Higgs-effective-coupling

Asked by SOUAD SEMLALI on 2021-03-01

Hello,

 I need to use the Higgs effective coupling to produce gg -> h2 at tree level in the context of 2HDM, Type-I. I have downloaded the entire 2HDM from
          https://cp3.irmp.ucl.ac.be/projects/madgraph/wiki/Models

 But I couldn't find the HiggsEffective.fr.

Could you please provide me with information on the location of this file?

Many thanks,

Question information

Language:
English Edit question
Status:
Open
For:
MadGraph5_aMC@NLO Edit question
Assignee:
No assignee Edit question
Last query:
2021-03-31
Last reply:
2021-03-31

You should check on the feynrules website since this is a feynrules file (if you do not find it there you can ask the FR author).

Another option is to do
import model 2HDM # or the variation of the model that you need
add model ggh_plugin

This will work for the higgs/scalar which has pdg code 25 and the associate vertex is assuming that only the top is running inside the loop (and within the infinite top-mass limit).
You can in principle edit the file models/hgg_plugin
to change the pdg_code from 25 to any pdg you want but you likely need to change that pdg in more than a single place.
(and this approximation is obviously only working if the higgs is light)

Cheers,

Olivier

SOUAD SEMLALI (souad-sem) said : #2

 Dear Olivier,

 Many thanks for your reply and for suggesting the second option. I have tried to add the model ggh_pulgin, and it worked well for Higgs with pdg = 25. I was able to generate g g > h1.
However, I need to change the pdg code from 25 to 35, since I am interested in gg > h2 (mh2 = 125 GeV) and mh1< mh2. Should I only change the pdg in all the files? what are these files? are there any other changes?

 Thanks again,
 Best

Hi,

This method obviously assume the SM in a lot of place. So when you are using it, it is important that you understand such limitation.
You can also compare with 2HDM NLO model which allow to do the full loop induced computation : 1507.00020
This is obviously much slower and has a couple of limitation with the decay of boson. But this is more accurate and can allow you to validate your implementation.

For the file to modify, I do not want to be specific since I'm not 100% sure.
Changing "only" all 25 to 35 is likely to work but may create a lot of name conflict between model (since you will likely have m_h for the mass of particle 25 in model one and for particle 35 in the second model) so it might be smarter to do stuff in a cleaner way and rename those parameter to avoid such conflict.

Here the reference about how the model is implemented is 1108.2040.
The hgg plugin is a quite short model so it should not be an issue to read/edit all the lines by hand.

Cheers,

Olivier

SOUAD SEMLALI (souad-sem) said : #4

 Dear Olivier,

  Many thanks for your reply and explanation. I am sure that the 2HDM NLO is more accurate. But, I guess this model is for type II.
   I have checked the previous FAQ's, and some of these suggested writing a restriction .fr file to include the two parameters \tan\beta and \sin(\beta-\alpha) and the couplings, but I am not sure about the couplings. How can I specify the couplings so that the 2HDM NLO will work out for type-I, while \tan\beta and \sin(\beta-\alpha) are taken into account?

 Thanks again,
 Best,

On this I have no clue since my knowledge of 2HDM is more than limited.

Sorry,

Olivier

SOUAD SEMLALI (souad-sem) said : #6

Thank you for your help!
Best

Le mer. 3 mars 2021 à 07:55, Olivier Mattelaer <
<email address hidden>> a écrit :

> Your question #695810 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
>
> Status: Open => Answered
>
> Olivier Mattelaer proposed the following answer:
> On this I have no clue since my knowledge of 2HDM is more than limited.
>
> Sorry,
>
> Olivier
>
> --
> If this answers your question, please go to the following page to let us
> know that it is solved:
>
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810/+confirm?answer_id=4
>
> If you still need help, you can reply to this email or go to the
> following page to enter your feedback:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
>
> You received this question notification because you asked the question.
>

SOUAD SEMLALI (souad-sem) said : #7

Dear Olivier,

  I have changed the pdg of H from 25 to 35 in particles.py and
parameters.py. I can now generate the process gg > h2. However, when I try
to launch the process, I get an error message:

*Error detected in "output ggh2"*

*write debug file MG5_debug *

*If you need help with this issue please contact us on
https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo
<https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo>*

*MadGraph5Error : Unable to evaluate mdl_MW = cmath.sqrt(mdl_MZ__exp__2/2.
+ cmath.sqrt(mdl_MZ__exp__4/4. -
(mdl_aEW*cmath.pi*mdl_MZ__exp__2)/(mdl_Gf*mdl_sqrt__2))): raise error: name
'mdl_aEW' is not defined*

Do you have any idea or any suggestion to solve this error?

