DOC: switch to author-year citation style (#419)

* DX: switch to inspire-HEP citation keys
* MAINT: update Zotero Better Bibtex style

docs/conf.py

@@ -109,6 +109,7 @@
 autosectionlabel_prefix_document = True
 bibtex_bibfiles = ["bibliography.bib"]
 bibtex_default_style = "unsrt_et_al"
+bibtex_reference_style = "author_year"
 codeautolink_concat_default = True
 codeautolink_global_preface = """
 import numpy

docs/usage.ipynb

@@ -253,7 +253,7 @@
  "cell_type": "markdown",
  "metadata": {},
  "source": [
- "In case of multiple decay topologies, AmpForm also takes care of {doc}`spin alignment </usage/helicity/spin-alignment>` with {cite}`marangottoHelicityAmplitudesGeneric2020`!"
+ "In case of multiple decay topologies, AmpForm also takes care of {doc}`spin alignment </usage/helicity/spin-alignment>` with {cite}`Marangotto:2019ucc`!"
  ]
  },
  {

docs/usage/dynamics/k-matrix.ipynb

@@ -74,9 +74,9 @@
  "cell_type": "markdown",
  "metadata": {},
  "source": [
- "While {mod}`ampform` does not yet provide a generic way to formulate an amplitude model with $\\boldsymbol{K}$-matrix dynamics, the (experimental) {mod}`.kmatrix` module makes it fairly simple to produce a symbolic expression for a parameterized $\\boldsymbol{K}$-matrix with an arbitrary number of poles and channels and play around with it interactively. For more info on the $\\boldsymbol{K}$-matrix, see the classic paper by Chung {cite}`chungPartialWaveAnalysis1995`, {pdg-review}`2021; Resonances`, or this instructive presentation {cite}`meyerMatrixTutorial2008`.\n",
+ "While {mod}`ampform` does not yet provide a generic way to formulate an amplitude model with $\\boldsymbol{K}$-matrix dynamics, the (experimental) {mod}`.kmatrix` module makes it fairly simple to produce a symbolic expression for a parameterized $\\boldsymbol{K}$-matrix with an arbitrary number of poles and channels and play around with it interactively. For more info on the $\\boldsymbol{K}$-matrix, see the classic paper by Chung {cite}`Chung:1995dx`, {pdg-review}`2021; Resonances`, or this instructive presentation {cite}`meyerMatrixTutorial2008`.\n",
  "\n",
- "Section {ref}`usage/dynamics/k-matrix:Physics` summarizes {cite}`chungPartialWaveAnalysis1995`, so that the {mod}`.kmatrix` module can reference to the equations. It also points out some subtleties and deviations.\n",
+ "Section {ref}`usage/dynamics/k-matrix:Physics` summarizes {cite}`Chung:1995dx`, so that the {mod}`.kmatrix` module can reference to the equations. It also points out some subtleties and deviations.\n",
  "\n",
  ":::{note}\n",
  "\n",
@@ -220,7 +220,7 @@
  "In amplitude analysis, the main aim is to express the differential cross section $\\frac{d\\sigma}{d\\Omega}$, that is, the intensity distribution in each spherical direction $\\Omega=(\\phi,\\theta)$ as we can observe in experiments. This differential cross section can be expressed in terms of the **scattering amplitude** $A$:\n",
  "\n",
  "```{margin}\n",
- "{cite}`chungPartialWaveAnalysis1995` Eq. (1)\n",
+ "{cite}`Chung:1995dx` Eq. (1)\n",
  "```\n",
  "\n",
  "$$\n",
@@ -230,7 +230,7 @@
  "We can now further express $A$ in terms of **partial wave amplitudes** by expanding it in terms of its angular momentum components:[^spin-formalisms]\n",
  "\n",
  "```{margin}\n",
- "{cite}`chungPartialWaveAnalysis1995` Eq. (2)\n",
+ "{cite}`Chung:1995dx` Eq. (2)\n",
  "```\n",
  "\n",
  "$$\n",
@@ -261,14 +261,14 @@
  "The dynamical part $\\boldsymbol{T}$ is usually called the **transition operator**. It describes the interacting part of the more general **scattering operator** $\\boldsymbol{S}$, which describes the (complex) amplitude $\\langle f|\\boldsymbol{S}|i\\rangle$ of an initial state $|i\\rangle$ transitioning to a final state $|f\\rangle$. The scattering operator describes both the non-interacting amplitude and the transition amplitude, so it relates to the transition operator as:\n",
  "\n",
  "```{margin}\n",
- "{cite}`chungPartialWaveAnalysis1995` Eq. (10)\n",
