Skip to content

Conversation

@salvadorrallende
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

if ((fabs(LepEta->at(2)) > 2.5) || (fabs(LepEta->at(3)) > 2.5)) { continue; }
if ((LepSIP->at(2) > ((fabs(LepLepId->at(2))==13) ? muon_sip_cut : 4.0) || Lepdxy->at(2) > 0.5 || Lepdz->at(2) > 1.0) && (fabs(LepLepId->at(2)) == 11 || fabs(LepLepId->at(2)) == 13)) { continue; }
if ((LepSIP->at(3) > ((fabs(LepLepId->at(3))==13) ? muon_sip_cut : 4.0) || Lepdxy->at(3) > 0.5 || Lepdz->at(3) > 1.0) && (fabs(LepLepId->at(3)) == 11 || fabs(LepLepId->at(3)) == 13)) { continue; }

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi @salvadorrallende , I was rewiewing this PR and I noticed that this block is added, and not simply modified as for everywhere else. In fact this is should be the 3P1F region where one of the two leptons fails the cut and the other passes it; this block seems to request that both fail instead.
The 3P1F condition should in principle be already checked by the if at the line above (L439/450).
@AlessandroTarabini you may also want to have a look.
PS: in principle, we could at some point recode all this without the need to reapply cuts, which is error prone, by just propagating the dedicated variables ZZFullSel, ZZRelaxedId, ZZRelaxedIdNoSIP etc.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants