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

Sihp data #2154

Merged
merged 13 commits into from
Sep 20, 2024
Merged

Sihp data #2154

merged 13 commits into from
Sep 20, 2024

Conversation

Radonirinaunimi
Copy link
Member

@Radonirinaunimi Radonirinaunimi commented Sep 17, 2024

This adds the single hadron production datasets:

Dataset names paper hepdata
PHENIX-2009_SHP_200GEV_PI0_ALL paper data
STAR-2006_SHP_200GEV_PI0_ALL paper data
PHENIX-2013_SHP_510GEV_PI0_ALL paper data
STAR-2013_SHP_510GEV_PI0_ALL-LOWRAP paper data
STAR-2013_SHP_510GEV_PI0_ALL-HIGHRAP paper data

These do not have the corresponding FK tables yet but we do have the codes to generate the predictions NNPDF/sihp-pp.

Copy link
Member

@scarlehoff scarlehoff left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Please, rebase on top of master after I merge #2153

@Radonirinaunimi Radonirinaunimi marked this pull request as draft September 17, 2024 11:18
@t7phy
Copy link
Member

t7phy commented Sep 17, 2024

@Radonirinaunimi given that the naming convention is <exp.name>_<misc.info>, I think it would better to have years in the <misc.info> section instead of renaming the experiments to include the year.

@scarlehoff
Copy link
Member

It depends whether the different years should be taken as separated experiments (when using per-experiment grouping for instance). So with STAR_SHIP_2006_200GEV_ALL all STAR would be grouped together, while STAR-2006_SHIP_200GEV_ALL groups the STAR-2006 dataset together.

(btw, for a moment I thought "Why do we have an 'all' observable, what does that mean?" 😆 )

@Radonirinaunimi
Copy link
Member Author

@Radonirinaunimi given that the naming convention is <exp.name>_<misc.info>, I think it would better to have years in the <misc.info> section instead of renaming the experiments to include the year.

Introduced here: #2142.

@giacomomagni
Copy link
Contributor

I think these measurements might be also relevant (cc @enocera):

STAR 510 GeV: https://inspirehep.net/literature/1674826
PHENIX 510 GeV: https://inspirehep.net/literature/1789851

Charged hadrons (just for reference):
PHENIX 200 GeV inclusive: https://inspirehep.net/literature/1089402
PHENIX 200 GeV pions: https://inspirehep.net/literature/1315330

@Radonirinaunimi
Copy link
Member Author

I think these measurements might be also relevant (cc @enocera):

STAR 510 GeV: https://inspirehep.net/literature/1674826
PHENIX 510 GeV: https://inspirehep.net/literature/1789851

I've implemented them. The reference for PHENIX was not the correct one (it contains the charged measurements) and I rectified it in the table above. These measurements, AFAIU, were performed in ~2012-2013 but I just took 2013 for all of them.

Charged hadrons (just for reference): PHENIX 200 GeV inclusive: https://inspirehep.net/literature/1089402 PHENIX 200 GeV pions: https://inspirehep.net/literature/1315330

Given that we'll not include this in the paper, I will not implement them now but rather do so once we have interfaced https://github.com/NNPDF/sihp-pp.

@Radonirinaunimi
Copy link
Member Author

@scarlehoff please check that 7301318 address all the required changes in terms of having new process options.

And with this, modulo reviews, this PR is done AFAIC.

@Radonirinaunimi Radonirinaunimi marked this pull request as ready for review September 19, 2024 10:02
@giacomomagni
Copy link
Contributor

giacomomagni commented Sep 19, 2024

Thanks @Radonirinaunimi, sorry for linking the wrong reference... to many papers indeed.
I'll have a look at the implementation asap.

Copy link
Member

@scarlehoff scarlehoff left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks @Radonirinaunimi
do you want to wait until the grids are ready to merge it? (so that it is merged "completed" with the right grid names even if the fktables are not in the theory yet)

validphys2/src/validphys/process_options.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@Radonirinaunimi
Copy link
Member Author

I think it'd be best to merge this as implementing the PineAPPL interface to produce the grids might take some time, mainly because we'll have to fix the C and Fortran APIs once V1-format is ready.

@t7phy
Copy link
Member

t7phy commented Sep 19, 2024

@Radonirinaunimi before merging, could you please add the identified hadron name somewhere in the dataset name or observable name (wherever you prefer). Having the PI0 mentioned explcitly in the names and not having to look in the metadata description would be super helpful especially when moving towards FF fits and preparing runcards.

@Radonirinaunimi
Copy link
Member Author

@Radonirinaunimi before merging, could you please add the identified hadron name somewhere in the dataset name or observable name (wherever you prefer). Having the PI0 mentioned explcitly in the names and not having to look in the metadata description would be super helpful especially when moving towards FF fits and preparing runcards.

Good point! Especially since for some experiments/measurements we have different final state hadrons. To conform with the other dataset namings (such as gauge boson production) I added the type and charge to the dataset name.

@t7phy
Copy link
Member

t7phy commented Sep 19, 2024

... I added the type and charge to the dataset name.

Thanks!

@Radonirinaunimi Radonirinaunimi merged commit 8b588b8 into master Sep 20, 2024
6 checks passed
@Radonirinaunimi Radonirinaunimi deleted the sihp-data branch September 20, 2024 14:07
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
data toolchain Polarised Polarised PDF fits
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants