[PWGHF] Add generated ct and resonant channel info for c-deuteron analysis

[fgrosa]

@zhangbiao-phy can you check if it's fine? Please note that I also changed all the TH1F into TH1D, to avoid truncation of entries. Thanks a lot!

[github-actions]

O2 linter results: ❌ 0 errors, ⚠️ 0 warnings, 🔕 0 disabled

[zhangbiao-phy]

Hi @fgrosa! Thanks a lot! They looks good to me! Maybe we can also add ct in the lite tree for MC reco and data? we can calculated it by ourself only from full tree.

[fgrosa]

Hi @fgrosa! Thanks a lot! They looks good to me! Maybe we can also add ct in the lite tree for MC reco and data? we can calculated it by ourself only from full tree.

Currently I put the ctGen, which is computed considering the actual decay length of the c-deuteron (so in case of non-prompt starting from the decay vertex of the b hadron and not the PV) to be able to reweight it to test the impact on the efficiency. But if you prefer I can also add the reco one (which would instead start from the PV regardless the origin of the candidate, since we cannot have the information of the b-hadron decay vertex at reco level). Let me know, thanks a lot!

[zhangbiao-phy]

Hi @fgrosa! Thanks a lot! They looks good to me! Maybe we can also add ct in the lite tree for MC reco and data? we can calculated it by ourself only from full tree.

Currently I put the ctGen, which is computed considering the actual decay length of the c-deuteron (so in case of non-prompt starting from the decay vertex of the b hadron and not the PV) to be able to reweight it to test the impact on the efficiency. But if you prefer I can also add the reco one (which would instead start from the PV regardless the origin of the candidate, since we cannot have the information of the b-hadron decay vertex at reco level). Let me know, thanks a lot!

Thanks! My consideration is that we may need it in the future. Having ctReco in the lite tree would allow us to directly compare data and MC without accessing the full tree. I agree that measuring ct will be difficult with our current statistics, but it would still be useful to have the variable available for checks and possible future studies. Of course we can also add it in the future! so as you prefer ;)

[fgrosa]

Hi @fgrosa! Thanks a lot! They looks good to me! Maybe we can also add ct in the lite tree for MC reco and data? we can calculated it by ourself only from full tree.

Currently I put the ctGen, which is computed considering the actual decay length of the c-deuteron (so in case of non-prompt starting from the decay vertex of the b hadron and not the PV) to be able to reweight it to test the impact on the efficiency. But if you prefer I can also add the reco one (which would instead start from the PV regardless the origin of the candidate, since we cannot have the information of the b-hadron decay vertex at reco level). Let me know, thanks a lot!

Thanks! My consideration is that we may need it in the future. Having ctReco in the lite tree would allow us to directly compare data and MC without accessing the full tree. I agree that measuring ct will be difficult with our current statistics, but it would still be useful to have the variable available for checks and possible future studies. Of course we can also add it in the future! so as you prefer ;)

Added in this commit 1b11593!

[zhangbiao-phy]

Hi @fgrosa! Thanks a lot! They looks good to me! Maybe we can also add ct in the lite tree for MC reco and data? we can calculated it by ourself only from full tree.

Currently I put the ctGen, which is computed considering the actual decay length of the c-deuteron (so in case of non-prompt starting from the decay vertex of the b hadron and not the PV) to be able to reweight it to test the impact on the efficiency. But if you prefer I can also add the reco one (which would instead start from the PV regardless the origin of the candidate, since we cannot have the information of the b-hadron decay vertex at reco level). Let me know, thanks a lot!

Thanks! My consideration is that we may need it in the future. Having ctReco in the lite tree would allow us to directly compare data and MC without accessing the full tree. I agree that measuring ct will be difficult with our current statistics, but it would still be useful to have the variable available for checks and possible future studies. Of course we can also add it in the future! so as you prefer ;)

Added in this commit 1b11593!

Thanks a lot! all good to me!