Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

New cards for B decays #152

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Apr 24, 2024
Merged

New cards for B decays #152

merged 4 commits into from
Apr 24, 2024

Conversation

jnovoafe
Copy link

Add 16 new cards for several B decays, including neutral modes and charged lepton modes.

Julio Novoa Fernandez and others added 2 commits April 16, 2024 13:58

#
Decay Lb_SIGNAL
1.000 MyLambda0 e+ e- BTOSLLBALL;

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Got error during generation

EvtGen:BTOSLLBALL did not get the correct parent spin
Lb_SIGNAL -> MyLambda0 e+ e-  (BTOSLLBALL)

Could you double check the implementation of this model?


#
Decay Lb_SIGNAL
1.000 MyLambda0 mu+ mu- BTOSLLBALL;

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Got error during generation

EvtGen:BTOSLLBALL did not get the correct parent spin
Lb_SIGNAL -> MyLambda0 mu+ mu-  (BTOSLLBALL)

Could you double check the implementation of this model?


#
Decay Lb_SIGNAL
1.000 MyLambda0 Mytau+ Mytau- BTOSLLBALL;

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Got error during generation

EvtGen:BTOSLLBALL did not get the correct parent spin
Lb_SIGNAL -> MyLambda0 Mytau+ Mytau-  (BTOSLLBALL)

Could you double check the implementation of this model?

@zuoxunwu
Copy link

Dear Julio,
Thanks for the PR and for already replying to my comments:)
I have added a few points I found during tests. I think once they are addressed, the PR is good to be merged.

I have one additional suggestion, not really a comment:
In cards like Lb2LbMuMu.dec , it is a bit misleading to use Lb for both Lambda_b0 and Lambda_0. I would suggest to keep Lb for Lambda_b0, but either L or Lam for Lambda_0.
I am not sure about the convention for this in LHCb. Maybe we can follow their convention? Or maybe @EmanuelPerez has a better idea.
There is one existing card Lb2LbNuNu.dec that has the same issue. (I would rename that card once we have a decision.)

@jnovoafe
Copy link
Author

Dear Xunwu, thank you for checking all the files. Indeed the naming for those Lambda decays was ambiguous. I have changed the cards and now Lb stands for Lambda_b and L for Lambda_0, which is the LHCb standard.

Also, it looks like BTOSLLBALL will not work for Lambda decays because of its spin. After asking the LHCb simulation team, we were advised to use RareLbToLll - it has been used for a few LHCb cards before. Hopefully this model will work for these decays too. Thank you again for your help!

@zuoxunwu
Copy link

Dear Julio,
Thanks for fixing it. The RareLbToLll works indeed.
Now everything looks good. I will merge this PR and move on to production.
Best,
Xunwu

@zuoxunwu zuoxunwu marked this pull request as ready for review April 24, 2024 12:55
@zuoxunwu zuoxunwu merged commit d2e8ad7 into HEP-FCC:winter2023 Apr 24, 2024
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants