Hi Florian,

I am having trouble with a large mixing matrix written by SARAH. As the
number of eigenstates are 12, it generates a 12X12 matrix. However for the
elements 1X11 and 11X1, it gives the same name as XS111. Similarly for 1X12
and 11X2. Is there a way that I can change the outputs to get around this
issue ?

Would appreciate your help on this

Thanks and best regards,
Santosh

Hi,

which version of SARAH do you use? This problem should have been solved beginning with v.4.8.0.

Best,
Florian

I am using 4.6.0. But I still found that the NN matrix was written as:

NN11, NN12, ....., NN111 with the real and imaginary parts in the same way.

I am updating my SARAH version to the latest. Will check the output and let you know.

Thanks and regards,
Santosh

Hi,

It solved the issue after the upgrade Thanks

Best,
Santosh

Hi Santosh,

thanks for the confirmation. Have fun with your model!

Cheers,
Florian

Hi Florian,

The same problem has come back, now for the CalcHEP output when I generate the file with "CPViolation -> True".
It seems to be okay otherwise but as I have complex entries in the mixing matrix, I have to switch on the CPV,
and it writes, for example both the real and imaginary variables in the func1.mdl as

RNN111 for (1,11) and (11,1)
INN111 for (1,11) and (11,1)

entries. Would appreciate your help in sorting this out. Thanks.

Cheers,
Santosh

Hi Florian,

I managed to get it to work by modifying the "output.m" file in the Package/Outputs folder in SARAH for the case of
CPV==True option. I will try and check if the calchep model files work or not. Do let me know if that would cause errors anywhere else.

Cheers,
Santosh

Hi Santosh,

great. That's exactly what has been changed. I just wonder if your model runs fine with CPV and CalcHep: usually, the calchep files become very lengthy, and if you have such large mixing matrices, I would expect that the files are huge. So, good luck!

Cheers,
Florian

Hi Florian,

Thank you for the assurance I just have some sectors giving complex entries and cross checked with the SPheno output
as to which matrices need complex entries and would play a role in the calculations. Accordingly, I only keep them complex which then keeps the model file size a bit manageable. But you are right that it still does take a substantial amount of time to run for the first time. So far so good though I managed to generate the same decay widths as in Spheno through calchep, but would try and run some more consistency checks to be sure. Thanks.

Cheers,
Santosh