WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:04.000 Okay Hello everyone welcome back to the very last session of our 11th workshop. 00:00:04.000 --> 00:00:05.000 Excellent. 00:00:05.000 --> 00:00:24.000 So this last session is going to be a meeting of the working group, and people who are interested in following the activities of the working group and helping us make the searches at LSE more concrete so we have two goals in today's discussion session. 00:00:24.000 --> 00:00:40.000 So there's going to be two talks and the main agenda is essentially to find gaps so we want to find gaps first of all in our search coverage. So all of the experiments, especially the major experiments Atlas CMS and edit CV have been performing many other 00:00:40.000 --> 00:00:57.000 searches, often with very similar benchmarks. So it would be nice to be able to find gaps in those searches so that we can have full coverage. And secondly, of course we also want to find gaps in signatures, as well. If there are any new signatures that people have not thought of. 00:00:57.000 --> 00:01:09.000 people have not thought of. We want to know about that so there's already been a lot of work in the white paper, and so on but of course this is the place to discuss. If you have more ideas about that. 00:01:09.000 --> 00:01:19.000 So, that was just to set the stage for what we want to talk about, and then Giovanna, could you maybe introduce the docs. 00:01:19.000 --> 00:01:36.000 Yes, then squishy de Welcome everybody to the last session. So as Nisha commented we have two talks of First there is a summary talk for both for Atlassian ism and each city where they will present some requirements wishes and any normal bottlenecks concerning 00:01:36.000 --> 00:01:47.000 a Datsun Gordon, and we have heavier with us, covered if you may want to share your screen. 00:01:47.000 --> 00:01:56.000 You have 20 minutes please go ahead. Yeah. are you going to see the slides and also like movies. 00:01:56.000 --> 00:02:09.000 Yes. Okay, great. And thanks a lot. Yeah, I will be presenting behalf of KPLP working group, their requirements wishes and proposals that we currently have to produce the summary plots. 00:02:09.000 --> 00:02:13.000 So first of all, Why do we want summary plus. 00:02:13.000 --> 00:02:23.000 We would like to show some consistent and meaningful comparisons of LLP searches across the experiment course we know we're doing lots of searches sometimes with different approaches. 00:02:23.000 --> 00:02:39.000 And we want to focus on this global comparison showing, which is, which analysis which experiments cover different ranges of faith based, do we manage to cover the whole basis to have gaps in between, and especially the focus of the plot to show and highlight 00:02:39.000 --> 00:02:53.000 the complementarity of two different approaches that might be that in some cases will find regions that we thought were well covered but they're actually not an might also influence future searches. 00:02:53.000 --> 00:03:01.000 Just as a kind of a heads up the, of course, the main source of information for when when it comes to interpretations will always be your original analysis. 00:03:01.000 --> 00:03:09.000 So the idea of this process to focus the company entirely do not to make them super useful to for future interpretations. 00:03:09.000 --> 00:03:20.000 So I have one example from run one, so you see in the same Cloud Atlas Alyssa DCMS. Of course it was very clear you see each of them covering different regions. 00:03:20.000 --> 00:03:29.000 And, and this gives us an assumption here branching ratio 50%, and this tool does not contain enough information to say what if my branch English is 10% what is covered. 00:03:29.000 --> 00:03:36.000 There's not the purpose of the plot for that you can go to individual analysis. The purpose of the process to highlight this kind of complementarity. 00:03:36.000 --> 00:03:50.000 So this was kind of very nice, and then just kind of provocative example of the current situation. Here you see some report from Atlas and the corresponding one from CMS, and they're not at all compare it comparable. 00:03:50.000 --> 00:03:58.000 So at first sight. They don't even have the same trends the same shapes and different made because there are different assumptions behind. 00:03:58.000 --> 00:04:13.000 Atlas love decided to scale the branching ratio decided to get some content is a hidden extra model with the Higgs became too too long with particles, then the branching ratio of those two LPs seem to be you cover like. 00:04:13.000 --> 00:04:23.000 And then you get all those curves and then different searches can be compared to the same one. CMS took a different approach, which is assumed the branching ratios hundred percent. 00:04:23.000 --> 00:04:36.000 So it's much easier for interpretation because you just have to scale, those lines by your desired branching ratio, but it's more complex more difficult to compare the different strengths of the analysis because of course you're done you're looked extremely 00:04:36.000 --> 00:04:50.000 strong while the hydraulic one, look. Look my Twitter. And that might not be the case in a realistic model. Not to say that any of these choices are better or worse, you're saying there's different choices and makes it difficult to compare those two analysis. 00:04:50.000 --> 00:05:03.000 Okay, so now a bit of technicalities of course during the summer class is not trivial. 00:05:03.000 --> 00:05:15.000 And then there's the kind of the technical part that running again, an existing analysis is quite as non trivial and not so actually different levels of complexity in the different experiments. 00:05:15.000 --> 00:05:30.000 Then the additional point that if we managed to include with a non LP searches to cover this is a prompt scenario, under the infinite lifetime scenario, the MySpace is extremely important if this is even more work, because then we're dealing with a slightly 00:05:30.000 --> 00:05:39.000 long list technology for analysis but we're not targeted for longer signals and we might require additional additional work to turn this into account. 00:05:39.000 --> 00:05:41.000 So, falling in all this. 00:05:41.000 --> 00:05:47.000 We are aware, that's kind of the first class that we produce might be conditioned by this constraint. 00:05:47.000 --> 00:06:04.000 And we'll have a dedicated talk later but Philip and the experience of travel for producing such summary so having all this in mind I still think it would be very useful but to find what we would like to have in the future, so that we can prepare to Peter 00:06:04.000 --> 00:06:12.000 analysis with some column based much already mind, so that we facilitate this kind of summary got proprietary trading. 00:06:12.000 --> 00:06:18.000 So today what we're showing here as many possible summary plots actually way too many. 00:06:18.000 --> 00:06:29.000 There are two goals here. Hopefully from all this large set we can identify a minimum pitch for which we can, or we should be set up to produce summary plots, almost. 00:06:29.000 --> 00:06:32.000 Right now, with some minimal agreements. 