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.

Updated by Pidcott, Celeste about 8 years ago ยท 2 revisions