width treatment

Asked by larryplus

Hello, my question may seem silly and I'm grateful for your patient reading and replying.
I'm studying some exotic higgs decay processes and want to make sure that my treatment of width/branching ratios is correct. Specifically, I start from the SM model file supplied by FeynRules and add a new light scalar particle a1 and trilinear interaction ha1a1 to creat a new model in order to study exotic higgs decay h > a1 a1. The SM model supplied by FeynRules has set higgs width to be 0.00407GeV (which is smaller than the partial width of h > b b~ calculated from bottom Yukawa in the model at tree level). Now I want to generate processes for a benchmark point which has Br(h > a1 a1)=0.1. My way of achieving this is tuning trilinear ha1a1 coupling and/or higgs total width in feynrules model such that the partial width of h > a1 a1 calculated by MadGraph divided by the total width I set in FeynRules is just equal to 0.1. (Assuming the value of total width doesn't spoil narrow width approximation.) Then I use the FeynRules model with the tuned coupling/total width parameter to study processes like p p > w+ h, h > a1 a1, etc.
I wonder whether my treatment is correct, especially when the higgs total width I set is smaller than h > b b~ partial width.
By the way, if I'm not studying h > b b~ decay, will the fact that the higgs total width I set is smaller than h > b b~ partial width cause any potential problems concerning cross section calculation or event generation for other processes?
Thank you very much!

Question information

Language:
English Edit question
Status:
Solved
For:
MadGraph5_aMC@NLO Edit question
Assignee:
Valentin Hirschi Edit question
Solved by:
larryplus
Solved:
Last query:
Last reply:
Revision history for this message
Valentin Hirschi (valentin-hirschi) said :
#1

Hi larryplus,

I am no sure why you insist on picking a particular branching ratio as opposed to simply scanning over your coupling ha1a1.

Also the fact that you allow yourself to change the Higgs total width basically arbitrarily (i.e. even smaller than the partial width to bb~) is not a problem from the simulation standpoint per se, but I believe that your model is then not viable in view of the Higgs data accumulated so far.

Revision history for this message
larryplus (larry-x) said :
#2

Thank you very much for reply. Instead of scanning some coupling parameter, I usually just simulate at a certain benchmark point and get results of other parameter points by simple rescaling. This seems working well for most coupling parameters (but not particle masses) which holds simple relations to cross sections. And constraints on models from Higgs signal strength measurement are taken into account by other standalone methods. Thanks again!