00:06:32.000 --> 00:06:41.000 And then hopefully we can also agree on a larger set that we consider interesting but for some reason might require more work from analysis. 00:06:41.000 --> 00:06:45.000 Maybe Wen de Carlo are we running a model for which they are not set up. 00:06:45.000 --> 00:06:49.000 And the idea is that we can still agree on those and keep them. 00:06:49.000 --> 00:07:02.000 Keep them prepare so that the future analysis, do interpret in those models, and then we facilitate feature summary but I wouldn't be showing some particular proposals and just to say I mean there's nothing set in stone of course we're just wanted to 00:07:02.000 --> 00:07:14.000 have something to get the discussion rolling and everything is up for debate, not that beer have a strong, a really strong opinion on this particular choices and assumptions. 00:07:14.000 --> 00:07:28.000 This said, and we're Of course there will be discussion but also their slides, the links are can be edited so please comment there directly so that we can keep track will do of course, hopefully have plenty of discussion time but in case there's not enough 00:07:28.000 --> 00:07:33.000 of you want to add some additional comments, you can comment directly on the fly. 00:07:33.000 --> 00:07:48.000 Okay, getting started, we'll start with this Hidden Valley model. This is the first one to discuss, you will have lots of light on this theme, not to say that we consider this a more relevant model, different comes, trying to discuss this more details 00:07:48.000 --> 00:07:53.000 to explain our thinking and the rest of the proposal would be a bit faster. 00:07:53.000 --> 00:07:58.000 So this is a Hidden Valley model with a generic heavy mediator five year. 00:07:58.000 --> 00:08:11.000 And as in a scanner or pseudo scalar Lt. Then you have a diagram like the one here. Some possibly up to five degrees of freedom which are the masters lifetime the production perspective on the branch eraser. 00:08:11.000 --> 00:08:16.000 And this is one of the other was showing before. 00:08:16.000 --> 00:08:30.000 This case is, what's the lifetime, and the cross section time span to ratio for some pics choices of the master will try to be the head fear, some LLP masters also fixed you can see here the color. 00:08:30.000 --> 00:08:36.000 And the idea is that it highlights the complementarity of the different channels, across the lifespan routine. 00:08:36.000 --> 00:08:44.000 It will be also of course interesting to study complementarity among other dimensions of the five dimensional models that we have here. 00:08:44.000 --> 00:08:49.000 Right now we have different assumptions and uplift from CMS is what I just discussed. 00:08:49.000 --> 00:09:01.000 Of course, each of them have different benefits or, or not, and we just think that we need to find some agreement that we can overlay, all of them into the same plot. 00:09:01.000 --> 00:09:10.000 So, wanted to give you some lessons that are highlighted from what we learned recently and not not from tradition summary 00:09:10.000 --> 00:09:19.000 from moving from the previous slide, we produce plot along different access so for example you see here this person Blessed is now lifetime versus LLP Ma. 00:09:19.000 --> 00:09:28.000 And this is a third side surprising that we have a gap here, that there's not that visible in the previous one complete business and many overland lines overlays. 00:09:28.000 --> 00:09:42.000 But sometimes we have gaps between those two regime between the tracker on the telemetry team when we're talking about 10% binary ratio. This is not I mean this is hidden, sorry this is this wasn't original plot, just need to be very careful of picking, 00:09:42.000 --> 00:09:45.000 just one set of NLP master. 00:09:45.000 --> 00:09:51.000 Then there are other regions. When we look at the right just now for one TV mediator. 00:09:51.000 --> 00:10:04.000 That here it seems that we only have this kind of longer life and regime and this kind of tracker, or displays virgins regime is uncovered. But this in particular, this particular the sweet spot for searches that simply interpret and other models for 00:10:04.000 --> 00:10:15.000 example Susie displays vertex so this is the TV like our heartburn, this leaf exactly here and simply we're not overlaid into this cloth and analysis that is actually covering this region. 00:10:15.000 --> 00:10:20.000 This is also something that would like to, to include. 00:10:20.000 --> 00:10:24.000 So, moving now into the actual proposal. 00:10:24.000 --> 00:10:35.000 The first one would be to produce this for the existing one 725 to two killers in a lifetime versus branching ratio, 00:10:35.000 --> 00:10:40.000 sorry yeah cross sections banking, while back, you have your architecture temporary ratio plus. 00:10:40.000 --> 00:10:47.000 We could assume here, you cover like 20 ratio for the LLP for some choice of the schema. 00:10:47.000 --> 00:11:02.000 And just find out the viewers are already producing this plot, and officially now from the reference here this the exactly the overlay of CMS lines that we would like to see a summary but of course with the corresponding carriers for some of us to see 00:11:02.000 --> 00:11:09.000 the LMT math is not consistent across line, but kind of what what can be done with the public material. 00:11:09.000 --> 00:11:23.000 A second component. So, which would be something different to scan the heavy media trauma versus lifetime so this now goes to let's say from the low energy or the low energy scale to the high energy scale this is a transition that we usually don't look 00:11:23.000 --> 00:11:39.000 into the surprise of course I'm choice for the LP mass is a particular proposal and if he kept yet. Of course, free from choice for the cross section and privacy ratio and business one could a few minutes a scholar production so expect cross section on 00:11:39.000 --> 00:11:45.000 some branch durations that this is meaningful when we were at the point of the, of the Hicks Lang. 00:11:45.000 --> 00:12:00.000 And this would be kind of example of the product derived into of course the perfect completely made up just to put in here some of the lines that they were I think they could, could miss to catch up in the in the prompt scenario, this is some idiot you're 00:12:00.000 --> 00:12:10.000 going to forget this digest there's we have analysis for that vertex, probably don't reach into the low, low mass scale. 00:12:10.000 --> 00:12:21.000 This deviation for bs analysis, this place gets here I put together all the different things. This place gets delayed get what we call an atlas color image ratio. 00:12:21.000 --> 00:12:29.000 I mean, all of them here together. And then at the edge we would have similar kicks to visible, or those kind of met a search. 00:12:29.000 --> 00:12:33.000 And this is a different a different view of the of the current model this. 00:12:33.000 --> 00:12:45.000 This looks at the complementarity across the energy scale and there's something that we don't usually do maybe we do have a gap between kind of the six like scale and the scale at which we often analyzed separately. 