Update the calls to axes to evolve_info#84
Conversation
|
@scarlehoff the old behaviour is to use all orders (mask set to all true), which potentially makes the EKOs larger than needed. That's not wrong just less performant. |
cschwan
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Superficially this looks good to me. However, I suppose you to test it if you haven't done it to make sure the order treatment is correct.
|
For now I've tested that it works with merged grids. I'll test it with a random fktables from the NLO and NNLO theories that @andreab1997 has in dom. |
9bdfb3d to
71f623a
Compare
|
Seems good even if in #75 is done in a different way |
alecandido
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do not ask for a maximum value, just create a trivial mask
alecandido
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Improvements (i.e. simplifications) postponed to #85. The rest looks perfect to me :)
154d22d to
99e5d31
Compare
|
In order to test this I'm redoing all fktables in theory 400. DIS agree perfectly with what @andreab1997 has in dom for theories 4054 (NLO) and 4244 (NNLO). However, I've found a bug for *btw, a bit more than 24 hours to finish all ATLAS FkTable -no jets- using a single core in the eko template. |
What is the status of this? Can this be merged? |
|
We need a fix (I believe in the pineappl side) for the situation in which @cschwan believes is a numerical precision problem within pineappl |
|
Ok, this is ready. I've updated |
|
@scarlehoff can you run This is what is currently blocking the tests. |
|
Yes... but poetry seems to be having a really hard time resolving the dependencies... (it's about to do 10 minutes...) (I had installed pineappl from the repo so forgot about the lockfile) |
|
Are you using Poetry 1.4.1? They recently improved a lot the performance (recently = months). |
|
|
@scarlehoff I'd be in favor of merging :) |
Thanks. I'm at 2490s now... And no, I have poetry 1.2.2. Time to update I guess. |
Closes #72
If I understood
evolve_infocorrectly this should be doing the same as was done before. The only thing that I'm not sure about is what is the implicit masking thataxeswas doing? Or maybeaxesassumed that all orders had the exact same x/q structure?