Backgrounds for Fast Simulation \mathbf{e^{+}e^{-}} Collider Studies at \mathbf{\sqrt{s}=91,250,350,500} GeV

Backgrounds for Fast Simulation Collider Studies at GeV

C.T. Potter University of Oregon and Alder IHEP
July 29, 2019

Various proposals for a new collider operating below 1 TeV are now under consideration by the worlwide High Energy Physics community. Among these are the International Linear Collider and the Circular Electron Positron Collider. We describe high statistics Standard Model background simulation samples generated with MG5_aMC@NLO for collider studies at  GeV. Fast detector simulation is performed with Delphes and DSiD, the detector card for the SiD detector. The samples are compared with other simulation samples generated with Whizard.

1 Introduction

With the discovery of the Standard Model (SM) Higgs boson at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) [1, 2], the case for a new collider for precision Higgs measurements is strong [3, 4, 5]. The clean environment, where the initial state is well known and can be used to enhance final state measurements, contrasts with the more challenging environment at the LHC. The case is made even stronger by the potential for top quark measurements, which until now have only been made at hadron colliders. Possible new physics below 1 TeV makes the collider case even stronger.

Two proposals, with somewhat complementary energy regimes, have been made for an collider sited in Asia. The International Linear Collider (ILC) baseline design [6] calls for a linear machine with  GeV sited in Japan. The Circular Electron Positron Collider (CEPC) baseline design [7] calls for a circular machine with  GeV sited in China.

Full simulation studies with comprehensive collider backgrounds have been made for SM Higgs boson, top quark and new physics scenarios. But the background samples are in many cases statistically limited by the computing demands of full detector simulation, motivating fast detector simulation. The Delphes fast detector simulator [8, 9, 10, 11], which has been used extensively for LHC studies, is a generic detector simulation suitable for use in studies which uses tcl text files to describe a particular detector’s performance.

In this study we use MG5_aMC@NLO 2.3.3 [12] to generate and processes for and  GeV. At each separate backgrounds are produced for two beam polarization configurations, and . At  GeV additional backgrounds are produced with unpolarized beams. For the polarized beam samples, the integrated luminosities are approximately five times the projected target luminosities of the current ILC run scenarios. For the unpolarized beam samples at  GeV, the integrated luminosity is five times a GigaZ production, while for  GeV the integrated luminosity matches the statistics of the polarized beam samples. For validation, the polarized MG5_aMC@NLO samples are compared with the samples generated with Whizard [13] for the ILC Detailed Baseline Design (DBD) study [14].

Fast detector simulation is performed on both the MG5_aMC@NLO samples and DBD Whizard samples using Delphes and the DSiD detector card [15]. DSiD is modeled on the full simulation performance of the SiD detector as described in [14] and is available on HepForge [16] at SiD was designed as a detector for the ILC, but it has also recently been proposed as a detector for CEPC [17].

[GeV] G-20 ()/() H-20 ()/() I-20 ()/()
250 0.339/0.113 1.350/0.450 0.339/0.113
350 0.135/0.045 0.135/0.045 1.146/0.382
500 2.000/2.000 1.600/1.600 1.600/1.600
Table 1: ILC integrated luminosity sharing (in ab) for scenarios G-20, H-20 and I-20 defined in [18]. For each , the integrated luminosities for the most optimistic scenario are in boldface.

2 Operating Scenarios

The run program for an collider must be optimized for the set of measurements which various center-of-mass energies, beam polarizations, and integrated luminosities can provide. This can only be done when the physics landscape below 1 TeV is illuminated by the LHC, but assuming that mostly SM particles will be produced at lower energies and any possible BSM particles will be produced at higher energies, a first optimization can be made.

Precision boson studies motivate running at the pole. Precision SM Higgs boson measurements motivate running scenarios for  GeV, near the maximum cross section for production, while precision top quark measurements motivate running scenarios for  GeV, just above threshold for . In both cases background from can be greatly reduced by colliding righthanded electrons with lefthanded positrons () since -channel production only occurs in interactions of lefthanded electrons with righthanded positrons (). At higher center-of-mass energies like  GeV, BSM physics motivates a more democratic luminosity sharing between beam polarizations. For many BSM scenario signals background from is not problematic, and the precision measurement of the chiral structure of new couplings argues for equal luminosity sharing of beam polarization configurations.

