-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fix bug in the definition of the 1D luminosity. #1443
Conversation
If this is to work for both 1d and 2d sets shouldn't we remove all the denominators and apply them in the corresponding functions. AFAICT this implementation has a factor tau compared to the equations. |
@Zaharid That is correct. And that's the reason why this PR is WIP. |
Also, as you were mentioning in #1442 (comment), I'm not 100% sure that the definitions of the luminosity channels correspond to those written in the NNPDF4.0 paper. |
I've carefully checked the definitions of parton luminosities implemented in validphys. I have concluded that these are as in Eqs.(1-4) of https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.01831.pdf which, in my opinion, are the expression that we should use. I assume that Eqs. (9.1-9.3) in the NNPDF4.0 paper are meant to denote the same thing, even if they are written in a sloppier way (in my opinion).
Fig 9.2 is not affected, as it should, and as I've explicitly checked. |
With these settings I now get a warning running one of the examples. meta:
title: Luminosity plot example
author: Rosalyn Pearson
keywords: [example]
pdfs:
- {id: "NNPDF31_nlo_as_0118", label: "3.1 NLO"}
- {id: "NNPDF31_nnlo_as_0118", label: "3.1 NNLO"}
- {id: "NNPDF31_nnlo_as_0118_DISonly", label: "3.1 DIS only NNLO"}
pdf: {id: "NNPDF31_nlo_as_0118", label: "3.1 NLO"}
sqrts: 13000 # GeV
lumi_channel: "gg" # one of [gg, gq, qqbar, qq, ddbar, uubar, ssbar,
# ccbar, bbbar, dubar, udbar, scbar, csbar, pp, gp]
PDFscalespecs:
- xscale: log
xscaletitle: Log
template_text: |
{@with PDFscalespecs@}
{@xscaletitle@} scale
=====================
{@plot_lumi1d@}
{@plot_lumi1d_uncertainties@}
{@endwith@}
actions_:
- report(main=True)
Do we really need 1e-5 in error? |
That was more or less my question yesterday; I have the feeling that 1e-5 is a little extreme and that we can have something between 1e-3 and 1e-4. Actually, it's hard to spot any difference in the plots if you increase the error to 1e-3. |
I think that would make sense. 1e-5 seems much more than the various interpolations we have anyway. |
Make sure the check works also with the default value for mxmax. Make sure the default is consistent in the check and function.
@enocera ok to merge this? |
This PR addresses #1442 (see explanation there). A quick computation of the gg 1D luminosity plot (see attachment) reveals that it is the same as the one computed with APFELweb.
validphys
APFELweb
Additional checks must be carried out to verify that luminosities are indeed defined as in Eqs. (9.1)-(9.2)-(9.3) of the NNPDF4.0 paper.