+ "{cite}`Chung:1995dx` Eq. (10)\n",
  "```\n",
  "\n",
  "$$\n",
  "\\boldsymbol{S} = \\boldsymbol{I} + 2i\\boldsymbol{T}\n",
  "$$ (S in terms of T)\n",
  "\n",
- "with $\\boldsymbol{I}$ the identity operator. Just like in {cite}`chungPartialWaveAnalysis1995`, we use a factor 2, while other authors choose $\\boldsymbol{S} = \\boldsymbol{I} + i\\boldsymbol{T}$. In that case, one would have to multiply Eq. {eq}`partial-wave-expansion` by a factor $\\frac{1}{2}$."
+ "with $\\boldsymbol{I}$ the identity operator. Just like in {cite}`Chung:1995dx`, we use a factor 2, while other authors choose $\\boldsymbol{S} = \\boldsymbol{I} + i\\boldsymbol{T}$. In that case, one would have to multiply Eq. {eq}`partial-wave-expansion` by a factor $\\frac{1}{2}$."
  ]
  },
  {
@@ -285,7 +285,7 @@
  "Knowing the origin of the $\\boldsymbol{T}$-matrix, there is an important restriction that we need to comply with when we further formulate a {ref}`parametrization <usage/dynamics/k-matrix:Pole parametrization>`: **unitarity**. This means that $\\boldsymbol{S}$ should conserve probability, namely $\\boldsymbol{S}^\\dagger\\boldsymbol{S} = \\boldsymbol{I}$. Luckily, there is a trick that makes this easier. If we express $\\boldsymbol{S}$ in terms of an operator $\\boldsymbol{K}$ by applying a [Cayley transformation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cayley_transform):\n",
  "\n",
  "```{margin}\n",
- "{cite}`chungPartialWaveAnalysis1995` Eq. (20)\n",
+ "{cite}`Chung:1995dx` Eq. (20)\n",
  "```\n",
  "\n",
  "$$\n",
@@ -295,7 +295,7 @@
  "_unitarity is conserved if $\\boldsymbol{K}$ is real_. With some matrix jumbling, we can derive that the $\\boldsymbol{T}$-matrix can be expressed in terms of $\\boldsymbol{K}$ as follows:\n",
  "\n",
  "```{margin}\n",
- "{cite}`chungPartialWaveAnalysis1995` Eq. (19);\n",
+ "{cite}`Chung:1995dx` Eq. (19);\n",
  "compare with {eq}`T-hat-in-terms-of-K-hat`\n",
  "```\n",
  "\n",
@@ -324,7 +324,7 @@
  "The description so far did not take Lorentz-invariance into account. For this, we first need to define a **two-body phase space matrix** $\\boldsymbol{\\rho}$:\n",
  "\n",
  "```{margin}\n",
- "{cite}`chungPartialWaveAnalysis1995` Eq. (36)\n",
+ "{cite}`Chung:1995dx` Eq. (36)\n",
  "```\n",
  "\n",
  "$$\n",
@@ -338,7 +338,7 @@
  "with $\\rho_i$ given by {eq}`PhaseSpaceFactor` in {class}`.PhaseSpaceFactor` for the final state masses $m_{a,i}, m_{b,i}$. The **Lorentz-invariant amplitude $\\boldsymbol{\\hat{T}}$** and corresponding Lorentz-invariant $\\boldsymbol{\\hat{K}}$-matrix can then be computed from $\\boldsymbol{T}$ and $\\boldsymbol{K}$ with:[^rho-dagger]\n",
  "\n",
  "```{margin}\n",
- "{cite}`chungPartialWaveAnalysis1995` Eqs. (34) and (47)\n",
+ "{cite}`Chung:1995dx` Eqs. (34) and (47)\n",
  "```\n",
  "\n",
  "$$\n",
@@ -353,7 +353,7 @@
  "With these definitions, we can deduce that:\n",
  "\n",
  "```{margin}\n",
- "{cite}`chungPartialWaveAnalysis1995` Eq. (51);\n",
+ "{cite}`Chung:1995dx` Eq. (51);\n",
  "compare with {eq}`T-in-terms-of-K`\n",
  "```\n",
  "\n",
@@ -414,10 +414,10 @@
  ]
  },
  "source": [
- "One approach by {cite}`aitchisonMatrixFormalismOverlapping1972` is to transform $\\boldsymbol{T}$ into $F$ (and its relativistic form $\\hat{F}$) through the **production amplitude $P$-vector**:\n",
+ "One approach by {cite}`Aitchison:1972ay` is to transform $\\boldsymbol{T}$ into $F$ (and its relativistic form $\\hat{F}$) through the **production amplitude $P$-vector**:\n",
  "\n",
  "```{margin}\n",
- "{cite}`chungPartialWaveAnalysis1995` Eqs. (114) and (115)\n",
+ "{cite}`Chung:1995dx` Eqs. (114) and (115)\n",
  "```\n",
  "\n",
  "$$\n",
@@ -433,10 +433,10 @@
  "\\hat{\\boldsymbol{K}} = \\sqrt{\\boldsymbol{\\rho}^{-1}} \\boldsymbol{K} \\sqrt{\\boldsymbol{\\rho}^{-1}}.\n",
  "$$ (K-hat in terms of K)\n",
  "\n",
- "Another approach by {cite}`cahnMystery9801986` further approximates this by defining a **$Q$-vector**:\n",
+ "Another approach by {cite}`Cahn:1985wu` further approximates this by defining a **$Q$-vector**:\n",
