[PWGCF] add bool for pT ordering cut

[Luzhiyongg]

No description provided.

[github-actions]

O2 linter results: ❌ 0 errors, ⚠️ 0 warnings, 🔕 0 disabled

[Luzhiyongg]

@victor-gonzalez Hi Victor, I'd like to ask for a quick approval for this PR beacuse I want to catch up with the auto-submission of LHC23zzh_pass5 tomorrow.

[Luzhiyongg]

Also, may I ask a question for the two particle correlation.
For the same event, I have no doubt that the pT ordering (trigger pT <= associated pT) should be applied to avoid double counting.
But for mixed events, I was wondering this is still the case since we are using "strictly upper pair" event mixing.

[victor-gonzalez]

Also, may I ask a question for the two particle correlation. For the same event, I have no doubt that the pT ordering (trigger pT <= associated pT) should be applied to avoid double counting. But for mixed events, I was wondering this is still the case since we are using "strictly upper pair" event mixing.

Not quite sure about your question
I only see you are applying a pT ordering request which to me it is not the same as trigger pT < associated pT
If you apply the pT ordering to a mixed selecting just the upper pairs it looks to me that this is a kind of incompatible concurrent conditions: you select half of the combinations of which you will, in average, select an additional half. It sounds not good

[victor-gonzalez]

@victor-gonzalez Hi Victor, I'd like to ask for a quick approval for this PR beacuse I want to catch up with the auto-submission of LHC23zzh_pass5 tomorrow.

Hope you will get it in time!