Correct c and bmatching to be squared and add separate damping for charm and bottom

[andreab1997]

No description provided.

[andreab1997]

I guess I will also make possible here to have different dampings for bottom and charm

[andreab1997]

If someone like @felixhekhorn or @giacomomagni can please run pre-commit it would be good because my pre-commit seems to be broken now

[RoyStegeman]

An you replace uppercase B and C with lowercase for consistency with other keys?

[RoyStegeman]

I didn't look, but does tcards_fonll require any changes?

[andreab1997]

I didn't look, but does tcards_fonll require any changes?

I don't believe so

[felixhekhorn]

1. this is indeed a bug - good you found it!
2. we will need to adjust all theory cards, no? adding the two new fields

[andreab1997]

1. this is indeed a bug - good you found it!
2. we will need to adjust all theory cards, no? adding the two new fields

Yes, can some of you take care of this in theories_slim while I produce the grids and fktables? Otherwise I will do it later

[RoyStegeman]

Yes, can some of you take care of this in theories_slim while I produce the grids and fktables? Otherwise I will do it later

I can, but we need to discuss if we want to have 0 or 2 DAMPPOWERb at NNLO and N3LO.

[andreab1997]

Yes, can some of you take care of this in theories_slim while I produce the grids and fktables? Otherwise I will do it later

I can, but we need to discuss if we want to have 0 or 2 DAMPPOWERb at NNLO and N3LO.

I would say we should have DAMP: 1 at NLO, NNLO and N3LO because at least the theta we want. Also DAMPPOWERc: 0 at NLO, NNLO and N3LO. Then at NLO I would do DAMPPOWERb: 2, while at NNLO and N3LO I would do DAMPPOWERb: 0

[giacomomagni]

Thanks @andreab1997, these setting should be the closer to the old ones, so I suggest we stick to them.

[RoyStegeman]

Okay I'll update them

[RoyStegeman]

Actually, should we do damping in the same way as the old theories. Meaning that DAMP: 0 does only the step function and DAMP: 1 requires also DAMPPOWERc and DAMPPOWERb? This reduces flexibility but keeps the meaning of DAMP more consistent among theories (if I understand the old situation correctly).

I'm not saying this is what we should do was just wondering about it when thinking about what to do with the theorycard for theory 400 in https://github.com/NNPDF/theories_slim/pull/18

[andreab1997]

Actually, should we do damping in the same way as the old theories. Meaning that DAMP: 0 does only the step function and DAMP: 1 requires also DAMPPOWERc and DAMPPOWERb? This reduces flexibility but keeps the meaning of DAMP more consistent among theories (if I understand the old situation correctly).

I'm not saying this is what we should do was just wondering about it when thinking about what to do with the theorycard for theory 400 in NNPDF/theories_slim#18

Yes maybe we should. However in this way it would not be possible anymore to avoid damping completely

[felixhekhorn]

However in this way it would not be possible anymore to avoid damping completely

we could abuse the fact that it is an int and say 1: damping with function, 0: damping with theta, -1: all FKs always everywhere

or do we consider -1 to be unphysical? (I can't see an obvious reason why we should ...)

[RoyStegeman]

Since the -1 would probably only be a pineko feature for internal/development use and never end up in a final theory that could work, it would just need to be documented somewhere.

[andreab1997]

However in this way it would not be possible anymore to avoid damping completely

we could abuse the fact that it is an int and say 1: damping with function, 0: damping with theta, -1: all FKs always everywhere

or do we consider -1 to be unphysical? (I can't see an obvious reason why we should ...)

Yes I agree with this! Let me reflect this in pineko

[andreab1997]

Please check if this is what we agreed on 90c075d

(and also please run pre-commit)

[RoyStegeman]

(and also please run pre-commit)

pretty sure these last changes are fine

[RoyStegeman]

Okay I think this is ready to be merged