Opened 15 years ago
Last modified 11 years ago
#69 closed defect
Cross sections for processes with mixed orderEW/orderQCD diagrams — at Version 3
Reported by: | Frank Siegert | Owned by: | support@sherpa-mc.de |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | |
Component: | Unknown | Version: | 1.2.1 |
Keywords: | Cc: |
Description (last modified by )
When generating processes without fixing the Order_EW or Order_QCD of the diagrams, Sherpa will wrongly enhance the interference between diagrams of different Order_EW/Order_QCD. This is not a problem in any of our default setups, because there we restrict the Order_EW, but if one includes all (e.g. because of cuts which enhance the EW contributions such that they are needed), one will run into this bug.
Example: Sherpa's cross section for pp -> P b bar
around the Z->b bbar peak doesn't reproduce the one in Madgraph if the following cuts are applied:
- pT(photon) > 200 GeV
- pT(b) > 50 GeV
- pT(bbar) > 50 GeV
- |eta(photon)| < 2.5
- |eta(b)| < 2.5
- |eta(bbar)| < 2.5
- dR(photon, b) > 0.6
- dR(photon, bbar) > 0.6
- 89<m_{b bbar}<93
Using cteq6l1 and a fixed fac/ren scale=mZ, Madgraph gives 0.007710 pb, while Sherpa gives 0.020742 pb.
If I select the resonant diagrams only, i.e. pp -> P Z[b bbar]
then Sherpa (0.005917 pb) and Madgraph (0.005869 pb) agree well.
Change History (8)
Changed 15 years ago by
Attachment: | Run.inc.dat added |
---|
Changed 15 years ago by
Attachment: | Run.cut.dat added |
---|
Changed 15 years ago by
Attachment: | run_card.dat added |
---|
Changed 15 years ago by
Attachment: | inc_proc_card.dat added |
---|
Changed 15 years ago by
Attachment: | cut_proc_card.dat added |
---|
comment:1 Changed 15 years ago by
comment:2 Changed 15 years ago by
Even if I integrate to lower errors (and with actually fixed scales), I still see the same discrepancy. I've simplified it even further, by looking at only one subprocess, namely u ubar -> gamma b bbar
(in Madgraph that's uu~>bb~a
and u~u>bb~a
). Furthermore I've tried to identify whether it's the cuts that may be wrong by removing them successively. But whatever I do, in all cases Madgraph's cross section is only ~40% of Sherpa's. Are there any other ideas where this difference could come from?
comment:3 Changed 15 years ago by
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|---|
Summary: | Inclusive "P b bbar" cross section → Cross sections for processes with mixed orderEW/orderQCD diagrams |
Version: | trunk → 1.2.1 |
This is fixed on Sherpa SVN but will need to be thoroughly tested before it can be released.
Hmmm, I just notice that the Madgraph integration results seem to have huge errors, ~100%. So the numbers above can't be trusted. I'll try to find out how to improve that. Also I have to change the ren/fac to actually be fixed (
.true.
instead ofF
) and maybe just to be safe set thebwcutoff
higher, like 150. Will post back with new results.