  "\n",
  "```{margin}\n",
- "{cite}`chungPartialWaveAnalysis1995` Eq. (124)\n",
+ "{cite}`Chung:1995dx` Eq. (124)\n",
  "```\n",
  "\n",
  "$$\n",
@@ -447,7 +447,7 @@
  "that _is taken to be constant_ (just some 'fitting' parameters). The $F$-vector can then be expressed as:\n",
  "\n",
  "```{margin}\n",
- "{cite}`chungPartialWaveAnalysis1995` Eq. (125)\n",
+ "{cite}`Chung:1995dx` Eq. (125)\n",
  "```\n",
  "\n",
  "$$\n",
@@ -459,7 +459,7 @@
  "Note that for all these vectors, we have:\n",
  "\n",
  "```{margin}\n",
- "{cite}`chungPartialWaveAnalysis1995` Eqs. (116) and (124)\n",
+ "{cite}`Chung:1995dx` Eqs. (116) and (124)\n",
  "```\n",
  "\n",
  "$$\n",
@@ -487,7 +487,7 @@
  "[^complex-conjugate-parametrization]: Eqs. (51) and (52) in {cite}`chungPrimerKmatrixFormalism1995` take a complex conjugate of one of the residue functions and one of the phase space factors.\n",
  "\n",
  "```{margin}\n",
- "{cite}`chungPartialWaveAnalysis1995` Eqs. (73) and (74)\n",
+ "{cite}`Chung:1995dx` Eqs. (73) and (74)\n",
  "```\n",
  "\n",
  "$$\n",
@@ -500,7 +500,7 @@
  "with $c_{ij}, \\hat{c}_{ij}$ some optional background characterization and $g_{R,i}$ the **residue functions**. The residue functions are often further expressed as:\n",
  "\n",
  "```{margin}\n",
- "{cite}`chungPartialWaveAnalysis1995` Eqs. (75-78)\n",
+ "{cite}`Chung:1995dx` Eqs. (75-78)\n",
  "```\n",
  "\n",
  "$$\n",
@@ -512,7 +512,7 @@
  "\n",
  "with $\\gamma_{R,i}$ some _real_ constants and $\\Gamma^0_{R,i}$ the **partial width** of each pole. In the Lorentz-invariant form, the fixed width $\\Gamma^0$ is replaced by an \"energy dependent\" {class}`.EnergyDependentWidth` $\\Gamma(s)$.[^phase-space-factor-normalization] The **width** for each pole can be computed as $\\Gamma^0_R = \\sum_i\\Gamma^0_{R,i}$.\n",
  "\n",
- "[^phase-space-factor-normalization]: Unlike Eq. (77) in {cite}`chungPartialWaveAnalysis1995`, AmpForm defines {class}`.EnergyDependentWidth` as in {pdg-review}`2021; Resonances; p.6`, Eq. (50.28). The difference is that the phase space factor denoted by $\\rho_i$ in Eq. (77) in {cite}`chungPartialWaveAnalysis1995` is divided by the phase space factor at the pole position $m_R$. So in AmpForm, the choice is $\\rho_i \\to \\frac{\\rho_i(s)}{\\rho_i(m_R)}$."
+ "[^phase-space-factor-normalization]: Unlike Eq. (77) in {cite}`Chung:1995dx`, AmpForm defines {class}`.EnergyDependentWidth` as in {pdg-review}`2021; Resonances; p.6`, Eq. (50.28). The difference is that the phase space factor denoted by $\\rho_i$ in Eq. (77) in {cite}`Chung:1995dx` is divided by the phase space factor at the pole position $m_R$. So in AmpForm, the choice is $\\rho_i \\to \\frac{\\rho_i(s)}{\\rho_i(m_R)}$."
  ]
  },
  {
@@ -522,7 +522,7 @@
  "The production vector $P$ is commonly parameterized as:[^damping-factor-P-parametrization]\n",
  "\n",
  "```{margin}\n",
- "{cite}`chungPartialWaveAnalysis1995` Eqs. (118-119) and (122)\n",
+ "{cite}`Chung:1995dx` Eqs. (118-119) and (122)\n",
  "```\n",
  "\n",
  "$$\n",
@@ -541,7 +541,7 @@
  "[^damping-factor-P-parametrization]: Just as with [^phase-space-factor-normalization], we have smuggled a bit in the last equation in order to be able to reproduce Equation (50.23) in {pdg-review}`2021; Resonances; p.9` in the case $n=1,n_R=1$, on which {func}`.relativistic_breit_wigner_with_ff` is based.\n",
  "\n",
  "```{margin}\n",
- "{cite}`chungPartialWaveAnalysis1995` Eq. (121)\n",
+ "{cite}`Chung:1995dx` Eq. (121)\n",
  "```\n",
  "\n",
  "$$\n",
@@ -1449,7 +1449,7 @@
  "cell_type": "markdown",
  "metadata": {},
  "source": [
- "[^pole-vs-resonance]: See {pdg-review}`2021; Resonances`, Section 50.1, for a discussion about what poles and resonances are. See also the intro to Section 5 in {cite}`chungPartialWaveAnalysis1995`."
+ "[^pole-vs-resonance]: See {pdg-review}`2021; Resonances`, Section 50.1, for a discussion about what poles and resonances are. See also the intro to Section 5 in {cite}`Chung:1995dx`."
  ]
  },
  {

