dependence branching ratious on tan_beta in NMSSM

[Alya]

Hello, Florian!

I tried to do scan with my bench mark point in NMSSM for tan_beta with fixed other parameters. But scan gave me very strange result: branching ratious decreases with increasing tan_beta. My program work is good (I tested MSSM from this paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.5074.pdf and got the same result (fig 1 c)). So we think may be somewhere the sign is wrong, therefore we get another dependence. But I checked the code FLAVORKit_Observables_NMSSM.f90 and did not find any mistakes. I hope that you can help me.

Below I added SSP file that I used.

Best regards,
Alya

[FStaub]

Sorry, it's not clear to me which BR you mean and why you are sure that the dependence on tan(beta) should be different.

Cheers,
Florian

[Alya]

I mean the decay B0s->mumu.
SSP gives me that with increasing tan_beta the BR decreases. But I checked on NMSSMTools and it should increase.

Below I attached all files.

[FStaub]

Okay, I see.
The calculation of the flavour observables is not identical in NMSSM and SARAH, but should, of course, give equivalent results. The decline which you observe is really small, and the effect is most likely smaller than missing higher order corrections. Is the increase in NMSSMTools also that small? In that case, I tend to say that this is a (negligble) numerical difference originating from the different calculations.

Cheers,
Florian

[Alya]

Oh, I can not say that this increase is small. It is change from 3.248*10^(-9) (tan_beta = 3) to 3.790*10^(-9) (tan_beta = 35).

[FStaub]

Hmm.. yes, indeed. That's not small.
I would need to check where the differences comes from, but have this or next week hardly time. What you can try, is to use the new interface to flav-io (https://flav-io.github.io/), which can read the Wilson coefficients from SPheno, to see what it's prediction is.

Cheers,
Florian

[Alya]

Ok, thank you!
I will be wait.

Best wishes,
Alya

[FStaub]

Hi,

I was briefly checking what contributions are large in NMSSMTools. These are the Z penguins with a charged Higgs, file Bphys.f

Code: Select all

      CAH=(MT0/MW/tanb)**2*(fh20(yt)                       ! Z-penguin
     .      +asc0/4d0/Pi*(fh21(yt)+8d0*fh20p(yt)*dlog((sc0/MT0)**2)))

Those are based on hep-ph/0112305, eq 3.12
However, it seems to me that there is a factor 1/8 missing. Do you agree?

Cheers
Florian

[Alya]

Hi!

Yes, indeed it is so.
With this factor I get the values for BR from 3.57 to 3.79 (*10^(-9)).

Best wishes,
Alya

[FStaub]

Okay, That looks much closer. It's not perfect, but NMSSMTools has also two-loop corrections hard-coded which SARAH can't generate by its own. I'm not sure, if they can make such a difference. All expressions are also copied from a paper, and typos could happen as we have just seen...
On SARAH side: since everything is auto-generated from first principles and since you find agreement for other observable, I tend to say that at least the one-loop results are reliable.

Cheers,
Florian