00:12:45.000 --> 00:13:03.000 Okay, I'm still on the same thinking I was mostly focused on so far as CMS, but of course the LCD also has results in Bali model, and this because we could also be tired in the future by Facebook for example, Then we could look into different kind of 00:13:03.000 --> 00:13:20.000 now the LLP masters lifetime, was something that was showing before from Atlas. This of course now production mechanism assumed is the surface as LCD don't know, for example, the, the results. 00:13:20.000 --> 00:13:37.000 Don't assume production via via hex here that would need to agree on some coherent picture so that we can overlay the kind of bit more light and forward production that would also be targeted by fazer with this most heavy center production of that lesson 00:13:37.000 --> 00:13:38.000 CMS that we can probably figure something out here. 00:13:38.000 --> 00:13:57.000 PMS that we can probably figure something out here. Okay, now, switching completely model, a different model that we could look at this year, GMSDC know, the sushi model with the heat fino Decatur Hicks are set the curvy keynote, and a nice feature of 00:13:57.000 --> 00:14:08.000 model is an extremely rich final stage because you can target it with match with left hands with just with the guests, which makes it makes a great kind of rich phenomenology for summary plot. 00:14:08.000 --> 00:14:19.000 There are three possible degrees of freedom, mass lifetime, even the branching ratio depends which ones you want to take a second one is fixed a unitary keep grabbing Kino is essentially zero. 00:14:19.000 --> 00:14:29.000 This could be another degree of freedom, would you look at the non sci fi models, the strategy and production from electroweak tablet. 00:14:29.000 --> 00:14:34.000 But okay we're trying to reduce degrees of freedom so we could stay at zero for the moment. 00:14:34.000 --> 00:14:44.000 So this would be now another, another proposal is just enormous in a lifetime, with some assumptions, Franco ratio for example 50%. 00:14:44.000 --> 00:14:58.000 As you can see here now there's a many more lines that could come here. And again, everything is made up maybe some of those don't have some cpvc maybe some are able to cover the whole basis I don't read No, but in particularly have seems like a specific 00:14:58.000 --> 00:15:16.000 place get started with me on this place left hands but we're not entering before. And also it's a very nice at the comfort of prompt, and then the lungs and the beer, but they're very long life long, lift regime is an hour also covered their dedicated enough. 00:15:16.000 --> 00:15:30.000 Okay, switching again now having you for left and this is the targeted again by the experiments at the problem here is that there are different assumptions and model, be used in each of them. 00:15:30.000 --> 00:15:39.000 So CMS has a minimal model with a heavy sugar, only covers either electrons or meals, and then the math and makes them, are independent parameters. 00:15:39.000 --> 00:15:46.000 And now elicit the analysts are also going to kind of multifamily and working flavor make some scenarios. 00:15:46.000 --> 00:15:56.000 And there are other experiments that person will face in the future and future LPs parents that are very, very competitive in this kind of order one TV regime. 00:15:56.000 --> 00:16:06.000 so we should also take those into account for the proposal here actually become very almost copy paste it from the top of mountain Monday by a vector. 00:16:06.000 --> 00:16:19.000 One is the kind of my Girona have a neutral essence a single flavor, which we're already doing for which we have this kind of manual overlay here, so visible of course would be great to have an official way. 00:16:19.000 --> 00:16:22.000 We make them really comparable. 00:16:22.000 --> 00:16:37.000 And the second proposal with this kind of ternary plus, where we explore the multi flavor mixing across the three generations, and this is what this was proposed here and this is it would be kind of a really nice summary claws on which the tree and the 00:16:37.000 --> 00:16:42.000 tree experiment could could produce results. 00:16:42.000 --> 00:16:45.000 Okay, back to supersymmetry. 00:16:45.000 --> 00:16:52.000 This proposal now comes from a split supersymmetry model, but the long list we know which forms are harder. 00:16:52.000 --> 00:17:06.000 This is now use an Atlas and CMS, although with different assumptions, but the first one was blood from CMS. Here, this is for a fixed Minamata 2.4 TV, and a fixed neutralino mass, then the green is treated simple as a neutral non interactive article, 00:17:06.000 --> 00:17:10.000 you see here, exclusive limits of functional lifetime. 00:17:10.000 --> 00:17:21.000 In that plus the nucleus stakes are higher and assimilated and the limit is now as a function of the clean them up they have all these different perks, a bunch of life. 00:17:21.000 --> 00:17:33.000 The fact that we, including this are harder and simulation this would also allow for a charge LLP, which is makes it very interesting to be your first company in orange this eVx analysis, which we discussed long. 00:17:33.000 --> 00:17:38.000 I don't know what the reason except that was observed. 00:17:38.000 --> 00:17:46.000 So, along those lines, it would be the the proposal, a limit leader master supplies time so very similar to this plot. 00:17:46.000 --> 00:17:58.000 Of course, this requires some choices with some choice of the new enormous, for example, more mass but could also look into small mass splitting which is much more challenging and the limiter Of course much weaker. 00:17:58.000 --> 00:18:04.000 And hopefully, including our own simulations that we can include also the charge LP results into the plot. 00:18:04.000 --> 00:18:13.000 And this is one of the examples where it just makes it very clear case that we should be trying to enlist a proper interpretation so the red line here. 00:18:13.000 --> 00:18:28.000 This comes from the account analysis so thanks for everything dictates your prompt and doing the reinterpretations for slightly longer, meaning be quite strong and procurement have to basically order a bit below one meter lifetime. 00:18:28.000 --> 00:18:36.000 And so this is kind of a kind of analogy that we also need to take into account, want to be able to cover the full life. 00:18:36.000 --> 00:18:37.000 Okay. 00:18:37.000 --> 00:18:40.000 Switching now to dark photon. 00:18:40.000 --> 00:18:57.000 This is again one center, one of those models where every experiment has resolved, and unfortunately every experiment of those thousand different model LSD be considered a minimal model or simply consumed the dark photon became to me on 00:18:57.000 --> 00:19:04.000 adolescent CMS, have a model where the Start button comes from a copy to the Higgs. 00:19:04.000 --> 00:19:16.000 Unfortunately, both again from different models Atlas has this fr VC model, and just shown here, TMS simpler model became, of course and became directly to dark podiums. 