Assignment of underlying Born pdg id for [LOonly]

Bug #2000812 reported by Claudio Severi
6
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
MadGraph5_aMC@NLO
New
Undecided
marco zaro

Bug Description

Hello everyone,
I am seeing a minor problem with the assignment of born pdg ids for processes generated with [LOonly].

The nexternal'th particle of a [LOonly] process, the one with momentum (0,0,0,0), should still have a reasonable pdg id. However, in set_pdg of chooser_functions.f, pdg_uborn is assigned as:

         elseif(k.eq.nexternal) then
            if (split_type_d(iFKS,qcd_pos)) then
              pdg_uborn(k,ict)=21 ! give the extra particle a gluon PDG code
            elseif (split_type_d(iFKS,qed_pos)) then
              pdg_uborn(k,ict)=22 ! give the extra particle a photon PDG code
            endif

This code makes the extra particle a photon for processes with [QED] and a gluon for processes with [QCD], but in case of [LOonly], both conditions are .false. and the id is left unassigned. This causes the id to randomly move from 0 to max_int, which is undesirable.

I'm proposing we follow the convention of fks_info.inc and assign the extra particle of a [LOonly] process as a fictictious antigluon:

         elseif(k.eq.nexternal) then
            if (split_type_d(iFKS,qcd_pos)) then
              pdg_uborn(k,ict)=21 ! give the extra particle a gluon PDG code
            elseif (split_type_d(iFKS,qed_pos)) then
              pdg_uborn(k,ict)=22 ! give the extra particle a photon PDG code
            else
              ! process generated with LOonly
               pdg_uborn(k,ict)=-21 ! give the extra particle an antigluon
                                     ! PDG code, like in fks_info.inc
            endif

Changed in mg5amcnlo:
assignee: nobody → marco zaro (marco-zaro)
Revision history for this message
marco zaro (marco-zaro) wrote :

Ciao Claudio,
thanks for your proposal.
I think that, in practice, we can always have such particle labeled as a gluon (even for [QED] perturbation). I would not use -21, as some of the FixedOrder analyses that we include in the code may crash

Cheers,

Marco

Revision history for this message
Claudio Severi (claudio-severi) wrote :

Thank you for looking into this, as long as the code is doing something consistent it's all good.
Then it's probably ok to skip the split_type_d check and just assign the nexternal'th as 21.

Claudio

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.