Can loop_qcd_qed_sm_Gmu be used for QCD only?

Asked by Christian

Hi,

I have done some calculations using LUXPDF and the model loop_qcd_qed_Gmu.

After doing so, I was asked to calculate QCD corrections only. We want to check if loop_qcd_qed_sm_Gmu can be run in a meaningful way, even if we are only interested in QCD corrections.

It works fine for QCD+EW. I got 642.5 pb for the p p > ttbar cross section using this model and LUXpdf. This is exactly the result from the paper we used as reference.

In order to consider QCD calculations only, I have used the syntax p p > t t~ aEW=0 aS=2 [QCD]. So, I tried to minimize the aEW coupling as much as possible.

To activate loop_qcd_qed_sm I have followed the following steps:
MG5 aMC> set complex mass scheme true
MG5 aMC> import model loop qcd qed sm Gmu
MG5 aMC> define p = g d d~ u u~ s s~ c c~ b b~ a
MG5 aMC> define j = g d d~ u u~ s s~ c c~ b b~ a

The cross section was at NLO 640.2+- 0.072. Meaning that it was reduced by 2 pb when considering QCD only. This was the first approach we came up with.

My thesis advisor tried to recreate this, since we both expected an increase in cross section of atleast 10 %. I have only achieved a small decrease in cross section.

She used a different approach. She used the standard MG5 (with loop_sm[which is the default]) in order to only consider the QCD corrections.
Meaning, no new model, no complex mass scheme, the photon was not added. The same parameters were used, for the run and param card. She got 645.2 +- 0.072 pb.

So we were wondering, what approach would be the correct one, if we want to consider QCD corrections only. We expected both approaches to be correct.

I have made some plots. If necessary, I can try to send them to you. Maybe it is also possible to upload my plots to the institutes website.

Question information

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

Hi,

The loop_sm model is by default a four flavor computation (so the b is massive and not include in the proton/jet definition).
While the loop_qcd_qed_sm_Gmu is by default a five flavor computation (so the b is massless and included in the proton/jet definition).

The value of the top mass/width are also different in both model.
The loop_sm has a value of 173 GeV while the Gmu model has a mass of 173.3
(1.491500e+00 vs 1.377580e+00 for the width but this should not matter for your process).
(and obviously many parameter like the mass of the W are also different)

So here is the computation in three model (all of them with 173 GeV for the top mass):
loop_sm: 682 pb
loop_sm-no_b_mass: 675 pb
Gmu: 675 pb (was 674 with the default top mass for the model)

Note that in both case, I'm using the same PDF (which,I guess, is not fully consistent).
One can be surprised that, with the same PDF, the five flavor scheme is smaller than his four flavor counter-part.
I do not have a strong argument on that for the moment, but I have no doubt that the result is correct.

Cheers,

Olivier

Revision history for this message
Olivier Mattelaer (olivier-mattelaer) said :
#2

We do have the expected behavior (5F>4F) if you use fix scale.
So the fact that (4F>5F) was related to the fact that the running in alpha_s was in one case a four flavour running versus a 5 flavor one.

Cheers,

Olivier

Revision history for this message
Christian (chris0990) said :
#3

Hi Oliver,

thank you for your answer.
May I ask, what PDF set did you use?
My thesis advisor is interested, since your cross section is higher than ours

Best regards,

Christian

Revision history for this message
Best Olivier Mattelaer (olivier-mattelaer) said :
#4

This was done with the default PDF of MG5aMC which is nn23lo1 (lhaid: 247000)

This is a LO PDF and the selected value of a_S =0.13 (at MZ) which is likely the reason for the cross-section is larger since many NLO PDF use a smaller valuer of a_S (but LO PDF like that value)

Cheers,

Olivier

> On 16 Mar 2024, at 03:35, Christian <email address hidden> wrote:
>
> Question #709496 on MadGraph5_aMC@NLO changed:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/709496
>
> Christian posted a new comment:
> Hi Oliver,
>
> thank you for your answer.
> May I ask, what PDF set did you use?
> My thesis advisor is interested, since your cross section is higher than ours
>
> Best regards,
>
> Christian
>
> --
> You received this question notification because you are an answer
> contact for MadGraph5_aMC@NLO.

Revision history for this message
Christian (chris0990) said :
#5

Thanks Olivier Mattelaer, that solved my question.