Decays in v2.3.3 and v2.4.3

Asked by Matthew Low

Dear Madgraph team,

I am simulating a process with a new particle, X+, in the s-channel decaying to W+ and a photon. I am finding that in v2.3.3 both:

A) p p > X+ > W+ a
B) p p > X+, X+ > W+a

work fine (X+ is relatively narrow). However, in v2.4.3 A) still works but B) does not work (i.e. Survey return zero cross section.)

Looking briefly at some of the process files I notice that in SubProcesses/P1_.../G1/run1_app.log there is an "smin" parameter set to zero (for the case that does not work) while it is set to a non-zero number for the case that does work. I don't see a similar line in the same file for v2.3.3. On the other hand "p p > w+, w+ > j j" works fine so maybe it is due to the presence of the new X+?

Thanks!
- Matthew

Question information

Language:
English Edit question
Status:
Answered
For:
MadGraph5_aMC@NLO Edit question
Assignee:
Olivier Mattelaer Edit question
Last query:
Last reply:
Revision history for this message
Olivier Mattelaer (olivier-mattelaer) said :
#1

Hi Matthew,

Can you check in the beta version of 2.5.0?
available on this link:
https://launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo

I think that it should fix that problem.

Cheers,

Olivier

> On Sep 21, 2016, at 16:02, Matthew Low <email address hidden> wrote:
>
> New question #401831 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/401831
>
> Dear Madgraph team,
>
> I am simulating a process with a new particle, X+, in the s-channel decaying to W+ and a photon. I am finding that in v2.3.3 both:
>
> A) p p > X+ > W+ a
> B) p p > X+, X+ > W+a
>
> work fine (X+ is relatively narrow). However, in v2.4.3 A) still works but B) does not work (i.e. Survey return zero cross section.)
>
> Looking briefly at some of the process files I notice that in SubProcesses/P1_.../G1/run1_app.log there is an "smin" parameter set to zero (for the case that does not work) while it is set to a non-zero number for the case that does work. I don't see a similar line in the same file for v2.3.3. On the other hand "p p > w+, w+ > j j" works fine so maybe it is due to the presence of the new X+?
>
> Thanks!
> - Matthew
>
> --
> You received this question notification because you are an answer
> contact for MadGraph5_aMC@NLO.

Revision history for this message
Matthew Low (mattlow) said :
#2

Hi Olivier,

I tried the 2.5.0 beta but it still doesn't work unfortunately. I've just emailed you the model files in case my model is doing something strange.

Thanks!
- Matthew

Revision history for this message
Olivier Mattelaer (olivier-mattelaer) said :
#3

Hi,

Sorry for the delay but I did not manage to find time to investigate on this before now.
Here is the proper fix. Thanks a lot for the report and for your patience.

Cheers,

Olivier

=== modified file 'Template/LO/SubProcesses/myamp.f'
--- Template/LO/SubProcesses/myamp.f 2016-06-16 15:03:59 +0000
+++ Template/LO/SubProcesses/myamp.f 2016-09-29 18:27:44 +0000
@@ -212,7 +212,8 @@
 c
             onshell = (abs(xmass - prmass(i,iconfig)) .lt.
      $ bwcutoff*prwidth(i,iconfig).and.
- $ prwidth(i,iconfig)/prmass(i,iconfig).lt.0.1d0)
+ $ (prwidth(i,iconfig)/prmass(i,iconfig).lt.0.1d0.and.
+ $ gForceBW(i,iconfig).eq.1))
             if(onshell)then
 c Remove on-shell forbidden s-channels (gForceBW=2) (JA 2/10/11)
               if(gForceBW(i,iconfig).eq.2) then

> On Sep 26, 2016, at 21:02, Valentin Hirschi <email address hidden> wrote:
>
> Question #401831 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/401831
>
> Assignee: None => Olivier Mattelaer
>
> --
> You received this question notification because you are an answer
> contact for MadGraph5_aMC@NLO.

Revision history for this message
Matthew Low (mattlow) said :
#4

No problem! Thanks for the help!

With the added lines it still doesn't work for me. Is it possible it should be?

+ $ (prwidth(i,iconfig)/prmass(i,iconfig).lt.0.1d0.or.

where I swapped the "and" or an "or". This does seem to work for me with the cross-sections from the p p > X > .... vs. p p > X , X > ... agreeing within 5%.

Thanks again!
- Matthew

Revision history for this message
Olivier Mattelaer (olivier-mattelaer) said :
#5

Hi Matthew,

Yes you are right.

Thanks so much,

Olivier

Can you help with this problem?

Provide an answer of your own, or ask Matthew Low for more information if necessary.

To post a message you must log in.