Different Output

Questions about the interface between SARAH and SPheno as well as the FlavorKit functionality
Post Reply
najimuddin
Posts: 30
Joined: 4. Oct 2016, 14:54

Different Output

Post by najimuddin » 4. Apr 2017, 08:04

Hi,
I am trying to generate output of mSUGRA from Gut to EWSB scale from SPheno file from SARAH and inbuilt SPheno input file. I got a small difference in Hoggs mass.
For example:
2 1.166379E-05 # G_F, Fermi constant
3 1.184000E-01 # alpha_s(MZ) SM MSbar
4 9.118760E+01 # Z-boson pole mass
5 4.180000E+00 # m_b(mb) SM MSbar
6 1.731000E+02 # m_top(pole)
7 1.776820E+00 # m_tau(pole)
Block MINPAR # Input parameters
1 1000 # m0
2 10000 # m12
4 1 # sign(mu)
5 -200 # A0
Using these values, from SARAH-SPheno, Higgs mass is ~122 GeV, and from SPheno, I get ~125 GeV.
NB: I have checked that both the GUT and EWSB scale is different in the above cases.

One more think: I am calculating relic density from micromega. Some time it consider se1 as relic (mass is smaller). My question is, it is a charged particle, then how can it become a relic?

FStaub
Site Admin
Posts: 822
Joined: 13. Apr 2016, 14:05

Re: Different Output

Post by FStaub » 4. Apr 2017, 19:39

Hi,

with these values I find values of 125.6 and. 126.3 GeV what is okay and smaller than the theoretical uncertainty of 2-3 GeV. So, I don't know why your numbers in particular for SARAH/SPheno are much smaller. You can attach your input and I can take a look.

MicrOmegas takes the lightest SUSY particle. If your point has a stau LSP, then it calcualtes the relic for it, no matter if it makes sense or not. You need to change the parameter point to get a neutral LSP.

Cheers
Florian

najimuddin
Posts: 30
Joined: 4. Oct 2016, 14:54

Re: Different Output

Post by najimuddin » 5. Apr 2017, 08:48

Hi,
I am really very sorry, I forgot to mention the value of tanbeta=6. Please find the attached input and output files for both the SARAH-SPheno and default SPheno programs. The output are quite different. Using the same input, I am getting mh~1.29590225E+02 from SARAH-SPheno and ~1.25461887E+02 from default SPheno.

Please help me to solve this issues.

It is also my humble request to you kindly suggest me the way to connect the Spheno and Micromega program to scan the parameter spaces for mSUGRA.

Yours Sincerely,
N Khan
Attachments
SPheno_OUTPUT.txt
output file from default SPheno-4.0.0
(34.57 KiB) Downloaded 193 times
SPheno_INPUT.txt
Input file SPheno-4.0.0/input program
(940 Bytes) Downloaded 185 times
SARAH_SPheno_OUTPUT.txt
Output using the SARAH-SPheno program
(69.22 KiB) Downloaded 150 times
SARAH_SPheno_INPUT.txt
Input file SARAH-SPheno/Input_Files
(2.68 KiB) Downloaded 177 times

FStaub
Site Admin
Posts: 822
Joined: 13. Apr 2016, 14:05

Re: Different Output

Post by FStaub » 5. Apr 2017, 10:31

Hi,

I see that you are using SARAH 4.9.3. This version does not include the new corrections described in 1703.03267 which are important in particular for heavy SUSY masses as you have. With SARAH 4.11.1 I get a Higgs mass of 123.6 GeV. When I use SPheno 4.0.2 with your input and define tan(beta) via MINPAR[3] as done in SARAH, I get 124.5 GeV. That looks okay.

To perform scan, you can use SSP: http://sarah.hepforge.org/SSP.html

There are also some discussions here in the forum about SSP and MicrOmegas and potential problems. Please check these threads if you encounter any issues.

Cheers,
Florian

najimuddin
Posts: 30
Joined: 4. Oct 2016, 14:54

Re: Different Output

Post by najimuddin » 6. Apr 2017, 07:39

Sir,
I have seen your website "https://sarah.hepforge.org/". The latest vertion is 4.11.0. Is the correction also included in this version?
It will be very helpful if you could send me the latest one as you mention in your reply.

FStaub
Site Admin
Posts: 822
Joined: 13. Apr 2016, 14:05

Re: Different Output

Post by FStaub » 6. Apr 2017, 10:09

Sorry, that was a typo. 4.11.0 is correct. The corrections are in since version 4.10.0

Cheers,
Florian

najimuddin
Posts: 30
Joined: 4. Oct 2016, 14:54

Re: Different Output

Post by najimuddin » 8. Apr 2017, 08:55

Thank you sir

Post Reply