Hi, Hrishikesh, I think that you should try to contact Werner Porod directly (you can find his e-mail address on his University of Wuerzburg page), if your copy of SPheno is not writing TREEHMIX and LOOPHMIX for example, even if it is a SPheno created by SARAH for a custom model. I am not sure that ...

No, there's no problem if that's at a non-zero temperature, as the SU(2)-breaking minimum "evaporates" at a few hundred GeV I think.So Vevacious correctly rolls it to {0, 0, 0, 0}.

Dear Bo Peng, as mentioned in our direct correspondence, I do not know exactly what the problem is, but suspect that the potential is too shallow for the computer code to resolve a barrier sufficiently. Investigating the potential at a specific non-zero T might give some insights (as in, hacking the...

Crap, I just lost a long explanation because the forum logged me out. 1) You are right, the <input_vevs> should not have an influence on what is determined to be the global minimum, with the exception that if there are multiple solutions which just differ in some signs of some VEVs, it is possible t...

Dear Melissa, sorry about the scipy thing. It's frustrating when things break backwards compatibility. Unfortunately this is out of my hands. Also unfortunately, work on CosmoTransitions stopped quite some while ago as far as I am aware, and Vevacious is only sporadically supported (sorry). Apologie...

Dear Melissa, CMSSM_CCB.slha.out is meant to be used with a model file which uses the HMIX conventions of the SPheno produced by SARAH. In this case, an example is Vevacious/models/only_with_SARAH-SPheno/SARAH-SPhenoMSSM_RealHiggsAndStauVevs.vin rather than anything in the Vevacious/models/pure_SLHA...

Well, the potential is a bit difficult to do at one loop numerically, it seems. MINUIT complains a lot about being unable to get to a minimum within its tolerances: " VariableMetricBuilder: Tolerance is not sufficient - edm is 0.00112391 requested 1e-05 continue the minimization VariableMetricBuilde...

Dear Jyotiranjan,

Nope.

I think.

I would have to look up to see if they are already included in the formalism which we use for the thermal corrections, but I think that they are not.


Regards,
Ben

I am glad that you sorted out the problem. It is unfortunate, but Vevacious cannot analyse potentials with a physicist's intuition, and cannot report if the potential doesn't seem right in the first place. Also though, it is good that you asked, and this is the right place to come to ask such questi...

Hi, Jyotiranjan. Unfortunately a lot could go wrong. First of all, are you using a consistent level of loop order? In especially fine-tuned parts of the MSSM parameter space (and probably in other models, but we have had a lot of experience with this effect in the MSSM at least), there is no minimum...