PS: I was able to generate the process gg > h2 after calling the model
files as follows:

      1- import hgg_plugin

      2- add model 2HDM

I couldn't generate the process when I did:

     1- import model 2HDM

      2- add model hgg_plugin

  Many thanks for your Help,

  Best Regards

Le mar. 2 mars 2021 à 17:05, Olivier Mattelaer <
<email address hidden>> a écrit :

> Your question #695810 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
>
> Status: Open => Answered
>
> Olivier Mattelaer proposed the following answer:
> Hi,
>
> This method obviously assume the SM in a lot of place. So when you are
> using it, it is important that you understand such limitation.
> You can also compare with 2HDM NLO model which allow to do the full loop
> induced computation : 1507.00020
> This is obviously much slower and has a couple of limitation with the
> decay of boson. But this is more accurate and can allow you to validate
> your implementation.
>
> For the file to modify, I do not want to be specific since I'm not 100%
> sure.
> Changing "only" all 25 to 35 is likely to work but may create a lot of
> name conflict between model (since you will likely have m_h for the mass of
> particle 25 in model one and for particle 35 in the second model) so it
> might be smarter to do stuff in a cleaner way and rename those parameter to
> avoid such conflict.
>
> Here the reference about how the model is implemented is 1108.2040.
> The hgg plugin is a quite short model so it should not be an issue to
> read/edit all the lines by hand.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Olivier
>
> --
> If this answers your question, please go to the following page to let us
> know that it is solved:
>
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810/+confirm?answer_id=2
>
> If you still need help, you can reply to this email or go to the
> following page to enter your feedback:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
>
> You received this question notification because you asked the question.
>

--
Souad SEMLALI

Do you have the same issue with the standard hgg plugin model?
I do not have issue in my case.

Here it seems that you have an issue with the fact that aEW is not correctly defined.
The new UFO model is actually written on disk, so you can edit it to fix the issue with that parameter.

Cheers,

Olivier

> On 8 Mar 2021, at 17:11, SOUAD SEMLALI <email address hidden> wrote:
>
> Question #695810 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
>
> SOUAD SEMLALI gave more information on the question:
> Dear Olivier,
>
> I have changed the pdg of H from 25 to 35 in particles.py and
> parameters.py. I can now generate the process gg > h2. However, when I try
> to launch the process, I get an error message:
>
> *Error detected in "output ggh2"*
>
> *write debug file MG5_debug *
>
> *If you need help with this issue please contact us on
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo
> <https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo>*
>
> *MadGraph5Error : Unable to evaluate mdl_MW = cmath.sqrt(mdl_MZ__exp__2/2.
> + cmath.sqrt(mdl_MZ__exp__4/4. -
> (mdl_aEW*cmath.pi*mdl_MZ__exp__2)/(mdl_Gf*mdl_sqrt__2))): raise error: name
> 'mdl_aEW' is not defined*
>
>
> Do you have any idea or any suggestion to solve this error?
>
>
> PS: I was able to generate the process gg > h2 after calling the model
> files as follows:
>
> 1- import hgg_plugin
>
> 2- add model 2HDM
>
>
> I couldn't generate the process when I did:
>
> 1- import model 2HDM
>
> 2- add model hgg_plugin
>
>
> Many thanks for your Help,
>
>
> Best Regards
>
>
> Le mar. 2 mars 2021 à 17:05, Olivier Mattelaer <
> <email address hidden>> a écrit :
>
>> Your question #695810 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
>> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
>>
>> Status: Open => Answered
>>
>> Olivier Mattelaer proposed the following answer:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This method obviously assume the SM in a lot of place. So when you are
>> using it, it is important that you understand such limitation.
>> You can also compare with 2HDM NLO model which allow to do the full loop
>> induced computation : 1507.00020
>> This is obviously much slower and has a couple of limitation with the
>> decay of boson. But this is more accurate and can allow you to validate
>> your implementation.
>>
>> For the file to modify, I do not want to be specific since I'm not 100%
>> sure.
>> Changing "only" all 25 to 35 is likely to work but may create a lot of
>> name conflict between model (since you will likely have m_h for the mass of
>> particle 25 in model one and for particle 35 in the second model) so it
>> might be smarter to do stuff in a cleaner way and rename those parameter to
>> avoid such conflict.
>>
>> Here the reference about how the model is implemented is 1108.2040.
>> The hgg plugin is a quite short model so it should not be an issue to
>> read/edit all the lines by hand.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Olivier
>>
>> --
>> If this answers your question, please go to the following page to let us
>> know that it is solved:
>>
>> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810/+confirm?answer_id=2
>>
>> If you still need help, you can reply to this email or go to the
>> following page to enter your feedback:
>> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
>>
>> You received this question notification because you asked the question.
>>
>
>
> --
> Souad SEMLALI
>
> You received this question notification because you are an answer
> contact for MadGraph5_aMC@NLO.

