MoragWilliamsMSciProjectWiki < LinearCollider

LinearCollider Web>MoragWilliamsMSciProjectWiki (2017-03-06, MoragWilliams) (raw view)

---+ Morag Williams: MSci Project Wiki

*Project Title: Sensitivity to beyond Standard Model physics through Higgs production at CLIC using effective field theories. Supervisor: Aidan Robson.*

*In Progress.*
---++ MADGRAPH Generating Steps

All using MADGRAPH 2.4.3, which requires Python 2.6 or 2.7. Using the Higgs Effective Lagrangian (HEL) Universal FeynRules Output (UFO) model which can be found here: https://feynrules.irmp.ucl.ac.be/wiki/HEL.

1) Start MADGRAPH:

=cd MG5_aMC_v2_4_3/bin/=

=./mg5_aMC=

This opens the MADGRAPH5_ aMC @ NLO interface.

2) Import the HEL_UFO model (which needs to have been copied to your models directory):

=import model HEL_UFO=

3) Generate electron + positron -&gt; Higgs + electron + positron events, with a new physics parameter and QED type stated.

<span> =generate e+ e- &gt; h e+ e- QED=4 NP=1= </span>

<span>^^ Note: the order of e+ and e- here defines the incoming beam directions; do this ordering for a +ve positron pseudorapidity.<br /></span>

4) Write to output directory of name ee_hee2

=output ee_hee2=

=quit=

5) Travel to the new directory /bin/ee_hee2 and change the run card parameters as needed in file Cards/run_card.dat.

6) Start the MadEvent interface and generate events with the run card parameters specified in run_card.dat.

=cd /ee_hee2/bin/=

=./madevent=

=generate_events=

This will open a web page showing the generation progress and main parameters (such as the particle interaction and beam energies), and create an output file unweighted_events.lhe.gz in Events/run_01. A file run_01_tag_1_banner.txt is also created in /Events/run_01 listing all commands used in the MADGRAPH and MadEvent interfaces and all run card parameters used.

---++ ETA Graphs for different EFT parameters

The effect of varying different Higgs c coupling coefficient values has been investigated. I varied cHW, cWW, and then both simultaneously. The c coefficient values for the SM case are 0. For each comparison there are 3 plots: there is the original unscaled histogram of the pseudorapidity; one scaled to make the y axis d(simga)/d(eta) by using a factor of (crosssection) / (integral under the histogram) on the original histogram; and then one scaled to make the y axis 1/sigma d(simga)/d(eta) by using a factor of 1 / (integral under the histogram) on the original histogram. 100,000 events were generated for each coupling value.

The Standard Model line on each comparison plot had a cross section of 0.028427 pb (to 6 significant figures) and had 99797 entries from the original 100,000 generated. Graphs of the electron pseudorapidity for the SM case.

[[%ATTACHURLPATH%/etacomparison_unscaled_SM_em.pdf][etacomparison_unscaled_SM_em.pdf]]: etacomparison_unscaled_SM_em.pdf

[[%ATTACHURLPATH%/etacomparison_scaled_SM_em.pdf][etacomparison_scaled_SM_em.pdf]]: etacomparison_scaled_SM_em.pdf

[[%ATTACHURLPATH%/etacomparison_scaledsigma_SM_em.pdf][etacomparison_scaledsigma_SM_em.pdf]]: etacomparison_scaledsigma_SM_em.pdf

Graphs of the positron pseudorapidity for the SM case.

[[%ATTACHURLPATH%/etacomparison_unscaled_SM_ep.pdf][etacomparison_unscaled_SM_ep.pdf]]: etacomparison_unscaled_SM_ep.pdf

[[%ATTACHURLPATH%/etacomparison_scaled_SM_ep.pdf][etacomparison_scaled_SM_ep.pdf]]: etacomparison_scaled_SM_ep.pdf

[[%ATTACHURLPATH%/etacomparison_scaledsigma_SM_ep.pdf][etacomparison_scaledsigma_SM_ep.pdf]]: etacomparison_scaledsigma_SM_ep.pdf

Graphs of the electron pseudorapidity for three values of cHW: 0.1, 0.075, and 0.05. The cross sections were 0.092673, 0.060957, 0.039631 pb respectively (to 6 decimal places). All other coefficients were set at 0.

