Kamil Laurent

Hi @scarlehoff, @jacoterh, here is the report of the default diagonal fit test on the latest settings (`251105-jcm-nnpdf41-mhou-001` runcard): https://vp.nnpdf.science/kSXuJUNETmCmPFoZM8oY2g==

Hi @scarlehoff, I compared the positivity test fits to a fit I named `280925-nnpdf41`, which has the same runcard as `example-nnpdf41`. I now uploaded the `280925-nnpdf41` fit using vp-upload and...

Hi, thank you for the assignment @enocera. I still don't have access to the wiki though

Hi, I have finished my first draft of data implementation regarding the article with arXiv number 2403.15093. I express here my major doubts about the paper and things that I...

Thank you for the comments @enocera, @scarlehoff. I have included all new datasets in a single directory, with the naming convention suggested by Juan CM, and collected everything in a...

Hi @scarlehoff , I am looking at it now. Sorry for the late reply, I will get back to you as soon as I finish

@scarlehoff I tried to run the runcard in the branch `make_feature_scaling_clearer`. I then want to compare the fit to our baseline, `251124-jcm-nnpdf41-001`, but I obtain this error by validphys: ```...

Thanks for clarifying, the same error message appears also if I try to compare the fit done with feature scaling and the same fit iterated, I try now to do...

> The important one is actually that you iterated the fit (so largex was dropped) and were able to run (so it was, indeed, dropped). Yes, the fit (and comparisons)...