User Tools

Site Tools


2013:groups:tools:dlha

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
2013:groups:tools:dlha [2013/06/18 16:56]
balazs.csaba
2013:groups:tools:dlha [2013/06/20 17:24] (current)
balazs.csaba
Line 1: Line 1:
 ====== DLHA ====== ====== DLHA ======
 ===== Dark matter Les Houches Accord ===== ===== Dark matter Les Houches Accord =====
 +
 +DLHA is a set of conventions the authors of dark matter calculators agreed upon.  These conventions regard the input/​output of various information to/from these calculators.
  
 ==== People involved ==== ==== People involved ====
-Alexandre, Andreas, Ben, Benj, Björn, Csaba, Fawzi, Geneviève, Nazila, Sasha, Sezen, Pietro, ​...+  * Present at Les Houches: ​Alexandre, Andreas, Ben, Benj, Björn, Csaba, Fawzi, Geneviève, Nazila, Sasha, Sezen, Pietro 
 +  * Outside of Les Houches: Ben Allanach, David Cerdeno, Peter Skands& 50+ other people representing various dark matter calculators.
  
 ==== Useful links ==== ==== Useful links ====
Line 11: Line 14:
  
 ==== Main goals (for the end of 2013) ==== ==== Main goals (for the end of 2013) ====
-  * elevate ​the DLH agreement to a DLH Accord, +  * Elevate ​the DLH agreement to a DLH Accord, 
-  * start implementing DLHA in dark matter calculators.+  * Start implementing DLHA in dark matter calculators
 +    * Testing DLHA between at least two codes is essential before the final report is completed.
  
 ==== 1st discussion ==== ==== 1st discussion ====
-DLHA is a set of conventions the authors of dark matter calculators agreed upon.  These conventions regard the input/​output of various information to/from these calculators. 
- 
-The main aim at LH13 is to start implementing DLHA in dark matter calculators. ​ What do we need to do to before (or in parallel with) that? 
- 
   * The general problem of fully interfacing arbitrary dark matter calculators is way too complicated,​ so we should try to simplify the problem by focusing on existing calculations in the existing codes and just create a DLHA to interface those first.   * The general problem of fully interfacing arbitrary dark matter calculators is way too complicated,​ so we should try to simplify the problem by focusing on existing calculations in the existing codes and just create a DLHA to interface those first.
   * As long as we agree about the blocks defined in the LH11 proceedings,​ we could try to implement those as a first (and simplest) step to see how things go.   * As long as we agree about the blocks defined in the LH11 proceedings,​ we could try to implement those as a first (and simplest) step to see how things go.
   * We should clarify the role and aim of the functions. ​ Functions were introduced to mediate information that is more complex than just a set of independent numerical values. ​ However as it is there are various roles for functions. ​ They   * We should clarify the role and aim of the functions. ​ Functions were introduced to mediate information that is more complex than just a set of independent numerical values. ​ However as it is there are various roles for functions. ​ They
-    * define ​complex ​inputs (such as a dark matter spatial distribution) in an abstract, pre-agreed way:+    * define ​function ​inputs (such as a dark matter spatial distribution) in an abstract, pre-agreed way:
       * ''​FUNCTION rho_g type=P args=2 | DLHA rho_g 5 | END_FUNCTION''​       * ''​FUNCTION rho_g type=P args=2 | DLHA rho_g 5 | END_FUNCTION''​
     * allow the user direct access to existing methods within the codes: ​     * allow the user direct access to existing methods within the codes: ​
Line 34: Line 34:
  
 ==== 2nd discussion ==== ==== 2nd discussion ====
- 
   * Blocks should only contain numerical info where the entries are independent from each other. ​ (This is how SLHA works.)   * Blocks should only contain numerical info where the entries are independent from each other. ​ (This is how SLHA works.)
   * A separate TABLE object should be defined as a specific I/O format for functions.   * A separate TABLE object should be defined as a specific I/O format for functions.
     * In the function definitions we have to fix the content of the tables.     * In the function definitions we have to fix the content of the tables.
-    * The table header ​will look like this: +    * The table header ​should ​look like this: 
       * TABLE <​name>​ <​column>​ <row>       * TABLE <​name>​ <​column>​ <row>
-    * The name will probably be inherited from the function+    * The name will probably be inherited from the function.
     * In some cases, when the table can be given in different parametrizations/​coordinates,​ the name will have to include info about about this.     * In some cases, when the table can be given in different parametrizations/​coordinates,​ the name will have to include info about about this.
     * We should consider the I/O of "​external"​ tables, namely table I/O from/to a separate (non-DLHA) file.     * We should consider the I/O of "​external"​ tables, namely table I/O from/to a separate (non-DLHA) file.
   * Parameters should be moved out of functions.   * Parameters should be moved out of functions.
  
-==== Things ​to do ====+==== 3rd discussion ==== 
 +  * micrOmegas includes an SLHA reader/​writer which could be generalized for DLHA. 
 +    * A stand-alone version is published in [[http://​arxiv.org/​abs/​arXiv:​1008.0181|arXiv:​1008.0181]]. 
 +  * There'​s a problem with trying ​to agree upon the I/O of existing functions in existing codes, because this would restrict coding. ​ This problem arises when directly accessing existing methods within existing codes, such as: 
 +    * ''​FUNCTION <​name>​ type=<​type>​ args=<# of args> | libName=<name of compiled library> | funcName=<name of function in library> | END_FUNCTION''​ 
 +    * Agreement about the I/O of these directly accessed functions could tie the hands of the author(s) of the original code.
  
 +==== 4th discussion ====
 +  * A DLHA reader/​writer prototype can be created based on SLHA+.
 +  * FUNCTION I/O should happen via arrays.
 +  * We should consider agreeing about the I/O of existing methods in existing calculators. ​ (For abundance, direct or indirect detection calculations,​ for example.) ​ Then the authors of the codes could distribute a pre-compiled Linux library from which these methods could be called directly based on DLHA.
 +  * We should specify the number of significant figures (16 was suggested) for numerical values.
 +
 +==== Things to do ====
   * The write-up has to be updated to reflect the changes we decide to make at LH13.   * The write-up has to be updated to reflect the changes we decide to make at LH13.
   * ...   * ...
2013/groups/tools/dlha.1371567371.txt.gz · Last modified: 2013/06/18 16:56 by balazs.csaba