[[%ATTACHURLPATH%/etacomparison_unscaled_cHW_em.pdf][etacomparison_unscaled_cHW_em.pdf]]: etacomparison_unscaled_cHW_em.pdf

[[%ATTACHURLPATH%/etacomparison_scaled_cHW_em.pdf][etacomparison_scaled_cHW_em.pdf]]: etacomparison_scaled_cHW_em.pdf

[[%ATTACHURLPATH%/etacomparison_scaledsigma_cHW_em.pdf][etacomparison_scaledsigma_cHW_em.pdf]]: etacomparison_scaledsigma_cHW_em.pdf

Graph of the positron pseudorapidity for three values of cHW: 0.1, 0.075, and 0.05. The cross sections were 0.092673, 0.060957, 0.039631 pb respectively (to 6 decimal places). All other coefficients were set at 0.

[[%ATTACHURLPATH%/etacomparison_unscaled_cHW_ep.pdf][etacomparison_unscaled_cHW_ep.pdf]]: etacomparison_unscaled_cHW_ep.pdf

[[%ATTACHURLPATH%/etacomparison_scaled_cHW_ep.pdf][etacomparison_scaled_cHW_ep.pdf]]: etacomparison_scaled_cHW_ep.pdf

[[%ATTACHURLPATH%/etacomparison_scaledsigma_cHW_ep.pdf][etacomparison_scaledsigma_cHW_ep.pdf]]: etacomparison_scaledsigma_cHW_ep.pdf

Graphs of the electron pseudorapidity for three values of cWW: 0.1, 0.075, and 0.05. The cross sections were 0.110403, 0.070788, 0.044749 pb respectively (to 6 decimal places). All other coefficients were set at 0.

[[%ATTACHURLPATH%/etacomparison_unscaled_cWW_em.pdf][etacomparison_unscaled_cWW_em.pdf]]: etacomparison_unscaled_cWW_em.pdf

[[%ATTACHURLPATH%/etacomparison_scaled_cWW_em.pdf][etacomparison_scaled_cWW_em.pdf]]: etacomparison_scaled_cWW_em.pdf

[[%ATTACHURLPATH%/etacomparison_scaledsigma_cWW_em.pdf][etacomparison_scaledsigma_cWW_em.pdf]]: etacomparison_scaledsigma_cWW_em.pdf

Graphs of the positron pseudorapidity for three values of cWW: 0.1, 0.075, and 0.05. The cross sections were 0.110403, 0.070788, 0.044749 pb respectively (to 6 decimal places). All other coefficients were set at 0.

[[%ATTACHURLPATH%/etacomparison_unscaled_cWW_ep.pdf][etacomparison_unscaled_cWW_ep.pdf]]: etacomparison_unscaled_cWW_ep.pdf

[[%ATTACHURLPATH%/etacomparison_scaled_cWW_ep.pdf][etacomparison_scaled_cWW_ep.pdf]]: etacomparison_scaled_cWW_ep.pdf

[[%ATTACHURLPATH%/etacomparison_scaledsigma_cWW_ep.pdf][etacomparison_scaledsigma_cWW_ep.pdf]]: etacomparison_scaledsigma_cWW_ep.pdf

Graphs of the electron pseudorapidity for three values of cWW and cHW: both at 0.1, both at 0.075, and both at 0.05. The cross sections were 0.354658, 0.200238, 0.097377 pb respectively (to 6 decimal places). All other coefficients were set at 0.

[[%ATTACHURLPATH%/etacomparison_unscaled_cHWcWW_em.pdf][etacomparison_unscaled_cHWcWW_em.pdf]]: etacomparison_unscaled_cHWcWW_em.pdf

[[%ATTACHURLPATH%/etacomparison_scaled_cHWcWW_em.pdf][etacomparison_scaled_cHWcWW_em.pdf]]: etacomparison_scaled_cHWcWW_em.pdf

[[%ATTACHURLPATH%/etacomparison_scaledsigma_cHWcWW_em.pdf][etacomparison_scaledsigma_cHWcWW_em.pdf]]: etacomparison_scaledsigma_cHWcWW_em.pdf

Graphs of the positron pseudorapidity for three values of cWW and cHW: both at 0.1, both at 0.075, and both at 0.05. The cross sections were 0.354658, 0.200238, 0.097377 pb respectively (to 6 decimal places). All other coefficients were set at 0.

