Extend DPG tools#1044
Conversation
njacazio
commented
Jul 22, 2022
njacazio
commented
- more plots with different ev. time for TOF
- Fixes in hist naming in qaEfficiency
- extend qaPIDPTC
- improve PDG selection in qa lite
- more plots with different ev. time for TOF - Fixes in hist naming in qaEfficiency - extend qaPIDPTC - improve PDG selection in qa lite
|
|
||
| // MC selections | ||
| Configurable<int> pdgCodeSel{"pdgCodeSel", 2, "pdgCode based particle selection, 1 defines pi,K,p,mu,e, 2 all final-state charged particles including light (hyper)nuclei"}; | ||
| Configurable<int> pdgCodeSel{"pdgCodeSel", 2, "pdgCode based particle selection, PDG code required for particles to have OR: 1 defines pi,K,p,mu,e, 2 all final-state charged particles including light (hyper)nuclei"}; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it's not clear, you're right. The way it is implemented one can either select a PDG code or select 1 for pikapr or 2 for pikapr.... I will fix this
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ah ok probably I misunderstood the comment string you changed, but it should be clear
| return true; | ||
| if (pdgCodeSel == 2) { | ||
| if (abspdgcode == 3222 || abspdgcode == 3112 || abspdgcode == 3312 || abspdgcode == 3334 || abspdgcode == 1000010020 || abspdgcode == 1000010030 || abspdgcode == 1000020030 || abspdgcode == 1000020040 || abspdgcode == 1010010030 || abspdgcode == 1010020040) | ||
| switch (abspdgcode) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
my ignorance: are you sure that this switch statement does the same thing of the original if? Reading this code I naively interpret that return true; is done only for case 2212
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it does the same, but now it's more clear, I also removed the abs value for the first selection
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is probably because there are no break statements anywhere and then it continues until return true;, anyway I trust you
|
|
||
| // MC selections | ||
| Configurable<int> pdgCodeSel{"pdgCodeSel", 2, "pdgCode based particle selection, PDG code required for particles to have OR: 1 defines pi,K,p,mu,e, 2 all final-state charged particles including light (hyper)nuclei"}; | ||
| Configurable<int> pdgCodeSel{"pdgCodeSel", 2, "pdgCode based particle selection. Either provide a PDG code required for particles OR `1` defines pi,K,p,mu,e, `2` all final-state charged particles including light (hyper)nuclei"}; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
much more clear now, thank you
mfaggin
left a comment
mfaggin
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This new solution is conceptually necessary, otherwise with the previous implementation one may also select particles with PDG code 1 or 2 (d,u quarks) and this can be potentially biasing for efficiency calculation @arossi81
|
Error while checking build/O2Physics/o2 for b735dc8 at 2022-07-22 10:47: Full log here. |
Ciao @mfaggin, no there was not such possibility (not even for the purity) in the code (because or the loop was on reco tracks, or, for the loop over MC particles, because of the && with the request of the particle being physical primary) but it's ok the new implementation, it is more explicit overall. |
- more plots with different ev. time for TOF - Fixes in hist naming in qaEfficiency - extend qaPIDPTC - improve PDG selection in qa lite - Add pdg selection configurable for multiple particles
4 participants
