Open ghost opened 8 years ago
I think for mu1/2/plus/minus one always wants the muons from Z decay, so yes (to both questions)
Just another question that came to mind if we are now (potentially) doing Z->ee also. Instead of having zmu1/... and zel1/..., should we use zl1/... and attach also expose the particle ID? The current mu1/... could be made an alias in Merlin only.
sounds good
Added zl(1|2|plus|minus)(pt|eta|phi|pdgid)
to excalibur itself in https://github.com/artus-analysis/Excalibur/commit/e9941639342f9598610e01aa7a953445d7f783dd.
At the moment, we have zmu1X and mu1X quantities (and mu2, muplus, muminus). In most use cases,
mu1
is actually used to representzmu1
. It might be worthwhile to phase out mu1 in favor forzmu1
and complete thezmuX
quantities.In case of
muplus
/muminus
, this seems to be not an issue, as they are by design meant to bezmuplus
/zmuminus
. Any differences are an error inmuplus
/muminus
. Formu1
, there is technically a valid difference, however.My questions: should
mu1
be phased out in favor ofzmu1
? Should the names also be changed fromzmu1
to justmu1
?