Page MenuHomeHEPForge

Add EvtD0ToKspipi DP model.
ClosedPublic

Authored by jback on Fri, Jun 21, 4:25 PM.

Details

Summary

Add EvtD0ToKspipi DP model, courtesy of Camille Normand (LHCb), based on D119.

Test Plan

Added two JSON test files, one with the D0 mode only and another including the parent B decay.

Diff Detail

Repository
rEVTGEN evtgen
Lint
Lint Not Applicable
Unit
Tests Not Applicable

Event Timeline

jback requested review of this revision.Fri, Jun 21, 4:25 PM
jback created this revision.
jback changed the visibility from "All Users" to "Public (No Login Required)".Fri, Jun 21, 4:27 PM
jback changed the edit policy from "All Users" to "Restricted Project (Project)".
jback added a project: Restricted Project.
jback added a subscriber: Restricted Project.

Validation plots comparing the EvtGen model with the Belle/BaBar paper:

Thanks for this @jback! I've just spotted a couple of small things.

I've run the two test JSON files with the changes that I've suggested and it doesn't seem to have much impact on the massSq distributions - they still look approximately like the ones in the PDF you attached, although the stats are lower. However, maybe best to run them yourself and compare them to what you had before to be really sure.

src/EvtGenModels/EvtD0ToKspipi.cpp
203โ€“205

clang-16 reports a warning here:

warning: implicit conversion from 'double' to 'bool' changes value from -1 to true [-Wliteral-conversion]
        LASS_phi_F, LASS_R, LASS_phi_R, false, -1.0 );

Looking at the EvtDalitzReso constructor signatures, it looks like the last two arguments are the wrong way around.

234โ€“236

Similarly.

src/EvtGenModels/EvtModelReg.cpp
61

clang-format wants to put this two lines higher, just after EvtCBTo3piP00.hh

This revision now requires changes to proceed.Mon, Jun 24, 10:26 AM
  • Fix ordering of LASS parameters in D0ToKspipi. Updated History file.
  • Set number of events as 5,000 for the D0ToKspipi JSON tests.

Thanks for spotting the parameter ordering error. We also need to fix this for D119 for the Sim10 branch "R02-02-00-patches". What is the best way to proceed?

I've attached the updated performance plots, which don't change much compared to the earlier version:

Thanks @jback for fixing these quickly. Good point about the R02-02-00-patches version needing fixing. Apologies for not spotting this when reviewing D119. I still haven't made the release from that branch, so we can include the fix before I do so. I think you can just cherry-pick the relevant commits from here onto that branch.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Mon, Jun 24, 1:41 PM
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.