Open marcodeltutto opened 1 month ago
Looking into this, I had the following question: why are we not using Geant4's official QGSP_BERT_HP
instead of creating our own? I think it would be better to use an official Geant4 physics unless there is motivation for changing it. @linyan-w do you think it's okay if we use QGSP_BERT_HP
?
I see that QGSP_BERT_HP differs from the current list in the following:
I was following the convention in SBN_QGSP_BERT_NNC
.
I have no objection to the official QGSP_BERT_HP
physics list. @sjgardiner may have more thoughts there?
Then @Li-Jiaoyang97 I think we should revert SBN_QGSP_BERT_NNC
to what it was originally, and then switch sbndcode and icaruscode to use QGSP_BERT_HP
in the two places I mentioned above. Thanks!
Hi @marcodeltutto, sorry I think I completely missed this message last week. I will start to restore SBN_QGSP_BERT_NNC
to what it was originally. Moerover, related to the usage QGSP_BERT_HP
as default, do we need to do more test to confirm the CPU and wall time to confirm it is not too time-consuming? for both SBND and ICARUS case? Thank you!
Sounds good @Li-Jiaoyang97. Yes, I think including a CPU and time performances from a standard g4 job is useful! You can still make the PR to switch to QGSP_BERT_HP
as this physics list is the preferred one and we should assume we are switching to this list. You can include the performances in the PR. If later on we think this is unbearable, we can consider switching back to SBN_QGSP_BERT_NNC
.
With PR #435 we switched to a new high-precision (HP) physics list. We should make the old and new ones both available so we can switch between the two as needed.
Plan is to keep
SBN_QGSP_BERT_NNC
to be the old one (so would need to be reverted) and create a new one with nameSBN_QGSP_BERT_HP_NNC
which contains the HP one.This will require both SBND and ICARUS to point to the new list here: