Training with an easy model

Question how to implement a model or how to change a model implementation
Post Reply
Kugard
Posts: 9
Joined: 2. Jun 2017, 05:20

Training with an easy model

Post by Kugard » 21. Aug 2017, 11:00

I am very worried because I do not know anyone in the circle where I work who knows the program to ask for some advice and I practically feel alone trying to find out how it works. I have had many problems trying to learn how to use it and it gives me a little pity to be so insistent with questions like this. I have read manuals of SARAH but I don't understand, please excuse me but I feel cornered that I see myself in the necessity of asking you.


I want to prove how Sarah works and how I can create new models. I was thinking about a model that I saw in an article in order to get the results that it says. If I got the results that the article says, I could feel more confortable that I know how to use SARAH for my own problems.

In that article, they work with a model for an SU(5) gauge group with 5,5 ̅,10,10 ̅ (the 5 ̅ and 10 ̅ are the bars of 5 and 10 but I cannot wirte it well) and 24 chiral multiplets with multiplicities of (4, 7, 3, 0, 1) respectively, taking its contents to be one 24 of Higgs for the SU(5) breaking, 4(5+5 ̅) (four of the 5 and the 5 ̅) of Higgs some of which will be used for electroweak breaking and the remaining 3(5 ̅+10) which I identify as matter. Consistent with SU(5) invariance and R-parity conservation, they write a superpotential of the form

Image

Which I don't understand how to write

Basically, I want to use the RGEs for the Yukawa couplings h_{t} from M_{G} (Grand unification scale) to M_{W} (electroweak scale)

Image

FStaub
Site Admin
Posts: 822
Joined: 13. Apr 2016, 14:05

Re: Training with an easy model

Post by FStaub » 23. Aug 2017, 14:54

Hi,

two comments:
1) If you want the RGEs from the GUT scale to the weak scale, you need to consider the SU(5) broken phase, i.e. a superpotential in terms of fields gauged under SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1). When doing that you also need to think about what masses are superheavy and integrated out at the GUT scale, and what fields contribute to the running. Well, I guess that should be written in your article as well.
2) As you can see from the first comment, I think this is not the best model to get used to the tools. Why not using the MSSM or NMSSM which are already implemented and where you find plenty of results in literature which you can try to reproduce.

Are you aware of 1503.04200 and 1507.06349? These are very detailed introductions with many examples.

Best,
Florian

Post Reply