Minutes: Energy Frontier Conveners' meeting: May 16: 11:00 PDT / 2:00 EDT
Attending: Kaustubh, Andre, Michael S, Jianming,Yuri, John, Michael P, Doreen, Joey, Heather, Liantao, Daniel, Ken, Meenakshi, Markus, Chip
0. Seattle
Invited people/talks are as follows...
Plenary:
ATLAS: TBA
CMS: Chris Hill
Linear Collider: Sachio Komamiya
Future Facilities: Mark Palmer
Instrumentation: Ulrich Heintz
'Overlap' sessions:
B-physics: Jure Zupan
lepton number violation: Kaladi Babu (remotely)
Baryogenesis: Ann Nelson
Dark Matter: Manoj Kaplinghat
Panel, "What, in your personal opinion, should be the main conclusions of our Energy Frontier report ?":
Jim Brau
Ron Lipton
Beate Heinemann
Chris Hill
Liantao Wang
Theorist TBA
Please be organizing your sessions and we'll try to allocate the rooms accordingly. For parallel meetings, we have as many rooms as subgroups, plus a 300 seat auditorium available at all times.
We can schedule meetings in parallel with the "overlap" session, but you may not want us to do that for your group. Please tell us whether your group (or part of your group) will attend the overlap session.
1. Chip reported on the ATLAS whitepaper schedule and offered some concerns about it. Currently the plan is for Seattle to reflect only minor changes from the European Strategy document. There will be original work that will go beyond that previous document and that work is scheduled to be done by 31 July. The whitepaper itself is scheduled for completion on 30 September.
This is problematic in the sense that were the July "conclusions" to be modified or enhanced significantly, then the 30 September Snowmass document might look quite different regarding ATLAS plans than the 30 September ATLAS whitepaper. It was suggested that ATLAS help us by at least noting where work was ongoing through the Minneapolis period and that as soon as its feasible that 2013 conclusions and studies be inserted into the Snowmass report where placeholders would be maintained, even if later than the official calendar.
This discussion will be ongoing. The CMS whitepaper schedule is not yet available, but it's hoped that a similar back-and-forth and relaxation of rules should apply there also.
In any case, we count on those of you who are members of ATLAS and CMS and are involved in futures studies to make sure that we are not going to be in strong disagreement with conclusions that ATLAS and CMS are about to announce.
2. Meenakshi summarized the state of the background simulation. This is a huge effort and being done within a devoted Snowmass VO within OSG. It was discovered that the tail backgrounds necessary for new physics extrapolations - especially in ttbar + n jets were not feasibly generated in the madgraph-->pythia-->DELPHES chain and that we had to be smarter. Considerable benchmarking on suggestions of Jay Wacker and the SLAC group have been done to generate events in a weighed fashion against a single variable to maximize efficiency. HT was chosen as that variable and the "binned-unbinned" comparison using this scheme suggest that +-10% agreement is feasible in these difficult regions. This is sufficient for Snowmass and large-scale generation has resumed at 14 TeV. Ultimate storage at the Nebraska CMS Tier 2 is still planned with HTML retrieval for users. A whitepaper on the scheme has been drafted.
3. The Snowmass conveners are considering adding a layer of "Big Questions" over the Three Frontiers template. Some effort at organizing a community-based deciding on these Questions is under consideration.
4. AOB...none.
5. We discussed the question from Cosmic Frontier:
• HE5. What kind of slop is present when we tune tools such as Pythia to handle non-perturbative QCD at colliders? Do current uncertainty estimations really do justice or are there systematic effects in the modeling/choice of tool that could be larger? Is it possible we are tuning away subtle interesting and novel effects from new physics? How can we be sure?
A key item is that we need to recognize that this question is being asked and address it in our reports. A large part of the burden falls on the QCD group. There are issues not only with nonperturbative effects, but also with the accuracy of perturbative parts of the background calculation -- pdfs, parton showers, need for resummation, treatment of W radiation, etc. We need to emphasize that we think about these things and have a process for quoting systematic errors due to these effects.
==============================================================================
On May 15, 2013, at 5:34 PM, Raymond Brock <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Hello EF Conveners,
We will have our weekly EF Convener's phone call tomorrow, Thursday.
Energy Frontier Conveners' meeting
May 16: 11:00 PDT / 2:00 EDT
Contact information:
You call: domestic... (877)287-0283
international...(303)433-0165
participant code: 290-043
We will start the meeting promptly and end promptly after 1 hour.
Agenda items
0. Update on plans for Seattle
In particular:
- Status of plenary and panel invitations
- Status of invitations to CF and IF overlap people - what is it?
1. Discussion of ATLAS and CMS whitepapers and schedule
2. Status of background sample generation...Meenakshi will summarize
3. Upcoming (in an hour) discussion with overall Snowmass conveners.
4. AOB?
5. A couple more questions from CF conveners:
• HE5. What kind of slop is present when we tune tools such as Pythia to handle non-perturbative QCD at colliders? Do current uncertainty estimations really do justice or are there systematic effects in the modeling/choice of tool that could be larger? Is it possible we are tuning away subtle interesting and novel effects from new physics? How can we be sure?
• HE6. What is the reasonable target for flavor and CP violation, given no hints for any BSM effects in this direction?
Thank you,
Chip and Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Brock * University Distinguished Professor
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Michigan State University
Biomedical Physical Sciences
567 WIlson Road, Room 3210
East Lansing, MI 48824
sent from: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
cell: (517)927-5447
MSU office: (517)353-1693/884-5579
open fax: (517)355-6661
secure fax: (517)351-0688
Fermilab office: (630)840-2286
CERN Office: 32 2-B03 * 76-71756
Twitter: @chipbrock
Home: http://www.pa.msu.edu/~brock/
ISP220: http://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/ISP220/
ISP213H: http://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/2007spring/ISP213H/
Facebook: http://msu.facebook.com/profile.php?id=2312233
---------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Brock * University Distinguished Professor
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Michigan State University
Biomedical Physical Sciences
567 WIlson Road, Room 3210
East Lansing, MI 48824
sent from: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
cell: (517)927-5447
MSU office: (517)353-1693/884-5579
open fax: (517)355-6661
secure fax: (517)351-0688
Fermilab office: (630)840-2286
CERN Office: 32 2-B03 * 76-71756
Twitter: @chipbrock
Home: http://www.pa.msu.edu/~brock/
ISP220: http://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/ISP220/
ISP213H: http://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/2007spring/ISP213H/
Facebook: http://msu.facebook.com/profile.php?id=2312233
########################################################################
Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list
To unsubscribe from the SNOWMASS-EF list, click the following link:
https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SNOWMASS-EF&A=1
