Thanks Lorenzo !

Opening the gridpack now to check if its the case.

Hi @lviliani !

There is some issue happened. May be I pushed different card for signal.

[sverma@lxplus930 test_new]$ vi InputCards/VBFHToWWSemilep_off_shell_Sig_4f_LO_proc_card.dat

import model loop_sm
define l+ = e+ mu+ ta+
define l- = e- mu- ta-
generate p p > h > j j w+ w- $h, w+ > l+ vl, w- > j j
add process p p > h > j j w+ w- $h, w+ > j j, w- > l- vl~
output VBFHToWWSemilep_off_shell_Sig_4f_LO -nojpeg

When I opened the gridpacks cards are fine. I am going to commit new cards.

Hi @lviliani !

cms-sw/genproductions#3825 etaj is a bit small to me, i suggest you check other requests

so is eta l (to be safer setting it to 3.0)

cms-sw/genproductions#3825 or i think you shouldn't do cut_decay but then put a good mjj

cms-sw/genproductions#3825 why don't you do 5flavor?

These were few more comments that were provided to me by Sitian.

Regarding answer of why I dont use 5 flavor.

https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/708757

and then further discussion for MadSTR installation is done with another Collaborator here at the following thread.
https://answers.launchpad.net/mg5amcnlo/+question/818578
Though this discussion was done for NLO ( currently I am using LO configuration) and it was suggested that if there is no harm sticking at 4f. Then we should proceed with it.
msg 6:

Thanks,
Sadhana

Hi @lviliani @DickyChant !

I have looked at one old run card for ggF background sample ( the sample was prepared in nanoaodv7 campaign) and here etaj is used 5.

rest mjj setting also resonates with old ggF sample cards that were already reviewed.
#3771

Please let me know if I still need to change anything and also I had committed new cards already for Signal samples yesterday.

Thanks,
Sadhana

The issue of etaj is that, if you target a vbf topology involving forward jet, then for typical CMS setup, a forward ak4 jet means a margin around 4.7 (the HF acceptance) + 0.4 (ak4 cone) = 5.1, you are really at the boundary.

I don't know why you bring MadSTR in the game since you are really sending LO cards instead of NLO, the key information is indeed the ttbar as Olivier pointed out, for LO, that could be done with a single $.

While it is true that you have the freedom of doing 4f or 5f (and the handling of top is indeed tricky), in your slides you are trying to compare your generation with powheg, do you know if that's 4f or 5f to compare with?

Hi @DickyChant !

apologies for delay in answering !
The etaj is maximum here not minimum. Minimum can be any number. As you suggested 3 so I guess 5 is fine to use here.

Regarding 4f and 5f, I agree with you. Though the POWHEG off shell samples are prepared by merging various powheg High mass samples ( from 200 to around 3000 mass point) with some MELA simulation technique. I tried to check for one sample which is at High Mass 1000 K. I couldn't understand which parameter I should check here in order to find out if its 4f/5f.

https://sadhana.web.cern.ch/test_new/powheg_cards/

May be you can check the cards.
Thanks,
Sadhana

Hi @DickyChant !
I discussed with Roberto ( POWHEG contact ) .

The process used is VBF_H and this is for 5f , also the POWHEG sample is NLO.

Thanks,
Sadhana

What Sitian is saying is that you are removing GEN jets with eta>5, which might be too aggressive for a VBF process.
It would be interesting to check how much phase space you are cutting out, comparing the RECO jet eta distributions (and detajj) between the current sample, and a new one with etaj set to a larger value (e.g. 6.5).

What Sitian is saying is that you are removing GEN jets with eta>5, which might be too aggressive for a VBF process. It would be interesting to check how much phase space you are cutting out, comparing the RECO jet eta distributions (and detajj) between the current sample, and a new one with etaj set to a larger value (e.g. 6.5).

Apart from what Lorenzo said, I don't know why you get my recommendation of 3. That's for etal i.e. the eta for lepton.

Hi @DickyChant ! I discussed with Roberto ( POWHEG contact ) .

The process used is VBF_H, and this is for 5f , also the POWHEG sample is NLO.

Thanks, Sadhana

In this regard, I would be interested in a 5f simulation even if with MG LO, but it is up to you since 5f won't be contributing to WBF (i.e. W boson fusion).

Hi @DickyChant ! I discussed with Roberto ( POWHEG contact ) .
The process used is VBF_H, and this is for 5f , also the POWHEG sample is NLO.
Thanks, Sadhana

In this regard, I would be interested in a 5f simulation even if with MG LO, but it is up to you since 5f won't be contributing to WBF (i.e. W boson fusion).

I would at this point stick to 4f.

What Sitian is saying is that you are removing GEN jets with eta>5, which might be too aggressive for a VBF process. It would be interesting to check how much phase space you are cutting out, comparing the RECO jet eta distributions (and detajj) between the current sample, and a new one with etaj set to a larger value (e.g. 6.5).

Apart from what Lorenzo said, I don't know why you get my recommendation of 3. That's for etal i.e. the eta for lepton.

Sorry, yeah my mistake. I have thought your are suggesting 3.

What Sitian is saying is that you are removing GEN jets with eta>5, which might be too aggressive for a VBF process. It would be interesting to check how much phase space you are cutting out, comparing the RECO jet eta distributions (and detajj) between the current sample, and a new one with etaj set to a larger value (e.g. 6.5).

Thanks @lviliani @DickyChant !
Sure..I will change now these two parameters.
etal and etaj and do checks. Thanks !

Hi @DickyChant ! @lviliani !

Apologies again for the delay — I’m working on wrapping this up now.
I have a question. Do we need to compare the RECO jet eta distributions (and detajj) between the current sample or the current distributions which are made for gen level jets ?
also I have directly taken -1 etaj (rather than 6.5 as suggested for now) value which is being taken in other example cards.

Thanks.
Sadhana