• CalcHep problem with a quintuplet

Hi Florian,

I'm having some troubles running a model with a quintuplet in CalcHep.
Compiling CalcOmega_with_DDetection_MOv4.2 gives me the following error:

==== Calculation of CDM-nucleons amplitudes =====
TREE LEVEL
ERROR:Error in table 'Vertices ' line 0 field '' position 0:
problem with chargre conservation Wm(-3) Wm(-3) ~Etp2(3) ~Et2m(-3)
CDM-nucleon micrOMEGAs amplitudes:
proton: SI 0.000E+00 SD 0.000E+00
neutron: SI 0.000E+00 SD 0.000E+00
BOX DIAGRAMS
ERROR:Error in table 'Vertices ' line 0 field '' position 0:
problem with chargre conservation Wm(-3) Wm(-3) ~Etp2(3) ~Et2m(-3)
CDM-nucleon micrOMEGAs amplitudes:
proton: SI 0.000E+00 SD 0.000E+00
neutron: SI 0.000E+00 SD 0.000E+00
CDM-nucleon cross sections[pb]:
proton SI 0.000E+00 SD 0.000E+00
neutron SI 0.000E+00 SD 0.000E+00

I loaded the model in Mathematica to check it and the vertex is zero and I can't find any charge violation.

I attached the model file. Can you please give me a clue about what's happening?

Thank you,
Cheers!

Hi,

it can happen that vertices, which are zero in principle, are nevertheless written out by SARAH. The reason is that those vertices only simplify to zero if (phyiscal) relations among parameters are applied.
You can try to set

Code: Select all

FastVertexCalculation=True

before getting the CalcHep output. With this flag, SARAH skips all vertices which seem to violate charge conservation.

Cheers
Florian

Hi Florian,

I tried your solution, but the problem is still there.

Cheers

Hi,

did you check if the electric charge of the particles is correctly defined in particles.m?

Cheers
Florian

Hi Florian,

charge assignments in particles.m are ok.

Cheers

Ok, then I need to run the model and check what goes wrong. For that, I would need particles.m and parameters.m. You can send it via mail if you don't want to share it here.

Cheers,
Florian

There you are.

Thank you,
Cheers

Hi,

1) when I run your model, I get a lot of warnings about missing definitions in particles.m and parameters.m.

Code: Select all

Checking model for missing definitions

CheckModelFiles::MissingParticle: The following particle are not defined in ParticleDefinitions in particles.m: {Fmmm,F0,Fm,Fmm,et20,et2m,et2ppp,phiI,Etp,Etpp}

CheckModelFiles::MissingParameter: The following parameters are not defined in ParameterDefinitions in paramaters.m: {lambda1,Mpsi,Mx1,m2et1,m2et2,m2phi,muphi,lambda9,lambda17,lambda20,lambda19,lambda14,lambda10,lambda27,Y1,Y2,Y3b1,Y3b2,Yp1b1,Yp1b2,Yp2b1,Yp2b2,mu2x,mu3x,mu1x,lambda2,lambda2b,lambda3,lambda4,lambda6,lambda5,lambda7,lambda8,lambda15,lambda16,lambda24,lambda18,lambda21,lambda22,lambda11,lambda12,lambda13,lambda23,lambda25,lambda26,vT,VF0L,VF0R,VFm,VFp,<<8>>}

CheckModelFiles::MissingOutputName: For the following particles is no OutputName defined: {Fmmm,F0,Fm,Fmm,et20,et2m,et2ppp,phiI,Etp,Etpp}

CheckModelFiles::WrongPDG: The number of PDG numbers defined for the following particles does not fit to their number of generations: {hh,Hp}

CheckModelFiles::WrongPDGIX: The number of PDG.IX numbers defined for the following particles does not fit to their number of generations: {hh,Hp}

CheckModelFiles::MissingOutputNameParameter: For the following parameters is no OutputName defined: {lambda1,Mpsi,Mx1,m2et1,m2et2,m2phi,muphi,lambda9,lambda17,lambda20,lambda19,lambda14,lambda10,lambda27,Y1,Y2,Y3b1,Y3b2,Yp1b1,Yp1b2,Yp2b1,Yp2b2,mu2x,mu3x,mu1x,lambda2,lambda2b,lambda3,lambda4,lambda6,lambda5,lambda7,lambda8,lambda15,lambda16,lambda24,lambda18,lambda21,lambda22,lambda11,lambda12,lambda13,lambda23,lambda25,lambda26,vT,VF0L,VF0R,VFm,VFp,<<8>>}

So, for some fields no electric charges are defined at all..

