Cross section

Asked by said ghourmin

Hi,
Actually, i'm a little confused during calculation of the cross section using MadGraph5, i calcule the sigma(p p > h++ h-- ) i get 0.1761fb but when i calcule the xs with decay of double charged Higgs i get sigma(p p > h++ h-- > l+l+l-l- )= 2866000 fb also all of that using MadGraph5, this last xs what make me confused, my question is that possible?

Question information

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

The most likely reason is that you did not set the width of the particles to their LO value.
Note that we have a FAQ on this type of disagreement.

Otherwise, this might also be due to the presence of additional diagram/...

Cheers,

Olivier

Revision history for this message
said ghourmin (saidghourmin) said :
#2

Do you mean that i don't set the widths of h++ > l+l+ in my code where(l=e
mu tau), and i don't understand what you mean by additional diagram,
because when i have added the lepton final stage other diagram are added

Le ven. 27 août 2021 à 21:01, Olivier Mattelaer <
<email address hidden>> a écrit :

> Your question #698539 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/698539
>
> Status: Open => Answered
>
> Olivier Mattelaer proposed the following answer:
> The most likely reason is that you did not set the width of the particles
> to their LO value.
> Note that we have a FAQ on this type of disagreement.
>
> Otherwise, this might also be due to the presence of additional
> diagram/...
>
> 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/698539/+confirm?answer_id=0
>
> 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/698539
>
> You received this question notification because you asked the question.
>

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

Hi,

I mean that in the param_card you have to provide the value of the total width for all particle and that all those total width need to be consistent.
We do not use branching ratio so we do not need the partial width information. (even if you need to compute those in order to have the total width).

For the diagram, you have to look at the diagram generated, I do not know your model so i have no clue if this happens in your case or not.

Cheers,

olivier

> On 27 Aug 2021, at 22:15, said ghourmin <email address hidden> wrote:
>
> Question #698539 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/698539
>
> Status: Answered => Open
>
> said ghourmin is still having a problem:
> Do you mean that i don't set the widths of h++ > l+l+ in my code where(l=e
> mu tau), and i don't understand what you mean by additional diagram,
> because when i have added the lepton final stage other diagram are added
>
> Le ven. 27 août 2021 à 21:01, Olivier Mattelaer <
> <email address hidden>> a écrit :
>
>> Your question #698539 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
>> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/698539
>>
>> Status: Open => Answered
>>
>> Olivier Mattelaer proposed the following answer:
>> The most likely reason is that you did not set the width of the particles
>> to their LO value.
>> Note that we have a FAQ on this type of disagreement.
>>
>> Otherwise, this might also be due to the presence of additional
>> diagram/...
>>
>> 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/698539/+confirm?answer_id=0
>>
>> 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/698539
>>
>> You received this question notification because you asked the question.
>>
>
> --
> You received this question notification because you are an answer
> contact for MadGraph5_aMC@NLO.

Revision history for this message
said ghourmin (saidghourmin) said :
#4

My model is 123 model, tomorrow i will attach my code and have a look if
you are available if not intel monday, cuz now i let my machine in
university

Le ven. 27 août 2021 à 21:30, Olivier Mattelaer <
<email address hidden>> a écrit :

> Your question #698539 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/698539
>
> Status: Open => Answered
>
> Olivier Mattelaer proposed the following answer:
> Hi,
>
> I mean that in the param_card you have to provide the value of the total
> width for all particle and that all those total width need to be consistent.
> We do not use branching ratio so we do not need the partial width
> information. (even if you need to compute those in order to have the total
> width).
>
> For the diagram, you have to look at the diagram generated, I do not
> know your model so i have no clue if this happens in your case or not.
>
> Cheers,
>
> olivier
>
> > On 27 Aug 2021, at 22:15, said ghourmin <
> <email address hidden>> wrote:
> >
> > Question #698539 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
> > https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/698539
> >
> > Status: Answered => Open
> >
> > said ghourmin is still having a problem:
> > Do you mean that i don't set the widths of h++ > l+l+ in my code
> where(l=e
> > mu tau), and i don't understand what you mean by additional diagram,
> > because when i have added the lepton final stage other diagram are added
> >
> > Le ven. 27 août 2021 à 21:01, Olivier Mattelaer <
> > <email address hidden>> a écrit :
> >
> >> Your question #698539 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
> >> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/698539
> >>
> >> Status: Open => Answered
> >>
> >> Olivier Mattelaer proposed the following answer:
> >> The most likely reason is that you did not set the width of the
> particles
> >> to their LO value.
> >> Note that we have a FAQ on this type of disagreement.
> >>
> >> Otherwise, this might also be due to the presence of additional
> >> diagram/...
> >>
> >> 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/698539/+confirm?answer_id=0
> >>
> >> 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/698539
> >>
> >> You received this question notification because you asked the question.
> >>
> >
> > --
> > 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/698539/+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/698539
>
> You received this question notification because you asked the question.
>

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

Hi,

I do not need the model actually, you should be able to look yourself if you do have additional diagram or not.

