-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
fix: decouple parity violating amplitudes #421
Conversation
@sebastianJaeger Could you verify that this creates the correct amplitude coefficient couplings. I already checked it but just to verify. |
Codecov Report
@@ 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
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
Simplest would be to add some new channel test ( |
Decouple coefficients of amplitudes which are parity violating, by generating the correct coefficient names.
8d1c922
to
3e6e47d
Compare
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.
There was a problem hiding this 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.
Decouple coefficients of amplitudes which are parity violating, by generating the correct coefficient names.
Closes #419