Hi Florian,

i compared the mu_(g-2) calculated by spheno and NMSSMtools , and i find for the same parameter points, they have very diferent values. By compared with the detailed numerical value， I find the most differences come from 1-Loop Neutralino/SMuon Contribution. So i dont't know if some error in here ?

Hi,

I must admit that I never double checked the g-2 predictions of SARAH with NMSSMtools. However, with other references, it agreed usually very well.

Cheers,
Florian

Dear Florian：

Could you please give me some references , and i want to check the results.

Best wishes!

Sorry, I complete forgot to reply.
The implementation is a generalisation of: https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9907555
Even if this paper discusses only the MSSM: there are no principle differences in the NMSSM. You need only to sum over the additional "generations" of Higgs and neutralino states in the loop.

Cheers,
Florian

Hi Florian,
I am taking out this older thread again since I have a question related to this.
Indeed, in the MSSM (MFV for the moment), I also observe quite important discrepancies w.r.t. e.g. microMEGAs and SuperIso.
Could you be a bit more specific about which corrections are included and at which level? I am bit confused about this...
From hep-ph/9907555 I understand that they take into account only one-loop contributions, while later papers, in particular hep-ph/0103067 also take into account leading log contributions at the two-loop level. I understand that the latter are included in micrOMEGAs and SuperIso, but what about SPheno and/or SARAH-SPheno?
Cheers,
Björn

Hi,

SARAH has for sure only a one-loop calculation because to automatise the two-loop corrections would take some efforts. Looking at the SPheno code, I also can't find any higher order corrections.

Cheers,
Florian

Thanks a lot !

One follow-up question, just to be sure about what I am doing: are generation-mixing effects taken into account in the (g-2) calculations?

Cheers,
Björn