Cheers,

Olivier

> On 27 Aug 2021, at 22:40, said ghourmin <email address hidden> wrote:
>
> Question #698539 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/698539
>
> Status: Answered => Open
>
> said ghourmin is still having a problem:
> My model is 123 model, tomorrow i will attach my code and have a look if
> you are available if not intel monday, cuz now i let my machine in
> university
>
> Le ven. 27 août 2021 à 21:30, Olivier Mattelaer <
> <email address hidden>> a écrit :
>
>> Your question #698539 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
>> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/698539
>>
>> Status: Open => Answered
>>
>> Olivier Mattelaer proposed the following answer:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I mean that in the param_card you have to provide the value of the total
>> width for all particle and that all those total width need to be consistent.
>> We do not use branching ratio so we do not need the partial width
>> information. (even if you need to compute those in order to have the total
>> width).
>>
>> For the diagram, you have to look at the diagram generated, I do not
>> know your model so i have no clue if this happens in your case or not.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> olivier
>>
>>> On 27 Aug 2021, at 22:15, said ghourmin <
>> <email address hidden>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Question #698539 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
>>> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/698539
>>>
>>> Status: Answered => Open
>>>
>>> said ghourmin is still having a problem:
>>> Do you mean that i don't set the widths of h++ > l+l+ in my code
>> where(l=e
>>> mu tau), and i don't understand what you mean by additional diagram,
>>> because when i have added the lepton final stage other diagram are added
>>>
>>> Le ven. 27 août 2021 à 21:01, Olivier Mattelaer <
>>> <email address hidden>> a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Your question #698539 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
>>>> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/698539
>>>>
>>>> Status: Open => Answered
>>>>
>>>> Olivier Mattelaer proposed the following answer:
>>>> The most likely reason is that you did not set the width of the
>> particles
>>>> to their LO value.
>>>> Note that we have a FAQ on this type of disagreement.
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise, this might also be due to the presence of additional
>>>> diagram/...
>>>>
>>>> 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/698539/+confirm?answer_id=0
>>>>
>>>> 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/698539
>>>>
>>>> You received this question notification because you asked the question.
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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/698539/+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/698539
>>
>> You received this question notification because you asked the question.
>>
>
> --
> You received this question notification because you are an answer
> contact for MadGraph5_aMC@NLO.

Revision history for this message
said ghourmin (saidghourmin) said :
#6

Hi,
sorry, i don't know what you mean by additional diagram, is it diagram have no relation with the process or what. And how i can fix the problem of additional diagram

Revision history for this message
Olivier Mattelaer (olivier-mattelaer) said :
#7

Hi,

Did you check the Feynman diagram generated by MadGraph?
If you have diagram in your second syntax that does not have equivalent with the one of your frist syntax then you do have additional diagram, (and they are likely nothing to fix).

Cheers,

Olivier

> On 28 Aug 2021, at 11:25, said ghourmin <email address hidden> wrote:
>
> Question #698539 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/698539
>
> Status: Answered => Open
>
> said ghourmin is still having a problem:
> Hi,
> sorry, i don't know what you mean by additional diagram, is it diagram have no relation with the process or what. And how i can fix the problem of additional diagram
>
> --
> You received this question notification because you are an answer
> contact for MadGraph5_aMC@NLO.

Revision history for this message
said ghourmin (saidghourmin) said :
#8

Hi,
the first syntax is pp > z|a > h++ h-- MG5 have generated two diagram but the second when i add four leptonic state pp> z|a >h++h-- > l+l+l-l- its clear that clear that other will generated, is that what you mean by addional diagram

Revision history for this message
Olivier Mattelaer (olivier-mattelaer) said :
#9

yes,

So you do have additional diagram and therefore they might be the reason of the increase of the cross-section.

Olivier

Can you help with this problem?

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

To post a message you must log in.