CRITICAL: blockpat, self.banner['initrwgt']

Asked by Riccardo on 2021-01-28

Dear experts,

Dear experts,

I am using MG5 v2.6.5 together with SMEFTsim_U35_MwScheme_UFO model and I am trying to generate a Vector Boson Scattering (VBS) process through the following proc_card:

set group_subprocesses Auto
set ignore_six_quark_processes False
set loop_optimized_output True
set complex_mass_scheme False
define p = g u c d s b u~ c~ d~ s~ b~
define j = p
define l+ = e+ mu+ ta+
define l- = e- mu- ta-
define vl = ve vm vt
define vl~ = ve~ vm~ vt~
import model SMEFTsim_U35_MwScheme_UFO-cHDD_massless
generate p p > z w- j j QCD=0 SMHLOOP=0 NP=1, z > l+ l- NP=1, w- > j j NP=1 @0 NP=1
output ZWm_cHDD_SM_LI_QU

and by using an additional reweight_card.
I am applying the patch provided here to avoid AssertionError.
Now, during the reweighting step I get this error:

INFO: new cross-section is : 0.0158226 pb (indicative error: 2.64573e-05 pb)
Do you want to edit a card (press enter to bypass editing)?
| 1. param : param_card.dat |
| 9. plot : plot_card.dat |
 you can also
   - enter the path to a valid card or banner.
   - use the 'set' command to modify a parameter directly.
     The set option works only for param_card and run_card.
     Type 'help set' for more information on this command.
   - call an external program (ASperGE/MadWidth/...).
     Type 'help' for the list of available command
 [0, done, 1, param, 9, plot, enter path]
>CRITICAL: blockpat, self.banner['initrwgt'] = <_sre.SRE_Pattern object at 0xb7c41a0>
<weightgroup name='mg_reweighting' weight_name_strategy='includeIdInWeightName'>
<weight id='rwgt_1'></weight>
 [ at line 751]

Thank you in advance.



Question information

English Edit question
MadGraph5_aMC@NLO Edit question
No assignee Edit question
Last query:
Last reply:

This is a debug statement that should in principle not be printed if you are running via one of the official tar-ball of MG5aMC (but if you activate debug mode). Do you have a crash or something else?
I do not reproduce any (related) issue within the version 2.9.0 that should be release very soon.
I did found some un-related bug for that process syntax that are now fixed within that version.

But indeed for your syntax, I strongly suggest to use 2.9.0 (as I told you already)



Can you help with this problem?

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

To post a message you must log in.