[[%ATTACHURLPATH%/etacomparison_unscaled_cHWcWW_ep.pdf][etacomparison_unscaled_cHWcWW_ep.pdf]]: etacomparison_unscaled_cHWcWW_ep.pdf

[[%ATTACHURLPATH%/etacomparison_scaled_cHWcWW_ep.pdf][etacomparison_scaled_cHWcWW_ep.pdf]]: etacomparison_scaled_cHWcWW_ep.pdf

[[%ATTACHURLPATH%/etacomparison_scaledsigma_cHWcWW_ep.pdf][etacomparison_scaledsigma_cHWcWW_ep.pdf]]: etacomparison_scaledsigma_cHWcWW_ep.pdf

---++ Analysis Graphs

Pseudorapidity graphs showing the effect of the eta cut (only events with eta_em &lt;2.75 and eta_ep &lt;2.75 used) on different EFT parameters:
   * [[%ATTACHURLPATH%/deta_cHW5_etacut.pdf][deta_cHW5_etacut.pdf]]: deta_cHW5_etacut.pdf

   * [[%ATTACHURLPATH%/deta_cHW75_etacut.pdf][deta_cHW75_etacut.pdf]]: deta_cHW75_etacut.pdf

   * [[%ATTACHURLPATH%/deta_cWW5_etacut.pdf][deta_cWW5_etacut.pdf]]: deta_cWW5_etacut.pdf

   * [[%ATTACHURLPATH%/deta_cWW75_etacut.pdf][deta_cWW75_etacut.pdf]]: deta_cWW75_etacut.pdf

   * [[%ATTACHURLPATH%/deta_SM_etacut.pdf][deta_SM_etacut.pdf]]: deta_SM_etacut.pdf
Effect of eta cut (only events with eta_em &lt;2.75 and eta_ep &lt;2.75 used) on the background. Get strong rejection for delta eta &gt;2:
   * [[%ATTACHURLPATH%/deta_bck_etacut.pdf][deta_bck_etacut.pdf]]: deta_bck_etacut.pdf
-- %USERSIG{MoragWilliams - 2016-11-07}%
---++ Comments

