Dear Florian,

I am working on an extension of MSSM-RPV-LnV where the sneutrinos get VEVs as vL[1], vL[2], and vL[3]. The mathematica RGEs are fine as usual.
The relevant part of betaVEV.m looks like

{vL[i1], -(hr1[i1]*sum[j1, 1, 3, conj[hr1[j1]]*vL[j1]]) - hr2[i1]*sum[j1, 1, 3, conj[hr2[j1]]*vL[j1]] -
sum[j2, 1, 3, sum[j1, 1, 3, conj[Ye[j1, j2]]*Ye[j1, i1]]*vL[j2]] + sum[j3, 1, 3, sum[j2, 1, 3, sum[j1, 1, 3, conj[L1[j1, j2, j3]]*
L1[i1, j1, j3]]*vL[j2]]] - 3*sum[j3, 1, 3, sum[j2, 1, 3, sum[j1, 1, 3, conj[L2[j2, j1, j3]]*L2[i1, j1, j3]]*vL[j2]]] + (3*g1^2*vL[i1])/20 + (3*g2^2*vL[i1])/4 +
gp^2*Ql^2*vL[i1] + (3*g1^2*Xi*vL[i1])/20 + (3*g2^2*Xi*vL[i1])/4 + gp^2*Ql^2*Xi*vL[i1], ...}

However, MakeSPheno (which runs with no issue) gives the file RGEs_XXX.f90 where the relevant part now reads

betavL1 = L11CL11vL + L12CL12vL + L13CL13vL - 3._dp*(L21adjL21vL) - 3._dp*(L22adjL22vL)&
& - 3._dp*(L23adjL23vL) - hr1*SPvLxxChr1 - hr2*SPvLxxChr2 - TpYeCYevL + (3*g1p2*vL) &
& /20._dp + (3*g2p2*vL)/4._dp + gpp2*Qlp2*vL + (3*g1p2*vL*Xi)/20._dp + (3*g2p2*vL*Xi) &
& /4._dp + gpp2*Qlp2*vL*Xi

It is expected to see functions like betavL1[i1], betavL2[i1] etc. Is this a bug, or am I missing something here?

Please see the attached file for further details.

Thank you very much for your time

Best wishes,
Ismail

Hi,

betaVL1 and betaVL2 should be a vector. Looking at another model (MSSM-RpV-Bi) which I have right now in front of me, I see: That looks fine, doesn't it?

Cheers,
Florian

Dear Florian,

Thank you for the answer. You are right that betavL1, betavL2 are defined as vectors and also the code from the MSSM-RpV-Bi uses these vectors as betavL1, betavL2 by suppressing their indices (without using an explicit do loop). My confusion comes from the similar code from another model from the database (MSSM-RPV-LnV) where that part is written as

Do i1 = 1,3
betavL1(i1) = -3*vd*CYdTpL21(1,i1) - 3*vd*CYdTpL22(2,i1) ...

What I understand from your answer is that either (with or without the do loop) is fine and defines the components of betavL1 etc properly, right?
If I look at these in detail, for the MSSM-RpV-Bi case each term in the right hands side is simply a vector while in the above MSSM-RPV-LnV case the terms are with two indices which cannot be simplified further. I guess I get the point.

Thank you for the clarification,
Best regards,
Ismail

Exactly, the LnV model is special because of the presence of couplings with three indices. Therefore, one can't express the rges just by matrix and vector multiplication.

Cheers
Florian