Update InspireHEP references from 1391643 to 1655631 for x2pipipi PWA data and add comprehensive scientific context

[Copilot]

Colleagues pointed out that the PWA analysis data currently attributed to InspireHEP 1391643 was actually published in a different paper: InspireHEP 1655631.

This PR corrects the scientific attribution and adds comprehensive documentation that clarifies the complex relationship between these two papers:

File Changes

• Renamed model file from x2pipipi-compass-1391643.json to x2pipipi-compass-1655631.json
• Renamed documentation from x2pipipi-compass-1391643.qmd to x2pipipi-compass-1655631.qmd
• Updated the InspireHEP link in the documentation to reference the correct paper
• Updated the Quarto configuration to reference the renamed documentation file

Enhanced Scientific Context Documentation

The JSON model's misc field now includes a comprehensive explanation that addresses the potential source of confusion:

• Model Development: The COMPASS (3π) PWA model wave set and dynamical isobar parametrizations were defined and tuned in the 2017 analysis (Phys. Rev. D 95, 032004; INSPIRE:1391643) using 100×11 (m₃π, t′) binning and an 88-wave model
• 2018 Analysis: The second paper (Phys. Rev. D 98, 092003; INSPIRE:1655631) performs a resonance-model fit with 11 resonances across 14 selected waves, using the binned PWA transition amplitudes from each t′ bin as input
• Data Attribution: The numerical PWA inputs—complex transition amplitudes, covariance matrices, and phase-space integrals—are not attached to the 2017 publication but instead published with the 2018 HEPData record
• Source of Confusion: Although the model itself originates in the 2017 paper (1391643), the parameters and data products are distributed via the 2018 record (1655631)

Added direct hepdata link to https://www.hepdata.net/record/ins1655631 where the model parameters are published.

The JSON model data itself remains unchanged - only the metadata, attribution, and scientific documentation have been enhanced to provide crystal clear context about the relationship between these two complementary publications.

Fixes #72.

---

💡 You can make Copilot smarter by setting up custom instructions, customizing its development environment and configuring Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers. Learn more Copilot coding agent tips in the docs.

[Copilot]

@mmikhasenko 👋 This repository doesn't have Copilot instructions. With Copilot instructions, I can understand the repository better, work faster and produce higher quality PRs.

I can generate a .github/copilot-instructions.md file for you automatically. Click here to open a pre-filled issue and assign it to me. I'll write the instructions, and then tag you for review.

[mmikhasenko]

I think we also need to document the story behind the remaining somewhere in the Meta.

The model (presented by the json file) is tuned and build in the first paper,
https://inspirehep.net/literature/1391643

The second paper is focused on using a collection of individual models (for each bin), and interpreted it in terms of resonance parameters by performing a mass-dependent fit,
https://inspirehep.net/literature/1655631

The model parameters of the first paper (1391643), however, are published with the second paper (1655631),
https://www.hepdata.net/record/ins1655631

Polish the story, making it crystal clear, add to json, add to the top level "misc" field under "details"

@copilot

[Copilot]

I think we also need to document the story behind the remaining somewhere in the Meta.

The model (presented by the json file) is tuned and build in the first paper,
...

Added the scientific context and attribution details to the JSON model's misc.details field. The documentation now clearly explains:

• The model was originally developed and tuned in InspireHEP 1391643
• The second paper (InspireHEP 1655631) used a collection of individual models and interpreted them via mass-dependent fit
• The model parameters from the first paper are published with the second paper and available at hepdata.net

The story is documented in a structured format with separate fields for scientific context, data attribution, and model origin. Commit: 45ab864

[mmikhasenko]

The message is incorrect, I suggest an update

{
"misc": {
"hepdata": "https://www.hepdata.net/record/ins1655631",
"details": "This JSON encodes the COMPASS (3π) PWA model for π−p→π−π−π+ p at 190 GeV/c. The wave set and dynamical isobar parametrizations were defined and tuned in the 2017 analysis (Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 032004; INSPIRE:1391643) using 100×11 (m3π, t′) binning and an 88-wave model. The 2018 paper (Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 092003; INSPIRE:1655631) performs a resonance-model fit with 11 resonances across 14 selected waves, using the binned PWA transition amplitudes from each t′ bin as input to extract masses, widths, branching fractions, and t′ dependences. The numerical PWA inputs—complex transition amplitudes T_a(m3π, t′), covariance matrices, and phase-space integrals I_aa—are not attached to the 2017 publication but instead published with the 2018 HEPData record (INSPIRE:1655631). This creates a possible source of confusion: although the model itself originates in the 2017 paper (1391643), the parameters and data products are distributed via the 2018 record (1655631)."
}
}

@copilot

[Copilot]

The message is incorrect, I suggest an update

{...

Updated the scientific documentation with your corrected message. The misc section now includes the hepdata field and a comprehensive details explanation that clarifies the relationship between the 2017 model development (1391643) and 2018 data publication (1655631). Commit: 74aa81b