equation}
Using these results for the transverse energies, we may compute a transverse
mass of the dilepton-$\vec\sla{p}_T$ system,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:M_T}
M_{T_{WW}} \; = \;
\sqrt{(\sla{E_T}+E_{T_{e\mu}})^2 - ({\vec{p}}_{T_{e\mu}}+\vec\sla{p_T})^2}
\, ,
\end{equation}
At threshold this is exactly the Higgs boson transverse mass. Below threshold,
the relation $m_{e\mu} = m_{\nu\bar\nu}$ is still an excellent approximation,
while above threshold it begins to lose validity as the $W$ bosons acquire a
non-zero velocity in the Higgs boson rest frame. But even at $m_H=200$~GeV
this ``pseudo'' transverse mass remains extremely useful for mass reconstruction.
We show the dramatic results in Fig.~\ref{fig:M_T}, for Higgs boson masses of
130, 160 and 190~GeV. Clearly visible is the Jacobian peak at $M_{T_{WW}} = m_H$,
in particular for $m_H = 160$~GeV. The combined backgrounds are added to the
Higgs signal, and are shown after application of all cuts and detector
efficiencies, as well as both the $b$ and minijet vetoes which were
discussed in the previous Sections.

\begin{figure}[htb]
\vspace*{0.5in}
\begin{picture}(0,0)(0,0)
\special{psfile=M_T.www.ps
         voffset=-290 hoffset=550 hscale=70 vscale=65 angle=90}
\end{picture}
\vspace{8.5 cm}
\caption{Dilepton-$\sla{p_T}$ transverse mass distributions expected for a
Higgs boson of mass $m_H$ = 130, 160, and 190~GeV (red) after the cuts of
Eqs.~(\ref{eq:basic}-\ref{eq:adv}) and application of all detector efficiencies
and a minijet veto with $p_{T,{\rm veto}} = 20$~GeV. Also shown is the
background only (dashed).}
\label{fig:M_T}
\vspace*{0.1in}
\end{figure}

As the $M_T$ distribution shows a pronounced Jacobian peak for all Higgs
boson masses under consideration, the signal-to-background ratio and the
statistical significance of the signal can be improved by restricting attention
to the relevant $M_T$ range. We find that up to $W$-pair threshold
($M_H \leq 165$~GeV), the requirement $M_T < M_H + 20$~GeV works well.
Above threshold, loosening this cut improves the signal significance.
Table~\ref{MTsum}
demonstrates the power of this constraint, showing that it is possible to
isolate a virtually background free $qq\to qqH,\;H\to WW$ signal at the LHC,
with sufficiently large counting rate to obtain a better than $5\sigma$ signal
with a mere 5~fb$^{-1}$ of data for the mass range 140-200~GeV. Extending the
observability region down to 130~GeV requires at most 15~fb$^{-1}$. To reach
120~GeV would require $\approx 65$~fb$^{-1}$ of low luminosity data
($10^{33}\; {\rm cm}^{-2}\; {\rm s}^{-1}$), and to reach 115~GeV would require
$\approx 165$~fb$^{-1}$. This nicely overlaps the regions of observability for
$H\to\gamma\gamma$ (100-150~GeV)~\cite{RZ_gamgam} and $H\to\tau\tau$
(110-140~GeV)\cite{RZ_tautau}. The luminosity requirements in the low mass
region can be reduced significantly by more stringent charged lepton cuts.

\begin{table}[b]
\caption{Number of expected events for the $Hjj$ signal, for 5~${\rm fb}^{-1}$
integrated luminosity and a range of Higgs masses. As compared to
Table~\protect\ref{summary} an additional upper limit on the Higgs transverse
mass of Eq.~(\ref{eq:M_T}) is imposed, as given in the first line.
The number of both signal and background
events are shown, as well as S/B. The Poisson probability of the background
to fluctuate up to the signal level is given in terms of $\sigma_{Gauss}$, the
number of Gaussian equivalent standard deviations.}
\vspace{0.15in}
\label{MTsum}
\begin{tabular}{c|cccccccccc}
$m_H$ (GeV)
& 115 & 120 & 130 & 140  & 150  & 160  & 170  & 180  & 190  & 200  \\
\hline
$M_T$ cutoff (GeV)
& 135 & 140 & 150 & 160  & 170  & 180  & 210  & 220  & none & none \\
no. S events
& 1.9 & 3.4 & 8.3 & 14.8 & 22.7 & 36.5 & 35.9 & 29.3 & 20.8 & 16.3 \\
no. B events
& 3.0 & 3.4 & 4.0 &  4.7 &  5.4 &  6.0 &  7.2 &  7.5 &  8.1 &  8.1 \\
S/B
& 0.6 & 1.0 & 2.0 &  3.1 &  4.2 &  6.1 &  5.0 &  3.9 &  2.6 &  2.0 \\
$\sigma_{Gauss}$
& 0.8 & 1.4 & 3.1 &  5.0 &  6.8 &  9.6 &  9.0 &  7.6 &  5.5 &  4.5 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

The high purity of the signal is made possible because
the weak boson fusion process, together with the
$H\to W^+ W^-\to e^\pm \mu^\mp \sla{p_T}$ decay, provides a complex signal with
a multitude of characteristics which distinguish it from the various backgrounds.
The basic feature of the $qq\to qqH$ signal is the presence of two forward
tagging jets inside the acceptance region of the LHC detectors, of sizable
$p_T$, and of dijet invariant mass in the TeV range. Typical QCD backgrounds,
with isolated charged leptons and two hard jets, are much softer.
In addition, the QCD backgrounds are dominated by $W$ bremsstrahlung off
forward scattered quarks, which give typically higher-rapidity charged
leptons. In contrast, the EW processes give rise to quite central leptons,
and this includes not only the Higgs signal but also EW $WWjj$ and
$\tau\tau jj$ production, which also proceed via weak boson fusion. It is
this similarity that prevents one from ignoring EW analogs to background
QCD processes, which a priori are smaller by two orders of magnitude in
total cross section, but after basic cuts remain the same size as their
QCD counterparts.

For $H\to WW$ decays, lepton angular distributions are extremely useful for
reducing the backgrounds even further. The anti-correlation of $W$ spins in
$H$ decay forces the charged leptons to be preferentially emitted in the same
direction, close together in the lego plot. This happens for a small fraction
of the background only. We have identified the most important distributions
for enhancing the signal relative to the background, and set the various cuts
conservatively to avoid bias for a certain Higgs boson
mass range. There is ample room
for improvement of our results via a multivariate analysis of a complete set
of signal and background distributions, which we encourage the LHC
collaborations to pursue. Additional suppression of the $t\bar{t} + jets$
background may be possible with $b$ identification and veto in the
$p_{T_b} < 20$~GeV region.

