anomalous TGCs Whizard2

Asked by Fenompanirina Andrianala on 2021-03-16

Dear Whizard expert,

I would like to simulate anomalous TGCs at 1.4 TeV for CLIC. I would like to validate my analysis at generation level at 1 TeV by comparing the variation for delata_gz1=+0.01 and delata_gz1=-0.01 with the case of SM, delata_gz1=0. However the variation is very small compared to the similar analysis at 1 TeV from ILC group(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2015.09.362). Please find below the sindarin script that I am using. I wonder if there is anything wrong which reduces the variation in my script. I am using Whizard 2.8.2.

#---------------------
! Model and Process block
model = SM_ac_CKM

me = 0
mmu = 0
mtau = 0
ms = 0
mc = 0
mb = 0
mtop = 174 GeV
wtop = 1.37 GeV
mW = 80.45 GeV
wW = 2.071 GeV
mZ = 91.188 GeV
wZ = 2.478 GeV
mH = 125 GeV
wH = 0.00407 GeV

! anomalous couplings
g1z = 1.01
ka = 1
la = 0

! remove overlap with higher multiplicities
alphas = 0

alias q = u:d:s:c:b
alias qbar = U:D:S:C:B
alias lep = e1:e2:e3:E1:E2:E3
alias neutrino = n1:n2:n3:N1:N2:N3

! Beam block
sqrts = 1000 GeV

process decay_proc = e1, E1 => q, qbar, lep, neutrino

! circe2 beam spectrum and ISR
beams = e1, E1 => circe2 => isr
?keep_beams = true
?isr_handler = true
$isr_handler_mode = "recoil"
isr_alpha = 0.0072993
isr_mass = 0.000511

$circe2_file = "/cvmfs/clicdp.cern.ch/software/WHIZARD/circe_files/ILC/1000_B1b_ws_ee018.circe"
$circe2_design = "ILC"
?circe2_polarized = false

! Cuts block
real default_jet_cut = 10 GeV
cuts = all M > default_jet_cut [q,qbar] and all M > 4 GeV [lep, neutrino] and all M < 100 GeV [q,qbar] and all M < 100 GeV [lep, neutrino] and all Theta > 10 degree [lep] and all Theta < 170 degree [lep] and let subevt @WW = collect[colored:lep:neutrino] in all M > 1000 GeV [@WW]

#the m(qq),m(lnu)<100GeV cut removes the single W contribution

! Parton shower and hadronization

?ps_fsr_active = true
?ps_isr_active = false
?hadronization_active = true
$shower_method = "PYTHIA6"

$ps_PYTHIA_PYGIVE = "MSTJ(28)=0; PMAS(25,1)=120.; PMAS(25,2)=0.3605E-02; MSTJ(41)=2; MSTU(22)=2000; PARJ(21)=0.40000; PARJ(41)=0.11000; PARJ(42)=0.52000; PARJ(81)=0.25000; PARJ(82)=1.90000; MSTJ(11)=3; PARJ(54)=-0.03100; PARJ(55)=-0.00200; PARJ(1)=0.08500; PARJ(3)=0.45000; PARJ(4)=0.02500; PARJ(2)=0.31000; PARJ(11)=0.60000; PARJ(12)=0.40000; PARJ(13)=0.72000; PARJ(14)=0.43000; PARJ(15)=0.08000; PARJ(16)=0.08000; PARJ(17)=0.17000; MSTP(3)=1;MSTP(71)=1"

integrate (decay_proc) {iterations = 10:50000:"gw", 5:50000:""}
show(results)

n_events = 10000

sample_format = stdhep, ascii
$extension_stdhep = "stdhep"

simulate (decay_proc) {}
#------------------------

Many thanks in advance for your helps,
Feno

Question information

Language:
English Edit question
Status:
Answered
For:
WHIZARD Edit question
Assignee:
Juergen Reuter Edit question
Last query:
2021-03-16
Last reply:
2021-03-16
Juergen Reuter (j.r.reuter) said : #1

Dear Feno,
the only thing that I can tell is that the Sindarin file you provided looks technically ok. Also the values that you inserted look compatible with what have been simulated in the reference that you cited. As you can see from Fig. 3 of the Nucl. Phys. B that you
cited the deviations from the anomalous triple gauge couplings are relatively small in the different bins. I don't know exactly what you expected here. But for more details I'd suggest to contact Aura Rosca or the ILD group for details.
Best regards,
    JRR (Juergen Reuter) for the Whizards

Can you help with this problem?

Provide an answer of your own, or ask Fenompanirina Andrianala for more information if necessary.

To post a message you must log in.