First, this is the answer to my original question. Currently, CELEG
will save a lot more than that. [note: Common Ground Alert Ahead;
proceed with caution] So far, everyone agrees that it shouldn't save
intermediate particles in the PART bank.
> 1) I can have CELEG produce a data set with various mixes of
> decay amplitudes I can then take these events and
> analyze them directly in the PWA code and see if I get out
> what I put in - this would be an invaluble check
> on both CELEG and the PWA code.
True, as long as you're aware that CELEG is not producing partial waves,
but nucleon resonances. Presumably, if that is being done correctly by
CELEG, what you're saying is absolutely correct.
> 2) I can use CELEG as a generic phase space generator which
> I can use as the input of the for the production of
> decay amplitudes essential and normalization integrals
> for PWA analysis of data.
I'll trust you on that one for the time being. Too much PWA-ese makes
my brain hurt. :)
> 3) Having the output of the monte-carlo event generator look the
> same as analysed data avoids me having to spend all
> of my time writing code to transduce one bank into
> another bank i.e. I can use the same code to directly
> the compare data to the generted monte-carlo to investigate
> all sorts of stuff.
I'm not convinced that we want to compare data directly with CELEG
output. This is a point that might deserve some discussion. CELEG is
not a simulation; it's an event generator. It is not intended to
produce results that should be directly comparable with the data we're
taking. GSIM is. It seems to me that the proper comparisons should be
made between CELEG and GSIM, to see if we're getting out what we put in,
and between GSIM and {RECSIS|a1|sda|Insert your favorite reconstruction
program here}, to see if the simulation is in touch with the real
world. Comparing CELEG and data is like comparing apples and oranges
(well, maybe tangerines and oranges...).
> So why get rid of it now that it has been put in to CELEG???? I assume
> CELEG can be run in a mode where it does not produce the part bank
> if some people find it offensive.
Never assume, Joe... :)
Right now, there is no way to turn off the PART bank. Given my recent
success with creating it, though, I'm fairly sure I can create a switch
to turn it off easily enough.
--
John Price *** *** *** *** pricej@jlab.org
Where there is no solution, there is no problem.