SOUAD SEMLALI (souad-sem) said : #9

Dear Olivier,
Many thanks for your answer.

Best

Le mar. 9 mars 2021 à 22:11, Olivier Mattelaer <
<email address hidden>> a écrit :

> Your question #695810 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
>
> Status: Open => Answered
>
> Olivier Mattelaer proposed the following answer:
> Do you have the same issue with the standard hgg plugin model?
> I do not have issue in my case.
>
>
> Here it seems that you have an issue with the fact that aEW is not
> correctly defined.
> The new UFO model is actually written on disk, so you can edit it to fix
> the issue with that parameter.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Olivier
>
>
> > On 8 Mar 2021, at 17:11, SOUAD SEMLALI <
> <email address hidden>> wrote:
> >
> > Question #695810 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
> > https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
> >
> > SOUAD SEMLALI gave more information on the question:
> > Dear Olivier,
> >
> > I have changed the pdg of H from 25 to 35 in particles.py and
> > parameters.py. I can now generate the process gg > h2. However, when I
> try
> > to launch the process, I get an error message:
> >
> > *Error detected in "output ggh2"*
> >
> > *write debug file MG5_debug *
> >
> > *If you need help with this issue please contact us on
> > https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo
> > <https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo>*
> >
> > *MadGraph5Error : Unable to evaluate mdl_MW =
> cmath.sqrt(mdl_MZ__exp__2/2.
> > + cmath.sqrt(mdl_MZ__exp__4/4. -
> > (mdl_aEW*cmath.pi*mdl_MZ__exp__2)/(mdl_Gf*mdl_sqrt__2))): raise error:
> name
> > 'mdl_aEW' is not defined*
> >
> >
> > Do you have any idea or any suggestion to solve this error?
> >
> >
> > PS: I was able to generate the process gg > h2 after calling the model
> > files as follows:
> >
> > 1- import hgg_plugin
> >
> > 2- add model 2HDM
> >
> >
> > I couldn't generate the process when I did:
> >
> > 1- import model 2HDM
> >
> > 2- add model hgg_plugin
> >
> >
> > Many thanks for your Help,
> >
> >
> > Best Regards
> >
> >
> > Le mar. 2 mars 2021 à 17:05, Olivier Mattelaer <
> > <email address hidden>> a écrit :
> >
> >> Your question #695810 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
> >> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
> >>
> >> Status: Open => Answered
> >>
> >> Olivier Mattelaer proposed the following answer:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> This method obviously assume the SM in a lot of place. So when you are
> >> using it, it is important that you understand such limitation.
> >> You can also compare with 2HDM NLO model which allow to do the full loop
> >> induced computation : 1507.00020
> >> This is obviously much slower and has a couple of limitation with the
> >> decay of boson. But this is more accurate and can allow you to validate
> >> your implementation.
> >>
> >> For the file to modify, I do not want to be specific since I'm not 100%
> >> sure.
> >> Changing "only" all 25 to 35 is likely to work but may create a lot of
> >> name conflict between model (since you will likely have m_h for the
> mass of
> >> particle 25 in model one and for particle 35 in the second model) so it
> >> might be smarter to do stuff in a cleaner way and rename those
> parameter to
> >> avoid such conflict.
> >>
> >> Here the reference about how the model is implemented is 1108.2040.
> >> The hgg plugin is a quite short model so it should not be an issue to
> >> read/edit all the lines by hand.
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Olivier
> >>
> >> --
> >> If this answers your question, please go to the following page to let us
> >> know that it is solved:
> >>
> >>
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810/+confirm?answer_id=2
> >>
> >> If you still need help, you can reply to this email or go to the
> >> following page to enter your feedback:
> >> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
> >>
> >> You received this question notification because you asked the question.
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Souad SEMLALI
> >
> > You received this question notification because you are an answer
> > contact for MadGraph5_aMC@NLO.
>
> --
> If this answers your question, please go to the following page to let us
> know that it is solved:
>
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810/+confirm?answer_id=7
>
> If you still need help, you can reply to this email or go to the
> following page to enter your feedback:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
>
> You received this question notification because you asked the question.
>