The physics goals for the CEPC, precision Higgs and boson studies, motivate lower energies ( GeV). For the ILC, precision top quark and new physics studies motivate higher energies. The report issued by the ILC Parameters Joint Working Group [18] identifies three operating scenarios based on these and other considerations: G-20, H-20 and I-20. All three scenarios envision a 20 year lifetime of the collider with one luminosity upgrade.

G-20, motivated more by new physics than SM measurements, envisions most datataking at higher . H-20 and I-20 envision considerably more dataking at lower than G-20. In the H-20 scenario most lower energy datataking occurs at  GeV, enhancing the precision of SM Higgs measurements, while in I-20 most low energy datataking occurs at  GeV. In G-20 the beam polarization configuration is democratic, while in H-20 and I-20 the configuration is preferred over by a ratio 3:1. For the ILC at  GeV, 10% of luminosity is reserved in all three scenarios for and beam configurations, while 20% is reserved for these configurations at  GeV.

The proposed luminosity sharing (in ab) between beam configurations and for the three scenarios is shown in Table 1. In Table 1 and hereafter, is denoted while is denoted 111This notation differs from [18], where the handedness precedes the handedness, ie and vice versa.. Throughout this note, the ILC nominal 80% electron and 30% positron polarization is assumed.

3 Standard Model Processes

Figure 1: Cross section vs for unpolarized and initial states from [19] (left) and [20] (right). For the and processes, the refers to the and center of mass energy.

SM backgrounds and their cross section at colliders have been discussed in [19, 20] and elsewhere. SM background processes for any collider can be classified by center of mass energy, beam polarization and initial and final states.

Type Process
aa 2f,4f
Table 2: Background typology for colliders.

Inital states include and , where the in an initial state originates from bremstrahlung. The final states are categorized by the number of fermions (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) after boson decay. See Table 2 for SM background typology and Figure 1 for the SM background process cross section as a function of for unpolarized beams.

The SM background simulation for the CEPC run scenario have been described in detail [21], where event generation is performed with Whizard with detailed ISR and bremstrahlung simulated with GuineaPig [22]. For the ILC run scenarios, SM background simulation has been described in detail in [14]. For full simulation benchmark studies for DBD study, SM background samples with integrated luminosities of 250fb were generated for each , ,  GeV with Whizard 1.40 using Pythia6 [23] for showering and hadronization and saved in StdHEP format [24]. The samples were generated with 100% lefthanded or righthanded electrons and positrons, from which new mixed samples were made assuming 30% positron beam polarization and 80% electron beam polarization.

All SM background processes are included in the DBD samples. Beam conditions and backgrounds specific to ILC design parameters and bunch structure were generated with GuineaPig and passed to Whizard, including detailed beamstrahlung and bremstrahlung processes with the resulting beam energy distribution. In addition to the processes in Table 2, the DBD samples also include pileup from bunch-bunch interactions: to hadronic mini-jets and other low hadrons, as well as low beam-induced pairs. Both the CEPC and ILC DBD samples include interference effects. Whizard includes all diagrams producing the same final states through distinct intermediate particles and therefore includes the interference between these diagrams. For example, some final states can be produced either by or intermediate states. When specifying the fermion final states Whizard includes their interference. In order to avoid divergent cross sections, kinematic cuts are imposed on the DBD Whizard samples during generation. The invariant mass of a pair of colored particles is required to be at least 10 GeV, while for a pair of colorless particles it is required to be at least 4 GeV. The minimum for q massless t-channel process is required to be 4 GeV.

DBD Sample [GeV] Pol. [M] [ab]
higgs_ffh 250 () 0.3 0.294 0.250
higgs_ffh 250 () 0.3 0.190 0.250
all_SM_background 250 () 2.8 255.9 0.250
all_SM_background 250 () 2.1 342.4 0.250
ttbar 350 () 0.3 1 1.000
ttbar 350 () 0.1 1 1.000
all_other_SM_background 350 () 4.0 230.5 0.250
all_other_SM_background 350 () 3.1 294.1 0.250
6f_ttbar_mt173p5 500 () 0.9 0.291 0.250
6f_ttbar_mt173p5 500 () 0.4 0.286 0.250
all_SM_background 500 () 2.3 536.8 0.250
all_SM_background 500 () 1.6 761.1 0.250
Table 3: The DBD samples [14] used for comparison to samples in this study. Mean event weights of order are due mostly to processes with weight 12.5, processes with weight 125 and the process with weight 12,500.

