Positivity cuts#2059
Conversation
scarlehoff
left a comment
scarlehoff
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks! Only some minor comments. Could you also link in this PR some of the fits you've done using this branch?
| label: 'positivity dataset: DIS $c+\bar{c}$ structure function $F_2^c$' | ||
| units: '' | ||
| process_type: DIS_F2C | ||
| process_type: POS_F2C |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why this change? The process is DIS_F2C, the only difference is that we use the dataset in a lagrange multiplier. Also, this change is not mirrored in process_options.py
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure about this one tbh, I think I thought that it might make more sense to have this process_type being under the POS ones.
What are you suggesting?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it is better to keep it as a POS_F2C. The positivity are special. I would however call them all POS_F2?
The other reason why I think they should not be called DIS_ is that there's a lot of hidden logic that treats DIS_ processes differently, better to keep the positivity ones differentiated.
Agree that a POS_F2 would be needed in process type (I guess you are already doing it like that but positivity/integrability datasets don't need kinematic coverage so no need to implement one).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just to be sure, would you change all process types starting with POS_F2 with POS_F2 (eg. POS_F2C_CCP -> POS_F2)
What about other processes such as POS_FLL should we just leave them as they are?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I did rename all of the POS_F2* process types to POS_F2. I have also added the corresponding process types in process_options.py
scarlehoff
left a comment
scarlehoff
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Left some small comments, but other than that I think this is good to go.
Make sure you rebase the latests changes in master just to make sure nothing breaks but looks good to me.
| label: 'positivity dataset: DIS $c+\bar{c}$ structure function $F_2^c$' | ||
| units: '' | ||
| process_type: DIS_F2C | ||
| process_type: POS_F2C |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it is better to keep it as a POS_F2C. The positivity are special. I would however call them all POS_F2?
The other reason why I think they should not be called DIS_ is that there's a lot of hidden logic that treats DIS_ processes differently, better to keep the positivity ones differentiated.
Agree that a POS_F2 would be needed in process type (I guess you are already doing it like that but positivity/integrability datasets don't need kinematic coverage so no need to implement one).
…ed from DataSetSpec by Pos and INt datasets
… of PDF postivity sets
…s to Basic_runcard.yml
Co-authored-by: Juan M. Cruz-Martinez <juacrumar@lairen.eu>
3 participants
This PR addresses #2058
Main modifications:
load_commondatamethod from LagrangeSetSpec(DataSetSpec) so that it is directly inherited fromDataSetSpecwhere cuts are loaded (before no cuts were loaded for LagrangeSetSpec type datasets)LagrangeSetSpecpromotedCutstoInternalCutsWrapperso as to allow for the proper loading of cuts. --> note: rules need now to be passed toDataSetSpecREPORTS