Polarized Matching conditions

[giacomomagni]

Implementation of polarised matching conditions.

[felixhekhorn]

some minor style comments

[felixhekhorn]

Remember to resolve the annotations here if you have addressed them (unless you're not sure whether it has been done as requested)

[alecandido]

Maybe you're missing some tests (both fixing the current ones and adding new ones).

However, whenever you're ready, please remove draft mode :)

[felixhekhorn]

Sorry for spoiling this PR with unpolarized docs business - but since I needed to look at them for comparison, I started to improve them a bit ...

[felixhekhorn]

We don't have any real life PDF comparison, do we?

[giacomomagni]

We don't have any real life PDF comparison, do we?

No unfortunately.
At DIS I asked Kay Schonwald if they can provide us some implementation to benchmark with,
this way we can be sure to have fixed the typos correctly.
That's mainly why this PR is still open.

[giacomomagni]

Update:
I wrote again to kay Schonwald if there will be no reply, we might consider to merge and hope everything is in good order.

By the way the statement at page 7 just below chapter 4 title in 1908.03779 should definitely proof we have to use the M scheme expressions.
I also checked that our polarised splitting function $P_{qg}^{(1)}$ is indeed in that scheme a NLO.

[giacomomagni]

@felixhekhorn I feel now we can merge this and eventually open and issue about the matching scheme to keep track of it.

[felixhekhorn]

@felixhekhorn I feel now we can merge this and eventually open and issue about the matching scheme to keep track of it.

Agreed