docs/usage/helicity/formalism.ipynb

@@ -108,7 +108,7 @@
  "\n",
  ":::{tip}\n",
  "\n",
- "For more information about the helicity formalism, see {cite}`chungSpinFormalismsUpdated2014`, {cite}`richmanExperimenterGuideHelicity1984`, and {cite}`kutschkeAngularDistributionCookbook1996`.\n",
+ "For more information about the helicity formalism, see {cite}`chungSpinFormalismsUpdated2014`, {cite}`Richman:1984gh`, and {cite}`kutschkeAngularDistributionCookbook1996`.\n",
  "\n",
  ":::\n",
  "\n",

docs/usage/helicity/spin-alignment.ipynb

@@ -213,7 +213,7 @@
  "cell_type": "markdown",
  "metadata": {},
  "source": [
- "One way of aligning the spins of each sub-system, is Dalitz-Plot Decomposition (DPD) {cite}`mikhasenkoDalitzplotDecompositionThreebody2020`. DPD **can only be used for three-body decays**, but results in a quite condense amplitude model expression.\n",
+ "One way of aligning the spins of each sub-system, is Dalitz-Plot Decomposition (DPD) {cite}`Marangotto:2019ucc`. DPD **can only be used for three-body decays**, but results in a quite condense amplitude model expression.\n",
  "\n",
  "We can select DPD alignment as follows:\n",
  "\n",
@@ -341,7 +341,7 @@
  "cell_type": "markdown",
  "metadata": {},
  "source": [
- "The second spin alignment method is the 'axis-angle method' {cite}`marangottoHelicityAmplitudesGeneric2020`. This method results in much larger expressions and is therefore much less efficient, but theoretically it **can handle $n$-body final states**. It can be selected as follows:"
+ "The second spin alignment method is the 'axis-angle method' {cite}`Marangotto:2019ucc`. This method results in much larger expressions and is therefore much less efficient, but theoretically it **can handle $n$-body final states**. It can be selected as follows:"
  ]
  },
  {

