Page MenuHomeHEPForge

Fixed D0->pi+pi-pi0 amplitudes
ClosedPublic

Authored by lmassa on Jun 22 2023, 10:24 AM.

Details

Summary

Fixes T219

Test Plan

New coefficients tested using the GENERIC_DALITZ model within the Belle II software Framework https://github.com/belle2/basf2 https://software.belle2.org/.

Diff Detail

Repository
rEVTGEN evtgen
Lint
Lint Not Applicable
Unit
Tests Not Applicable

Event Timeline

lmassa created this revision.
lmassa changed the visibility from "All Users" to "Public (No Login Required)".Jun 22 2023, 10:26 AM
lmassa changed the edit policy from "All Users" to "Restricted Project (Project)".
lmassa added a project: Restricted Project.
tlatham edited subscribers, added: Restricted Project; removed: tlatham.

Many thanks for this @lmassa and apologies for the delay in looking at it.

All the numbers match those in your presentation. I just want to run it through our testing framework, where we should hopefully see the same changes in the distributions.

The plots look good, e.g. the m_ij^2 projections as per your slide 19:

massSq_1_2.png (472×696 px, 9 KB)

massSq_2_3.png (472×696 px, 10 KB)

massSq_1_3.png (472×696 px, 9 KB)

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Aug 23 2023, 3:02 PM

I also checked that the numbers are consistent with the ones from the presentation. It might be a good idea to add a comment in the code that the amplitude magnitudes are obtained from the mentioned BaBar paper but corrected for normalisation.

In D94#2535, @abudinen wrote:

It might be a good idea to add a comment in the code that the amplitude magnitudes are obtained from the mentioned BaBar paper but corrected for normalisation.

Indeed, that's a very good point @abudinen. I think just after line 772 of EvtDDalitz.cpp would be the place to add it. It could even include a link to T219, where the slides are accessible. @lmassa, could you please add such a comment?

  • Added comment documenting the change

Thank you @tlatham for reviewing the distributions, it is a really helpful cross-check.

I added the comment as you suggested.

Thanks for adding the comment @lmassa. However, it looks like some other things have changed as well. See:
https://phab.hepforge.org/D94?vs=402&id=412#toc
Are those additional changes intentional?

No, they were not... I updated the differential revision from a different computer, so perhaps the local branches were not synced or correctly copied for some reason. Let me make another revision.

  • Reverted local changes that were not meant to be published

It appears I somehow checked out a local commit that was not supposed to end up in the revision. Now I reverted it. The diff from the initial DR to now shows only the comment in EvtDDalitz.cpp https://phab.hepforge.org/D94?vs=402&id=413#toc as it should be.

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.