# EPA dependence on epa_mass

I am trying to use the equivalent photon calculation for a cross-section photon photon > b bbar

What is the minimal sindarin to compute the total cross-section of this process?

process proc = "A", "A" => "b","bbar"

beams = "e-", "e+" => epa, epa

epa_x_min = 1e-10 !mandatory

epa_mass = 0.105 GeV ! 511 keV !mandatory

!epa_q_min = 0.105 GeV ! suggested in "minimal viable scenario" of the Manual

Changing epa_mass in this setting gives very little variation compared to the expectation. e.g. at 3 TeV e+e- I get 9 pb for epa_mass 511 keV and 3 pb for epa_mass 0.105 GeV. As ln(200)~5 the two cross-section cannot be just a factor 3 different, unless I am badly misunderstanding the dependence of this cross-section on the emitter mass.

Thanks for the clarification.

Roberto

## Question information

- Language:
- English Edit question

- Status:
- Open

- For:
- WHIZARD Edit question

- Assignee:
- Wolfgang Kilian Edit question

- Last query:
- 2019-11-04

- Last reply:

Juergen Reuter (j.r.reuter) said : | #1 |

Roberto, sorry we didn't have the chance to sit down in Sendai. Did you try to run the same setting with an epa_x_min of the order of 0.01 or 0.001?

Hi there, sorry but I thought this was a dropped case, maybe misunderstood.

Anyhow, yes I have tried larger x cuts and there is a dependence on that x _min value.

\gamma\gamma\to b\bar{b} 3 TeV inclusive

3 = lpp1 photon from electron 6 pb

beams = "e-", "e+" => epa, x_{min}=0.001 epa_mass=501 keV 3.76(2) pb

beams = "e-", "e+" => epa, x_{min}=0.001 epa_mass=105 MeV 1.518(7) pb

x_{min}=0.01 epa_mass=501 keV 0.237(1)

x_{min}=1e-4 epa_mass=501 keV 7.77(6) pb

x_{min}=1e-4 epa_mass=105 MeV 3.06(2) pb

x_{min}=1e-5 epa_mass=501 keV 9.06(10) pb

x_{min}=1e-6 epa_mass=501 keV 9.20(10) pb

x_{min}=1e-10 epa_mass=501 keV 9.13(12) pb

x_{min}=1e-10 epa_mass=105 MeV 3.59(4) pb

x_{min}=1e-10 epa_mass=105 MeV epa_q_min=105 MeV isr_mass=105 MeV 0.602(4) pb

It clearly saturates when x_min becomes small enough that all the phase space for bottom pair creation is included in the range. The issue that I see is that the scaling with the epa_mass is too weak compared to the log I was expecting. Am I expecting the wrong thing?

Wolfgang Kilian (whkilian) said : | #3 |

Thanks for providing those details! There may be in issue with the EPA formulas or their implementation that got unnoticed. There are inconsistent results also elsewhere. I'll try to investigate this more closely.

## Can you help with this problem?

Provide an answer of your own, or ask Roberto Franceschini for more information if necessary.