In addition to various invariant mass and angular cuts, we can differentiate
between the $W$'s of the signal and $W,t$ backgrounds and the real $\tau$'s
in the QCD and EW $\tau\tau jj$ backgrounds. This is possible because the
high energy of the produced $\tau$'s makes their decay products almost
collinear. Combined with the substantial $p_T$ of the $\tau^+\tau^-$ system
this allows for $\tau$-pair mass reconstruction. The $W$ decays do not exhibit
this collinearity due to their large mass, thus the angular correlation
between the $\sla{p_T}$ vector and the charged lepton momenta is markedly
different. Our real-$\tau$ rejection makes use of these differences and
promises to virtually eliminate the $\tau\tau jj$ backgrounds.

We advocate taking advantage of an additional fundamental characteristic of
QCD and EW processes. Color-singlet exchange in the $t$-channel, as
encountered in Higgs boson production by weak boson fusion (and in the EW
$Zjj$ background), leads to additional soft jet activity which differs
strikingly from that expected for the QCD backgrounds in both geometry and
hardness: gluon radiation in QCD processes is typically both more central
and harder than in WBF processes. We exploit this radiation, via a veto on
events with central minijets of $p_T > 20$~GeV, and expect a typical $70\%$
reduction in QCD backgrounds and about a $25\%$ suppression of EW backgrounds,
but only about a $10\%$ loss of the signal.

Beyond the possibility of discovering the Higgs boson in the $H\to WW$ mode,
or confirmation of its existence, measuring the cross sections in both weak
boson and gluon fusion will be important both as a test of the Standard Model
and as a search for new physics. For such a measurement, via the analysis
outlined in this paper, minijet veto probabilities must be precisely known.
For calibration purposes, one can analyze $Zjj$ events at the LHC. The
production rates of the QCD and EW $Zjj$ events can be reliably predicted
and, thus, the observation of the $Z\to\ell\ell$ peak allows for a direct
experimental assessment of the minijet veto efficiencies, in a kinematic
configuration very similar to the Higgs signal.

Observation of SM $H\to e^\pm\mu^\mp\sla{p_T}$ at the LHC is possible for
very low integrated luminosities, if the Higgs boson lies in the mass range
between about 130 and 200 GeV. Weak boson fusion at the LHC will be an
exciting process to study, for a weakly coupled Higgs sector just
as much as for strong interactions in the symmetry breaking sector of
electroweak interactions.

\acknowledgements
This research was supported in part by the University of Wisconsin Research
Committee with funds granted by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation and
in part by the U.~S.~Department of Energy under Contract
No.~DE-FG02-95ER40896.

\newpage

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaArXiv


If you're a first time visitor to Jackson Hole, you might prefer a more touristy area, but if you're a solo traveler, a smaller local eatery could be more interesting. Some areas have lots of things to do within walking distance, but the restaurants may be more expensive. To give you a starting point for your trip research, we looked at what people say about restaurants in Jackson Hole.
What are some good restaurants in Jackson Hole?
Here are some of the most recommended restaurants in Jackson Hole.
Where can I find out more about Jackson Hole?


text:
Canada is disappointed with US final tariff rate on needle timber, says Commerce Secretary Canada News
Softwood tasks completed
The Canadian Press – November 24, 2021 / 15:27 | History: 352661
Photo: The Canadian Press
Minister of International Trade Mary Ng to attend a press conference in Ottawa on Saturday, November 21, 2020. THE CANADIAN PRESS / Justin Tang
International Trade Secretary Mary Ng and BC's timber producers say they are disappointed that the US Department of Commerce has decided to increase tariffs on Canada's conifer producers.
The US government said on Wednesday that its final combined anti-dumping and countervailing duty rate for most Canadian producers would be 17.9%.
That is slightly below the preliminary rate of 18.32 percent issued in May, but double the original rate of 8.99 percent.
Ng called on the United States to stop imposing "these unjustified duties" that harm Canadian communities, businesses and workers, while increasing the cost of housing and renovations for American consumers.
The final rates for four Canadian producers have been reduced slightly since May. The final course for Canfor Corp. is 19.54 percent, down from 21.04 percent; West Fraser Timber Co. Inc. is 11.12 percent, down from 11.38 percent; Resolute Forest Products Inc. is 29.66 percent, down from 30.22 percent; and JD Irving is 15 percent, down from 15.82 percent.
The BC Lumber Trade Council says the final rates are not unexpected but still disappointing, especially as U.S. producers are unable to meet domestic demand.
"Our strong hope is that American industry will end this decades-long lawsuit and instead work with us to meet the demand for the low-carbon wood products that the world wants, including American families," said Council President Susan Yurkovich.
"Until then, we will continue to defend our industry against these worthless claims."
Ng said the Canadian government will continue to defend the softwood industry, including through litigation under Chapter 10 of the CUSMA Trade Agreement with Canada, the United States and Mexico, Chapter 19 of NAFTA and at the World Trade Organization.
"At every step of the way, decisions have found Canada a fair trading partner," she said in a press release.
"Canada has always been willing to explore ideas that enable a return to predictable cross-border trade in softwood and remains convinced that a negotiated solution to this long-standing trade problem is in the interests of workers in both our countries."