--
Souad SEMLALI

SOUAD SEMLALI (souad-sem) said : #10

 Dear Olivier,

 I am having another problem. I tried to compute the decay gg -> h2 -> h3
Z* -> h1 Z* Z* -> bb jj mu+ mu- in 2HDM type-I, however I am getting a
very small cross section (~10^-8). I am wondering if it is because of the
syntax I am using to generate the process (g g > h2 > h3 z, z > mu+ mu-,
(h3 > h1 z, z > j j, h1 > b b~ )), although the diagrams are generated, or
because I have 2 off shell Z.
 I appreciate any suggestion.

  Best regards

Le mer. 24 mars 2021 à 20:20, SOUAD SEMLALI <
<email address hidden>> a écrit :

> Your question #695810 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
>
> Status: Answered => Open
>
> You are still having a problem:
> Dear Olivier,
> Many thanks for your answer.
>
> Best
>
> Le mar. 9 mars 2021 à 22:11, Olivier Mattelaer <
> <email address hidden>> a écrit :
>
> > Your question #695810 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
> > https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
> >
> > Status: Open => Answered
> >
> > Olivier Mattelaer proposed the following answer:
> > Do you have the same issue with the standard hgg plugin model?
> > I do not have issue in my case.
> >
> >
> > Here it seems that you have an issue with the fact that aEW is not
> > correctly defined.
> > The new UFO model is actually written on disk, so you can edit it to fix
> > the issue with that parameter.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Olivier
> >
> >
> > > On 8 Mar 2021, at 17:11, SOUAD SEMLALI <
> > <email address hidden>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Question #695810 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
> > > https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
> > >
> > > SOUAD SEMLALI gave more information on the question:
> > > Dear Olivier,
> > >
> > > I have changed the pdg of H from 25 to 35 in particles.py and
> > > parameters.py. I can now generate the process gg > h2. However, when I
> > try
> > > to launch the process, I get an error message:
> > >
> > > *Error detected in "output ggh2"*
> > >
> > > *write debug file MG5_debug *
> > >
> > > *If you need help with this issue please contact us on
> > > https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo
> > > <https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo>*
> > >
> > > *MadGraph5Error : Unable to evaluate mdl_MW =
> > cmath.sqrt(mdl_MZ__exp__2/2.
> > > + cmath.sqrt(mdl_MZ__exp__4/4. -
> > > (mdl_aEW*cmath.pi*mdl_MZ__exp__2)/(mdl_Gf*mdl_sqrt__2))): raise error:
> > name
> > > 'mdl_aEW' is not defined*
> > >
> > >
> > > Do you have any idea or any suggestion to solve this error?
> > >
> > >
> > > PS: I was able to generate the process gg > h2 after calling the model
> > > files as follows:
> > >
> > > 1- import hgg_plugin
> > >
> > > 2- add model 2HDM
> > >
> > >
> > > I couldn't generate the process when I did:
> > >
> > > 1- import model 2HDM
> > >
> > > 2- add model hgg_plugin
> > >
> > >
> > > Many thanks for your Help,
> > >
> > >
> > > Best Regards
> > >
> > >
> > > Le mar. 2 mars 2021 à 17:05, Olivier Mattelaer <
> > > <email address hidden>> a écrit :
> > >
> > >> Your question #695810 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
> > >> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
> > >>
> > >> Status: Open => Answered
> > >>
> > >> Olivier Mattelaer proposed the following answer:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> This method obviously assume the SM in a lot of place. So when you are
> > >> using it, it is important that you understand such limitation.
> > >> You can also compare with 2HDM NLO model which allow to do the full
> loop
> > >> induced computation : 1507.00020
> > >> This is obviously much slower and has a couple of limitation with the
> > >> decay of boson. But this is more accurate and can allow you to
> validate
> > >> your implementation.
> > >>
> > >> For the file to modify, I do not want to be specific since I'm not
> 100%
> > >> sure.