00:19:16.000 --> 00:19:32.000 And, of course, this are some things that we should harmonize this plot here at the bottom. This was produced internally, but it's in pluses just an unofficial overlay of the Atlas and CMS resolve, and then he Hm. 00:19:32.000 --> 00:19:46.000 Thanks to minute model. And you, I mean, you're a fee from from the shape of this that the twin is there being something completely different here targeting different regimes and this is exactly what we want to highlight here, the left is the plot the 00:19:46.000 --> 00:19:50.000 ability. The result. 00:19:50.000 --> 00:20:06.000 Okay, this would be another proposal, then we should try to put all of this analysis, into templates and principles This is Captain versus Master, so this is we're already doing this price we would need to agree and a model that, so that we can do this 00:20:06.000 --> 00:20:18.000 properly Overlay and also commodity and comedy LSD, or which we need to become a few some way of production that is comparable between both. 00:20:18.000 --> 00:20:34.000 Okay, I'm going to open faster now but to Susie is a GMSD flattens is now a proposal that we try to focus on low mass charge the key signature compared to the TV charge LMT from before. 00:20:34.000 --> 00:20:37.000 So this is quite natural two degrees of freedom. 00:20:37.000 --> 00:20:47.000 In fact, we were already doing this cut and address it might look even similar problem is they're absolutely not because here is 20 minus two feet out here it is, and how does actually CMS that's much better in the low light region. 00:20:47.000 --> 00:21:02.000 Intel. So it's actually CMS that's much better in the low light region. But this in principle, this could, we could overlay him the same thoughts and then try to shoot on top reinterpretations from from searches so Derek slept in production here at the bottom. 00:21:02.000 --> 00:21:12.000 Heavy stable charged particles here in the very long lesson which you may be disappearing tracks. This will be also a very nice benchmark model. 00:21:12.000 --> 00:21:18.000 Okay. Our PVC here, the possibilities are almost endless. 00:21:18.000 --> 00:21:31.000 One, the time to be minimal would be promising doesn't direct electroweak production with our PD case. 00:21:31.000 --> 00:21:37.000 So that's going to them here is the same that we have resolved, and all of them. 00:21:37.000 --> 00:21:41.000 Unfortunately, everybody seems to pick a different model, which. 00:21:41.000 --> 00:21:43.000 Okay, fine. 00:21:43.000 --> 00:21:58.000 And I think this is also very interesting because then both extremes. This comes from TK and the stable neutralino that's dedicated searches. And this is kind of a gray area which the cross section is small, around 200 300 gb scale. 00:21:58.000 --> 00:22:10.000 It's difficult to target practice this is something that's inclusive searches for display subjects should consider to have interpretations in this electroweak production of the long list. 00:22:10.000 --> 00:22:27.000 One proposal here would be the senior production of QDLQQ or neutrino to two final stage. This makes it very challenging this almost this thinking know that they can't handle health with so this is the final stage with all displays pro product which would 00:22:27.000 --> 00:22:37.000 be a really, really nice if we could come from limits here and we probably have Emily we're not interpreting participants here. 00:22:37.000 --> 00:22:39.000 Okay, I think this is my last one. 00:22:39.000 --> 00:22:48.000 This now comes from LCD and CMS. Mainly, and this is a dark awesome panel say with x going to me. 00:22:48.000 --> 00:22:57.000 And in the center years, CMS and CMS, or in the left and right there already interpreting similar model. 00:22:57.000 --> 00:23:08.000 You see here to kind of say lines to die of where each of them lives and adolescence also result in influence a model, the person this should be also kind of an easy overlay of existing results. 00:23:08.000 --> 00:23:14.000 The, cookie, cookie and putting them together on the same plot to make a nice summary. 00:23:14.000 --> 00:23:15.000 Okay. 00:23:15.000 --> 00:23:24.000 Okay, this brings me to my last slide, the walkthrough, a separate proposal section many proposals for summary plots possibilities. 00:23:24.000 --> 00:23:31.000 And we would like to conversion just a few. Hopefully the ones that require minimal overhead for existing analysis. 00:23:31.000 --> 00:23:40.000 So let's say our proposal that we think would be interesting as this kind of Hidden Valley, the MSP xz know start putting some flipped us models, of course everything up for discussion. 00:23:40.000 --> 00:23:54.000 And we want to discuss also a larger set of features summary got that we can start preparing analysis and poor for those benchmarks, producing Monte Carlo for future versions and make it easy, as a feature comparison. 00:23:54.000 --> 00:24:10.000 And death comes the last word is of course a strong interest in to those of Trump, and missing energy based analysis to cover the very short and very long life and unfortunately it's a recursive bit more extra work but we've already doing it covered here 00:24:10.000 --> 00:24:17.000 for a few analysis doing it already. I'm sure I've got a few more. But those are a few ones that came to my mind, kind of quickly. 00:24:17.000 --> 00:24:24.000 And yeah, happy to hear your thoughts on this and discuss proposals with everybody. Thanks 00:24:24.000 --> 00:24:40.000 you for this very comprehensive dog, we have a few times of thing for a few for one question. And remember, we will have a discussion session after the second talk but I see that Larry Lee has a question please go ahead. 00:24:40.000 --> 00:24:42.000 Yeah. Thanks. 00:24:42.000 --> 00:24:43.000 Good to see you, by the way. 00:24:43.000 --> 00:24:59.000 It's good to see you, by the way. So just quick question about the our hand drawn slide that you had. And also I guess the plot that you had on the final slide to are their thoughts, is there a proposal for how to handle, how to present the different results 00:24:59.000 --> 00:25:03.000 across the different experiments, especially on the direct detection side. 00:25:03.000 --> 00:25:07.000 When the modernization models will differ. 00:25:07.000 --> 00:25:23.000 But I you even mentioned on this slide that the CMS plot here on the left, assumes that a neutral gluey know is traveling, you know, and that could have an effect on, on, on the comparison of analyses. 00:25:23.000 --> 00:25:27.000 Has there been discussion about that. 00:25:27.000 --> 00:25:30.000 Well, first of all, nice to see you again. 00:25:30.000 --> 00:25:40.000 Yeah. No, we haven't had much discussion on this is good, this is probably a longer term proposal if we could agree on our hadron model. 00:25:40.000 --> 00:26:00.000 Right now probably the easiest be in overlaying and stating very explicitly the caveat, and this is one of the kind of illustrative clause that, which should hopefully bring us to to do a few more things in common and and develop this kind of common pattern 00:26:00.000 --> 00:26:05.000 ization model so that we can actually do a more apples to apples comparison. 