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Seeing Past Iraq's Smoke
Call it desperation escalation. The more daily life in Iraq is stabilized and the country wins international support, the more terrorists desperately hit highly symbolic targets, trying to create an impression that Iraq's not stable.
The latest bull's-eye was the International Committee of the Red Cross. A suicide bomber in an ambulance struck the ICRC's Baghdad office on Monday, one day after an attack on the city's most heavily fortified hotel, where Paul Wolfowitz, US deputy defense secretary, was staying. The last big attack was on the United Nations offices.
Don't be fooled.
These dramatic hits are aimed at swaying world opinion (mainly American) and not Iraqis, who prefer to vote for a new government rather than revolt against the Iraqi Governing Council and the multinational force led by the United States.
Someone with a sense of history, either Saddam Hussein or terrorists connected to Al Qaeda, may think they can bring about in Iraq what the Tet Offensive did in South Vietnam in February 1968, when a desperate Hanoi ordered futile attacks on US positions, notably the embassy in Saigon. The attacks created an impression that the US was losing militarily. It wasn't true, but the TV images helped turned American opinion against the war.
In Iraq, the desperate attackers show signs of losing the opinion war.
Over just the past two weeks, the "dead-enders," as the Bush administration calls the terrorists, have seen the UN Security Council vote unanimously to endorse the US-led restoration of Iraq, while a 73-nation donors' conference in Madrid came up with more than $33 billion in pledges - twice the size of the Iraqi economy - to aid Iraq's rebuilding.
And while President Bush and Congress argue over whether the US portion of that aid is a grant or partially a loan, the package will eventually pass, a reflection of the public's willingness to slog it out (as Donald Rumsfeld might say).
If anything, the attacks might slow down foreign investment in Iraq. The next big international hurdle is for the Iraqi leaders to sit down with creditors and renegotiate a debt that was supersized by Saddam Hussein. It's estimated to be more than $120 billion, or more than eight times what the economy's producing.
The creditors will want to see how well the economy is doing and how much oil is flowing before they extend repayment periods. Iraq has been in a two-decade depression, with the gross domestic product per person dropping from $3,600 a year to less than $640.
Fortunately, the International Monetary Fund sees a strong recovery next year, one that can be sustained only if Iraq receives some debt relief, if not outright forgiveness.
The world can't afford to commit the same mistake in Iraq as it did with Germany after World War I, letting it stagnate in red ink, making it ripe for dictatorship. That's probably exactly what the terrorists want. But so far it's easy to see through their tactics.
Iraqi soldiers, Shiite militia enter Tikrit, officials say
Bad reason to invade Iraq No. 2: weapons of mass destruction
Why Iraqi request for help fighting Al Qaeda poses dilemma for US
https://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1028/p08s02-comv.html


text:
CRYPTO WEEKLY NEWS: Tezos Update Cuts Fees By 75% and More
Adoption, Blockchain, News, Security, Technology
Crypto Staking: Is It Really Profitable?
Altcoins, Blockchain, Ethereum, Technology
Crypto Weekly News: CryptoPunks NFT Sold for $24M, Bitcoin Price Drops Amid Russia-Ukraine Tension and More
Bitcoin, Blockchain, Ethereum, News, Technology
Bringing Community and Sustainability Back at Ethereum
Adoption, Blockchain, Ethereum, Security, Technology
Top 10 Blockchain Companies
Crypto Weekly News: BTC Jumps Above $40K Then Retraces, Poloniex Under Fire, and More
Bitcoin, Blockchain, Mining, News, Technology
Bitcoin Rebounds to $40K After Announcement of $6T Budget by Biden
The price BTC (bitcoin) brushed the $40K mark today after Biden's announcement of the proposed $6T budget for next year.
On Thursday, the New York Times reported that this could be the biggest budget since World War 2. Biden also plans to push to increase the budget to $8.2T by 2031.
With the announcement, BTC (bitcoin) was up to $40, 854 in data by Crypto.co. But as of writing, it's now down by 3.09% with its price at $ 36,833.86 in a 24-hr chart.
Also, stock prices slightly rose with Dow Jones up by 0.4%, S&P 500 by 0.3%, and Nasdaq increased by 0.2%.
Biden's proposed budget of $6T will be spent on infrastructure, education, and healthcare as further stated by the NYT report. It also added:
"The proposal shows the sweep of Mr. Biden's ambitions to wield government power to help more Americans attain the comforts of a middle-class life and to lift US industry to better compete globally in an economy the administration believes will be dominated by a race to reduce energy emissions and combat climate change."
The market is now on a "wait-and-see phase" as the BTC (bitcoin) price trades below $40K. The most dominant cryptocurrency has tremendously dropped by 70% from its peak price of $64K in mid-April. This month, BTC (bitcoin) underwent two consecutive corrections. On May 19, its price even dropped to as low as $30K following a massive sell-off. This has resulted in a flash crash that brought down the whole crypto market.
Poloniex Under Fire by Regulators for Breaking Laws
Crypto exchange Poloniex is currently under fire by the Ontario regulators for allegedly violating securities laws.
According to reports, the crypto exchange failed to comply with the April 19 deadline set by the regulatory body. In a statement by the Ontario Securities Commission, Poloniex has never registered with the agency but has allowed its Ontario residents users to trade crypto derivatives and securities.
In a published document by the OSC on March 29 further states:
"If a platform currently trading in derivatives or securities in Ontario does not do so by this date, steps will be taken to enforce applicable requirements under securities law."
The regulation applies to all trading platforms that operate in Ontario even those located outside of the Canadian province.
The recent move by the OSC was mainly due to investment risk. According to a report by the Toronto Star, Matt Burgoyne, a partner at Calgary-based McLeod Law commented on the matter:
"It's a potential disaster for investors who frankly might not be sophisticated enough to understand the risks. This won't be the last time regulators do something like this, either."
According to OSC, Poloniex ignored the warning of the regulatory body and has not contacted the agency even after the April 19 deadline lapsed. OSC further stated:
"Entities such as Poloniex, which flout this compliance process, expose Ontario investors to unacceptable risks and create an uneven playing field."
The Seychelles-based crypto exchange now faces a possible $1 million in fines and trading bans.
Iran Temporarily Halts Crypto Mining
On Wednesday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has temporarily halted crypto mining following a massive power outage in major key cities in the country.
The ban will be effective immediately that will last for four months and will end on Sept. 22.
The power shortage was catalyzed by the surging demand which includes crypto mining. But Rouhani stated that 85% of the country's mining is illegal.
The Iranian government's program on power subsidy has encouraged even households to jump in crypto mining which is illegal in the country.
In October 2020, the country revised its laws to adopt BTC (bitcoin) to get around with US sanctions on using dollars for international trade. The new law legalized bitcoin mining and will be sold to the country's central bank. But the new regulation has aggravated the country's power shortage issue due to surging numbers of illegal miners. To combat this, The Ministry of Intelligence has deployed spies to hunt down illegal miners.
Hundreds of computers used for cryptocurrency mining were confiscated as a result of the government's crackdown on these illegal miners.
Musk, Saylor, and the Bitcoin Mining Council
Shortly after turning his back on BTC (bitcoin), Elon Musk is now back, and this time to aid for the renewable sources for the mining of the cryptocurrency.
On Tuesday, the Technoking and Microstrategy CEO Michael Saylor had a meeting with major bitcoin miners in North America which include Argo Blockchain, Galaxy Digital, and Marathon Digital Holdings. With the meeting, the Bitcoin Mining Council was created which will "promote energy usage transparency and accelerate sustainability initiatives worldwide."
The group is responsible for producing just less than 10% of the global computing power on the bitcoin network but due to recent issues on bitcoin's energy consumption, the news immediately raised criticisms.
But during the meeting, Saylor stated:
"The only reason we had the meeting is because we wanted to ensure the success of a decentralized cryptocurrency and the source of decentralization is energy usage."
Commenting on Musk's participation, Saylor stated that he reach out to him first. He further added:
"We wanted to understand how we could be the good guys in the entire ESG debate", because "we [bitcoiners] are the good people" who are "actually driving sustainability."
Seems like the two are now good bitcoin (?) buddies after an exchange of words in their respective Twitter accounts after Musk removed bitcoin as payment for Tesla cars. Musk has raised an issue over the cryptocurrency's carbon footprint caused by dirty energies from coal for its mining.
BidenBitcoinBitcoin MinersBitcoin Mining CouncilCrypto MiningElon MuskIranMichael SaylorOntario Securities CommissionPoloniexRegulations
Winning Poker Network Bitcoin Payout Surge by 95%
Biggest Proponents of Cryptocurrency


