Bump adani to v1.1.0#377
Open
Radonirinaunimi wants to merge 7 commits into
Open
Conversation
Collaborator
|
Member
Author
Yeah, that is some matplotlib thing that didn't bother to fix for the time being.
Yes. TBF, the label should be "NNPDF41@N3LO". |
Member
Author
|
A new version |
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This updates the tabulated heavy coefficient functions using$a^{(3)}_{Qg}$ in
adani-v1.1.1. In addition to the addition of the exact expression of the matching conditionv1.0.6(which is currently the tip of master) this new version introduces an improved parametrization of the small-x part.The results are consistent with NNPDF40@N3LO but with much smaller uncertainties except for the singlet at large$\eta$ where we see some differences:
C2S_3_Q2m2_4.0.pdf
C2S_3_Q2m2_2.0.pdf
C2g_3_Q2m2_4.0.pdf
C2g_3_Q2m2_2.0.pdf
For the record, here are the same comparisons using
v1.0.8:C2S_3_Q2m2_4.0.pdf
C2S_3_Q2m2_2.0.pdf
C2g_3_Q2m2_4.0.pdf
C2g_3_Q2m2_2.0.pdf
NOTE: As confirmed by Niccolò, in our case, we should always use a damping factor of
1.0.PS: The directives to re-generate the tabulated coefficient functions should now be complete and I should also upload here the script to produce similar comparisons as above.