Error: Failed to retrieve initial conditions on the first try

[liangshang]

Dear Florian,
I have used the Spheno to generate the spectrum for Vevacious in the NMSSM. But I still got some error as the followings:

File "./CosmoTransitions-master/cosmoTransitions/pathDeformation.py", line 957, in fullTunneling
profile1D = tobj.findProfile(**tunneling_findProfile_params)
File "./CosmoTransitions-master/cosmoTransitions/tunneling1D.py", line 694, in findProfile
assert rf is not None, "Failed to retrieve initial "\
AssertionError: Failed to retrieve initial conditions on the first try.

I don't know why. And does it indicate that the parameter point is unstable? What's more, I have put the spectrum file spheno_spetrum.txt and the logging file of running Vevacious vev.log in the attachment. I’m looking forward to your reply.
(P.S. The model file I used is also in the attachment. And the version 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 of Vevacious both generated the same error message.)

Best wishes and regards,
Liang

[benoleary]

Unfortunately that error is directly form CosmoTransitions. Unless there is something obviously wrong with the potential and/or the DSB and/or panic vacua, there's not much to say from the side of Vevacious or SARAH.

If CosmoTransitions is being called, the DSB vacuum is metastable (i.e. not absolutely stable). How long-lived is the question which should be answered by CosmoTransitions, but it is crashing instead.

Looking at the log file (thank you for attaching this!), there is nothing obviously wrong about the input for CosmoTransitions, as it successfully calculated the tunneling action for the same potential for similar vacua and temperatures.

I would suggest turning off the calculation of tunneling at non-zero temperature to see what the lifetime at T=0 is. (The command-line argument is "--tunnel_thermally=False" - note the uppercase F.)

Regards,
Ben

[liangshang]

Dear Ben,
Thank you for your reply. I did as your suggestion. And I got the following result successfully. But I am not sure I could use this result because of the warning message, which indicates that our parameter point is long-lived. What’s more, could I ignore this warning message?

Best wishes and regards,
Liang

P.S.: Result I got as followings:
Warning! Quantum tunneling time for a very large action (131340.130158) asked for, which would probably cause an overflow in the evaluation of the exponent. Returning a tunneling time for an action of 709.089565713.
Zero-temperature tunneling time in 1/GeV = 9.73691527544e+73
Age of known Universe in 1/GeV = 6.53285031322e+41
Tunneling time in Universe-ages = 1.49045436656e+32
Zero-temperature tunneling time estimate is 6.40895377622e+49 seconds (age of known Universe = 4.3e+17 seconds).


Result summary (not recapping warnings):
<reference version="1.2.00" citation="arXiv:1307.1477, arXiv:1405.7376 (hep-ph)" />
<stability slha_summary_code="0" > metastable </stability>
<quantum_stability> long-lived </quantum_stability>
<thermal_stability> high_survival_probability </thermal_stability>
<global_minimum relative_depth="-162539688.851" vd="-1.68759794388e-09" vE3="0.0" vL3="0.0" vQ3="0.0" vT3="0.0" vu="263.718307512" vS="0.00092041202479" />
<input_minimum relative_depth="-112846425.86" vd="13.9374681364" vE3="0.0" vL3="0.0" vQ3="0.0" vT3="0.0" vu="241.903638412" vS="573.01142487" />
<lifetime action_calculation="deformed_path" > 1.49045436656e+32 </lifetime>
<tunneling_temperature survival_probability="not_calculated" > not_calculated </tunneling_temperature>

[benoleary]

Dear Liang,

feel free to ignore the warning. The lifetime of the point was calculated to be "very very large". However, due to the finite number of bits available to represent a number, and because exp(several thousand) is extremely large, Vevacious just caps the number. The warning is there so that you don't think that it's suspicious that you keep getting lifetimes 6.40895377622e+49 seconds.

Regards,
Ben

[liangshang]

Dear Ben,
Thank you for your reply. I want to know if it is reasonable to calculate the tunneling action at T=0 and ignore the non-zero temperature effect. Looking forward to your reply.

Best wishes and regards,
Liang

[benoleary]

Yes. The zero-temperature calculation is a bit more general, as it makes no assumptions about the thermal history of the Universe. The T > 0 calculation can restrict viable parameter spaces more than the T = 0 calculation, but if your point is "action is so large that the exponentiation would cause computer problems"-long-lived, than the thermal effects probably won't do enough to destabilize the metastable vacuum.

[liangshang]

Dear Ben,
Thank you for your reply. I understand.

Best wishes and regards,
Liang