Quaero

1
Quaero
An automatic model-tester A new way to publish
HEP data
Bruce Knuteson Berkeley/Chicago

2
Motivation
An automatic model-tester
How do new physics searches usually work in this
field? Theorist writes down a model Six
months later an experimentalist decides it is
worth checking Two years later her graduate
student finishes the analysis Six months after
that the publication comes out Is it possible to
this in 3 hours, rather than 3 years?
3
Motivation
An automatic model-tester
Where do we spend most time during an
analysis? 1. Understanding backgrounds to
data 2. Generating signal Monte Carlo and
associated bookkeeping 3. Optimizing cuts and
setting limits Not a whole lot we can do
about 1 . . . But can we offload 2, and
automate 3?
4
(No Transcript)
5
An automatic model-tester
Quaero final states
6
An automatic model-tester
The algorithm
The details of the Quaero algorithm have been
presented in New Phenomena and Run I
meetings The basic idea is quite simple
1. Construct a background estimate
2. Construct a signal estimate
4. Choose Dcut to optimize an expected 95 limit
3. Define Dp(s)/p(s)p(b)
7
An automatic model-tester
Examples
But does it work?
Example analyses performed WW ? e?ET ZZ ?
eejj h ? WW ? eETjj(nj) h ? ZZ ? eejj tt ?
e?Etjj tt ? eETjjjj Z ? tt ? eETjjjj LQLQ ?
eejj
(w/ Greg Landsberg)
Results all appear reasonable, with no fine-tuning
Details available in draft Quaero PRL
8
An automatic model-tester A new way to publish
HEP data

9
A new way to publish HEP data
Motivation
Now that Run I is winding down, how can we
preserve our data in an accessible form? Our
data are context-specific (You need to
understand an awful lot about it in order to
do anything with it) Is there a way that we can
make our data easily available, both to ourselves
and people outside DØ?
10
A new way to publish HEP data
Motivation
Astrophysicists appear to have solved this
problem High energy physicists so far have not,
despite serious attempts (e.g. at
LEP) Perhaps DØ has hit upon a solution?
11
(No Transcript)
12
A new way to publish HEP data
Possibilities
Advantages include of models outnumbers of
us by lots Put theorists to work Perhaps we
missed something? Never hurts to have another
pair of eyes Increase number of DØ
citations References to the papers describing
the data Education / outreach via
QuarkNet Some additional work (niftier
interface), but great PR potential Frees us up
to focus on Run II But lets us make the most of
Run I Facilitates communication with
theorists Should help bridge the
theory/experimental gap DØ would be leading HEP
in making its data accessible Other experiments
have tried (and failed) to solve this problem
Allows us to beat any CDF analysis by at least
a year Quaero has the answer in a matter of
hours.
13
A new way to publish HEP data
Policy
There are a number of ways Quaero could be
implemented
Dont Keep Quaero as an internal tool
Make data available with limited scope and
internal review Restrict those who are allowed
to use Quaero Review all Quaero results before
releasing them
Make data available with general scope and more
limited internal review
Put the data out there Make data available to
all with no internal review
? many variations on these themes
14
A new way to publish HEP data
Policy
Representative comments/concerns from
collaborators (Opinions were uniformly
thoughtful and reasoned thanks to many for
valuable discussions) DØ worked incredibly hard
for Run I data. Do we really want to give
it away? What responsibility would DØ be
shouldering? What if some nut claims an
unfounded discovery? Does this set a dangerous
precedent for Run II? Would this have a
detrimental effect somehow on exp HEP? Does DØ
have the resources to conduct an internal review
of all Quaero results? Who would do it? What
would the rules be? Does making Quaero results
available only after internal review seem slimy
and unforthcoming?
15
Policy
A new way to publish HEP data
My view/proposal We have a real opportunity
here There are legitimate concerns about making
DØ data public This has not been done
before These concerns can be addressed (I
think) I began this effort believing that an
internal review of Quaero results was
necessary Does DØ have resources to commit to
this effort? No. Would it be cleaner to
provide results directly? Yes. What if there
are bugs in Quaero? Make sure there arent. I
currently feel that the cleanest approach (with
greatest potential advantages) is to put the
data out there
16
Policy
A new way to publish HEP data
The present plan EB 139 is reviewing the
accuracy of the Quaero method and example
analyses Quaero was made available for general
New Phenomena group testing beginning December
2000 All are welcome to test Quaero beginning
today. http//www-d0.fnal.gov/knuteson/d0_private
/quaero/ (From Feb 15th onward Quaero will also
generate signal for you.) Comments and
suggestions are actively solicited PRL draft
exists Describes Quaero method, data, and
results of examples Hope to simultaneously
publish in PRL and release Quaero to the HEP
community
17
Conclusions
Quaero An automatic model-tester A new way to
publish HEP data?
18
(No Transcript)
19
(No Transcript)