Repository navigation
Conversation
|
O2 linter results: ❌ 0 errors, |
…C to test new productions
[PWGJE] Please consider the following formatting changes to AliceO2Group#18725
|
Error while checking build/O2Physics/code-check for 9e099df at 2026-11-13 08:29: Full log here. |
|
Error while checking build/O2Physics/o2 for 9e099df at 2026-11-13 08:29: Full log here. |
|
Error while checking build/O2Physics/code-check for 0cc2708 at 2026-11-13 08:33: Full log here. |
|
Error while checking build/O2Physics/code-check for 3a233ee at 2026-11-13 08:42: Full log here. |
|
Error while checking build/O2Physics/o2 for 3a233ee at 2026-11-13 08:49: Full log here. |
nzardosh
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi, Thanks for the PR. One question is when computing the pT in the isolation cone do you not need to remove the tracks matched to your cluster?
|
Hi @nzardosh, I understand your point, I was viewing the isolation cone as a strictly more narrow cut than the E/P: I figured that having something that we think is neutral, while having tracks in the same cluster, would then reuse those tracks as a veto against classifying the object as neutral. This also made me a bit curious of how often this happens, where you have have charged tracks entering the cluster, the cluster survives the E/P veto, the actual charged P from the cluster is above the isolation criteria, and not enough additional tracks in the cone there to cut on the isolation. To test this, I have simply added added functionality to toggle whether or not to utilize the cluster tracks in the isolation cone to measure the impact of this. The other issues with the build should now (hopefully) be taken care of. Best Regards, |
[PWGJE] Please consider the following formatting changes to AliceO2Group#18725
[PWGJE] Please consider the following formatting changes to AliceO2Group#18725
New prompt photon QA task to check against both clusters and particles, especially to test against new photon-tagged MC productions