> > >> Changing "only" all 25 to 35 is likely to work but may create a lot of
> > >> name conflict between model (since you will likely have m_h for the
> > mass of
> > >> particle 25 in model one and for particle 35 in the second model) so
> it
> > >> might be smarter to do stuff in a cleaner way and rename those
> > parameter to
> > >> avoid such conflict.
> > >>
> > >> Here the reference about how the model is implemented is 1108.2040.
> > >> The hgg plugin is a quite short model so it should not be an issue to
> > >> read/edit all the lines by hand.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Cheers,
> > >>
> > >> Olivier
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> If this answers your question, please go to the following page to let
> us
> > >> know that it is solved:
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810/+confirm?answer_id=2
> > >>
> > >> If you still need help, you can reply to this email or go to the
> > >> following page to enter your feedback:
> > >> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
> > >>
> > >> You received this question notification because you asked the
> question.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Souad SEMLALI
> > >
> > > You received this question notification because you are an answer
> > > contact for MadGraph5_aMC@NLO.
> >
> > --
> > If this answers your question, please go to the following page to let us
> > know that it is solved:
> >
> >
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810/+confirm?answer_id=7
> >
> > If you still need help, you can reply to this email or go to the
> > following page to enter your feedback:
> > https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
> >
> > You received this question notification because you asked the question.
> >
>
>
> --
> Souad SEMLALI
>
> You received this question notification because you asked the question.
>

--
Souad SEMLALI

That I have no clue how to help you with that.
I would advise to first compute
g g > h2 > h3 z
and then compute the partial width
z > mu+ mu-
h3 > h1 z
z > j j
h1 > b b~

and then compute the BR as the ratio of that partial-width to the total-width that you used in the param_card.
this will give you an hint from where the decrease is coming from (either low production or low branching ratio)

Cheers,

olivier

SOUAD SEMLALI (souad-sem) said : #12

 Dear Olivier,

Thank you very much for your answer. I have another stupid question, is
there a way to check these partial widths in MG? or should I use MadSpin,
although not all the decays are on-shell?
I have already the total width in the parameter card computed by 2HDMC.

Thanks again for your help,
Best regards

Le mar. 30 mars 2021 à 21:20, Olivier Mattelaer <
<email address hidden>> a écrit :

> Your question #695810 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
>
> Status: Open => Answered
>
> Olivier Mattelaer proposed the following answer:
> That I have no clue how to help you with that.
> I would advise to first compute
> g g > h2 > h3 z
> and then compute the partial width
> z > mu+ mu-
> h3 > h1 z
> z > j j
> h1 > b b~
>
> and then compute the BR as the ratio of that partial-width to the
> total-width that you used in the param_card.
> this will give you an hint from where the decrease is coming from (either
> low production or low branching ratio)
>
> Cheers,
>
> olivier
>
> --
> If this answers your question, please go to the following page to let us
> know that it is solved:
>
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810/+confirm?answer_id=10
>
> If you still need help, you can reply to this email or go to the
> following page to enter your feedback:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
>
> You received this question notification because you asked the question.
>

--
Souad SEMLALI

SOUAD SEMLALI (souad-sem) said : #13

I forgot to mention that I did another check when the decay is off-shell:
  Br(h3 -> h1 Z) ~0.0015 by 2HDMC
  \sigma(gg -.> h2 > h3 z) ~ 0.004 pb by MG which means that that this the
Br(h3 -> h1 Z )~0.00023 taken into account.