00:26:05.000 --> 00:26:20.000 Just to add, is there a location where CMS and upload sort of explained their hundred or 100 ization model what exactly they use because I don't think the paper explains it very well. 00:26:20.000 --> 00:26:39.000 I've been speaking for Atlas real quickly, it was just that, even though I'm on Atlas, we did put out a pub note with a very lengthy description of the modernization model that is used in the results, and the right plan, and on CMS. 00:26:39.000 --> 00:26:46.000 I don't think we have put out very much details, there are hundreds ization model. 00:26:46.000 --> 00:26:54.000 I'll follow up with you on that. 00:26:54.000 --> 00:27:10.000 Okay, just for the sake of keeping keeping on time, thanks so much for the talk, and now we have a second talk for a case study on guard for them specifically we have filled with us. 00:27:10.000 --> 00:27:13.000 Hey, can you hear me. 00:27:13.000 --> 00:27:15.000 Yes we can. 00:27:15.000 --> 00:27:20.000 Please go ahead. 00:27:20.000 --> 00:27:28.000 Let me just share my screen here. 00:27:28.000 --> 00:27:30.000 So all right can you see. 00:27:30.000 --> 00:27:32.000 Can you see my slides now. 00:27:32.000 --> 00:27:34.000 Yes, perfect. 00:27:34.000 --> 00:27:35.000 Okay. 00:27:35.000 --> 00:27:46.000 Thanks. So thanks for the invitation. This is an interesting talk, and the fact that we're focusing on a specific summer plot, specifically dark photon searches and kind of some of the. 00:27:46.000 --> 00:28:01.000 Besides, behind the scenes work that go into these types of plots and kind of the details of how it used to make these plots, and what are kind of the interesting features that we take away from these plots. 00:28:01.000 --> 00:28:15.000 So on that note, I'm going to talk about the HLLHC working group report, dark photon summary plot, which is one that I put together with other people as well it wasn't just me but I did the technical production of the plot. 00:28:15.000 --> 00:28:29.000 And I'm going to compare this done to some other plots of summary plots for dark photons specifically physics beyond collider and as well. The upcoming Snowmass report, coming from the RF six kind of sub Working Group. 00:28:29.000 --> 00:28:37.000 There are a lot of some reports out there like this, and there are a lot of decisions that go into making them and so I'm going to try to talk about what those are. 00:28:37.000 --> 00:28:44.000 So before I do this in detail. I'm sure most of you are very familiar with how dark photons work in terms of the model building. 00:28:44.000 --> 00:28:52.000 But I think it's useful to summarize here because it's kind of critical in how we look at these plots. So the idea is that we have some sort of you want Dark Sector. 00:28:52.000 --> 00:29:06.000 And this kinetic the mix is done with the Standard Model sectors that means that in the minimal model we have this kinetic mixing between the dark photon which has some sort of mass, and then off gel photons center model photons. 00:29:06.000 --> 00:29:21.000 And so, in the, in the model then we have a number of parameters in the middle model we have the dark photon mass. We have a mixing parameter G, and then depending on the dark photon mass, if the dark photon mass is small enough with respect to the dark 00:29:21.000 --> 00:29:32.000 matter mass than the dark photon decays visibly and this is the typical type of minimal model plot that you will see being produced and provided in various summary papers. 00:29:32.000 --> 00:29:48.000 Of course you can relax both of these, you can relax number two, so for example you can allow the dark photon to couple arbitrarily to the various leptons and to the various other fermion, in which case you have 12 fermion couplings, and this will give 00:29:48.000 --> 00:29:59.000 you other models like LD minus Alto, or B minus L, or Bebo's on or whatever right so you can go to all these other types of models, just by relaxing these types of couplings. 00:29:59.000 --> 00:30:07.000 And then of course you also have some sort of dark with, if for example you don't make this assumption about the mass of the dark photon, with respect to the mass of the dark matter. 00:30:07.000 --> 00:30:19.000 What this means though is that you can take dark photon limits and you really can recast them to most general vector models, and this is one of the reasons why dark photons really are used in this way is because it's a minimal model that allows you to 00:30:19.000 --> 00:30:27.000 recast these other mountain models, and there's automated ways to do this as well, which I'll talk about at the end with the, with the dark cast package. 00:30:27.000 --> 00:30:32.000 So let's talk about the kind of 00:30:32.000 --> 00:30:42.000 main thought that I was working on for the HLLHC working group. So this is the HLFC dark proton summary plot. This is kind of the first iteration of this, and this is a draft plot. 00:30:42.000 --> 00:30:48.000 And the first thing that you'll notice right is that this combines two completely different models. 00:30:48.000 --> 00:31:01.000 So in one case we have the minimal dark photon model that's given by the sign and the blue and the other is that we have these models from CMS and Atlas, where it is no longer a minimal minimal model, it's a very specific model, and it makes very specific 00:31:01.000 --> 00:31:06.000 assumptions about how the Higgs will then decay into the dark photon. 00:31:06.000 --> 00:31:19.000 And so in this particular case we assume a 10% production rate of Higgs going to dark photons, how that is done actually doesn't matter so much, honestly, in terms of what kind of the precursor to getting those too dark photons is. 00:31:19.000 --> 00:31:29.000 So whether it's any of those miles that was listed in the previous talk, that doesn't really matter so much it's really the 10% that matters right that you get 10% Higgs going TO to dark photons in the edge. 00:31:29.000 --> 00:31:33.000 You might have other things in that final state but, again, that doesn't really matter so much. 00:31:33.000 --> 00:31:46.000 And so these are two very very different models that are being overlaid on the same plot. And there are prompt limits, which are kind of given by the the ones that you know kind of extend down here like this and then there are displaced ones and then 00:31:46.000 --> 00:31:48.000 there's the unification of these two as well. 00:31:48.000 --> 00:32:01.000 And so you'll notice in this first plot that kind of for the projection of the hc we actually don't have much for this non minimal model that says quite simply because at the time that this initial draft plot was made there weren't other projections so 00:32:01.000 --> 00:32:11.000 then you see that as we go along in time we start getting these displays projections that come into play. So we have this place projections from CMS we have this place projections from Atlas and then we have a combination of them. 00:32:11.000 --> 00:32:20.000 And again, they're very different types of searches that are going on. And then again, you'll see that this this changes a little bit more where we have an updated projection. 