1 / 9

I would set a sujestive luminosity tag around 0.5 inv fb for mid 2008.

General comments. I would set a sujestive luminosity tag around 0.5 inv fb for mid 2008. In competitive ATLAS environment it will take 2-4 FTs per analysis to make a difference => As group we likely to afford 3-4 analyses lines. Coherence ?

yoshe
Download Presentation

I would set a sujestive luminosity tag around 0.5 inv fb for mid 2008.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. General comments I would set a sujestive luminosity tag around 0.5 inv fb for mid 2008. In competitive ATLAS environment it will take 2-4 FTs per analysis to make a difference => As group we likely to afford 3-4 analyses lines. Coherence ? It might be helpful to keep certain common element between different analyses – physics model? jets? Et_miss? Calibration?

  2. Physics models vs Experiment Are the physics models from the theory camp motivating ? YES SM Higgs, SUSY until fine tuning at 0.001, EDs. The rest is either much weaker motivated or would take 10 years of data to make a study. Should we keep single model as a common ground for the analyses ? I would say no. Should we choose the analyses connected (directly or by backgrounds) to any of above? I would say yes. How than one does select an analysis? I would say – by final state.

  3. Does the history repeat itself, certainly so. CDF&D0 experience is very relevant and must be taken seriously. In ATLAS, though, we have a written history too. This is Combined test beam experience. In my opinion, the detector start-up will follow the CTB path. ID will take long to start, longer to stabilize read-out – not a good system to base early analysis on. LAR will start in time but will take forever to calibrate (on the cell level) to the level LAR wants it to be done. Tile will start in time and calibrated, but can not do much alone. Muons – will start (staged?) in time, will take time to calibrate.

  4. Just to confirm that e/gamma will be the first objects available. Jets too, but it will take time to bring down the error on absolute scale and the resolution – inclusive jet measurements will not be easy. Et_miss will rely on good understanding of both the detector and all the basic objects - challenging, but fun

  5. Back to physics models, SM Higgs No results are expected until 10 inv fb. It is appropriate, in my opinion, to keep tau line in a longer term. It is appropriate, in my opinion, to keep gamma+jet line as bcgd to gamma+gamma.

  6. Back to physics models, Exotics When needs Et_miss or jet energy scale – tough by mid 2008. Attractive final states – High inv mass (not necessarily resonances) in Gamma+gamma / l+l 2jet angular distribution Gamma+Et_miss Will take longer time and more efforts – Jet+Et_miss

  7. Back to physics models, SUSY Needs Et_miss – tough by mid 2008. Attractive final states – Gamma+gamma+Et_miss Multivariable bump hunting Will take more time – Jets+Et_miss e(gamma)+jet+Et_miss It is appropriate, in my opinion, to keep tau line in a longer term.

  8. Back to physics models Should we stick to ULs ?

More Related