Uniquely situated on the banks of the river Shannon, the Curragower Bar is in the heart of Limerick's Medieval Quarter.
With spectacular views of King John's Castle, the Curragower Falls and Limerick City Hall, the Curragower is the ideal place to take in all the city has to offer.
This is the perfect stopover on the way to Thomond Park and has become renowned for its festival atmosphere before and after Munster matches.
A well known landmark in the City, the Curragower is believed to be one of the city's oldest bars with some historians citing its establishment as far back as the late 1700's, originally serving as a sibin for local farmers and fisherman alike.


Located right off of I-93 in downtown Boston in the Financial District, 21 Custom House Street is only one block from Boston's Waterfront and is adjacent to the Rose Kennedy Greenway. We are within walking distance of South Station, North Station and the MBTA system.
Convenient parking garages are located at the Aquarium garage, 5 Well Street (between Franklin and Custom House) and 47 Broad Street (between Milk and Water).
Please enter the building at 49 India Street.


text:
Thiruvananthapuram CITY GUIDE
Thiruvananthapuram Directory
About Thiruvananthapuram
Administration in Thiruvananthapuram
MPs and MLAs from Thiruvananthapuram
Thiruvananthapuram Central Jail
Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation
Business in Thiruvananthapuram
Builders in Thiruvananthapuram
Business Opportunities in Thiruvananthapuram
Companies in Technopark
Companies in Thiruvananthapuram
Construction Companies in Thiruvananthapuram
Infrastructure Companies in Thiruvananthapuram
Technopark in Thiruvananthapuram
Art and Craft in Thiruvananthapuram
Auditoriums in Thiruvananthapuram
Dance Classes in Thiruvananthapuram
Dance in Thiruvanathapuram
Exhibitions in Thiruvananthapuram
Festivals and Fairs in Thiruvananthapuram
International Film Festival in Thiruvananthapuram
Music Classes in Thiruvananthapuram
Music in Thiruvananthapuram
Courts in Thiruvananthapuram
Police Stations in Thiruvananthapuram
Best Restaurants in Thiruvananthapuram
Coffee Shops in Thiruvananthapuram
Fast Food in Thiruvananthapuram
Luxury And Fine Dining Restaurants In Thiruvananthapuram
Restaurants in Thiruvananthapuram
Speciality Restaurants in Thiruvananthapuram
Top Vegetarian Restaurants in Thiruvanthapuram
Geography of Thiruvananthapuram
Healthcare facilities in Thiruvananthapuram
Ayurvedic Hospitals in Thiruvananthapuram
Dental Hospitals in Thiruvananthapuram
Eye Hospitals in Thiruvananthapuram
Hospitals in Thiruvananthapuram
Lifestyle in Thiruvananthapuram
8 Reasons To Relocate To Thiruvananthapuram
Clubs in Thiruvananthapuram
Pubs in Thiruvananthapuram
Localities and Areas in Thiruvananthapuram
Shopping in Thiruvananthapuram
Electronic Stores in Thiruvananthapuram
Gift Shops in Thiruvananthapuram
Handicraft Shops in Thiruvananthapuram
Handloom Shops in Thiruvananthapuram
Jewellery Stores in Thiruvananthapuram
Markets in Thiruvananthapuram
Mobile Showrooms in Thiruvananthapuram
Optical Stores in Thiruvananthapuram
Saree Shops in Thiruvananthapuram
Shoe Stores in Thiruvananthapuram
Shopping Malls in Thiruvananthapuram
Upcoming Shopping Malls in Thiruvananthapuram
Society in Thiruvananthapuram
Sports in Thiruvananthapuram
Thiruvananthapuram Specials
10 Important Foods in Thiruvananthapuram
Saree Shopping in Thiruvananthapuram
Sweets From Thiruvananthapuram
The Story of Trivandrum Zoo and Life of Pi
Touring Shiva Temples in Thiruvananthapuram
Vellayani Lake in Thiruvananthapuram
Thiruvananthapuram-Important-Links
3 Star Hotels in Thiruvananthapuram
Agasthyakoodam Thiruvananthapuram
Akkulam near Thiruvananthapuram
Anchuthengu Fort near Thiruvananthapuram
Aruvikkara near Thiruvananthapuram
Attukal Bhagavathy Temple
Backwaters of Thiruvananthapuram
Beach Resorts in Thiruvananthapuram
Best Family Getaways in Thiruvananthapuram
Budget Hotels in Thiruvananthapuram
Chowara Beach in Thiruvananthapuram
Classic Avenue Hotel in Thiruvananthapuram
CVN Kalari Sangham in Thiruvananthapuram
East Fort in Thiruvananthapuram
Fortune Hotel The South Park Thiruvananthapuram
Guesthouses and homestays in Thiruvananthapuram
Happy Land Water Theme Park in Thiruvananthapuram
Hill Stations near Thiruvananthapuram
Hotel Galaxy Inn Thiruvananthapuram
Hotel Hycinth in Thiruvananthapuram
Hotel Residency Tower in Thiruvananthapuram
Hotel Saj Luciya in Thiruvananthapuram
Hotel Silver Sand in Thiruvananthapuram
Hotel Town Tower in Thiruvananthapuram
Hotels in Thiruvananthapuram
Hotels near Thiruvananthapuram Railway Station
Hotels near Trivandrum International Airport
Idukki Hill Station near Thiruvananthapuram
ISRO Thiruvananthapuram
Jas Hotel in Thiruvananthapuram
Kalarippayattu Centres
Kerala Science & Technology Museum
Kottancheri Hill Station near Thiruvananthapuram
Lodges in Thiruvananthapuram
Meenmutty Falls Thiruvananthapuram
Munnar near Thiruvananthapuram
Napier Museum
Nelliampathy Hill Station near Thiruvananthapuram
Neyyar Wildlife Sanctuary
One Day Trips from Thiruvananthapuram
Padmanabhapuram Palace
Picnic Spots in Thiruvananthapuram
Picnic spots in Thiruvananthapuram Thenmala
Ponmudi Hill Station
Ponmudi Picnic Spot near Thiruvananthapuram
Poovar near Thiruvananthapuram
Ranni Hill Station near Thiruvananthapuram
Resorts in Kovalam
Resorts in Thiruvananthapuram
Road Transport Thiruvananthapuram
Sarkara in Thiruvananthapuram
Shankumugham in Thiruvananthapuram
SP Grand Days Hotel Thiruvananthapuram
Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple
Ten Things To Buy When Visiting Thiruvanthapuram
The Seven Hills in Thiruvananthapuram
Things To Do in Thiruvananthapuram
Thiruvallam in Thiruvananthapuram
Thiruvananthapuram As A Honeymoon Destination
Thiruvananthapuram One Day Tour
Thiruvananthapuram to Goa by Road
Thiruvananthapuram to Kanyakumari by Road
Thiruvananthapuram to Munnar by Road
Thiruvananthapuram Zoo
Top Hotels in Thiruvananthapuram
Travel Agents in Thiruvananthapuram
Trivandrum Hotel in Thiruvananthapuram
Trivandrum International Airport
Vagamon near Thiruvananthapuram
Veli Tourist Village