00:32:20.000 --> 00:32:31.000 So we have to, you know, move these limits down a little bit in terms of what we're looking at terms to this epsilon and then this is the final thought, where you'll notice this change a little bit in terms of where the upper limit is being set where 00:32:31.000 --> 00:32:36.000 the lower limit is being sent and then also whether we're looking at the coupling or the coupling squared. 00:32:36.000 --> 00:32:44.000 And these were just the preferences from the group that were made. And so you can see how kind of this has evolved over time. 00:32:44.000 --> 00:32:50.000 In terms of displaying this. So this is the final part that went into hc yellow report. 00:32:50.000 --> 00:32:56.000 So that leads me to some comments on this which is that this summary plot. 00:32:56.000 --> 00:33:06.000 It really depends on who you talk to some people like it some people really don't like it, in general in the literature, it is unusual because it makes us this middle model within a very very specific model. 00:33:06.000 --> 00:33:15.000 And this is so that the Atlas CMS results, which are this very specific model can then be overlaid on the minimal model. 00:33:15.000 --> 00:33:23.000 If you wanted to take the results, these projections from Atlas and CMS, from the specific model, and you wanted to recast them to the medical model. 00:33:23.000 --> 00:33:32.000 I mean we look at this, but, you know, there's no sensitivity here right, quite simply because the expression fraction two photons is on the order of 1% but the thing that really kills you. 00:33:32.000 --> 00:33:45.000 Is that the production cross section for the Higgs right at the LSC is very small in comparison to what you get for the minimal miles so here we're looking at 55 gigabytes but if you In contrast, you look at what the minimum models are coming from so 00:33:45.000 --> 00:33:52.000 primarily Ada production or Pi Zero production, or even drill yet production is you get to hire masses. 00:33:52.000 --> 00:34:01.000 If we take into production as an example we have a cross section of roughly 1000 Melbourne right so you take $100 million, and which is your you know kind of cross section for Protein Protein collisions. 00:34:01.000 --> 00:34:04.000 And then you look at your average number of. 00:34:04.000 --> 00:34:15.000 It is from this which is on the order of 10, and then you look at the branching fraction two photons as well and it's 40% right so that's just kind of in terms of sheer luminosity of production of anything that will mix with the dark photon. 00:34:15.000 --> 00:34:31.000 It's just order of magnitude higher right so that in terms of comparing these two it's very difficult. You could imagine that you take a dark photon model, where you actually allow the dark photon, to have some sort of coupling directly to the Higgs with 00:34:31.000 --> 00:34:41.000 some sort of a coupling. But this also will have some sort of limit, limited sensitivity as well. So in the end for this plot what was decided on was that we just showed these two very very different models. 00:34:41.000 --> 00:34:56.000 And in one be set this benchmark of the Higgs going to 10%, dark photons and this was quite simply chosen five weeks existing or projected I should say Higgs to invisible limit that we were expecting at that point. 00:34:56.000 --> 00:35:06.000 So, that's why this plot was put together the way that it was and of course here The important thing to understand is the focus was done the HLHC, so we don't show any projections from other experiments at all. 00:35:06.000 --> 00:35:12.000 And that is how we got this plot, as it stands right now. 00:35:12.000 --> 00:35:18.000 So this is the HL SCC dark photon exercise, you can look at physics beyond gliders. 00:35:18.000 --> 00:35:27.000 So physics behind plotters they chose on doing three different separate scenarios, or three separate plots. One was a plot that summarized kind of all of the minimal models. 00:35:27.000 --> 00:35:41.000 One was that looked at near term projections and one that looked at future projections. So this one here is kind of the one that shows everything, and you'll see on this, for example, that these Atlas and CMS limits are not included and that's quite simple, 00:35:41.000 --> 00:35:49.000 simply because they're not the middle model. And so they're not included here, but the projections from Alex CPR because it is a minimal model. 00:35:49.000 --> 00:36:03.000 And so that is this dark proton plot from from this guy clatters then they go down to projections for kind of the near term so this is phase or any 64 and then any 62, as well as brilliant experiments. 00:36:03.000 --> 00:36:09.000 And then you can look at long term where this becomes a much busier plot in terms of all these kind of options here. 00:36:09.000 --> 00:36:21.000 Now, this, and this, these are only relevant to the PVC kind of mandate which is physics beyond collider so not gliders. So you see on this plot while it does contain many of the things here. 00:36:21.000 --> 00:36:29.000 It doesn't include the bell to projections and it doesn't include the CP projections quite simply because this is these are collector base searches. 00:36:29.000 --> 00:36:42.000 And so that's kind of what PVC did, and then Snowmass did something relatively similar except they tried to shove everything onto one plot, which makes for a very busy plot and makes it a little bit difficult to interpret and you see that they've also 00:36:42.000 --> 00:36:54.000 expanded the kind of mastery in here. And so there are a lot of discussions about this two weeks ago at the meeting in Cincinnati, where it was the rare flavors so master kind of meeting. 00:36:54.000 --> 00:37:02.000 And there are dedicated sessions on this and we talked about this plot for at least an hour, I think about how really to present it. They're all sorts of discussions. 00:37:02.000 --> 00:37:12.000 So for example, you know, if you take limits that we have on on on heavy charged leptons that kind of bounds the top so do you want to, you know, kind of bring down the top of the plot. 00:37:12.000 --> 00:37:19.000 And then if you look at arguments for sort of grand unified theories that also bounds the bottom so actually down to the bottom at something like 10 to the minus five. 00:37:19.000 --> 00:37:28.000 And if you put in something like you know astrophysical constraints, then you will also have some sort of limiting behavior coming in from the right and that will minimize things as well. 00:37:28.000 --> 00:37:35.000 So the question is do you put those types of bounds in because they're really kind of rough hand wavy bounds. 00:37:35.000 --> 00:37:41.000 Do you limit the at least deliver the limits on this because of those bounds. there's a lot of questions to be asked there. 00:37:41.000 --> 00:37:54.000 And this is also really quite a kind of a lot of discussion and of course you also asked well for these experiments, how do you put this in you focus on timelines you focus on target you focus on, you know feasibility of the experiment in the proposal. 