• Avoid printout at every step in the scan to find probmax. Print info only at the end of the scan.

ok great, then this can go in, along with D94, I'll take care of landing them both tomorrow

This all looks fine and as I would expect.

Great, many thanks!

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.

• Reverted local changes that were not meant to be published

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.

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?

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

• Added comment documenting the change

Code looks good.

Many thanks for this @abudinen. After the reviews by @jback and me on the CERN gitlab MR evtgen/evtgen!4, I think this is ready to go, unless @jback has any further comments, or @kreps would like to comment?

• Changed names of some variables to make it consistent with model name.

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.

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.

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

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

• Updated History file.

I checked the test plots together with Tom. They look fine. There are slight differences before/after the changes in some plots for inclusive B decays, which I presume might be due to changes in Pythia itself. However, the results before/after are statistically compatible. As for exclusive decays, the comparison before/after the changes shows no differences at all.

Comparisons look good I think.
You can find the plots here:
/home/epp/phsdba/Development/EvtGen/pythia8-build-problem/install/share/EvtGen/validation/gifFiles
if you want to take a quick look.

In D96#2504, @jback wrote:

Thanks for updating the interface, Tom. I agree that it will be easier to release this as a patch release based on R02-02-00.

We don't have any Pythia-specific JSON tests at the moment, although the scripts genAllDecayExamples.sh and compareAllDecays.sh can be used to generate and compare momentum and multiplicity histograms for a range of Pythia modes, although I don't think we currently have reference Pythia ROOT files for the comparison script.

Thanks for updating the interface, Tom. I agree that it will be easier to release this as a patch release based on R02-02-00.

We should also decide how to release this once reviewed and approved. Obviously this can be merged into master but do we then release 02-03-00 from master (i.e. also rolling-up all other changes that have accumulated there) or do we cherry-pick this commit to a branch based on 02-02-00 and release 02-02-01 from that? I'm not sure that we want to release everything that's in master right now, i.e. before we finish fixing all the models that show problems in the tests. So I would tend towards releasing in a patch release.

Works on my M1 MacBook! I've edited two typos in the first bootstrap command:

• lhbapdf -> lhapdf
• hepmc3->hepmc (The Bootstrap doesn't differentiate between hepMC2 and hepMC3)