Vikram Sarabhai Space Center
Vizhinjam in Thiruvananthapuram
Weekend Getaways from Thiruvananthapuram
Transport in Thiruvananthapuram
Flights from Thiruvananthapuram
Flights to Thiruvananthapuram
International Flights from Thiruvananthapuram
Railway Stations in Thiruvananthapuram
Thiruvananthapuram Central Railway Station
Thiruvananthapuram Kochuveli Railway Station
Thiruvananthapuram Pettah Railway Station
Trains from Kochuveli Railway Station
Trains from Thiruvananthapuram Central
Trains from Thiruvananthapuram Central to Delhi
Trains from Thiruvananthapuram Central to Ernakulam Junction
Trains from Thiruvananthapuram Central to Ernakulam Town
Trains from Thiruvananthapuram Kochuveli to Delhi
Trains from Thiruvananthapuram Kochuveli to Ernakulam
Trains from Thiruvananthapuram Kochuveli to Kollam
Trains from Thiruvananthapuram Kochuveli to Kottayam
Trains from Thiruvananthapuram Kochuveli to Kozhikode
Trains from Thiruvananthapuram to Bengaluru
Trains from Thiruvananthapuram to Goa Madgaon Junction
Trains from Thiruvananthapuram to Hyderabad
Trains from Thiruvananthapuram to Kollam
Trains from Thiruvananthapuram to Kottayam
Trains from Thiruvananthapuram to Kozhikode
Trains from Thiruvananthapuram to Mumbai
Utilities and Services in Thiruvananthapuram
Banquet Halls in Thiruvananthapuram
Car Rental Service in Thiruvananthapuram
Dry Cleaners in Thiruvananthapuram
Florists in Thiruvananthapuram
Hostels in Thiruvananthapuram
Important Certificates in Thiruvananthapuram
Lawyers in Thiruvananthapuram
PGs in Thiruvananthapuram
Photo Studios in Thiruvananthapuram
Property Dealers in Thiruvananthapuram
Taxi Services in Thiruvananthapuram
Home city guide touring shiva temples in thiruvananthapuram
Ben, a U.S. citizen, has always been fascinated with idols of Hindu deities whenever he visits his Indian friends who are settled in the U.S. Planning for vacations, he decided to travel all the way to India and explore the architectural beauty and historical significance of temples in Thiruvananthapuram, a place where he had a few family friends.
But Ben was in for a big surprise when he discovered that there are more than 2000 temples in and around this city! By the time he would finish visiting all of them, he would himself have become a monk!
Ben has seen idols and pictures of Lord Shiva in various forms - as Natraja, the Lord of dance or Neelkanth, Lord with a blue throat due to the poison he drank to save the devas from asuras. Shiva carries a trident or trishul which represents three gunas in our life namely, sattva, rajas and tama. The crescent moon on the forehead give him the name Chandrashekar and His damrusignifies the sacred sound of 'om'. Under his feet is asura signifying ignorance. With his wife Parvati, he symbolizes Ardhanarisvara form.
(Picture Courtesy: Anandita Pandey)
Shiva Temples in and around Thiruvananthapuram
A tourist at heart, Ben planned his visit well in advance and landed in Thiruvananthapuram. He made up his mind to visit only Shiva temples this time. His experience in each temple, the marvels he came across were penned down in the mini diary on his android phone. This is what he got for his friends - some architects, historians, sociologists and anthropologists.
Madavoorpara Cave Temple
Madavoorpara cave temple, a protected site now, has been carved out of a rock. A bamboo bridge takes you to the top of this rock where a small hut rests with benches inside. Children playing in the park is such a colourful sight.
Cave temples are not very common in Kerala. However, there is another cave temple in Vizhinjam. Madavoorpara is 8 kms. from Sreekaryam Junction and 18 kms. from Trivandrum.
Open on all days.
Pazhaya Sreekanteswaram Temple or Old Sreekanteswaram Temple
A very ancient temple which existed even in 9th century, it consists of idols of Sri Krishna or Vishnu (which was installed to subdue the ferocity of Shiva) and also an idol of Ganesha and serpent gods, all facing towards East. The new temple is located outside North Fort. Devotees throng this temple during Maha Shivratri.
Darshan Timings:
Morning: 5.20 to 10.30
Evening: 5.00 to 8.30
Sreekanteswaram
Two important deities in this temple are Lord Shiva (Swayambhu Shivalinga) and Maha Vishnu placed in the sanctum sanctorum or sreekoil. This temple must be 700 years old! Just like the pond, even the idols face towards the East. This temple is about 3 kms. from Trivandrum Central Railway Station.
Sree Ashtalakshmi Viswanatha Temple
This temple is known for its architectural beauty. Devotees come here for performing rituals and making offerings. The colour of the temple is off white and comprises of beautiful carvings on the wall.
Monday to Sunday: 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM to 8:00 PM
Major Chengallur Mahadeva Temple
Located at Poojapura, 5 kms. from Thiruvananthapuram Central Railway Station, the shivling is worshipped in this temple. Peacocks, a holy water tank and idols of upadevathas (sub-deities) Lord Subramania, Lord Ganesh and Nagaraja attract devotees to this temple. The temple is crowded during Maha Shivratri.
Kamaleswaram Mahadeva Temple
Situated 3 kms. from city centre on Kamalesweram-Aryankuzhi Road, the two important festivals celebrated here are Maha Shivaratri and Thiruvathira. Upadevathas on the temple premises are Lord Ganesha, Nagaraja and Maadan Thampuran.
Darshan:
Morning - 5.20 AM to 10.00 AM and 5.00 PM to 8.00 PM
The temples in Thiruvananthapuram were places of worship, of vedic learning and some are marvels of architecture. Ben's tour was more about knowing stories and legends associated with these temples, about war and religion, about worship, art and architecture. The Natraja statue Ben got from India still reminds him about his religious sojourn. What he most imbibed from this tour was internal peace and serenity and self-awareness which every religion teaches.
Also Read: Attukal Bhagavathy Temple | Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple
Comments / Discussion Board - Touring Shiva Temples in Thiruvananthapuram
Read More About thiruvananthapuramonline.in


