both simon and zilu have now both expressed belief that the new monte
carlo formalism is not a good idea. i would appreciate it if others with
similar experience would voice their opinions, too. particularly those
who argued for the new formalism. i do not have the experience of having
tried both possible formalisms, so i cannot comment on why is better than
the other.
as for zilu's comment, here is a little more detail about what the white
electrodisintegration generator does. please comment on where the problem
lies:
arenhovel gives us data for the 41 structure functions in five variables:
phi_electron, phi_proton_CMS, theta_proton_CMS, omega, and theta_electron.
these five variables are sufficient to completely determine the entire
cross sections. if addition, the data he gives us is over the full range
of all of these variables for a beam energy of 0.850GeV.
anyway, random "5-tuples" of these five variables are generated. for each
such "5-tuple", it is only a matter of applying the correct kinematic
equations to calculate the initial kinematics for the involved electron,
proton, and neutron. (i won't write down the equations, but they exist
and are well tested; DGen has in fact been using them since it was
originally written). the only check you have to make on your "5-tuples"
is that they result in enough energy and momentum transfer so as to
breakup the deuteron (once again, this is just another equation that has
already been worked out).
i'm not sure what you meant by your comment about jacobians. for what i
have just described, i do not need to calculate any jacobians. true, if i
desire to generate "5-tuples" in different variables, then i might need to
worry about this. however, these are the variables that arenhovel gives
us his data in; we do not have data in any other sets of data.
ultimately, no matter what we do, we're going to have to go back to these
five variables to generate our results.
please elaborate some more on why this method is flawed. i don't want to
waste any more time on this code if it's leading to a dead-end. and for
those of you who are in favor of the new formalism, please comment on why
we should continue in this manner.
thank you,
aaron
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:31 EST