2) Also there are no output names defined and I think this causes the trouble because CalcHep accepts only names made out of 4 symbols. This has the effect that Etp and Etpp ending up with the same name as you can see in prtcls1.mdl

Code: Select all

Etp[{1}]  |Etp1    |etp1    |12346   |0     |MEtp1 |!WEtp1 |1    |   |Etp_{1}                |conj[Etp]_{1}       
Etp[{2}]  |Etp2    |etp2    |12348   |0     |MEtp2 |!WEtp2 |1    |   |Etp_{2}                |conj[Etp]_{2}       
Etpp[{1}] |Etp1    |etp1    |12350   |0     |MEtp1 |!WEtp1 |1    |   |Etpp_{1}               |conj[Etpp]_{1}      
Etpp[{2}] |Etp2    |etp2    |12352   |0     |MEtp2 |!WEtp2 |1    |   |Etpp_{2}               |conj[Etpp]_{2}

So, I guess all problems are just because of missing definitions in your model files

Cheers
Florian

Hi,

Sorry I change an upper case in the name of the scalars. Try with the new model file I attach.

I already made a CheckModel and the warnings you got make no sense. If you check the particles.m or parameters.m I sent, you can see that all the particles and parameters are defined, along with their output names. And in the prtcls1.mdl it generates I obtain quite a different thing:

Code: Select all

Hp[{3}]   |Hp3     |Hm3     |1004    |0     |MHp3  |!WHp3 |1    |3  |H_{3}^{+}              |H_{3}^{-}           
Etp[{1}]  |~Etp1   |~etp1   |1007    |0     |MEtp1 |!WEtp1|1    |3  |\eta_{1}^{+}           |\eta_{1}^{{+},*}    
Etp[{2}]  |~Etp2   |~etp2   |1008    |0     |MEtp2 |!WEtp2|1    |3  |\eta_{2}^{+}           |\eta_{2}^{{+},*}    
Etpp[{1}] |~Etpp1  |~etpp1  |1009    |0     |MEtpp1|!WEtpp1|1    |6  |\eta_{1}^{++}          |\eta_{1}^{{++},*}   
Etpp[{2}] |~Etpp2  |~etpp2  |1010    |0     |MEtpp2|!WEtpp2|1    |6  |\eta_{2}^{++}          |\eta_{2}^{{++},*}

I already checked that SPheno and Madgraph run smoothly and give me what I expect. Also micromegas gives me the realic density. The only problem is when I ask for the Direct Detection running CalcOmega_with_DDetection_MOv4.2.cpp, then I get the error.

Cheers

Ok, with this file the error messages disappear. However, there are indeed charge violating vertices which don't vanish obviously, eg.

Code: Select all

Vertex[{Hp, Hp, Hp, Hp}]

Maybe, after inserting the rotation matrices ,this gets zero. If not, there is a problem with the model.

If I set the option

Code: Select all

FastVertexCalculation = True
ModelOutput[EWSB]
MakeCHep[]

Then the number of vertices reduces significantly, ie. only 94 instead of 134 SSSS vertices are calculated. So, there is a large number of vertices which should be checked if they are a numerical zero, or if some deeper problems are present.

Anyway, with this order of commands, I get calchep model files which pass the internal checks (you can load the model in CalcHep and run Edit Model -> Check Model to see any problems).

Note, the number of SSVV vertices hasn't changed, i.e. there is no charge violating SSVV vertex. So, I guess that the error message

Code: Select all

Wm(-3) Wm(-3) ~Etp2(3) ~Et2m(-3)

was misleading and MO referred to the Goldstone boson, i.e. the vertex

Code: Select all

Vertex[{Hp, Hp, etp, conj[etp]}]

which indeed is not obviously zero, while

Code: Select all

Vertex[{VWp, VWp, etp, conj[etp]}]

vanishes exactly.

If you want to see which vertices violate charge, you can run ModelOutput (without FastVertexCalculation=True) and afterwards

Code: Select all

Select[SA`VertexList[ SSSS], (Plus @@ (getElectricCharge /@ (#[[1]] /. A_[{b__}] -> A))) =!=  0 &]

Cheers,
Florian

CalcHep problem with a quintuplet

CalcHep problem with a quintuplet

Re: CalcHep problem with a quintuplet

Re: CalcHep problem with a quintuplet

Re: CalcHep problem with a quintuplet

Re: CalcHep problem with a quintuplet

Re: CalcHep problem with a quintuplet

Re: CalcHep problem with a quintuplet

Re: CalcHep problem with a quintuplet

Re: CalcHep problem with a quintuplet

Re: CalcHep problem with a quintuplet