text:
The Crusaders Colts were established as a feeder team for the Celtic Crusaders rugby league team, and participated in the Rugby League Conference National Division in 2008. The side was set up as a joint venture by the Crusaders club and the Wales Rugby League board to allow Welsh players to play a higher level of rugby than the current Welsh Premier division which was made up of all the other Welsh teams across South Wales. The Crusaders Colts were coached by Dan Clements, and won the Conference National in their only season, coming second in the league table by losing just three matches, but eventually winning the Grand Final by beating Bramley Buffaloes 26–4. However, due to the Celtic Crusaders promotion into Super League, the team were disbanded and a new reserve grade side was established solely by the club for the 2009 season.  The team played in a striped gold and black shirt, with black shorts and socks. Many of the Colts players went on to represent Wales at various levels, play in the Crusaders first team, or joined the South Wales Scorpions.

See also
 Crusaders Rugby League
 Rugby League Conference

References

Crusaders Rugby League
Rugby clubs established in 2005
Welsh rugby league teams
2005 establishments in Wales

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Business (Corruption) As Usual In Camden, NJ
Camden, New Jersey, one of the true garden spots of the Garden State, is a tough place. The south Jersey town just across the Delaware River from the City of Brotherly Love is known far and wide for its operatic levels of corruption in pretty much every aspect of public life. So when news came that Camden Police Chief Scott Thomson (above) issued a gun permit to a city councilman who also happened to be a convicted criminal, it was probably difficult to find anyone who was terribly surprised. But Thomson is claiming he's the victim in this sordid tale…
As philly.com reports, Thomson, who apparently has the same haberdasher as Augusto Pinochet, says he was duped.
In July, Thomson approved a handgun-purchase permit and a firearms-purchaser identification card, which confers permission to purchase rifles and shotguns, for Councilman Curtis Jenkins.
Jenkins had not disclosed on his application that he pleaded guilty in 1982 to welfare fraud, a conviction that made him ineligible for the permits under state law. According to police sources, that conviction surfaced on a required criminal background check.
That would be the federal NICS background check.
Under state law, Thomson has sole responsibility for approving gun permits for qualified Camden residents. Background checks are performed by members of the Police Department, and the results are given to him to review.
Guess the locals missed Jenkins' conviction when they ran their background check. Somehow. Thomson has written a letter to the Camden County Prosecutor asking that Councilman Jenkins' application be investigated.
In addition to investigating "the sources of the documentation that was relied upon in approving [Jenkins'] application," Thomson's letter called upon the Prosecutor's Office to look into how details of the councilman's gun-permit application became public.
Thomson said the leak was an apparent violation of state confidentiality rules surrounding firearms applications and background checks.
You can see how this was most likely a simple oversight on the part of Councilman Jenkins who plead guilty to welfare fraud in 1982.
The councilman said he was told by the Prosecutor's Office that he should have disclosed his fraud conviction on the May 19 application. He said he was unaware that he was required to report a conviction for a nonviolent offense.
Enquiring minds might wonder why the good people of Camden elected a welfare cheat to represent them. Maybe he neglected to mention that during the campaign, too. But that's neither here nor there.
This obviously could have happened to anyone. How could a busy public official be expected to know all the laws involved in a complicated transaction such a purchasing a gun? And we're sure any run-of-the-mill Garden Stater who neglected to mention a conviction on a gun app would receive similar treatment.
Is the hat small or the head big ?
After reading article a second time I realize that it's not the hat
Terry K says:
Had similar thoughts – but, Man!, that's one snazzy-lookin' lid the Chief's sportin' there! Goes well with the dead gopher eyes….
Getting a conceal carry permit in NJ, is next to impossible. Just see the 2a lawsuits in the system.
Unless of course, your connected. I'd be interested to know where this councilman publicy stands on NJ's gun control laws and how he has voted.
Mr. Pierogie says:
I was told that until recently even retired cops could not get a carry permit here. I sure hope that national reciprocity act passes. Hello Utah out of state permit!
GA Koenig says:
And nobody is mentioning how unconstitutional it may be to strip someone of the right to bear arms (and as such, the basic human right to defend one's self) for a welfare fraud conviction that took place nearly 30 years prior?
I am ALL FOR criminals not having firearms, but that doesn't mean we should define "criminal" as anyone who has ever broken any law, ever.
Didn't include it here, but we've been pretty clear that non-violent felons should have gun ownership rights restored after they've paid their debt to society.
GAKoenig says:
I'm cool with the TTAG party line. I was speaking to the general media not knowing the difference between a violent felony last month and a minor financial crime committed 30 years ago.
Also, anyone who would choose to make a Nazi pattern hat uniform wear for a US civilian police force needs to have their credibility and decision making abilities questioned, severely.
There should be a law that precludes politicians and their bodyguards from having a permit if "ordinary" citizens can't get one.
+1 to that
The hypocrisy of the grabbers who enjoy armed protection should cause some to re-evaluate what the grabbers actually stand for
I'd say the same should go for off duty police / federal agents.
I'd say the same should go for ON duty Feds.
Haha, true. Police / Feds would be a lot more polite if they didn't have a gun to bully people with.
Nice hat. What's with the three stars? It always amuses me when I see these civilians pretending like they're generals, and a lieutenant general at that.
Note the cold, steely, piercing, and dare I say, Aryan gaze. The tight jaw, the pursed lips, the un-naturally drooping shoulders. Now there's a man who means business. Perhaps he's passing a stone.
Major coffee spit!
The next time I see you, the paper towels are on me. I hope that nothing got shorted out.
John Campbell says:
This article does NOT involve any kind of "carry" permit. Local police chiefs lack the authority to issue such permits. That is a state function.
This being the Democratic People's Republic of New Jersey, a police-issued permit is required to possess any firearm. This FOID (firearms owner's identification) card is also required to purchase any rifle or shotgun.
A separate handgun-purchase permit is required for each handgun purchase. Local police chiefs or the state police may issue these permits.
The entire ridiculous system is facing legal challenges.
My hat is off to Scott Thomson, whose appearance perfectly captures the police state mentality so common here.
BigHayden says:
NJ has an FPID system, not an FOID system. The FPID is only required to purchase firearms in NJ; it has nothing to do with possession.
The FPID (Firearm Purchasers Identification card) "permits" you to purchase long guns (it does not bypass NICS; that still is done at the point of sale), purchase handgun ammunition, and to apply for HPP (Handgun Purchase Permits). An HPP "permits" you to purchase one handgun (it does not bypass NICS; that is still done at the point of sale).
So for those keeping score: To buy a handgun in NJ, you need to undergo a background check (along with providing 2 character references and a mental health record check) to get a permit [FPID] to undergo a background check (along with providing 2 character references and a mental health record check) to get a permit [HPP] to undergo a background check when you actually buy the gun [NICS].
This article demonstrates the absurdity of having the FPID and HPP requirements, since ultimately it was the NICS check that halted the sale. NJ needs to get with the times, and eliminate these redundant and unconstitutional steps to purchasing firearms.
ExNuke says:
But, but, but, how will we keep scary people who have never been convicted of anything from buying a GUN? They might just follow the law and walk into a store, pass a background check and just by one without anybody important giving them permission.
We're getting a little off track here. Ok, the law is obviously too restrictive, the guy committed a nonviolent crime over 20 years ago. The real point of this story is that the councilman should have been denied, by law, by the chief, but somehow this one slipped through the cracks..,
Interesting, was this an illegal political favor? If you read the original article, the chief is more concerned about the leak than he is about breaking NJ law. Arrogant!


