replace POS_F2 process with more inclusive POS_DIS #2116
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
RoyStegeman
changed the title
RoyStegeman
changed the title
|
@comane could you please have a look? The change is very minimal, but perhaps you disagree with it |
comane
reviewed
Jun 26, 2024
RoyStegeman
force-pushed
the
fix_pos_process
branch
from
c454cb5
to
a2e3122
Compare
comane
approved these changes
Jun 26, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hi @RoyStegeman, thanks for taking care of this!
PR looks good to me now
| label: k3 | ||
| Q2: | ||
| description: Factorization scale | ||
| label: Q2 | ||
| units: '' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess this should be GeV^2
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Currently only
POS_F2exists in thePROCESSESdict in process_options.py, soPOS_FLLwould need to be added as well, that this is missing is simply a bug.Then, it doesn't make much sense to make
POS_FLLexclusive in "heaviness/flavour", while using the more inclusive definition forPOS_F2. However, they are both just DIS structure functions so there is no need to separate them by type. Because of this I introduced a singlePOS_DIS(which only has to supports structure functions and not xsecs).