00:37:54.000 --> 00:38:09.000 So there are a lot of questions to be asked there and it's a difficult thing to you know kind of put forward and so I'm just comments on this right so PVC and Snowmass they only show the minimal models they don't show these kind of kind of extended specific 00:38:09.000 --> 00:38:10.000 models. 00:38:10.000 --> 00:38:18.000 They focus on coupling rather than cufflinks squared. This is really just arbitrary decision about what you prefer. 00:38:18.000 --> 00:38:28.000 And then the limits on these really vary on the space being highlighted so you'll notice that this no mass plot has a much larger limit range than for example, the PVC plot. 00:38:28.000 --> 00:38:32.000 And I should note though that right this PVC plots. 00:38:32.000 --> 00:38:43.000 There are, I mean this has updated kind of projections with respect to what we had from from the PVC plot here as well. And any case though. 00:38:43.000 --> 00:38:55.000 In this kind of proposed experimental space, it is very messy. You really have to have some sort of organization. So PVC chose these three plots, so they had the summary relevant near term relevant long term and then Snowmass is being reworked so this 00:38:55.000 --> 00:39:04.000 is not the final plot, what they will do is they will likely remain with the single plot but they'll have some sort of timescale indication, and it will be condensed it that way. 00:39:04.000 --> 00:39:17.000 So, that's kind of everything that I want to say about kind of the decisions about what go into these plots on the technical side I do want to say something, and this is, I have to admit this is a bit of a plug for some of my work. 00:39:17.000 --> 00:39:26.000 But I was assured by the convenience that is okay for me to briefly talk about this. So there's this dark cast package out there, which collects all of these dark photon limits. 00:39:26.000 --> 00:39:36.000 It even includes the CNS and Atlas ones which are not minimal but it doesn't, it is not able to recast them quite simply because they're not provided in a form that is recast double. 00:39:36.000 --> 00:39:38.000 But in any case though. 00:39:38.000 --> 00:39:52.000 Dark cast is just had a major update, we've actually changed the link to where we have dark cast just to make it a little bit more clear that it's a community project rather having it sit under my kind of get lab namespace so we moved into this dark cast 00:39:52.000 --> 00:40:06.000 spot. And the big thing is that we can now recast models where we have both vector couplings and out show coupling so we went from 15 three parameters to possibility of 27 three parameters, if you want. 00:40:06.000 --> 00:40:18.000 There are two papers now one is the original paper and then another one which will be released shortly it's currently going the route of kind of a preview but it will hopefully be released on the archive early next week, which is this accurate axial vectors 00:40:18.000 --> 00:40:28.000 and dark cast. I just show a little snippet of code here to show you really a kind of how easy it is to recast this so let's say you want to take a look at the Bebo's on model recast the ICP limit. 00:40:28.000 --> 00:40:33.000 All you have to do is set up your model, where it's a predefined model, the limit is already there. 00:40:33.000 --> 00:40:41.000 You just call recast. It takes about, you know, a second or two and it will recast the model, and then you're able to make the plot from that and it's it's as simple as that. 00:40:41.000 --> 00:40:51.000 And so, this is something that can really be used in class like this for example where a lot of these limits were taken from things like this. 00:40:51.000 --> 00:41:02.000 So, in terms of how this works. The idea is that you basically have one model eight, which is on the left hand of this this first equation and you want to get to Model B, which is on the right hand of this equation. 00:41:02.000 --> 00:41:12.000 And you basically need to know the cross section you need to know the branch infraction you need to know the efficiency of the experiments and all of these are kind of hard to get set maybe the branching fraction. 00:41:12.000 --> 00:41:21.000 In terms of absolute numbers. So instead we work with ratios instead where we look at the ratio of the cross sections where a lot of absolutes cancel out. 00:41:21.000 --> 00:41:32.000 Same thing then with the efficiencies as well, it means that you can make some nice assumptions about efficiencies for the experiments. And so what ends up happening is that we can then look at these ratios for the branching fraction ratio, we end up 00:41:32.000 --> 00:41:38.000 using kind of data driven techniques for doing this because if we're low mass is prohibitive. 00:41:38.000 --> 00:41:53.000 qc it just doesn't work for us, the cross section ratio. We use this kind of hidden hidden hidden cemetery map type models. Did you get these cross section ratios and then the efficiency ratio, what we do is we define this proper time producer region 00:41:53.000 --> 00:41:57.000 and then we can use these two proper times to recast this. 00:41:57.000 --> 00:42:10.000 So this is the general idea of how it works in terms of the data that goes into it, we use you know these kind of this the the famous ratio plot where it's, it's the ratio of production of hate John's from equals A minus over. 00:42:10.000 --> 00:42:18.000 70 plus c minus and it's broken down by the various final states, and you can look at this in terms of fine like and omega like etc etc. 00:42:18.000 --> 00:42:31.000 And then this is for the vector couplings and then in terms of the axial couplings we then use the spectral functions for the case. And we split it into basically these four components and we have vector component for light vector component for strange 00:42:31.000 --> 00:42:44.000 which is kind of sign one. And then we have axial for light which is this red one and then we have axial for strangers, you can see for some of these there isn't a lot of data which means that in terms of the uncertainty on this it's not the best but 00:42:44.000 --> 00:42:55.000 for limit setting like this it doesn't really matter because we're not talking, you know, orders of magnitude changes which means that the limits more or less will stay within a factor of two, which is, which is perfectly fine. 00:42:55.000 --> 00:43:07.000 So this is an example of what this looks like in dark cast, so this is if you use dark cast the updated dark cast with axial couplings if you look at it, to Higgs doublet model, where we still have a vector like Porter particle but everything now is defined 00:43:07.000 --> 00:43:19.000 in terms of the Higgs model. And you can see the various production mechanisms so that's how this plot here is categorized is in terms of production mechanism because in recasting that's actually kind of the thing that matters to you in terms of how you 00:43:19.000 --> 00:43:29.000 can be able to recast it and you'll see that also were able to recast neutrino scattering limits from from B minus l balance where we have things like blogs you know text on on that chart, too. 00:43:29.000 --> 00:43:40.000 And then you can look at what happens if you do this for the kind of projected future so this is another thing that has been added star cast is the ability to have all these projected balance, be able to be recast as well. 00:43:40.000 --> 00:43:52.000 And so that's what this looks like here. So that brings me to the end though, which is that kind of the closing comments on this which is that deciding on the summary plots is really really hard trying to decide what you want to do in terms of those summary 00:43:52.000 --> 00:44:05.000 plots is hard. And then once you've decided on those summary plots right the formatting of the summary plots is also very hard, and it's not necessarily always so physics motivated right it can be very very much motivated in terms of what exactly you're 00:44:05.000 --> 00:44:15.000 asking from the purpose of the exercise that you're doing so if it's a funding exercise you of course want to be able to show that you cover new ground and so that means that you probably will choose your models differently right. 