 Thanks,
 Best regards

Le mar. 30 mars 2021 à 22:30, Semlali souad <email address hidden> a écrit :

> Dear Olivier,
>
> Thank you very much for your answer. I have another stupid question, is
> there a way to check these partial widths in MG? or should I use MadSpin,
> although not all the decays are on-shell?
> I have already the total width in the parameter card computed by 2HDMC.
>
> Thanks again for your help,
> Best regards
>
> Le mar. 30 mars 2021 à 21:20, Olivier Mattelaer <
> <email address hidden>> a écrit :
>
>> Your question #695810 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
>> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
>>
>> Status: Open => Answered
>>
>> Olivier Mattelaer proposed the following answer:
>> That I have no clue how to help you with that.
>> I would advise to first compute
>> g g > h2 > h3 z
>> and then compute the partial width
>> z > mu+ mu-
>> h3 > h1 z
>> z > j j
>> h1 > b b~
>>
>> and then compute the BR as the ratio of that partial-width to the
>> total-width that you used in the param_card.
>> this will give you an hint from where the decrease is coming from (either
>> low production or low branching ratio)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> olivier
>>
>> --
>> If this answers your question, please go to the following page to let us
>> know that it is solved:
>>
>> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810/+confirm?answer_id=10
>>
>> If you still need help, you can reply to this email or go to the
>> following page to enter your feedback:
>> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
>>
>> You received this question notification because you asked the question.
>>
>
>
> --
> Souad SEMLALI
>

--
Souad SEMLALI

You can do
genrate h3 > h1 z

But your syntax are a succession of two body decay. If one of those particles can not be onshell, then you are using the wrong syntax.

Cheers,

Olivier

SOUAD SEMLALI (souad-sem) said : #15

 Sorry I couldn't follow. Indeed, two of these particles are off-shell (gg
-> h2 -> h3 Z* -> h1 *Z* Z** -> bb jj mu+ mu-).
 So, Instead of :
   generate g g > h2 > h3 z, z > mu+ mu-, (h3 > h1 z, z > j j, h1 > b b~
),

which syntax do you think it is appropriate?

Many thanks for your help,

Best regards

Le mar. 30 mars 2021 à 22:41, Olivier Mattelaer <
<email address hidden>> a écrit :

> Your question #695810 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
>
> Status: Open => Answered
>
> Olivier Mattelaer proposed the following answer:
> You can do
> genrate h3 > h1 z
>
> But your syntax are a succession of two body decay. If one of those
> particles can not be onshell, then you are using the wrong syntax.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Olivier
>
> --
> If this answers your question, please go to the following page to let us
> know that it is solved:
>
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810/+confirm?answer_id=13
>
> If you still need help, you can reply to this email or go to the
> following page to enter your feedback:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
>
> You received this question notification because you asked the question.
>

--
Souad SEMLALI

Then you need to remove the onshell request to all particles than can not be onshell.

so if I understand correctly it should be something like

  generate g g > h2 > h3 mu+ mu-, (h3 > h1 j j, h1 > b b~)

Cheers,

Olivier

> On 30 Mar 2021, at 23:41, SOUAD SEMLALI <email address hidden> wrote:
>
> Question #695810 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
>
> Status: Answered => Open
>
> SOUAD SEMLALI is still having a problem:
> Sorry I couldn't follow. Indeed, two of these particles are off-shell (gg
> -> h2 -> h3 Z* -> h1 *Z* Z** -> bb jj mu+ mu-).
> So, Instead of :
> generate g g > h2 > h3 z, z > mu+ mu-, (h3 > h1 z, z > j j, h1 > b b~
> ),
>
> which syntax do you think it is appropriate?
>
> Many thanks for your help,
>
> Best regards
>
>
>
> Le mar. 30 mars 2021 à 22:41, Olivier Mattelaer <
> <email address hidden>> a écrit :
>
>> Your question #695810 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
>> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
>>
>> Status: Open => Answered
>>
>> Olivier Mattelaer proposed the following answer:
>> You can do
>> genrate h3 > h1 z
>>
>> But your syntax are a succession of two body decay. If one of those
>> particles can not be onshell, then you are using the wrong syntax.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Olivier
>>
>> --
>> If this answers your question, please go to the following page to let us
>> know that it is solved:
>>
>> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810/+confirm?answer_id=13
>>
>> If you still need help, you can reply to this email or go to the
>> following page to enter your feedback:
>> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
>>
>> You received this question notification because you asked the question.
>>
>
>
> --
> Souad SEMLALI
>
> You received this question notification because you are an answer
> contact for MadGraph5_aMC@NLO.

