Do actual `optimize`

[felixhekhorn]

While optimize is called here https://github.com/N3PDF/pineko/blob/ee6b9da3e7ed6078f2816543cf3952399beaba04/src/pineko/evolve.py#L112 it is currently called with it's default value def optimize(self, assumptions = "Nf6Ind"): see https://github.com/N3PDF/pineappl/blob/101cbdefdd3b9f6c0427de48e57bca53e0f3f843/pineappl_py/pineappl/fk_table.py#L37

instead we should add a field to the theory card and use that value

[alecandido]

Available in a moment with the pineappl upgrade to v0.5.2

[cschwan]

Here you go: https://pypi.org/project/pineappl/0.5.2/

[alecandido]

@felixhekhorn @andreab1997 if you start replacing compatibility layer, take this into account.

[alecandido]

@felixhekhorn @andreab1997 what is missing here?

[felixhekhorn]

Nothing - but time 🙃 ; maybe @andreab1997 you can take care of this?

[andreab1997]

Nothing - but time 🙃 ; maybe @andreab1997 you can take care of this?

Yes, of course

[andreab1997]

Only to be sure I have understood, we want to add an argument to the theory card (called something like assumptions) and use that value as second argument of the function optimize instead of using its default value, right?

[alecandido]

But let's start here the "compatibility" project.

This argument was not present before, but we can infer it from:

• Q0
• thresholds (matching scales)
• IC

At some point we'll further change (e.g. an ICV, or similar, will appear, at which point might be easier to directly go for assumptions), but let's assume an adiabatic approximation: everything is as it has been for the past few years, changes will be applied on top.

[andreab1997]

Do we want to close this issue now that the PR #22 has been merged?

[felixhekhorn]

yes