Quaero

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

2. An automatic model-tester Motivation 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. An automatic model-tester Motivation 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?

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 3. Define D=p(s)/[p(s)+p(b)] 4. Choose Dcut to optimize an expected 95% limit

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?

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 Don’t 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. A new way to publish HEP data Policy 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 aren’t. I currently feel that the cleanest approach (with greatest potential advantages) is to “put the data out there”

16. A new way to publish HEP data Policy 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?