Soon Yung Jun

The implementation of the associated lepto-nuclear models (including sampling of final states) should be outside the current scope, as it requires a substantial development effort. For example, adding the gamma–nuclear...

Yes, the last bullet point is likely the most practical approach. The cross sections for photo- and lepto-nuclear processes are parameterized per element (or per isotope for some light elements)...

> 1. Use `inp` models rather than `ImportData` to represent the processes we support; this is an easy way to also specify the cross sections as nonuniform grids (which is...

@sethrj Exactly! As a first step, my plan was to visualize the photo- and lepto-nuclear cross sections from Geant4 and evaluate their smoothness to determine whether tabulating these cross sections...

Yes, it should also be related to issue #1345 (which I forgot to include). This issue focuses on adding more direct native API support in Celeritas for estimating the number...

Sorry for the delay on this task. I still believe the cleaner solution is to send an optical photon track along with the relevant metadata (e.g., user track information such...

@amandalund Your understanding is correct (i.e., only one optical photon is created from each generation process). Regarding the custom generation processes, we still need to implement them (i.e. celeritas scintillation...

To answer @sethrj's second point above: If we generate and push the distribution from each custom process, the imported data would need to be accessed individually by those processes. This...

> But if we're integrating with a user application and they have `G4Cherenkov` or `G4Scintillation` in their physics list (or even their own custom Cherenkov/scintillation processes), will we be able...

Sounds and looks good! One potential downside, however, is that any user-defined stacking actions will be bypassed, since no actual secondary photons are created - in the user track information...