[PWGCF] Change of event-selection-bit for OO

[nmallick19]

Following the recommendation from Physics Board on 27.01.2026,
the event selection bits for light-ion datasets has been slightly modified.

The current change replaces kIsGoodITSLayersAll with kIsGoodZvtxFT0vsPV

[victor-gonzalez]

This change will affect several users of this correlations framework
I agree with the incorporation of kIsGoodZvtxFT0vsPV. Now it is safe
But I don't think that in the PF it was said to remove the kIsGoodITSLayersAll selection because it quite affects the correlation functions in the bad sense
@jaelpark @jgrosseo what do you think?

[nmallick19]

There exists another trigger selection which has all these three combined, i.e.,
cfgTrigger == 9 --> adds sel8 with kNoSameBunchPileup, kIsGoodZvtxFT0vsPV, and kIsGoodITSLayersAll

Thus, I thought we can have cfgTrigger == 13, exclusively for OO as suggested by PF.

[jaelpark]

Yes, cfgTrigger 13 was added for light ion analyses specifically. The suggested selection was indeed without kIsGoodITSLayersAll but I'm not sure how it will actually affect the correlation analyses in this case.

[victor-gonzalez]

There exists another trigger selection which has all these three combined, i.e., cfgTrigger == 9 --> adds sel8 with kNoSameBunchPileup, kIsGoodZvtxFT0vsPV, and kIsGoodITSLayersAll

Thus, I thought we can have cfgTrigger == 13, exclusively for OO as suggested by PF.

Who in the PF suggested to remove kIsGoodITSLayersAll for correlations in OO?

[nmallick19]

There was no mention of removal of kIsGoodITSLayersAll for correlation analysis in OO by PF.
However, if I am not mistaken, one can use cfgTrigger == 9 to keep all the three selection bits, then cfgTrigger == 13 becomes redundant.

By saying so, I kept only two cases as explicitly mentioned by PF in cfgTrigger == 13
This will also enable us to compare both selection criteria, 9 vs 13

[jaelpark]

It was only mentioned that additional selection should be "justified". So I guess we should at least try the recommended setup.