Skip to content
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

Test of final state #160

Merged
merged 13 commits into from
Sep 4, 2023
Merged

Test of final state #160

merged 13 commits into from
Sep 4, 2023

Conversation

HDembinski
Copy link
Collaborator

@HDembinski HDembinski commented Jul 5, 2023

This PR fixes the issues with DPMJET and PHOJET models, which didn't follow the decay settings controlled by chromo, and adds a test which checks that all particles which we expect to occur in the final state actually occur for all models.

Two exceptions are built into the test:

  • SIBYLL-2.1 does not generate Omega- (and cc)
  • UrQMD doesn't generate only Omega- (however this might be related to limited stats)
  • The QGSJet family does not generate Omega-, Xi0, Xi-, Sigma+, Sigma- (and cc)

The PR fixes the following problems to make the test pass:

  • UrQMD does not generate KS particles. Bug was fixes in our fortran middle layer.
  • DPMJetIII and PHOJET were not following the decay settings requested. Bugs have been identified and fixes to DPMJET backported + submodules updated.
  • Vitange DPMJET/PHOJET had the problem as well, and it was fixed in chromo. The minor version of both codes have been upped by one to reflect the minor change.
  • All tests should pass with less XFAILs for decays in PHOJET/DPMEJT models

This PR closes #156.

@afedynitch afedynitch mentioned this pull request Jul 19, 2023
@afedynitch
Copy link
Member

afedynitch commented Jul 19, 2023

So, I found the issues with PHOJET and likely with DPMJET decays, and the mystery difference between 19.1 and 19.3. I actually cleaned up these subroutines in 19.3, not perfectly, but there is some improvement :)

I need to backport 19.3 to 19.1 because no Omega- is definitely a bug.

@afedynitch afedynitch changed the base branch from main to to_release August 22, 2023 15:18
@afedynitch afedynitch marked this pull request as ready for review August 22, 2023 15:18
@afedynitch afedynitch requested a review from jncots August 22, 2023 15:25
@afedynitch
Copy link
Member

@HDembinski Sorry, I hijacked your PR to make substantial fixed to the decays in all of the PHOJET/DPMJET models. I identified the issues and fixed them directly in the fortran codes and also in chromo. I can't request a review from you, but nonetheless I think you can do a review or comment if you wish.

I also changed the base of the PR to be the branch we're preparing for release.

Copy link
Collaborator

@jncots jncots left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Cool. Finally decaying particles will decay.

CMakeLists.txt Show resolved Hide resolved
examples/count_final_state_particles.ipynb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/fortran/urqmd-3.4/chromo_urqmd.f Show resolved Hide resolved
src/fortran/dpmjet3.0/sources/dpmjet3.0-7.f Show resolved Hide resolved
src/fortran/dpmjet3.0/sources/dpmjet3.0-7.f Show resolved Hide resolved
tests/test_final_state.py Show resolved Hide resolved
@afedynitch afedynitch changed the base branch from to_release to main September 4, 2023 10:08
@afedynitch afedynitch merged commit 73b1534 into main Sep 4, 2023
3 checks passed
@afedynitch afedynitch deleted the unify_final_state branch September 4, 2023 10:12
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

DPMJET stable/unstable settings
3 participants