Events in the DBD samples are weighted. Since some processes have prohibitively large cross sections, these events have large weights in order to reach the target integrated luminosity. Some signal processes of interest are weighted with small weights in order to provide a high statistics sample for study. Mean event weights of order are due mostly to processes with weight 12.5, processes with weight 125 and the process with weight 12,500. See Table 3 for the DBD samples used to compare with the backgrounds described in this note.222For more details and the DBD Whizard StdHEP files and logfiles see display/ilc/Standard+Model+Data+Samples.

4 Generation and Simulation

The background samples in this study were generated with MG5_aMC@NLO 2.3.3 [12] with showering and hadronization by Pythia6 libraries implemented in the pythia-pgs package. While MG5_aMC@NLO can calculate higher order corrections, only leading order samples were generated. Polarized samples for and  GeV are generated with electron polarization fixed to 80% and positron polarization fixed to 30%. Additional samples at  GeV are generated with unpolarized beams. For a summary of the background MG5_aMC@NLO samples see Tables 6,5,7,8.

Rather than specifiying multiple fermion final states, as was done for the DBD samples, intermediate top pair, diboson and triboson states are specified in MG5_aMC@NLO, which are then decayed with Pythia6 to all-fermion final states. Interference effects between the same fermion final states with distinct intermediate states is therefore not included, though MG5_aMC@NLO is capable of doing this. Fermion pair, diboson and triboson () states from initial states are generated with MG5_aMC@NLO, specifiying beam type 0 (no PDF) for both electron and positron. Inelastic Compton scattering processes () with final states are generated by specifiying beam type 0 for the electron or positron (no PDF) and beam type 3 (photon PDF from electron beam) for the photon. In the latter case MG5_aMC@NLO uses the effective photon approximation to simulate the Weizsacker-Williams photons generated by bremstrahlung. Finally, the () processes are simulated by specifiying beam type 3 for both electron and positron, using the effective photon approximation for both photons.

[GeV] Pol. Process [pb] CEPC [pb] MG5
250 none 4.40 3.50
250 none 50.2 11.3
250 none 1.03 1.10
250 none 15.4 16.5
250 none 0.212 0.240
[GeV] Pol. Process [pb] ILC [pb] MG5
250 () 0.319 0.356
250 () 0.206 0.240
350 () 0.286 0.378
350 () 0.137 0.166
500 () 1.08 0.921
500 () 0.470 0.436
Table 4: MG5_aMC@NLO cross sections compared to ILC DBD [14] and CEPC [21] cross sections. The former are generally larger than the latter due to beamstrahlung simulation in the latter. The discrepancy between the CEPC and MG5 cross sections for fermion pairs, which may be due to differing treatment of radiative return events, is under investigation.

For each generated process with polarized beams, we generate a number of events whose equivalent luminosity is approximately five times the most optimistic operating scenario of scenarios G-20, H-20 and I-20, namely 10ab for each beam polarization at  GeV, 6.75ab for polarization at and 2.25ab for polarization at . For each process with unpolarized beams at  GeV the luminosity is chosen to match the statistics of the polarized beam samples, and at  GeV the luminosity is chosen to be five times a GigaZ production, or ab.

In order to ensure that the process cross section converges, the event particles enter the effective detector radius, and to speed production, in some samples kinematic cuts have been applied to generator particles. In , and processes, a photon requirement  GeV is imposed. In the and samples requirements  GeV and  GeV are imposed. Finally, in the and samples a requirement  GeV and  keV, respectively, are imposed.

We perform fast detector simulation with both the MG5_aMC@NLO samples and the DBD samples using Delphes3 and the DSiD detector card. The DSiD detector card is modeled on the full simulation performance of the SiD detector. The detector object efficiencies, fake rates and resolutions specified in the DSiD detector card can be reproduced in complex event environments as demonstrated in the validation documentation [15].

