BSM-SM interference simulation

Asked by Jongyeob Kim

Dear experts,

I'm currently using the VPrime_NLO model to generate W' events in s-channel with the SM interference. However, I encountered a problem that I could not understand. I would appreciate it if you could give me some opinion.

I simulated the samples as follows:

W background (sm model)
p p > w+ w+ > e+ ve
p p > w- w- > e- ve~

interference (VPrime_NLO model)
p p > wp+ wp+ > e+ ve
p p > wp- wp- > e- ve~
p p > w+ w+ > e+ ve
p p > w- w- > e- ve~

Decay width of Wprime is calculated using MWp and coupling strength kL. Also, I exclusively simulated each process by using charged lepton pt cut to simulate up to the high mt region and merged in the last. Below is the information about pt cut range and corresponding cross sectoin.

W background

charge lepton pt cut[GeV] | cross section [pb]

 10 ~ 200 | 9682.1
 200 ~ 500 | 2.130 × 10^(−1)
 500 ~ 1000 | 5.172 × 10^(−3)
1000 ~ 1500 | 1.354 × 10^(−4)
1500 ~ inf | 9.123 × 10^(−6)

interference (MWp = 6 TeV , kL = 0.3 , kR = 0)

charged lepton pt cut [GeV] | cross section [pb]
  10 ~ 100 | 9499.4
 100 ~ 500 | 2.52
 500 ~ 2500 | 5.25×10^(−2)
2500 ~ 3500 | 2.92×10^(−7)
3500 ~ 4000 | 9.51×10^(−12)
4000 ~ inf | 4.96×10^(−13)

I compared the reconstructed mt distribution of the two processes on the generator level. The problem is that the interference sample shows lower yield than the W background on the high mt region where the constructive interference effect occurs.

For example, at MWp = 6 TeV and kL = 0.3, the yield of interference sample becomes lower than the W background starting from the 7 TeV on mt region.

I wonder what has caused issues in simulating the interference sample on the high mt region.

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

Hi,

Your syntax are weird, they are no meaning for
" p p > w+ w+ > e+ ve" so this is interpreted as p p > w+ > e+ ve
also your syntax for the interference does not seem to include interferemce.

For your question, I have also trouble to understand your question.
But since you are speaking of comparison with interference, the question of the scale choice is quite crucial.
And in particular, you can not keep the default dynamical scale choice (CKKW based on Feynman Diagram) for such comparision.
(or more precisely you can but the scale uncertainty have to be taken into account)

Cheers,

Olivier

Revision history for this message
Jongyeob Kim (jongyeobkim) said (last edit ):
#2

Hi,

To include interference, do I have to use the syntax
p p > e+ ve
p p > e- ve~
instead of this syntax?
p p >wp+ > e+ ve
p p > wp- > e- ve~
p p >w+ > e+ ve
p p >w- > e- ve~

also, does the dynamic scale choice change the shape of mt distribution?

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

Yes, this syntax will have the interference effect included.

> also, does the dynamic scale choice change the shape of mt distribution?

Yes, the main impact are typically on normalization and less on shape but yes they are also impact on the shape.

Cheers,

Olivier

> On 22 Jun 2023, at 20:35, Jongyeob Kim <email address hidden> wrote:
>
> Question #707021 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/707021
>
> Status: Answered => Open
>
> Jongyeob Kim is still having a problem:
> Hi,
>
> To include interference. Do I have to use the syntax
> p p > e+ ve
> p p > e- ve~
> instead of this syntax?
> p p >wp+ > e+ ve
> p p > wp- > e- ve~
> p p >w+ > e+ ve
> p p >w- > e- ve~
>
> also, does the dynamic scale choice change the shape of mt distribution?
>
> --
> You received this question notification because you are an answer
> contact for MadGraph5_aMC@NLO.

Can you help with this problem?

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

To post a message you must log in.