h1. PC-2015-07-09

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.