docs/usage/kinematics.ipynb

@@ -286,7 +286,7 @@
  "Kinematics for a three-body decay $0 \\to 123$ can be fully described by two **Mandelstam variables** $\\sigma_1, \\sigma_2$, because the third variable $\\sigma_3$ can be expressed in terms $\\sigma_1, \\sigma_2$, the mass $m_0$ of the initial state, and the masses $m_1, m_2, m_3$ of the final state. As can be seen, the roles of $\\sigma_1, \\sigma_2, \\sigma_3$ are interchangeable.\n",
  "\n",
  "```{margin}\n",
- "See Eq. (1.2) in {cite}`bycklingParticleKinematics1973`\n",
+ "See Eq. (1.2) in {cite}`Byckling:1971vca`\n",
  "```"
  ]
  },
@@ -321,7 +321,7 @@
  "\n",
  "\n",
  "```{margin}\n",
- "See §V.2 in {cite}`bycklingParticleKinematics1973`\n",
+ "See §V.2 in {cite}`Byckling:1971vca`\n",
  "```"
  ]
  },

src/ampform/dynamics/__init__.py

@@ -45,9 +45,8 @@ class BlattWeisskopfSquared(sp.Expr):
 
  Each of these cases for :math:`L` has been taken from
  :cite:`pychyGekoppeltePartialwellenanalyseAnnihilationen2016`, p.59,
- :cite:`chungPartialWaveAnalysis1995`, p.415, and
- :cite:`chungFormulasAngularMomentumBarrier2015`. For a good overview of where to use
- these Blatt-Weisskopf functions, see :cite:`asnerDalitzPlotAnalysis2006`.
+ :cite:`Chung:1995dx`, p.415, and :cite:`Chung:1995dx`. For a good overview of where
+ to use these Blatt-Weisskopf functions, see :cite:`ParticleDataGroup:2020ssz`.
 
  See also :ref:`usage/dynamics:Form factor`.
  """
@@ -139,7 +138,7 @@ class EnergyDependentWidth(sp.Expr):
  r"""Mass-dependent width, coupled to the pole position of the resonance.
 
  See Equation (50.28) in :pdg-review:`2021; Resonances; p.9` and
- :cite:`asnerDalitzPlotAnalysis2006`, equation (6). Default value for
+ :cite:`ParticleDataGroup:2020ssz`, equation (6). Default value for
  :code:`phsp_factor` is `.PhaseSpaceFactor`.
 
  Note that the `.BlattWeisskopfSquared` of AmpForm is normalized in the sense that
@@ -189,7 +188,7 @@ def relativistic_breit_wigner(s, mass0, gamma0) -> sp.Expr:
  """Relativistic Breit-Wigner lineshape.
 
  See :ref:`usage/dynamics:_Without_ form factor` and
- :cite:`asnerDalitzPlotAnalysis2006`.
+ :cite:`ParticleDataGroup:2020ssz`.
  """
  return gamma0 * mass0 / (mass0**2 - s - gamma0 * mass0 * sp.I)
 

src/ampform/helicity/__init__.py

@@ -884,9 +884,8 @@ def formulate_isobar_wigner_d(transition: StateTransition, node_id: int) -> sp.E
  Wigner-:math:`D` functions in a *sequential* two-body decay. Note that this source
  chose :math:`\Omega=(\phi,\theta,-\phi)` as argument to the (conjugated)
  Wigner-:math:`D` function, just like the original paper by Jacob & Wick
- :cite:`jacobGeneralTheoryCollisions1959`, Eq. (24). See p.119-120 and p.199 in
- :cite:`martinElementaryParticleTheory1970` for the two conventions, :math:`\gamma=0`
- versus :math:`\gamma=-\phi`.
+ :cite:`Jacob:1959at`, Eq. (24). See p.119-120 and p.199 in :cite:`Martin:1970hmp`
+ for the two conventions, :math:`\gamma=0` versus :math:`\gamma=-\phi`.
 
  Example
  -------