SOUAD SEMLALI (souad-sem) said : #17

Dear Olivier,

It worked, I got all the diagrams, and the cross-section is acceptable.
Thank you very much!
But, then I want to include only the diagrams where the two Z * are
present. That's why I thought of using z in the syntax. Do you have a
better suggestion?

Thanks again!
 Best

Le mar. 30 mars 2021 à 23:50, Olivier Mattelaer <
<email address hidden>> a écrit :

> Your question #695810 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
>
> Status: Open => Answered
>
> Olivier Mattelaer proposed the following answer:
> Then you need to remove the onshell request to all particles than can
> not be onshell.
>
> so if I understand correctly it should be something like
>
> generate g g > h2 > h3 mu+ mu-, (h3 > h1 j j, h1 > b b~)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Olivier
>
> > On 30 Mar 2021, at 23:41, SOUAD SEMLALI <
> <email address hidden>> wrote:
> >
> > Question #695810 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
> > https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
> >
> > Status: Answered => Open
> >
> > SOUAD SEMLALI is still having a problem:
> > Sorry I couldn't follow. Indeed, two of these particles are off-shell (gg
> > -> h2 -> h3 Z* -> h1 *Z* Z** -> bb jj mu+ mu-).
> > So, Instead of :
> > generate g g > h2 > h3 z, z > mu+ mu-, (h3 > h1 z, z > j j, h1 > b b~
> > ),
> >
> > which syntax do you think it is appropriate?
> >
> > Many thanks for your help,
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> >
> >
> > Le mar. 30 mars 2021 à 22:41, Olivier Mattelaer <
> > <email address hidden>> a écrit :
> >
> >> Your question #695810 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
> >> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
> >>
> >> Status: Open => Answered
> >>
> >> Olivier Mattelaer proposed the following answer:
> >> You can do
> >> genrate h3 > h1 z
> >>
> >> But your syntax are a succession of two body decay. If one of those
> >> particles can not be onshell, then you are using the wrong syntax.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Olivier
> >>
> >> --
> >> If this answers your question, please go to the following page to let us
> >> know that it is solved:
> >>
> >>
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810/+confirm?answer_id=13
> >>
> >> If you still need help, you can reply to this email or go to the
> >> following page to enter your feedback:
> >> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
> >>
> >> You received this question notification because you asked the question.
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Souad SEMLALI
> >
> > You received this question notification because you are an answer
> > contact for MadGraph5_aMC@NLO.
>
> --
> If this answers your question, please go to the following page to let us
> know that it is solved:
>
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810/+confirm?answer_id=15
>
> If you still need help, you can reply to this email or go to the
> following page to enter your feedback:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
>
> You received this question notification because you asked the question.
>

--
Souad SEMLALI

you can use the same syntax that you use already for h2.

 generate g g > h2 z > h3 mu+ mu-, (h3 > z > h1 j j, h1 > b b~)

Now this is your responsability to check that such syntax is meaningfull (i.e. that the subset of diagram selected is gauge invariant).
An easy way to check gauge invariance is to check the lorentz invariance of the computation.

