Skip to content

3-body phase space fixes for pion production in hA/hN 2018 and 2025 - #498

Open
sjgardiner wants to merge 3 commits into
GENIE-MC:masterfrom
sjgardiner:feature/gputnam-fix-ha-pionprod-with-2025
Open

sjgardiner wants to merge 3 commits into
GENIE-MC:masterfrom
sjgardiner:feature/gputnam-fix-ha-pionprod-with-2025

Conversation

@sjgardiner

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

This PR updates and replaces #448 originally prepared by Gray Putnam. Changes they originally developed for the 2018 model versions have also been applied consistently to the 2025 code. The main changes involve

  1. Sampling particle polar angle cosines rather than just the polar angles (a mistake present in the original code and commonly-encountered elsewhere, see https://mathworld.wolfram.com/SpherePointPicking.html).

  2. Introducing a bias parameter that allows reshaping of pion production kinematic sampling away from pure 3-body phase space. The parameter is XML-configurable and defaults to a value of zero (no bias at all).

  3. Updating interfaces to handle non-zero values of the bias parameter correctly.

gputnam and others added 3 commits June 2, 2026 09:52
…ematics. Add in optional bias towards forward nucleon momentum.
XML-based configuration of the bias parameter.
…tion

FSI to the hA/hN 2025 models. The adjustments are intended to match what
was previously done for hA/hN 2018.
@sjgardiner
sjgardiner requested a review from dytman June 2, 2026 16:24
@sjgardiner sjgardiner self-assigned this Jun 2, 2026
@sjgardiner

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@dytman Sent review comments via email: "I tested this in various ways for nuclear targets and compared to old code results. No significant difference even for opening angle histograms. However, no failures so can be included."

@dytman

dytman commented Sep 6, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I tested this in various ways for nuclear targets and compared to old code results. No significant difference even for opening angle histograms. However, no failures were seen so can be included.

@dytman dytman closed this Sep 6, 2026
@sjgardiner sjgardiner reopened this Sep 8, 2026
@sjgardiner

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Re-opening after discussion with Steve, who meant to approve this rather than close it.

@dytman dytman left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Tested by comparing output against existing code. No errors but also no significant difference in observbles. New code is more correct.

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.

3 participants