PWGHF: Follow issue #2156

[AlexBigO]

Following Vit's issue.

[github-actions]

This PR has not been updated in the last 30 days. Is it still needed? Unless further action is taken, it will be closed in 5 days.

[vkucera]

Thank you @AlexBigO . I have been hesitant with merging this since it will require changing dependencies of all selector wagons on Hyperloop but I guess we should just move ahead with it. Also the configuration of both versions of the PID workflows (full vs restricted) seem almost identical. My last concern is whether this has been tested at least with the Lc -> p K pi selector to confirm that it does not change the selection.

@fcolamar can you think of anything else to check before merging this?

[AlexBigO]

Hi @vkucera ! By grepping tofExp or tpcExp in PWGHF/, I didn't get any output so I supposed there should be no difference between full and restricted PID workflows (as we currently only call NSigma getters in PWGHF/).
However, after testing it on Dplus and B0 selectors, I get a small difference between the 2 workflows. For instance, I go from 6779 selected D+ with full PID to 6852 selected D+ with restricted PID.
Could it come from the difference of column definition between restricted and full PID?

[vkucera]

@AlexBigO , for this we should check the difference in granularity and binning edges to see if that could be the effect of different binning. One could also compare the nsigma distributions of selected candidates for the two types of tables to check where the difference comes from.

[vkucera]

@AlexBigO , did you manage to identify the source of the differences?

[AlexBigO]

Hi @vkucera . Sorry, my mid-term defense is approaching so I put this study on pause to work fully on the analysis.