Model Order not valid

Does your model have "NP" orders?

If not then I do prefer the code to crash rather than doing into an unspecified behavior.

Cheers,

Olivier

> On 19 Jan 2023, at 15:45, Kuntal Pal <email address hidden> wrote:
>
> New question #704469 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/704469
>
> I am using the SMEFTsim_general_alphaScheme_UFO model under the massless limit to generate the following process:
>
> generate p p > mu+ mu- t QCD=2 SMHLOOP=0 NP==1 NPcpv=1
>
> which generates the following error
>
>
> InvalidCmd : model order NP not valid for this model (valid one are: SMHLOOP, QED, QCD, EW, EW^2, aEW, aS). Please correct
>
> I am using Madgraph 3.4.1
>
> I have used the same model with no such error but with Madgraph 2.9
>
> --
> You received this question notification because you are an answer
> contact for MadGraph5_aMC@NLO.

It does. I have double checked

Hi,

Looks like they are two version of the massless limit.

I do have a similar crashes as the one you reported if I run the following script:
import model SMEFTsim_general_alphaScheme_UFO-SMlimit_massless
generate p p > mu+ mu- t QCD=2 SMHLOOP=0 NP==1

> Command "generate p p > mu+ mu- t QCD=2 SMHLOOP=0 NP==1" interrupted with error:
> InvalidCmd : model order NP not valid for this model (valid one are: QED, QCD, SMHLOOP, EW, EW^2, aEW, aS). Please correct
> Please report this bug on https://bugs.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo
> More information is found in 'MG5_debug'.
> Please attach this file to your report.

but in that case, If I do
display interactions
They are indeed no interactions with the NP flag.

If you use the second restriction model:
import model SMEFTsim_general_alphaScheme_UFO-massless
generate p p > mu+ mu- t QCD=2 SMHLOOP=0 NP==1

> MG5_aMC>generate p p > mu+ mu- t QCD=2 SMHLOOP=0 NP==1
> Interpreting 'QCD=2' as 'QCD<=2'
> INFO: Trying process: g u > mu+ mu- t QCD<=2 SMHLOOP=0 NP==1 @1
> INFO: Trying process: g c > mu+ mu- t QCD<=2 SMHLOOP=0 NP==1 @1
> INFO: Process has 2 diagrams
> INFO: Process c g > mu+ mu- t added to mirror process g c > mu+ mu- t
> 1 processes with 2 diagrams generated in 0.129 s
> Total: 1 processes with 2 diagrams

While if you use your original syntax
generate p p > mu+ mu- t QCD=2 SMHLOOP=0 NP==1 NPcpv=1
then you get
> Command "generate p p > mu+ mu- t QCD=2 SMHLOOP=0 NP==1 NPcpv=1" interrupted with error:
> InvalidCmd : model order NPcpv not valid for this model (valid one are: NP, NPcW, QED, NPcHWB, NPcHDD, NPcHl3, NPcll, NPcG, QCD, NPcHB, NPcHW, SMHLOOP, NPcHG, NPcHbox, NPcH, NPceB, NPceW, NPcHe, NPcHl1, NPcdB, NPcdW, NPcuB, NPcuW, NPcdG, NPcuG, NPcHud, NPcHq3, NPcHd, NPcHq1, NPcHu, NPcdH, NPcuH, NPceH, NPcqd1, NPcqd8, NPcdd, NPcqq1, NPcqq3, NPclq1, NPcqe, NPcld, NPced, NPclq3, NPcledq, NPcle, NPcee, NPclu, NPceu, NPclequ3, NPclequ1, NPcqu1, NPcqu8, NPcuu, NPcud1, NPcud8, NPcquqd1, NPcquqd8, EW, EW^2, aEW, aS). Please correct

If you do not use any restriction of the model
import model SMEFTsim_general_alphaScheme_UFO
generate p p > mu+ mu- t QCD=2 SMHLOOP=0 NP==1 NPcpv=1

> MG5_aMC>generate p p > mu+ mu- t QCD=2 SMHLOOP=0 NP==1 NPcpv=1
> Interpreting 'NPcpv=1' as 'NPcpv<=1'
> Interpreting 'QCD=2' as 'QCD<=2'
> INFO: Trying process: g u > mu+ mu- t NPcpv<=1 QCD<=2 SMHLOOP=0 NP==1 @1
> INFO: Process has 82 diagrams
> INFO: Trying process: g c > mu+ mu- t NPcpv<=1 QCD<=2 SMHLOOP=0 NP==1 @1
> INFO: Process has 82 diagrams
> INFO: Process u g > mu+ mu- t added to mirror process g u > mu+ mu- t
> INFO: Process c g > mu+ mu- t added to mirror process g c > mu+ mu- t
> 2 processes with 164 diagrams generated in 2.250 s
> Total: 2 processes with 164 diagrams

So this seems consistent to me, the restricted model does not contains anymore any interactions with the NPcpv and/or NP order related to it. And therefore we do not allow the user to specify it anymore.
In the case of the NP==1, the correct behavior is anyway crashing if NP is not defined since once should either crashed with the above message or crash as "No diagram found Error".
> MG5_aMC (2.9.13) >generate p p > mu+ mu- t QCD=2 SMHLOOP=0 NP==1
> Interpreting 'QCD=2' as 'QCD<=2'
> INFO: Trying process: g u > mu+ mu- t QCD<=2 SMHLOOP=0 NP==1 @1
> INFO: Trying process: g c > mu+ mu- t QCD<=2 SMHLOOP=0 NP==1 @1
> Command "generate p p > mu+ mu- t QCD=2 SMHLOOP=0 NP==1 " interrupted in sub-command:
> "generate p p > mu+ mu- t QCD=2 SMHLOOP=0 NP==1" with error:
> NoDiagramException : No amplitudes generated from process Process: g/u/c/d/s/u~/c~/d~/s~ g/u/c/d/s/u~/c~/d~/s~ > mu+ mu- t NP=1 QCD=2 SMHLOOP=0 NP==1 NP^2==2 @1. Please enter a valid process
> Please report this bug on https://bugs.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo
> More information is found in 'MG5_debug'.
> Please attach this file to your report.

For the "NPcpv<=1" syntax, we could assume that all diagram should be consider as NPcpv=0 and generate the associate diagram. This is how the LTS version is indeed interpreting your request.

Now the question is why a user would request "NPcpv<=1" if he is using a restriction of the model that remove all NPcpv interactions:
 1. the restriction is restricting too much
 2. the user is not using the model he thinks he does
 3. the user knows what he is doing and write those command for wathever reason.

In the first two case, a crash can be very useful. And I agree that the user that are in case #3 will be annoyed (need to update script/...), but I would say that the benefit for the user in case 1/2 should counterbalanced those issue.
I can add a global setting if this is a real blocker for someone.

Cheers,

Olivier

> On 19 Jan 2023, at 17:30, Kuntal Pal <email address hidden> wrote:
>
> Question #704469 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/704469
>
> Kuntal Pal posted a new comment:
> It does. I have double checked
>
> --
> You received this question notification because you are an answer
> contact for MadGraph5_aMC@NLO.

I am a little confused by what you meant. Are you implying that the restriction removes all the NPcv interactions?

I believe it does yes.

Olivier