Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Pass nl as an argument in qed beta functions #336

Merged
merged 25 commits into from
Jan 12, 2024
Merged

Conversation

niclaurenti
Copy link
Contributor

@niclaurenti niclaurenti commented Jan 9, 2024

Implement APFEL running of alpha_em: below $m_{\tau}$, $\alpha$ runs with $n_l=2$.
Since EKO is never (or at least almost never) used below 1 GeV we don't care about switching off muon and electron running, nor setting $n_f=0$ below 0.5 GeV, as APFEL does.

Copy link
Contributor

@felixhekhorn felixhekhorn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

please also adjust the documentation everywhere

src/eko/constants.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/eko/constants.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@felixhekhorn felixhekhorn added enhancement New feature or request physics new physics features labels Jan 10, 2024
Co-authored-by: Felix Hekhorn <[email protected]>
src/eko/couplings.py Show resolved Hide resolved
benchmarks/eko/benchmark_strong_coupling.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/eko/matchings.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: Giacomo Magni <[email protected]>
@niclaurenti
Copy link
Contributor Author

niclaurenti commented Jan 10, 2024

@felixhekhorn @giacomomagni regarding the conversation about the VFNS in the lepton number and the matching:
the reason why I am doing this PR is that this week I talked with SF and turned out that the photon I obtained was different from the one in NNPDF3.1QED since the $\alpha_{qed}$ running was different.
He wanted this running to be as close as possible to the one coming from the package alphaQED (http://www-com.physik.hu-berlin.de/~fjeger/software.html), that we should take as God-given truth.
Implementing the $\alpha_{qed}$ running as it is done in APFEL seems to mimic this running very well: this was probably the reason why they switched off $n_f$ at a certain point (moreover $\alpha_{qed}$ must exhibit a plateau for very small $Q$ and the only way to do it is to send the beta function to zero, i.e. $n_f=n_l=0$).
This is why I implemented this running first of all in the photon module in validphys and then here in EKO (in order to be consistent). I attach the plots to show what I'm saying: in the first one there is the wrong running, while in the second the running has been fixed
alphaQED23_vs_pineline4.pdf
alphaQED23_vs_pineline_mq05.pdf

In the end a test in which $m_q$ (the scale at which we pass to $n_f=0$) is varied
alphaQED23_vs_pineline_mq1.pdf

P.S. here in EKO, as I mentioned in the code, I only implemented the switch from $n_l=3$ to $n_l=2$ since we never (or almost never) go below 1 GeV, but in validphys I implemented all the thresholds since FiatLux requires $\alpha$ at very low scales.

@niclaurenti
Copy link
Contributor Author

I have performed some benchmarks and the agreement with APFEL is the same of the master branch (as it should be since it is a tiny effect)

@felixhekhorn
Copy link
Contributor

This will be in conflict with #335 as both touch QED kernels (should be simple to solve - however, but be aware)

@niclaurenti
Copy link
Contributor Author

This will be in conflict with #335 as both touch QED kernels (should be simple to solve - however, but be aware)

There was no conflict

@felixhekhorn
Copy link
Contributor

There was no conflict

even better (because you are touching sv.exponentiated.gamma_variation_qed and #335 ad_us.gamma_singlet_qed)

@felixhekhorn
Copy link
Contributor

let's wait for https://github.com/NNPDF/eko/actions/runs/7501124078 and then merge

@niclaurenti niclaurenti merged commit 1bddbc5 into master Jan 12, 2024
7 checks passed
@niclaurenti niclaurenti deleted the activate_nl branch January 12, 2024 11:11
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request physics new physics features
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants