Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Oct 11, 2021. It is now read-only.

fix: decouple parity violating amplitudes #421

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jan 7, 2021
Merged

Conversation

spflueger
Copy link
Member

@spflueger spflueger commented Jan 6, 2021

Decouple coefficients of amplitudes which are parity violating, by generating the correct coefficient names.

Closes #419

  • Add test to verify decoupling for parity violating amplitudes

@spflueger spflueger added the Bug Something isn't working label Jan 6, 2021
@spflueger
Copy link
Member Author

@sebastianJaeger Could you verify that this creates the correct amplitude coefficient couplings. I already checked it but just to verify.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 6, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #421 (1474677) into master (d7f81eb) will increase coverage by 0.10%.
The diff coverage is 93.33%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #421      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   89.48%   89.58%   +0.10%     
==========================================
  Files          26       26              
  Lines        3747     3745       -2     
  Branches      926      927       +1     
==========================================
+ Hits         3353     3355       +2     
+ Misses        201      199       -2     
+ Partials      193      191       -2     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 89.58% <93.33%> (+0.10%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/expertsystem/amplitude/helicity_decay.py 90.31% <93.33%> (+1.46%) ⬆️

@redeboer
Copy link
Member

redeboer commented Jan 6, 2021

[ ] Add test to verify coupling for parity conserving amplitudes
[ ] Add test to verify decoupling for parity violating amplitudes

Simplest would be to add some new channel test (tests/channel), for instance @sebastianJaeger's channel (versus what?). Better would be a proper unit test where you don't need to run the whole StateTransitionManager, but that is difficult to do.

Decouple coefficients of amplitudes which are parity violating, by
generating the correct coefficient names.
@redeboer redeboer force-pushed the parity-coupling-fix branch from 8d1c922 to 3e6e47d Compare January 6, 2021 15:57
spflueger and others added 3 commits January 6, 2021 17:16
Strength intensity is removed by #417
Add prefactor to amplitudes which are parity violating. This has the
advantage that the complex coefficient of parity partner amplitudes are
equal in case of a vanishing parity violation.
Copy link
Member

@redeboer redeboer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Good job!
I'm only thinking about the tests. Currently, only the expected number of parameters is tested. What can happen at most then is that the number changes and you have to figure out whether that change in number makes sense (could come from anything, e.g. #417 would have triggered that). So best would be to somehow compare a channel that does couple the parameters with one that don't, even if by expected number of parameters.
But this argument goes for many of the tests. Many of them don't really test for any logic, but instead just check whether the framework produces the right numbers.

@redeboer redeboer merged commit 3bf1b4f into master Jan 7, 2021
@redeboer redeboer deleted the parity-coupling-fix branch January 7, 2021 09:17
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
Bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Parity violation in weak decays is not considered in coupling of amplitudes
2 participants