TODO.md

status of the work and TODO list

events generation

• Lambda set at 1 TeV in all generations

VBS SS ntuples

existing samples so far

• same-sign W+W+ with one electron and one muon

channel	cW	cHW	EFT level	MG folder	events	ntuple
e+u+jj	0	0	SM	SSeu_SMlimit	1M	link
e+u+jj	0.3	0	interf	SSeu_RcW_int	1M	link
e+u+jj	0.3	0	quadratic	SSeu_RcW_bsm	1M	link
e+u+jj	0	0.3	interf	SSeu_RcHW_int	1M	link
e+u+jj	0	0.3	quadratic	SSeu_RcHW_bsm	1M	link
e+u+jj	0.3	0.3	interf	SSeu_VBS_int	1M	link
e+u+jj	0.3	0.3	quadratic	SSeu_VBS_bsm	1M	link

samples with two coefficients at a time

• generate the events of interference and pure bsm with both the coefficients cW and cHW at 0.3
  • the interference contains terms with power 1/lambda^2 (1 coefficient and SM)
  • the interference should contain also terms with 1/lambda^4 (2 different coefficients)
    • how can I isolate this term? Subtract the interference terms of the single coefficient samples from the one of the two-coefficient sample
    • how does it compare to the terms with two EFT operators in the same diagram, which are usually neglected?
  • the pure bsm contains terms with power 1/lambda^4
• compare to the shapes obtained starting from standard model interference and pure bsm generated with the two coefficients separately
  • can one determine whether terms 1/lambda^4 are relevant?
  • can one determine whether terms 1/lambda^4 present in the interference are relevant?
  • if they are, how can one generate only those?

VBS OS ntuples (with VBF Higgs focus as well)

existing samples so far

• opposite sign W+W- with one electron and one muon: these samples should contain both VBS and VBF Higgs (remember that the only way to get interference and pure BSM terms separated is to generate final state stable particles)

channel	cW	cHW	EFT level	MG folder	events	ntuple
euOSjj	0	0	SM	OSeu_SMlimit	1M	link
euOSjj	0.3	0	interf	OSeu_RcW_int	1M	link
euOSjj	0.3	0	quadratic	OSeu_RcW_bsm	1M	link
euOSjj	0	0.3	interf	OSeu_RcHW_int	1M	link
euOSjj	0	0.3	quadratic	OSeu_RcHW_bsm	1M	link
						link

attempts to produce VBF in production times decay, lessons learned

• in any production x decay process structure, the EFT operators cannot enter the decay part
  • this is a problem in case, for example, of cHW and H > WW, the decay of the Higgs is in the decay
  • this is a problem in case of cH3l, which enters in the W > lv vertex, when the W is decayed
• in any production x decay process structure, the NP^2==n directive cannot be inserted
  • either generate the full opposite-sign VBS, or leave vector bosons undecayed and use pythia later on (depending on the type of operators one wants to vary)
    • need to prepare a pythia decay file in the production process

generation attempts

• VBS generation with W decays

  ./bin/mg5_aMC
  import model SMEFTsim_A_U35_MwScheme_UFO_v2_1-SMlimit_massless
  define q = u c d s u~ c~ d~ s~
  generate p p > q q W+ W- QCD=0 SMHLOOP=0, W+ > l+ vl, W- > l- vl~
  output OSWW_SMlimit
  quit
  

• quanto conta SMLOOP nel diagramma precedente? circa nulla immagino, ci sono due alpha_EW in piu'
• VBS generation with stable W's, quadratic EFT term only for the cW coefficient, does not work because of the W decays

  ./bin/mg5_aMC
  import model SMEFTsim_A_U35_MwScheme_UFO_v2_1-cW_massless
  define q = u c d s u~ c~ d~ s~
  generate p p > q q W+ W- QCD=0 SMHLOOP=0 NP=1 NP^2==1, W+ > l+ vl, W- > l- vl~ 
  output OSWW_RcW_int
  quit
  

• VBS generation with stable fermions in the final state:
  • SMHLOOP=0 put here to avoid getting also the SM loop effective vertex in

  ./bin/mg5_aMC
  import model SMEFTsim_A_U35_MwScheme_UFO_v2_1-SMlimit_massless
  define q = u c d s u~ c~ d~ s~
  generate p p > e+ ve mu- vm~ p p QCD=0 SMHLOOP=0 @0
  generate p p > e- ve~ mu+ vm p p QCD=0 SMHLOOP=0 @1
  output OSeu_SMlimit
  quit
  

  ./bin/mg5_aMC
  import model SMEFTsim_A_U35_MwScheme_UFO_v2_1-cW_massless
  define q = u c d s u~ c~ d~ s~
  generate p p > e+ ve mu- vm~ p p QCD=0 NP=1 SMHLOOP=0 @0 NP^2==1
  generate p p > e- ve~ mu+ vm p p QCD=0 NP=1 SMHLOOP=0 @1 NP^2==1
  output OSeu_RcW_int
  quit
  

  ./bin/mg5_aMC
  import model SMEFTsim_A_U35_MwScheme_UFO_v2_1-cW_massless
  define q = u c d s u~ c~ d~ s~
  generate p p > e+ ve mu- vm~ p p QCD=0 NP=1 SMHLOOP=0 @0 NP^2==2
  generate p p > e- ve~ mu+ vm p p QCD=0 NP=1 SMHLOOP=0 @1 NP^2==2
  output OSeu_RcW_bsm
  quit
  

  ./bin/mg5_aMC
  import model SMEFTsim_A_U35_MwScheme_UFO_v2_1-cHW_massless
  define q = u c d s u~ c~ d~ s~
  generate p p > e+ ve mu- vm~ p p QCD=0 NP=1 SMHLOOP=0 @0 NP^2==1
  generate p p > e- ve~ mu+ vm p p QCD=0 NP=1 SMHLOOP=0 @1 NP^2==1
  output OSeu_RcHW_int
  quit
  

  ./bin/mg5_aMC
  import model SMEFTsim_A_U35_MwScheme_UFO_v2_1-cHW_massless
  define q = u c d s u~ c~ d~ s~
  generate p p > e+ ve mu- vm~ p p QCD=0 NP=1 SMHLOOP=0 @0 NP^2==2
  generate p p > e- ve~ mu+ vm p p QCD=0 NP=1 SMHLOOP=0 @1 NP^2==2
  output OSeu_RcHW_bsm
  quit
  

• events generation: finished, producing ntuples
• CRTL SM ones, one job apparently has too few events??

longer term

• compare XS and put them in a table!
• generate the mixed cW cHW for OSeu as well
• fix the XS calculation adding the uncertainty in the XS itself
• how do I submit mg folder generation non-interactively?
• the intereference between two different coefficients has to be separated from the one of each single coefficient and the SM. There's no way of doing it in Madgraph as of now (it may be possibile in the future with a modification of the model, apparently), so the only recipe is to do it by subtraction, for which stats tests are needed
• the importance of the interference: is it really relevant, or not?
• understand the impact of the interfence: why is so small, in the plots, for SSWW?
  • may it be realted to what stated in the introduction here, because of helicity correlations?
  • may it be, since BSM effects happen at high energy, while SM ones at low energy?
  • a mix of the two?