dependence branching ratious on tan_beta in NMSSM

[Alya]

Ok! Thank you for your help.

Also I have a problem, that I can not to understand a long time.
We have some good bench mark points. We compare results in 2 programs - NMSSMTools-5.2.0 and SPheno-4.0.3. NMSSMTools give us good results, but SPheno write different problems. I attached the list of problems below (Messages.out). In this file wrote that the problems with B0, C0 functions. So we improved the problem with B0 (put this function equal to zero), but we do not know how right this is. And this is not help us.

Also it is very strange that from two good points of the SPheno misses only one, despite the fact that they both have a large tan_beta. I attached this files (bmp13, bmp14 - is working). This is strange as we think, because in both points we must get big higgs masses. So we can not understand this problem.

[FStaub]

Hi,

the problems with B0/C0 functions appear usually in the loop corrected decays which you can turn off via flag 16 if you don't need them.

Concerning your points: SPhenoo get's a negative mass squared for bmp13 already at tree-level. That's something what you can easily check (and confirm) yourself. In particular, the expression for the charged Higgs mass at tree-level is rather simple:

Code: Select all

mHpm2 = =(4 mueff^2 (1 + TB^2) \[Kappa] + 4 Alambda mueff (1 + TB^2) \[Lambda] + TB v^2 \[Lambda] (g2^2 - 2 \[Lambda]^2))/(4 TB \[Lambda])

and that's negative for your numbers. So, again, I think that the SARAH/SPheno results are totally fine.

Cheers,
Florian

[Alya]

Hi!

Ok, I understand. But I have another bench mark point. I counted manually by the expression that you wrote above, the mass is positive. But SPheno writes that it is negative.

Best wishes,
Alya

[FStaub]

Are you sure that you use the correct parameters in your calculation? With your settings, the soft masses are input at the GUT scale, not at the SUSY scale.

Cheers,
Florian