Chris Rogers
Celeste Pidcott

  • Basic principle of measurement determined to be to prove consistency between
    - individual PID variables and MC
    - between the US variables
    - between the DS variables
    - between US and DS pid
  • Need to determine a way to represent the consistency (or lack thereof) between the probability of a pid given by the variables - some sort of plot that shows where variables are in agreement/disagreement/cases where one variable assigns a probability and the other doesn't.
  • The probrabilities assigned to each pid should be the probability of the particle having that pid at the tracker reference plane.
  • Currently, PDFs are created from simulations of non-decaying particles. Ideally, they would actually be made from particle samples taken from a simulation of a realistic beam, however this brings up the issue of how to simulate a realistic beam.
  • One possible alternative would be to begin with the PDFs that exist currently, and then determine the appropriate simulated beam by running the PID, improving the make-up of the beam based on iterations of the PID routines.
  • Chris suggested looking at how other experiments have validated their PID routines. Celeste had looked into this previously and only ever seen this done by experiments pre-supposing to know the particle types used in their validation samples. Chris suggested asking Steve B how they did their validation for T2K.
    - Turns out they used test beams so again the particle types were already known, and determining the consistency of the PID still looks like the only way forward.