- User Since
- Jul 3 2018, 2:12 PM (230 w, 6 d)
Mon, Nov 21
The new updates using the mass ranges look OK.
Thu, Nov 17
- Yes, increasing the safety factor to 10% is sensible.
This clever solution for finding ASqMax looks OK overall, so I am approving these changes.
Sep 21 2022
Sep 14 2022
The maximum probability is now set at 10, but we may want to revisit this model (reopening this task) in order to reduce the small but very long probability distribution tail that extends beyond 10.
This now appears to be fixed in the master branch.
Fixed in the master branch.
Fixed in the master branch.
Aug 14 2022
Undefined max probability was set to 10.0 in commit a36bf4cd on the GitLab branch 1-complete-test-coverage-of-all-decay-models. However, this does not address the problem of larger probability values that can occur in the high tail region, as mentioned previously.
Aug 5 2022
Jul 18 2022
Jul 5 2022
Jun 30 2022
Changes look OK. It is good to see unnecessary pointers being removed. Just have a few minor suggestions.
May 11 2022
Thanks for the clarification about the BF values chosen, Michal. I agree that all of the changes are OK. I will accept this revision after we finalise any required copyright/documentation changes to the scripts according to Tom's suggestions.
I'm not an expert on cmake but all of the changes look OK and we can add more checks/features as time goes on. Let us go ahead and add this to the repository.
May 10 2022
Thanks for these changes, Michal. Just to double-check, the PDG webpage has the following BFs for the psi(2S) and eta_c modes: 5.8e-4 and 8.0e-4. Do we need to use different values (6.2e-4 and 9.0e-4) to balance things owing to the pythia hadronisation modes? The pythia modes also have slightly larger BFs than before.
May 9 2022
Yes, the default lambda1 parameter quoted in the documentation should be -0.3, as given by Eq 39 (not Eq 24) on page 24 of https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9805303.pdf . The BTOXSGAMMA model description in the guide has various other grammar problems that also need correcting. We could update the latex for the guide in the repository, or put the correct info in the paper draft (or do both).
Apr 14 2022
Example pi0 Dalitz distributions before & after the change:
Mar 2 2022
Nov 10 2021
Instead of proceeding with D76, we have instead created a branch for the Swift-HEP tests in the CERN GitLab (mirror) repository: https://gitlab.cern.ch/evtgen/evtgen/-/tree/SwiftHEP_Tests
Oct 29 2021
Sep 11 2021
Example probability distribution for Dstar0 -> D0 e+ e- decay:
Mar 17 2021
Mar 16 2021
Changes look good, Michal. The code is now more general and has excellent agreement with the previous version. Thanks.
Feb 27 2021
Feb 10 2021
Code can be merged, although it would be good if the "DK P-wave" comment for calcGamma in LauKMatrixPropagator.hh is removed before this revision is landed.
Feb 9 2021
Thanks @johndan for implementing my suggestion.
Feb 8 2021
Feb 3 2021
For reference, old LHCb JIRA task for tau decays using TAUOLA (which could not add spin info): https://its.cern.ch/jira/browse/LHCBGAUSS-841.
Jan 15 2021
Jan 12 2021
Code changes look OK. Thanks for porting these over from the LHCb merge request, Michal.
Ok, don't see any showstoppers. Thanks for writing this model, Michal.
Jan 11 2021
From further discussion elsewhere, it looks like the code needs further edits to allow channel-dependent L values (for a given total angular momentum J).
Algorithm looks OK overall, although it would be good if we could try to avoid using double pointers in various functions.
Need to apply an upper bound = 0 for s_0^scatt if this is allowed to float. Some parameters still need "names" added, as per Tom's suggestion.
Jan 6 2021
Thanks @johndan, the changes you have made so far look good and makes the code more general. I have replied to your questions, and have also suggested that we calculate the barrier radii-squared terms at initialisation. Not sure what we can do for avoiding hard-coding the D* mass at initialisation (regarding access to LauResonanceMaker info).
Dec 20 2020
Example environment setup script, using cvmfs packages:
Dec 19 2020
Dec 18 2020
Dec 17 2020
I've had a first look at the code and have provided some suggestions for changes that I think are needed.
Dec 10 2020
Code can be merged.
Nov 2 2020
Oct 6 2020
Oct 3 2020
I'll try to compare the physics against the referenced paper next week, although I guess this was checked during the LHCb review?
- Update EvtEtaLLPiPi model according to D34 suggestions.
Sep 1 2020
Aug 21 2020
Code review: https://phab.hepforge.org/D34
Aug 19 2020
! In T108#1685, @tlatham wrote:
Presumably then we would have json files that define the tests for each model and also have some other json file that maps the model to the source and header files that it depends on (or probably the other way around), then in the CI pipeline we would check what code has changed in the commit and decide which models need to be rerun based on the changes. Is that the idea?
Aug 18 2020
The idea is to run a test doing:
- Need to decide if including the json header & source file is compatible with our license; I think it'll be OK since we include its own license fully.
- Also need to think about where we can store reference histograms for CI pipline. Can we use CERN EOS?
- Can ROOT be used in a CI pipeline? If not, we could create our own simple "histogram" class to store distributions so that they can be compared with references.