%COMMENT%

Attachments

Topic attachments
I	Attachment	History	Action	Size	Date	Who	Comment
pdf	deta_SM_etacut.pdf	r1	manage	15.6 K	2017-03-05 - 18:56	MoragWilliams
pdf	deta_bck_etacut.pdf	r1	manage	15.0 K	2017-03-06 - 16:11	MoragWilliams
pdf	deta_cHW5_etacut.pdf	r1	manage	15.4 K	2017-03-05 - 18:55	MoragWilliams
pdf	deta_cHW75_etacut.pdf	r1	manage	15.4 K	2017-03-05 - 18:56	MoragWilliams
pdf	deta_cWW5_etacut.pdf	r1	manage	15.4 K	2017-03-05 - 18:56	MoragWilliams
pdf	deta_cWW75_etacut.pdf	r1	manage	15.5 K	2017-03-05 - 18:56	MoragWilliams
pdf	etacomparison_scaled_SM_em.pdf	r1	manage	14.4 K	2016-12-02 - 13:47	MoragWilliams	etacomparison_scaled_SM_em.pdf
pdf	etacomparison_scaled_SM_ep.pdf	r1	manage	14.3 K	2016-12-02 - 15:35	MoragWilliams	etacomparison_scaled_SM_ep.pdf
pdf	etacomparison_scaled_cHW_em.pdf	r1	manage	17.3 K	2016-12-02 - 13:41	MoragWilliams	etacomparison_scaled_cHW_em.pdf
pdf	etacomparison_scaled_cHW_ep.pdf	r1	manage	17.3 K	2016-12-02 - 15:33	MoragWilliams	etacomparison_scaled_cHW_ep.pdf
pdf	etacomparison_scaled_cHWcWW_em.pdf	r2 r1	manage	17.3 K	2017-01-09 - 16:57	MoragWilliams	etacomparison_scaled_cHWcWW_em.pdf
pdf	etacomparison_scaled_cHWcWW_ep.pdf	r2 r1	manage	17.4 K	2017-01-09 - 16:57	MoragWilliams	etacomparison_scaled_cHWcWW_ep.pdf
pdf	etacomparison_scaled_cWW_em.pdf	r1	manage	17.3 K	2016-12-02 - 13:42	MoragWilliams	etacomparison_scaled_cWW_em.pdf
pdf	etacomparison_scaled_cWW_ep.pdf	r1	manage	17.4 K	2016-12-02 - 15:33	MoragWilliams	etacomparison_scaled_cWW_ep.pdf
pdf	etacomparison_scaledsigma_SM_em.pdf	r1	manage	14.5 K	2016-12-02 - 13:47	MoragWilliams	etacomparison_scaledsigma_SM_em.pdf
pdf	etacomparison_scaledsigma_SM_ep.pdf	r1	manage	14.5 K	2016-12-02 - 15:37	MoragWilliams	etacomparison_scaledsigma_SM_ep.pdf
pdf	etacomparison_scaledsigma_cHW_em.pdf	r1	manage	17.5 K	2016-12-02 - 13:42	MoragWilliams	etacomparison_scaledsigma_cHW_em.pdf
pdf	etacomparison_scaledsigma_cHW_ep.pdf	r1	manage	17.5 K	2016-12-02 - 15:34	MoragWilliams	etacomparison_scaledsigma_cHW_ep.pdf
pdf	etacomparison_scaledsigma_cHWcWW_em.pdf	r2 r1	manage	17.4 K	2017-01-09 - 16:56	MoragWilliams	etacomparison_scaledsigma_cHWcWW_em.pdf
pdf	etacomparison_scaledsigma_cHWcWW_ep.pdf	r2 r1	manage	17.4 K	2017-01-09 - 16:56	MoragWilliams	etacomparison_scaledsigma_cHWcWW_ep.pdf
pdf	etacomparison_scaledsigma_cWW_em.pdf	r1	manage	17.5 K	2016-12-02 - 13:43	MoragWilliams	etacomparison_scaledsigma_cWW_em.pdf
pdf	etacomparison_scaledsigma_cWW_ep.pdf	r1	manage	17.5 K	2016-12-02 - 15:34	MoragWilliams	etacomparison_scaledsigma_cWW_ep.pdf
pdf	etacomparison_unscaled_SM_em.pdf	r1	manage	14.5 K	2016-12-02 - 13:46	MoragWilliams	etacomparison_unscaled_SM_em.pdf
pdf	etacomparison_unscaled_SM_ep.pdf	r1	manage	14.5 K	2016-12-02 - 15:36	MoragWilliams	etacomparison_unscaled_SM_ep.pdf
pdf	etacomparison_unscaled_cHW_em.pdf	r1	manage	17.3 K	2016-12-02 - 13:43	MoragWilliams	etacomparison_unscaled_cHW_em.pdf
pdf	etacomparison_unscaled_cHW_ep.pdf	r1	manage	17.3 K	2016-12-02 - 15:35	MoragWilliams	etacomparison_unscaled_cHW_ep.pdf
pdf	etacomparison_unscaled_cHWcWW_em.pdf	r1	manage	17.1 K	2017-01-09 - 16:58	MoragWilliams	etacomparison_unscaled_cHWcWW_em.pdf
pdf	etacomparison_unscaled_cHWcWW_ep.pdf	r2 r1	manage	17.1 K	2017-01-09 - 16:55	MoragWilliams	etacomparison_unscaled_cHWcWW_ep.pdf
pdf	etacomparison_unscaled_cWW_em.pdf	r1	manage	17.2 K	2016-12-02 - 13:44	MoragWilliams	etacomparison_unscaled_cWW_em.pdf
pdf	etacomparison_unscaled_cWW_ep.pdf	r1	manage	17.3 K	2016-12-02 - 15:36	MoragWilliams	etacomparison_unscaled_cWW_ep.pdf

Topic revision: r13 - 2017-03-06 - MoragWilliams

LinearCollider