What is a site move?
As a site owner or webmaster, it is possible that at some point you'll want to move your site to a different URL or different infrastructure. This section covers the different scenarios of site moves and gives you tips about how to prepare, implement, and monitor the move.
The underlying infrastructure serving the website is changed, but there are no visible changes to the URL. For example, if you move www.example.com to a different hosting provider while keeping www.example.comas the same root URL for your site.
To change how your site serves mobile versus desktop users, see the mobile-friendly site design guide.
Split your move into smaller steps.
We recommend initially moving just a piece of the site to test any effects on traffic and search indexing. After that, you can move the rest of your site all at once or in chunks. When choosing the initial test section of the site, pick a section that changes less frequently and isn't significantly affected by frequent or unpredictable events. Also keep in mind that while moving just one section is a great way to test your move, it's not necessarily representative of a whole site move when it comes to search. The more pages that you move, the more likely you'll encounter additional problems to solve. Careful planning can minimize problems.
If your traffic is seasonal or dips on certain weekdays, it makes sense to move your site during traffic lulls. This lowers the impact of anything that breaks and also dedicates more of your server's power to helping Googlebot update our index.
Expect temporary fluctuation in site ranking during the move.
With any significant change to a site, you may experience ranking fluctuations while Google recrawls and re-indexes your site. As a general rule, a medium-sized website can take a few weeks for most pages to move in our index; larger sites can take longer. The speed at which Googlebot and our systems discover and process moved URLs largely depends on the number of URLs and your server speed. Submitting a sitemap can help make the discovery process quicker, and it's fine to move your site in sections.
Ask questions on Google Webmaster Central.
There is plenty of good advice on Google Webmasters and specific cases answered in our user forums. If you can't find an answer, you can ask a live question to one of our Webmaster Trends Analysts during our Webmaster Central office hours.
If it involves a URL change, you might consider an A/B test or trial run.
Plan for a few weeks to allow for crawling and indexing to pick up changes, plus time to monitor traffic.


text:
French Jewish family assaulted after playing Hebrew songs in their car
Police arrested two adults and two minors over the suspected antisemitic hate crime
By JTA	December 19, 2020, 2:46 pm Edit
Police car in Paris (Credit: Andre Bulber, Flickr)
French police have arrested two adults and two minors suspected of an antisemitic hate crime in which they allegedly verbally assaulted a Jewish family near Paris in their car.
The incident happened Thursday in the northern Paris suburb of Aubervilliers, French Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin wrote on Twitter Friday. No one was hurt in the incident, Le Parisien reported.
"Yesterday night, during Hanukkah, a family from Aubervilliers was assaulted because they are Jewish. In France, in 2020. The perpetrators were apprehended very swiftly by the law enforcement. They will have to be punished in relation to the seriousness of these facts," Darmanin wrote.
Initial reports in the French media said the incident happened at 8:40 pm and that the perpetrators screamed antisemitic insults, including "f**ck the Jews," rocked the car back and forth and hurled bottles at it, the RTL broadcaster reported. Prior to the assault, music with songs in Hebrew was heard in the family's car, Le Parisien reported.
The reports named neither the victims nor perpetrators, who are being charged with verbal assault, RTL reported.
The Union of Jewish French Students, or UEJF, in recent years has reached out to non-Jewish young residents of Seine-Saint-Denis, the administrative region where Aubervilliers — a poor and heavily-Muslim municipality with a large Jewish school — is situated.
Last year, UEJF brought residents to experience Sukkot with the Jewish community of Aubervilliers.
The incident Thursday "recalls the insecurity of Jews who self-identify as such in France, despite outreach work," UEJF President Neomie Madar told Le Parisien.
French Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin


