Update flha.py

[wzeren]

I added the Wilson coefficients related to neutral meson mixings, but could not find the proper normalization factor..

[coveralls]

Coverage remained the same at 90.656% when pulling 6668da8 on wzeren:patch-3 into 5fc6496 on flav-io:master.

[wzeren]

Hi @DavidMStraub ,

we put SUSY scale to roughly 10 TeV and found the following values for VLL of Bs mixing:

0.56062139E-14 # coeffBsBs_VLLNP

0.96760906E-10 # coeffBsBs_VLL

0.96755300E-10 # coeffBsBs_VLLSM
Best,
Simon

[wzeren]

@DavidMStraub Thanks for the reply. In my opinion, the problem of the factor 0.6 was much more serious than the minus sign, so I am happy that it is now gone.

The sign convention in Buras review also agrees with Cheng&Li eq. (12.91), that the Hamiltonian has a positive prefactor for VLL operator and the Lagrangian has a negative one. This convention then agrees with that of Flavio.
On the other hand, could you please briefly check whether, for all five dim-6 operators, the Wilson coefficients found by Flavio have a relative negative sign difference with respect to those found by FlavorKit? If this is the case, then it should have at least no impact on the calculated absolute value of DeltaM's.
Besides, it would be also useful to compare the expression of DeltaM in terms of the Wilson coefficients between Flavio and FlavorKit. Attached is the file listing the observables (including DeltaM's) using MSSM as the model, generated in SARAH4.9.1 by the command MakeSPheno. You may find the expressions of DeltaM's by searching for the keyword "DeltaM".

FlavorKit_Observables_MSSM.f90.tar.gz

[wzeren]

I did a similar test and found the same minus sign difference as you got. In SPheno.spc.SM, I manually changed the value of coeffBsBs_VLLNP (both real and imaginary part) from zero to (-1)*coeffBsBs_VLLSM and expected to obtain DeltaM_s ~ zero in Flavio, but only ended up with almost double the original SM-value of DeltaM_s that is hardcoded in Flavio. On the other hand, if I set it to be (+1)*coeffBsBs_VLLSM, the result of DeltaM_d ~0 (11% of the original SM DeltaM_s hardcoded). For B_d, I tested and arrived at a similar conclusion.

Now I did another test. Since the hadronic matrix element of VLL and that of VRR have the same expression, I copied coeffBsBs_VLLSM*(+1) to coeffBsBs_VRRNP. This time DeltaM_s gave the exactly same result as when I copied coeffBsBs_VLLSM*(+1) to coeffBsBs_VLLNP. Therefore, I think, VRR also has this minus sign difference, like VLL does. In such a case, I would assume the other operators also have this minus sign difference. I guess, if we set the normalization factor of these operators to be (-1) instead of (+1) in flha.py, the problem is solved.

It would be appreciated if you have a better suggestion for checking the other operators.