# Presentation: 380466

## Physics Status and Plan

- I will focus on where you can find
- information about physics status and
- plan rather than status and plan...

**Terry Wyatt and Flera Rizatdinova will summarize**
**the winter physics workshop this Friday**

## The Workshop

**Workshop Goal**
**Preview of new results for winter conferences and spring publications**
**Communication among different groups**
**Identification of areas for future improvement**
**Three full days presentations**
**Object identification**
**tremendous stride in all objects (high tracking eff., understanding of jets...) **
**Physics analyses**
**many exciting new results (see the summary talks this Friday)**
**Behind these presentations are people**
**who put their heart and soul into analyses over the last few months;**
**who spent last decade on the upgrade, in the collision hall and control room; **
**who worked tirelessly to develop software algorithms;**
**who operate our computing systems, at Fermilab and around the world.**
**It’s harvest season, only after a long plant season...**

**Thank you all for the effort ... thank Chris, Flera and Ursula for **
**organizing it... thank Terry and Flera for the summary talks this Friday **

**Reminder: July 26-30, 2004 Summer Physics Workshop**

**It’s a success**

## Physics Web

**The site to learn about our physics effort, updated at least weekly **

## Analysis Approval

**Physics Group Review**
** ****distribution of an analysis note within a physics group,**
** ****when satisfied, the group approves the analysis generally in **
**   ****no less than one week after the distribution**
**Editorial Board Review**
** ****follows physics group approval, but EBs are encouraged to get **
**  ****familiarize with analyses in review,**
** ****EB gives provisional approval for collaboration review**
**Collaboration Review**
** ****posting a conference note for one week,**
**  ****a conference note is a few-page summary of the analysis and **
**  ****should contain all numbers/plots that can be shown at conferences.**
**Final Approval**
** ****EB full approval after the collaboration review**
** ****Sign off by the spokespersons or the physics coordinator,**
**   ****generally one week before the intended conference**

## Editorial Boards

**Provide independent reviews **
** ****to ensure integrity and validity **
**  ****of our results **
** ****each board consists of ~ 6 independent **
**   ****members**
** ****each board is assigned several analyses**
** ****similar topologies, different physics**
** ****similar physics, different topologies**
**25 boards have been formed**
**B physics (4), Electroweak (3), Higgs (3), **
**New Phenomena (6), QCD (3), Top (6)**
**EB web page and email list**
** ****the web page should document the **
**  “****history” of the analysis and its review, **
** ****chairs are responsible for maintaining **
**  ****EB pages**
** ****each EB has its mailing list**
**   ****d0-run2eb-nnn@fnal.gov**

**Every EB operates differently,**
**some are inactive**
**some take their jobs seriously**
**The approach I like to see:  **
**“****nose in, fingers out...”**

## Analysis in Review

**Entry point for papers and conference notes for collaboration review,**
**linked from the Physics home page**

**Papers for collaboration review**
**2-week posting**
**Conference notes review**
**1-week posting**
**Red: review open**
**Blue: review closed**
**One-click of email addresses**
**for sending your comments**
**Links to respective editorial**
**board pages**

## Analysis Notes

**A “complete” list of Run 2 analysis notes in physics group, EB, and**

**Collaboration review**

**What you can find:**
**Links to latest version**
**Editorial boards assigned**
**Review status**

**Posted on the “Analysis**
**in Review” page, updated**
**frequently **

## Conference Notes

**A conference note is a several-page summary of an analysis. The note **
**can be distributed outside the Collaboration for presentation at **
**conferences after receiving approval by the Collaboration.**
** ****during the internal view, notes are authored by those who contributed**
**  ****directly to the analyses**
** ****upon approval, the author will be changed to “The DØ Collaboration”.**
**Templates to facilitate note/paper writing**

**Conference note template**
**is adapted from PRL/PRD**
**with a “standard” front page**
**Plots are recommended to be**
**made using the standard macro**
**Example Run II detector**
**description**
**While identical texts on detector**
**are permissible by PRL/PRD, **
**identical texts on analyses are**
**forbidden**

## Approved Results

**Question:**** I am going to giving a conference talk (or a seminar), **
**what DØ results can I show ?**

**Answer: **
**visit the “ Publications**
**& Results” page**

**What you can find**
**All recent approved **
**conference notes and **
**their plots**
**Links to all DØ publications**
**Object ID performance**
**documentation (to come)**