The United Methodist Endorsing Agency (UMEA) has responsibility for recruitment, endorsement, and support of clergy in extension ministries beyond the local church. Clergy serve as chaplains and pastoral counselors in more than 25 ministry settings beyond church walls.
The United Methodist Endorsing Agency is proud to release "Heirs of Wesley," a video highlighting the ministries of our endorsed clergy serving in diverse settings around the world. UMEA was honored to work with award winning Journey Films (producer of the Chaplains movie now showing on Public Television) to produce our product. The video was shown at General Conference 2016 in the Higher Education and Ministry booth and portions were shown as a part the agency's report to the General Conference. Please share this video and our work with your friends to help us recruit the next generation of chaplains and pastoral counselors. Thank you for your continued support.
That United Methodist ordained chaplains and pastoral counselors will be active and visible in connectional ministry and mission to persons, institutions, and systems in multi-cultural and multi-disciplinary settings.


text:
Q: IntelliJ and Tomcat....changed files are not automatically recognized by Tomcat I am running Intellij Ultimate with Tomcat and deploy a war.  Everything deploys fine to the webapp directory of tomcat.
When I change a file like an xhtml file, is there a way for tomcat to automatically pick up that change?  As of right now I need to copy the file from Intellij and copy it to the directory of where it lives in the tomcat web app directory.  I know there are certain files that will need a recompile, but xhtmls are not one of them.

A: This cannot be done if you deploy a war with IntelliJ IDEA. However, it can be if you deploy an exploded war. In IDEA:

*

*open your Tomcat Run/Debug configuration (Run > Edit Configurations)

*Go to the "Deployment" tab

*In the "Deploy at Server Startup" section, remove (if present) the artifact my-webapp-name:war

*Click the add icon, select 'artifact' and then select my-webapp-name:war exploded

*Click OK (on the "Select Artifacts to Deploy" dialog)

*Still in the Run/Debug Configuration Window, select the "Server" tab

*In the middle of that tab, change the "On frame Deactivation" setting to either "Update resources" or "Update Classes and Resources"

*

*Update resources: All changed resources (that is, all application components other than the classes) will be updated.

*Update classes and resources: All changed resources will be updated; changed classes will be recompiled. Note that whether the actual classes will be updated depends on the capabilities web server. If I recall, Tomcat will reload html/xhtml and jsp files, but not Servlets or classes that JSPs or Servlets use. You need to modified Tomcat to use a dynamic classloader for that.

*You can also set the "On 'update' " action to the one selected above as well.

*

*This determined what happens when you hit the Update  icon (or Ctrl+F10) in the Run window.

*the "Show dialog" determines if IDEA prompts you each time you hit the update icon

*Click OK.

Now anytime you make a change, IDEA will redeploy the changed file(s) when IDEA's frame is deactivated (i.e. loses focus). It does take a second or two, You'll see it in the lower status bar in IDEA. Obviously. you'll still need to refresh your web browser so it fetches the new file (unless of course if the page has an auto refresh of ajax like fetch).
A good combination with Tomcat is to set "On frame deactivation" to "Update Resources" and the "On 'update' action to either "Redeploy" or "Restart Server". That allows static pages to be quickly updated via frame deactivation, and class updated via the 'update' action.
A company named ZeroTurnaround sells JRebel which is a dynamic classloader solution. They also have a five part series on the subject that's very good.

A: I have found a better way.
In Eclipse we have automatically build, compile + reload static files. Actually static files are served directly from src/main/webapp.
In IntelliJ instead of serving directly from src/main/webapp, there is a folder created in target, in which you will have a copy of your src/main/webapp and also other context related .. web-inf/classes /lib.
If You put instead of the target the output of exploded artifact to src/main/webapp, it will not overwrite you source files, and it will serve directly, you won't have to hit - update resources / update resources and classes
So what you need to do in IntelliJ is

*

*modify exploded artifact output directory to src/main/webapp

*make a macro for save and recompile / compile dirty classes (cmd+shift+f9)

*edit registry and preferences to build automatically and build while app running(cmd+shift+a - registry).

After this, if you have jobs that change static files from outside IntelliJ, you will see changes immediately without going to IntelliJ and Update Resources, and for the classes you have that macro that saves, and compile(Note: You could also just hit Compile/Recompile : cmd + shift + F9 / cmd + F9 - if you have multiple opened editors will see that your dirty  *  editors will be non dirty, and changes(classes) will be reloaded)

A: Let me describe the sequence of actions using screenshots:

*

*Open your Tomcat Run/Debug configuration (Run > Edit Configurations)

*Click the add icon, select 'artifact' and then select pizza_mvc:war exploded:

*Modify 'On update action' and 'On frame diactivation':

*Everytime you want to refresh your resources, press <Ctrl> + F10

A: If you want to update classes and resources, run Tomcat in Debug mode. In this mode IntelliJ update classes and resources without a problem (hot swap).
Got same problem. IntelliJ didn't update my project, because I run as "Run mode". When I run in debug mode and press Ctrl+F10, it updates classes and resources.

A: That is possible only when you deploy the exploded war folder, enabled hot reloading and start tomcat in debug mode.
These are the steps to achieve this.

*

*open your Tomcat Run/Debug configuration (Run > Edit Configurations)

*Go to the "Deployment" tab
3.In the "Deploy at Server Startup" section, remove (if present) the artifact my-webapp-name:war

*Click the add icon, select 'artifact' and then select my-webapp-name:war exploded

*Click OK (on the "Select Artifacts to Deploy" dialog)

*Still in the Run/Debug Configuration Window, select the "Server" tab

*Change the "On frame Deactivation" and "On Update Action" settings to either "Update classes and resources"

*Apply and save

*Go to the normal projects settings by clicking File then Settings OR Pressing CTRL + ALT + S

*goto "Build, Execution, Deployment"

*Compiler

*Select Build project automatically

*save

*Start tomcat in debug mode

A: if you have multipartfiles that you want to view/play right away, upload directly into the targetfolder. *(only change the write location to the target folder/static/)
String yourpath = C\\andSoForth
    yourPath + "\\target\\classes\\static\\uploads\\audiofiles\\"

youll be able to view your file immediately without having to restart your IDE

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange