## PC-2015-07-09a » History » Version 2

*Pidcott, Celeste, 10 July 2015 13:28 *

1 | 1 | Rogers, Chris | h1. PC-2015-07-09 |
---|---|---|---|

2 | |||

3 | Chris Rogers |
||

4 | Celeste Pidcott |
||

5 | 2 | Pidcott, Celeste | |

6 | * Basic principle of measurement determined to be to prove consistency between |
||

7 | - individual PID variables and MC |
||

8 | - between the US variables |
||

9 | - between the DS variables |
||

10 | - between US and DS pid |
||

11 | |||

12 | * 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. |
||

13 | |||

14 | * The probrabilities assigned to each pid should be the probability of the particle having that pid at the tracker reference plane. |
||

15 | |||

16 | * 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. |
||

17 | |||

18 | * 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. |
||

19 | |||

20 | * 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. |
||

21 | - 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. |