diphoton mass cuts in run card not working?

Asked by Jahred

I'm trying to generate pp -> bb+diphoton events in MG5 with:

define p = g u c d s u~ c~ d~ s~
define bs = b b~
generate p p > a a bs bs

In my run card, the relevant cuts for photons are set to:
 30 = pta ! minimum pt for the photons
 -1 = ptamax ! maximum pt for the photons
  0 = ea ! minimum E for the photons
 -1 = eamax ! maximum E for the photons
 3 = etaa ! max rap for the photons
   0 = etaamin ! min rap for the photons
 0.4 = draa ! min distance between gammas
 0.4 = draj ! min distance between gamma and jet
 0 = drab ! min distance between gamma and b
 0.4 = dral ! min distance between gamma and lepton
-1 = draamax ! max distance between gammas
 -1 = drajmax ! max distance between gamma and jet
 -1 = drabmax ! max distance between gamma and b
 -1 = dralmax ! maxdistance between gamma and lepton
 90 = mmaa ! min invariant mass of gamma gamma pair
 170 = mmaamax ! max invariant mass of gamma gamma pair

It doesn't look like I can post plots here, but what I see is that 5-10% of the time, the diphoton mass is not in the 90-170 GeV window defined above. It can often, in fact, but much, much lower (all the down to ~10 GeV, even). Is there a reason for this? I see the same problem in diphoton + b + jet as well as in diphoton + dijet production.

Many thanks for any advice and/or help. I'm using MG5_aMC_v2.0.2, and running mg5. I can post full run cards, etc., if that would be helpful.

Best,
Jahred

Question information

Language:
English Edit question
Status:
Solved
For:
MadGraph5_aMC@NLO Edit question
Assignee:
No assignee Edit question
Solved by:
Olivier Mattelaer
Solved:
Last query:
Last reply:
Revision history for this message
Best Olivier Mattelaer (olivier-mattelaer) said :
#1

Dear jahred,

I have tested with 2.2.2 and for the following parameter:
90 = mmaa ! min invariant mass of gamma gamma pair
200 = mmaamax ! max invariant mass of gamma gamma pair

I have for my 10k events sample, the following minimum and maximum:
min 90.0001764517
max 199.974152858

So my advised, will be to used the latest version of the code, since it looks like to be a bug that we solved a while ago.

Cheers,

Olivier

Revision history for this message
Jahred (jahreda) said :
#2

Thanks Olivier Mattelaer, that solved my question.