## Publishing, Publication !

**We need to publish!**
** ****Many of our results are either first measurements or have exceeded**
**  ****the sensitivities of previous measurements**
** ****Work will be lost and it counts nothing if we don’t publish**
**Let’s set a goal: 30+ submissions for 2004**
** ****It will be a lot of work, it won’t be easy, it requires determination**
** ****The Collaboration has to be behind this goal**
** ****algorithm/physics groups need to continue the push after the **
**  ****conference rush**
** ****editorial boards need to take the responsibility seriously and promptly,**
**  ****you are busy... because you want to publish!**
** ****the collaboration at large has to show more interest in our physics **
**  ****results, show some ownership of the results we produce.**
** ****This compels us to evaluate competitiveness of our results, thus**
**   ****shift effort to address issues critical to the results**

**I think we can do it,**
**but not without a coherent effort from all of us!**

## Road Map

**Conveners have gone through an exercise, identifying potential**
**publications in the spring, summer, and fall this year.**

**identified ~50 analyses that**
**can be potentially published.**
**not all analyses are currently **
**being worked on! **
**preliminary results of many**
**analyses are not competitive**
**defined scope of each potential **
**publication and assigned an “editor” **
**for papers targeted for the spring**
**the list is posted on the “Ongoing **
**Analyses” page**

## First Run II Paper ?

## Student Survey

**A recent survey comes up with**
**~150 PhD students**
**Electroweak (13)**
**B physics (17)**
**Higgs (26)**
**New phenomena (33)**
**Top (42)**
**QCD (13)**
**Plan to update it regularly, so**
**please let me know if there are **
**changes/additions**
**Questions:**
**Are thesis topics the right**
**mix for our physics program?**
**Are there areas over populated**
**and areas need more students?**

## Fixing and Skimming

**Thumbnail fixing**
**Post-RECO processing gives us flexibilities, pass 1 fixing is **
**a great success**
**We spin through all our data in about 3 months, redoing**
**calorimeter reconstruction,  delivering a “uniform” dataset **
**to physics analyses**
**Common skimming**
**Benefited individual analyses tremendously,**
**Reduced duplication among different physics groups significantly**
**Done by five individuals**** ****(Frederic, Jonas, Marco, Oleksiy, Yuri)**** **
**TMB fixing pass 2**
**A uniform dataset with t42, fixing a number of problems**
**of pass 1, and several other improvements**
**Targeted to begin on March 15 and to complete by end of May**
**Need volunteers, see Frederic and Yuri if you can contribute**

**Thanks!**

## Issues of Concern

**Late arrival of the data**
**Full dataset was only made available around January 20, 2004, **
**object ID certification on critical path, resulting frictions between **
**algorithm and physics groups**
**Data quality, takes time to understand it and develop fixes**
**Insufficient verification of “production” executables**
**Lack of people to work on getting the data ready**
**Data Quality**
**A serious issue for the Moriond dataset (Apr. 2002 – Sep. 2003)**
**Loss of up to ~25% of recorded luminosity**
**Noisy data and many hardware features **
**Poor understanding of the data**
**Inadequate feedbacks to detector groups? **
**Comment I received: “All data quality ‘issues’ you are describing **
**                                      ****been addressed and most resolved”**** **
**Simulations**
**Lack of coordination among algorithm/physics groups**
**Poor agreement between data/MC, few are working on them**
**Lack of documentation of MC production, hard to keep track...**

**See Flera’s talk this Friday for more...**

## Random Remarks

**To Our Senior Collaborators:**
**We have very few senior people active in any physics group**
** ****I’d like to invite you to be more active in our physics effort**
** ****You don’t have to know C++ or thumbnail to make contributions**
** ****We will benefit greatly from your experience and your knowledge**
** ****Work with our young colleagues, offer your intellectual wisdom**
** ****This is your experiment, show more ownership of the experiment**
**To our students and their advisors:**
**what you do for your thesis ultimately is a decision to be made**
**between you and your advisor**
** ****Do you have all the information you need to make a decision that will be **
**  ****beneficial to you, your advisor/institution and the Collaboration as a whole? **
**  ****If not, shouldn’t you at least talk to us before making the decision?**
** ****The scientific value of your thesis depends on how well we understand **
**  ****our data, what have you done to improve our understanding?**
** ****Advisors: please don’t dump your students, be advisors, your students**
**  ****need you.**

## Summary

**We have made tremendous progress in all areas lead to our **
**physics results**
**Luminosity uncertainty is now 6.5%**
**A procedure in place in delivering dataset for analyses**
**Post-RECO TMB fixing**
**Common skimming**
**Object identification algorithms are maturing**
**Many of our preliminary results are competitive**
**See Terry’s talk this Friday,**
**Many of us are stressed out ... **
**We have a long way to where we want to be in**
**improving the quality and our understanding of the data**
**early discovery of problems and verifications of new dataset**
**making data available in a timely fashion**
**We have to start publishing... **
**30+ publications this year**
**We can do it with the help from all of us**