5 Background Analysis

We emphasize that in this study both the DBD and MG5 samples are submitted to fast detector simulation with Delphes using the same DSiD card. Any difference between their distributions in the Delphes files cannot therefore be due to detector effects. The differences in generation between the DBD and CEPC samples and the MG5/DSiD samples described here, already discussed above, are here made explicit:

  • beamstrahlung is not included in the MG5/DSiD samples; the beam energy distribution is idealized

  • interference in distinct fermion final states between different intermediate bosonic states is included in the DBD and CEPC samples but is not in the MG5/DSiD samples

  • some MG5/DSiD samples include generator cuts on event particle to control divergent cross sections and ensure the particles enter the detector, while the DBD and CEPC samples include cuts on fermion pair invariant mass

  • all MG5/DSiD sample events are unweighted () so the samples should be scaled by cross section to the desired luminosity, while the DBD samples are weighted () to achieve a target luminosity

Any background analysis which uses these samples should account for differences and assign any necessary uncertainties.

Figure 2: Reconstructed and recoil masses for unpolarized beams at  GeV (above) and () beams at  GeV (below). DBD distributions include higgs_ffh and all_SM_background.
Figure 3: Reconstructed and masses for () beams at  GeV (above), and and masses for () beams at  GeV (below). DBD distributions include ttbar and all_other_SM_background (above), 6f_ttbar_mt173p5 and all_SM_background (below).
Figure 2: Reconstructed and recoil masses for unpolarized beams at  GeV (above) and () beams at  GeV (below). DBD distributions include higgs_ffh and all_SM_background.

For illustration, we perform the following background studies. For each we perform an analysis of the Delphes files with Root 5.34, exploiting multicore capability with Proof. At  GeV we reconstruct the SM Higgs in using the recoil technique with . The selection requires two oppositely charged, acollinear () muons with  GeV,  GeV and invariant mass  GeV. See Figure 3 for the  GeV reconstructed mass distributions.

For  GeV we reconstruct top pair events with in which one decays leptonically and the other decays hadronically. The signal selection requires exactly one lepton with  GeV, missing transverse energy  GeV, at least four jets with  GeV exactly two of which must be -tagged. The hadronic is reconstructed from the two leading untagged jets while the leptonic is reconstructed from the lepton and the missing energy. To reconstruct the top quarks, each -jet is assigned to the reconstructed which maximizes the since the top quarks are produced near threshold. For the  GeV sample we reconstruct top pair events exactly as for  GeV except that -jets are assigned to the which minimizes . See Figure 3 for the  GeV reconstructed mass distributions, where in both cases the distributions are normalized to the DBD cross sections in Table 4.

Systematic and statistical uncertainties on the yields can be evaluated as follows. Reduction in cross section due to beam energy loss can be estimated from Table 4 to be 10% and 25%, respectively, for the Higgs recoil and top pair analyses. Moreover, the recoil mass is smeared by the beam energy distribution if radiative losses are not recovered. Interference between intermediate states affects both the Higgs recoil (intermediate and states with final state) and top pair analyses (intermediate and states with states). For the Higgs recoil analysis, the cross sections for polarization () are calculated by MG5_aMC@NLO to b 8.4fb for , 453.9fb for and 462.4fb for including interference. The relative uncertainty is therefore below 1%, the reported generator uncertainty. For the top pair analysis the effect is negligible compared to the uncertainty introduced by beam energy distribution. Since background from and events with  GeV, as well as events with  GeV, avoid the generator level requirements at  GeV, some background is neglected. Because events at  GeV are generated without kinematic constraints, any omitted top pair background is negligible. The statistical uncertainty on the yields are computed straightforwardly and scale as . Comparing with a DBD sample with integrated luminosity ab and event weight , the improvement in statistical uncertainty is approximately . For events with large weights , the improvement factor is approximately .

6 Conclusion

We have described the production of fast simulation background samples for new physics studies at a future collider like the ILC or CEPC. Events are generated for a variety of run scenarios with approximately five times the integrated luminosity envisaged by the most optimistic run scenario for each . The events are generated with MG5_aMC@NLO with detector simulation performed by Delphes using the DSiD detector card. Finally, the samples are compared to the ILC background samples made for the DBD study and CEPC background samples.

