Minor corrections to paper

doc/flexiblesusy-paper.tex

@@ -467,7 +467,7 @@ \subsection{Design goals}
 
 \subsection{Current limitations and future extensions}
 Although we try to handle as many models as possible, there are still
-some limitations to what can be done. In it's current form \fs assumes
+some limitations to what can be done. In its current form \fs assumes
 all couplings are real, therefore it is limited to $CP$-conserving
 versions of SUSY models.  Although it is implicit in the title, we
 would like to stress that currently we cannot provide a spectrum
@@ -993,8 +993,8 @@ \section{Setting up a FlexibleSUSY model}
 \fs allows the user to add leading two-loop contributions to the
 $CP$-even and $CP$-odd Higgs self-energies as well as to the $CP$-even Higgs
 tadpoles.  For MSSM-like models (with two $CP$-even Higgs bosons, one
-$CP$-odd Higgs boson, one neutral Goldstone boson) routines dor
-caluclating these corrections will be generated by setting
+$CP$-odd Higgs boson, one neutral Goldstone boson) routines for
+calculating these corrections will be generated by setting
 \code{UseHiggs2LoopMSSM = True} in the model file and by defining the
 effective $\mu$-term \code{EffectiveMu = \\[Mu]}.  This will add the
 zero-momentum corrections of the order $O(y_t^4 + y_b^2 y_t^2 +
@@ -1016,10 +1016,10 @@ \section{Setting up a FlexibleSUSY model}
 
  The corrections can then be used in the calculation of the Higgs
  masses, when appropriate settings are selected in the SLHA file. Note
- that even in the NMSSM the user miust make an important decision as
+ that even in the NMSSM the user must make an important decision as
  to whether or not to enable the generated MSSM corrections which are
  incomplete in the NMSSM.  We feel that it is valuable to have
- these MSSM corrections for scenarios where there singlet mixing is
+ these MSSM corrections for scenarios where singlet mixing is
  very small and in particular for cross checks against the MSSM when
  close to the MSSM limit of the model.  However in cases where the
  singlet mixing is large the result at $O(y_t^4 + y_t^2 y_b^2 +
@@ -1065,7 +1065,7 @@ \section{Setting up a FlexibleSUSY model}
 v_u/v_d$, the combination $v=\sqrt{v_u^2 + v_d^2}$, the squared mass
 of the CP-odd Higgs $m_A^2$, the soft-breaking parameter $B\mu$ and
 the values of $v_u$ and $v_d$, all defined in the \DRbar\ scheme.  In
-an analogue way four more output blocks for the soft-breaking \DRbar\
+an analogous way four more output blocks for the soft-breaking \DRbar\
 parameters are defined.  For a CMSSM example parameter point with $m_0
 = 125\unit{GeV}$, $M_{1/2} = 500\unit{GeV}$, $\tan\beta = 10$,
 $\sign\mu = +1$ and $A_0 = 0$ the \fs-generated CMSSM spectrum
@@ -1681,14 +1681,14 @@ \subsubsection{Electroweak symmetry breaking}
 };
 \end{lstlisting}
 %
-One can now chose between the two solutions by setting entry $4$ in
+One can now choose between the two solutions by setting entry $4$ in
 the \code{MINPAR} block of the SLHA input file to either $+1$ or $-1$.
 See \code{model_files/SMSSM/FlexibleSUSY.m.in} for a complete example
 model file.  If the user decides to not pick a particular solution by
 leaving the variable \code{TreeLevelEWSBSolution} empty, \fs tries to
 find a solution to the tree-level EWSB equations numerically via an
 iteration.  In this case, however, the user does not have the option
-to chose between the different solutions.
+to choose between the different solutions.
 
 %
 If a solution of the tree-level EWSB equations has been found, the
@@ -2138,8 +2138,8 @@ \subsection{Pole masses}
   which are formally of two-loop order.  The method is imprecise if
   the self-energy corrections to the mass matrix are large or the
   tree-level mass spectrum of the multiplet is very split.  Note: We
-  strongly discourage the use of this method for the determination the
-  Higgs pole masses, as the result will very imprecise due to the
+  strongly discourage the use of this method for the determination of the
+  Higgs pole masses, as the result will be very imprecise due to the
   large loop corrections.  \fs will print a warning if this method is
   used for any Higgs boson.
 
@@ -2209,7 +2209,7 @@ \subsection{Pole masses}
 $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_4^0}$, are given in the rows
 $3$--$4$.  Since the
 momentum-dependent loop-corrections to the lightest neutralino mass
-are small for this parameter point, it's pole mass varies only in the
+are small for this parameter point, its pole mass varies only in the
 sub-GeV range between the three methods.  However, the run-time of the
 \code{LowPrecision} method is more than a factor $10$ smaller than of
 the \code{HighPrecision}, due to the complicated structure of the loop
@@ -2221,7 +2221,7 @@ \subsection{Pole masses}
 increased by around a factor $20$ between \code{LowPrecision} and
 \code{HighPrecision}.  However, since the change in the lightest
 sfermion masses between the three different methods is less than
-$\unit{0.4\%}$, one can consider calculating then with
+$\unit{0.4\%}$, one can consider calculating them with
 \code{MediumPrecision} only.
 %
 \begin{table}[tbh]
@@ -2310,7 +2310,7 @@ \subsection{Pole masses}
   bosons, all with an NMSSM-like coupling to $t$, $b$ and $\tau$\@.
   Examples for NMSSM-like models are the USSM and the \ESSM.} model.
 However in such models the user should still consider whether these
-corrections are really the leading corrections in the model or if
+corrections are really the leading corrections in the model or %if
 there are other potentially large two-loop corrections which are
 missing.  For models with a more extended Higgs sector we recommend
 that the leading log two-loop corrections are estimated by
@@ -2772,7 +2772,7 @@ \subsection{Numeric tests}
     $Z_3$-violating NMSSM ($\Zv_3$-NMSSM) parameter points
     used for the unit tests against Softsusy.
     We follow the notation of the NMSSM model parameters used in
-    \cite{Ellwanger:2009dp,Allanach:2013kza}.}
+    \cite{Allanach:2013kza,Ellwanger:2009dp}.}
   \label{tab:unit-test-parameter-points}
 \end{table}
 %
@@ -2819,7 +2819,7 @@ \subsection{Numeric tests}
 constraints and solve the boundary value problem with completely
 different algorithms they could be compared by using the output of
 the CE$_6$SSM generator as an input to \fs and the spectra were found
-to be in reasonable agreement  given the different levels of precision with deviatiuons in the mass spectra $\lesssim 10\%$.
+to be in reasonable agreement  given the different levels of precision with deviations in the mass spectra $\lesssim 10\%$.
 
 In addition \fs has already undergone some user testing. This includes
 analytic tests of the $R$-symmetric low-energy model (MRSSM) and