tools06

Ideas for the round table discussions
We will have two roundtable discussions. One geared more toward colliders issues and the other more towards the astroparticle and cosmology aspects.
The discussion will involve all participants. It is good to start thinking about some of the issues you would like to have debated.             back to main page
Here are some points.



Tuesday round table, Collider issues

a compilation by Fawzi Boudjema and Stefano Moretti. Send any comments,, additions to Fawzi and Stefano		 Wednesday round table, Dark Matter issues

a compilation by Fawzi Boudjema and JeanOrloff. Send any comments, additions to Jean and Fawzi
 
*C++: do experiments really require C++ software (for
event generations, etc.) ? Or would they be equally happy
with wrappers around whichever code/language ? What is
the status in this respect ? C++ is certainly good for
authors (OO helps multi-editing, etc) but many insist
FORTRAN is still faster, more accurate/efficient. That is,
there any point for  a single author to convert his/her
code to C++ to have it used by the experiments ? Probably
not ? Are C++ (ThePEG) libraries/repositories useful to
whom, other than the authors ? 

* e-Science Data Analysis Resource HEP tools (like CEDAR),
more of those ? What has the impact been so far on the
experiments, real (Tevatron) or simulated (LHC) ?

* Top-down (start from known theory and generate data) vs
Bottom-up (start from data and parametrize theory). 

Much of the former, very little of the latter at present.
Possibly apart from LHC Olympics, which assume second
approach, but maybe still biased towards standard scenarios
(SUSY, Xdim) ? How general can we be in the second
approach. Would be good to have overview of experiences from LHC Olympics. 
LANHEP approach (whatever Lagrangian) can
be useful ? Or effective theories ?  Bard approach? Global approach?

* Experimenters to declare data handling policy. Who
can accesses them , how will they be presented
(unfolded, raw, etc.). Other ?

* Experimenters to make sure tools used are up-to-date,
authors' approved versions, all settings (if defferent from
default) are declared, which data are used for tuning,
version #'s specified, interferfaces used are declared,
etc. 

* Related to previous point: do LHC experiments have a
cutoff date to make a code part of the collaboration tool
repository or will they keep updating/enlarging the latter
as the need arises ? That is, will they maintain manpower
dedicated to this tasks throughout the experiment lifetime
?

* How to normalise MC event generators especially in
multi-leg hadronic final states (many jets beyond MC@NLO).
Establish control sample of data for overall normalisation
? Extrapolation to other final states/data sets possible ?
Any experiences so far with real data (from Tevatron) ?

* What does it take to validate a ``dark matter model"

* What are the most important cross checks to perform, for indirect, direct and collider observables.

* What to do with pseudo signals, like some signals that we have now and that cover a wide range of energy..?

*How to merge dark matter codes, especially the particle physics part with the propagation codes.
Can we find a general parametrisation of the latter, based of course on few key parameters.

*How to aim at the best precision on the relic density (from colliders). Shall we start to incorporate
unconventional cosmological scenarios (non thermal production, entropy,..)

*Revival and major update of DarkMatter Tools (New experiments, improved theory). DarkMatter tools is webpage on direct detection that had been maintained by Rick Gaitskell.