Systematic uncertainties associated with the MG5_aMC@NLO samples have been estimated. These samples lack a detailed simulation of initial state radiation and beamstrahlung. The background from radiative return events is absent, and both pileup from bunch-bunch interactions and a realistic beam energy distribution are absent. Nevertheless, these shortcomings can be ameliorated. Moreover, the MG5/DSiD samples compare favorably to the DBD and CEPC in statistical uncertainty due to the large integrated luminosities and unweighted events in the MG5/DSiD samples.


The author thanks Jan Strube and Tomohiko Tanabe for feedback on an early draft of this paper, the Alder Institute for High Energy Physics for financial support, and the HKUST Institute for Advanced Study Program on High Energy Physics 2017 for travel support.


  • [1] Georges Aad et al. Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC. Phys.Lett., B716:1–29, 2012, 1207.7214.
  • [2] Serguei Chatrchyan et al. Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC. Phys.Lett., B716:30–61, 2012, 1207.7235.
  • [3] Howard Baer, Tim Barklow, Keisuke Fujii, Yuanning Gao, Andre Hoang, Shinya Kanemura, Jenny List, Heather E. Logan, Andrei Nomerotski, Maxim Perelstein, et al. The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - Volume 2: Physics. 2013, 1306.6352.
  • [4] Sally Dawson et al. Working Group Report: Higgs Boson. In Community Summer Study 2013: Snowmass on the Mississippi (CSS2013) Minneapolis, MN, USA, July 29-August 6, 2013, 2013, 1310.8361.
  • [5] D. M. Asner et al. ILC Higgs White Paper. In Community Summer Study 2013: Snowmass on the Mississippi (CSS2013) Minneapolis, MN, USA, July 29-August 6, 2013, 2013, 1310.0763.
  • [6] Chris Adolphsen, Maura Barone, Barry Barish, Karsten Buesser, Philip Burrows, John Carwardine, Jeffrey Clark, Hélène Mainaud Durand, Gerry Dugan, Eckhard Elsen, et al. The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - Volume 3.II: Accelerator Baseline Design. 2013, 1306.6328.
  • [7] CEPC-SPPC Study Group. CEPC-SPPC Preliminary Conceptual Design Report. 2. Accelerator. 2015.
  • [8] J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lemaître, A. Mertens, and M. Selvaggi. DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment. JHEP, 02:057, 2014, 1307.6346.
  • [9] Michele Selvaggi. DELPHES 3: A modular framework for fast-simulation of generic collider experiments. J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 523:012033, 2014.
  • [10] Alexandre Mertens. New features in Delphes 3. J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 608(1):012045, 2015.
  • [11] Matteo Cacciari, Gavin P. Salam, and Gregory Soyez. FastJet User Manual. Eur. Phys. J., C72:1896, 2012, 1111.6097.
  • [12] J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro. The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations. JHEP, 07:079, 2014, 1405.0301.
  • [13] Wolfgang Kilian, Thorsten Ohl, and Jurgen Reuter. WHIZARD: Simulating Multi-Particle Processes at LHC and ILC. Eur. Phys. J., C71:1742, 2011, 0708.4233.
  • [14] Halina Abramowicz et al. The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - Volume 4: Detectors. 2013, 1306.6329.
  • [15] C. T. Potter. DSiD: a Delphes Detector for ILC Physics Studies. In Proceedings, International Workshop on Future Linear Colliders (LCWS15): Whistler, B.C., Canada, November 02-06, 2015, 2016, 1602.07748.
  • [16] A. Buckley, M. R. Whalley, W. J. Stirling, J. M. Butterworth, E. Nurse, and B. Waugh. HepForge: A Lightweight development environment for HEP software. In 15th International Conference on Computing in High Energy and Nuclear Physics (CHEP 2006) Mumbai, Maharashtra, India, February 13-17, 2006, 2006, hep-ph/0605046.
  • [17] S. V. Chekanov and M. Demarteau. Conceptual Design Studies for a CEPC Detector. Int. J. Mod. Phys., A31(33):1644021, 2016, 1604.01994.
  • [18] T. Barklow, J. Brau, K. Fujii, J. Gao, J. List, N. Walker, and K. Yokoya. ILC Operating Scenarios. 2015, 1506.07830.
  • [19] Hitoshi Murayama and Michael E. Peskin. Physics opportunities of e+ e- linear colliders. Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 46:533–608, 1996, hep-ex/9606003.
  • [20] E. Accomando et al. Physics with linear colliders. Phys. Rept., 299:1–78, 1998, hep-ph/9705442.
  • [21] Xin Mo, Gang Li, Man-Qi Ruan, and Xin-Chou Lou. Physics cross sections and event generation of annihilations at the CEPC. Chin. Phys., C40(3):033001, 2016, 1505.01008.
  • [22] Daniel Schulte. Study of Electromagnetic and Hadronic Background in the Interaction Region of the TESLA Collider. PhD thesis, DESY, 1997.
  • [23] Torbjorn Sjostrand, Stephen Mrenna, and Peter Z. Skands. PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and Manual. JHEP, 0605:026, 2006, hep-ph/0603175.
  • [24] L. Garren. StdHep 5.06.01 Monte Carlo Standardization at FNAL Fortran and C Implementation. Accessed: March 14, 2016.
Sample Final State Pol. Cuts [pb] [M] [ab]
ff91ub none none 5000 0.108
ff91pm none 2500 0.0364
ff91mp none 2500 0.0540
aeffe91ub none  GeV 1 0.230
aeffe91pm  GeV 1 0.230
aeffe91mp  GeV 1 0.230
papff91ub none  GeV 1 0.230
papff91pm  GeV 1 0.230
papff91mp  GeV 1 0.230
aaff91ub none none 64 0.108
aaff91pm none 32 0.054
aaff91mp none 32 0.054
Table 5: For the  GeV samples: processes, polarization, generator cuts, MG5_aMC@NLO cross section, number of events generated and equivalent integrated luminosity. Here .
Sample Final State Pol. Cuts [pb] [M] [ab]