Cheers,

Olivier

> On 30 Mar 2021, at 22:30, SOUAD SEMLALI <email address hidden> wrote:
>
> Question #695810 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
>
> Status: Answered => Open
>
> SOUAD SEMLALI is still having a problem:
> Dear Olivier,
>
> Thank you very much for your answer. I have another stupid question, is
> there a way to check these partial widths in MG? or should I use MadSpin,
> although not all the decays are on-shell?
> I have already the total width in the parameter card computed by 2HDMC.
>
> Thanks again for your help,
> Best regards
>
> Le mar. 30 mars 2021 à 21:20, Olivier Mattelaer <
> <email address hidden>> a écrit :
>
>> Your question #695810 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
>> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
>>
>> Status: Open => Answered
>>
>> Olivier Mattelaer proposed the following answer:
>> That I have no clue how to help you with that.
>> I would advise to first compute
>> g g > h2 > h3 z
>> and then compute the partial width
>> z > mu+ mu-
>> h3 > h1 z
>> z > j j
>> h1 > b b~
>>
>> and then compute the BR as the ratio of that partial-width to the
>> total-width that you used in the param_card.
>> this will give you an hint from where the decrease is coming from (either
>> low production or low branching ratio)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> olivier
>>
>> --
>> If this answers your question, please go to the following page to let us
>> know that it is solved:
>>
>> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810/+confirm?answer_id=10
>>
>> If you still need help, you can reply to this email or go to the
>> following page to enter your feedback:
>> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
>>
>> You received this question notification because you asked the question.
>>
>
>
> --
> Souad SEMLALI
>
> You received this question notification because you are an answer
> contact for MadGraph5_aMC@NLO.

SOUAD SEMLALI (souad-sem) said : #19

I will. Thank you very much!
Best,

Le mer. 31 mars 2021 à 07:01, Olivier Mattelaer <
<email address hidden>> a écrit :

> Your question #695810 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
>
> Status: Open => Answered
>
> Olivier Mattelaer proposed the following answer:
> you can use the same syntax that you use already for h2.
>
> generate g g > h2 z > h3 mu+ mu-, (h3 > z > h1 j j, h1 > b b~)
>
> Now this is your responsability to check that such syntax is meaningfull
> (i.e. that the subset of diagram selected is gauge invariant).
> An easy way to check gauge invariance is to check the lorentz invariance
> of the computation.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Olivier
>
> > On 30 Mar 2021, at 22:30, SOUAD SEMLALI <
> <email address hidden>> wrote:
> >
> > Question #695810 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
> > https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
> >
> > Status: Answered => Open
> >
> > SOUAD SEMLALI is still having a problem:
> > Dear Olivier,
> >
> > Thank you very much for your answer. I have another stupid question, is
> > there a way to check these partial widths in MG? or should I use MadSpin,
> > although not all the decays are on-shell?
> > I have already the total width in the parameter card computed by 2HDMC.
> >
> > Thanks again for your help,
> > Best regards
> >
> > Le mar. 30 mars 2021 à 21:20, Olivier Mattelaer <
> > <email address hidden>> a écrit :
> >
> >> Your question #695810 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
> >> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
> >>
> >> Status: Open => Answered
> >>
> >> Olivier Mattelaer proposed the following answer:
> >> That I have no clue how to help you with that.
> >> I would advise to first compute
> >> g g > h2 > h3 z
> >> and then compute the partial width
> >> z > mu+ mu-
> >> h3 > h1 z
> >> z > j j
> >> h1 > b b~
> >>
> >> and then compute the BR as the ratio of that partial-width to the
> >> total-width that you used in the param_card.
> >> this will give you an hint from where the decrease is coming from
> (either
> >> low production or low branching ratio)
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> olivier
> >>
> >> --
> >> If this answers your question, please go to the following page to let us
> >> know that it is solved:
> >>
> >>
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810/+confirm?answer_id=10
> >>
> >> If you still need help, you can reply to this email or go to the
> >> following page to enter your feedback:
> >> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
> >>
> >> You received this question notification because you asked the question.
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Souad SEMLALI
> >
> > You received this question notification because you are an answer
> > contact for MadGraph5_aMC@NLO.
>
> --
> If this answers your question, please go to the following page to let us
> know that it is solved:
>
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810/+confirm?answer_id=17
>
> If you still need help, you can reply to this email or go to the
> following page to enter your feedback:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/695810
>
> You received this question notification because you asked the question.
>

--
Souad SEMLALI

Can you help with this problem?

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

To post a message you must log in.