CalcHEP

Scanning over particle widths

Asked by Jacob

It looks as though the par_scan does not provide the scan for the width. This is the result I am getting:

LKt1bW LKt2bW
-3 -3
 4.2246E-10
-3 -2
 Wrong parameter set:
-3 -1
 Wrong parameter set:
-3 0
 2.8260E-09
-2 -3
 7.7266E-06
-2 -2
 Wrong parameter set:
-2 -1
 Wrong parameter set:
-2 0
 2.5840E-06
-1 -3
 3.8764E-03
-1 -2
 Wrong parameter set:
-1 -1
 Wrong parameter set:
-1 0
 5.4289E-03
0 -3
 2.8628E+00
0 -2
 Wrong parameter set:
0 -1
 Wrong parameter set:
0 0
 2.8613E+00

Thank you for considering my question.
Jacob

Question information

Language:
English Edit question
Status:
Solved
For:
CalcHEP Edit question
Assignee:
No assignee Edit question
Last query:
Last reply:
Revision history for this message
Neil Christensen (neil-christensen-qft) said : 		#1

Can you please attach your batch file?

Revision history for this message
Neil Christensen (neil-christensen-qft) said : 		#3

Ok, I don't immediately see the problem. Can you attach a tarball of your model files?

Revision history for this message
Jacob (jb18g10) said : 		#4

Sorry, I think my question was a bit misleading. I will alter it. It is the par_scan script, not that batch file or model, which is the problem.

Revision history for this message
Neil Christensen (neil-christensen-qft) said : 		#5

Can you give more details? I tried par_scan on a decay and it worked fine. What process did you try it on? What directory did you run it from? What parameter file did you run it with? What was the full command you ran it with?

Revision history for this message
Jacob (jb18g10) said : 		#6

Thank you for your help, but I think I've found why it was not working. I was accidentally scanning over the first process whose coupling I had set to zero. I meant to scan over the second process. When I corrected this, I got some sensible results. To avoid this issue happening again, I am now using the par_scan_sum script.

Revision history for this message
Alexander Belyaev (alexander.belyaev) said : 		#7

Jacob, has sent clarification that actually the width scan was working properly