none none 1.73 21 12.1
mumu250pm () none 2.36 16 6.78
mumu250mp () none 1.94 5 2.58
tautau250ub none none 1.77 21 11.9
tautau250pm () none 2.41 17 7.05
tautau250mp () none 1.98 5 2.53
qq250ub none none 11.3 156 13.8
qq250pm () none 20.4 138 6.76
qq250mp () none 7.64 18 2.36
zz250ub none none 1.10 15 13.6
zz250pm () none 1.87 13 6.95
zz250mp () none 0.858 2 2.33
zh250ub none none 0.240 4 16.7
zh250pm () none 0.356 3 8.43
zh250mp () none 0.240 1 4.17
za250ub none  GeV 7.71 95 12.3
za250pm ()  GeV 11.4 77 6.75
za250mp ()  GeV 7.70 18 2.34
ww250ub none none 16.5 266 16.1
ww250pm () none 38.3 259 6.76
ww250mp () none 2.63 6 2.28
wwa250ub none  GeV 0.121 3 24.8
wwa250pm ()  GeV 0.278 2 7.19
wwa250mp ()  GeV 0.021 1 47.6
zeezvv250ub none  GeV 0.332 5 15.1
zeezvv250pm ()  GeV 0.574 4 6.97
zeezvv250mp ()  GeV 0.233 1 4.29
wev250ub none  GeV 3.53 57 16.1
wev250pm ()  GeV 8.15 55 6.75
wev250mp ()  GeV 0.579 2 3.45
papzwv250ub none  GeV 10.8 99 9.17
papzwv250pm ()  GeV 11.0 75 6.82
papzwv250mp ()  GeV 10.6 24 2.26
aezewv250ub none  GeV 10.8 100 9.26
aezewv250pm ()  GeV 11.3 77 6.81
aezewv250mp ()  GeV 10.2 23 2.25
aaffww250ub none  GeV 2.27 22 9.69
aaffww250pm ()  GeV 2.27 16 7.05
aaffww250mp ()  GeV 2.27 6 2.64

Table 6: For the  GeV samples: processes, polarization, generator cuts, MG5_aMC@NLO cross section, number of events generated and equivalent integrated luminosity.
Sample Final State Pol. Cuts [pb] [M] [ab]

() none 1.19 8 6.72
mumu350mp () none 0.992 3 3.02
tautau350pm () none 1.19 8 6.72
tautau350mp () none 0.994 3 3.02
qq350pm () none 9.67 66 6.83
qq350mp () none 3.69 9 2.44
tt350pm () none 0.378 3 7.94
tt350mp () none 0.166 1 6.02
zz350pm () none 1.16 8 6.90
zz350mp () none 0.532 2 3.76
za350pm ()  GeV 6.27 43 6.86
za350mp ()  GeV 4.23 10 2.36
ww350pm () none 26.3 178 6.77
ww350mp () none 1.73 4 2.31
wwa350pm ()  GeV 0.397 3 7.56
wwa350mp ()  GeV 0.030 1 33.3
zeezvv350pm ()  GeV 0.702 5 7.12
zeezvv350mp ()  GeV 0.222 1 4.50
wev350pm ()  GeV 6.47 44 6.80
wev350mp ()  GeV 0.486 1 2.06
vvv350pm () none 0.030 1 33.3
vvv350mp () none 0.003 1 333.
papzwv350pm ()  GeV 13.4 91 6.79
papzwv350mp ()  GeV 12.6 29 2.30
aezewv350pm ()  GeV 14.2 96 6.76
aezewv350mp ()  GeV 11.8 27 2.29
aaffww350pm ()  GeV 3.52 24 6.82
aaffww350mp ()  GeV 3.52 8 2.27
Table 7: For the  GeV samples: processes, polarization, generator cuts, MG5_aMC@NLO cross section, number of events generated and equivalent integrated luminosity.
Sample Final State Pol. Cuts [pb] [M] [ab]

() none 0.575 6 10.4
mumu500mp () none 0.482 5 10.4
tautau500pm () none 0.578 6 10.4
tautau500mp () none 0.484 5 10.4
qq500pm () none 4.56 46 10.1
qq500mp () none 1.76 18 10.2
tt500pm () none 0.921 9 9.77
tt500mp () none 0.436 5 11.5
zz500pm () none 0.707 7 9.90
zz500mp () none 0.324 3 9.26
za500pm ()  GeV 2.48 25 10.1
za500mp ()  GeV 1.67 17 10.2
ww500pm () none 16.8 197 11.7
ww500mp () none 1.07 11 10.2
wwa500pm ()  GeV 0.360 4 11.1
wwa500mp ()  GeV 0.026 1 38.5
zeezvv500pm ()  GeV 1.06 11 10.4
zeezvv500mp ()  GeV 0.235 3 12.8
wev500pm ()  GeV 5.51 55 9.98
wev500mp ()  GeV 0.481 5 10.4
vvv500pm () none 0.094 1 10.6
vvv500mp () none 0.007 1 143
papzwv500pm ()  GeV 16.3 163 10.0
papzwv500mp ()  GeV 14.7 147 10.0
aezewv500pm ()  GeV 17.6 176 10.0
aezewv500mp ()  GeV 13.3 135 10.2
aaffww500pm ()  GeV 5.21 53 10.2
aaffww500mp ()  GeV 5.21 53 10.2

Table 8: For the  GeV samples: processes, polarization, generator cuts, MG5_aMC@NLO cross section, number of events generated and equivalent integrated luminosity.
Comments 0
Request Comment
You are adding the first comment!
How to quickly get a good reply:
  • Give credit where it’s due by listing out the positive aspects of a paper before getting into which changes should be made.
  • Be specific in your critique, and provide supporting evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements.
  • Your comment should inspire ideas to flow and help the author improves the paper.

The better we are at sharing our knowledge with each other, the faster we move forward.
The feedback must be of minimum 40 characters and the title a minimum of 5 characters
Add comment
Loading ...
This is a comment super asjknd jkasnjk adsnkj
The feedback must be of minumum 40 characters
The feedback must be of minumum 40 characters

You are asking your first question!
How to quickly get a good answer:
  • Keep your question short and to the point
  • Check for grammar or spelling errors.
  • Phrase it like a question
Test description