00:44:15.000 --> 00:44:29.000 If it's a comparison between various experiments you kind of want to give a voice to all the experiments and so you'll maybe choose based off that. So in terms of complementarity you might try to emphasize complementarity and so that will choose how you 00:44:29.000 --> 00:44:42.000 combine models which models you look at. And so that kind of decision about what the purpose of the exercise that is really the difficult part that's the thing that drives all of this in terms of technically producing these plots is can be much less hard. 00:44:42.000 --> 00:44:52.000 I'm not going to say, Ed, but it depends on what you're trying to combine but it can be significantly less hard. So for example, if you want to just do a minimal dark photon plot with darkness it's really quite easy. 00:44:52.000 --> 00:44:58.000 So there's a lot of thought that has to be made, going into these. 00:44:58.000 --> 00:45:07.000 I'm also going to say that if if you, if there are any missing projections or limits that you'd like to see in dark cast please do just let me know and we'll put them in, we want to make it as complete as possible. 00:45:07.000 --> 00:45:19.000 But, in general right making these types of plots, there are a lot of considerations. One thing that I would really like to emphasize though which I haven't put on the slide is that yes there are a lot of reasons why you make plots the way you are but 00:45:19.000 --> 00:45:33.000 I think it's also very important to keep theoretical underpinnings as part of that as well. And really consider, at least what the input from the theory community is in terms of making those pots as well, but I think that's everything that I wanted to 00:45:33.000 --> 00:45:40.000 say. So thanks. 00:45:40.000 --> 00:45:57.000 Now we have time for questions I see some hands Michael, please go ahead. Yeah, thanks. It's interesting, the way you put that one thing is that we see a nice to David's masters up there but then you have C town, or you have vo you have actual, you had 00:45:57.000 --> 00:46:10.000 epsilon squared, it'd be very nice if everybody could agree to always produce a CT plot against mass, and that we can then compare directly there may be no reasons not to do that. 00:46:10.000 --> 00:46:12.000 And another point I have. 00:46:12.000 --> 00:46:25.000 Is that so many most experiments say this is the limits with no background zero background, whereas in many experiments it's totally unrealistic to think you have no background candidates and three and verse after boss, right. 00:46:25.000 --> 00:46:28.000 So, and that changes things completely. 00:46:28.000 --> 00:46:46.000 So it'd be really good if experiments would proposals would really estimate the backgrounds, they expect and apply the sort of three sigma or four sigma or five sigma discovering to that, including the backgrounds because that changes picture a lot. 00:46:46.000 --> 00:46:56.000 There's a couple of comments I have. Thank you, so I can maybe respond to a few though so in terms of see top thoughts versus coupling or or whatever. 00:46:56.000 --> 00:47:14.000 I agree that for any type of display search where lifetime matters that you very much want to actually provide it as a three dimensional plot right so this this was kind of proposed in the original cast paper which is that you provide basically the ratio 00:47:14.000 --> 00:47:27.000 between standard model and your matter, and your model as a function of lifetime and as a function of mass. Once you have that, then all the efficiency information that you need encoded about the experiment is already there. 00:47:27.000 --> 00:47:42.000 right so you don't have to make assumptions about kind of the traditional the proper time to do show area of the detector. So for example, in these types of plants, the LHCV displaced search that comes from one of these. 00:47:42.000 --> 00:47:46.000 One of these plots where you have see Tao mass and then kind of this ratio. 00:47:46.000 --> 00:47:58.000 So that's where that comes from. In terms of prompts, searches. You can of course do this but it doesn't really matter so much you can still set limits from that with without too much issue right because now you're making an assumption about it being 00:47:58.000 --> 00:48:06.000 prompt and as long as you can make some good assumptions about that it's not so difficult to recast right for purposes of that. 00:48:06.000 --> 00:48:21.000 So that's kind of on this this this this this first point, I think really having ratio as a function of see towel and mass and as long as you're able to define the model that that ratio is made with then, in general, you can reach asked to to pretty much 00:48:21.000 --> 00:48:24.000 anything you want as long as you know how to defy that model. 00:48:24.000 --> 00:48:28.000 In terms of the projections. 00:48:28.000 --> 00:48:32.000 I'm not sure exactly which projections you're talking about here. 00:48:32.000 --> 00:48:34.000 Maybe you can comment on that. 00:48:34.000 --> 00:48:36.000 Well just for background. 00:48:36.000 --> 00:48:51.000 So, I mean just I don't pick out on anybody but matters. I mean, you gotta have they gotta have in one inverse out of our three of us many many candidates and things coming up from background on something you have, you haven't a neutrinos coming up through 00:48:51.000 --> 00:49:04.000 the earth, making interactions and things like that so the idea that you can run Methuselah for three adverse action buttons are not have any candidates as background, especially if you can't measure the mass of the candidates very well. 00:49:04.000 --> 00:49:21.000 I mean, that is not realistic so it doesn't really make fair to show plots for experiments where you assume zero background also, you know, so I caught it. 00:49:21.000 --> 00:49:27.000 in the vacuum that nothing stand of our can do so. 00:49:27.000 --> 00:49:37.000 But even that there is k zeros decay to four trash trucks actually so there's a background there, and we have to take those things into account and discuss them. 00:49:37.000 --> 00:49:41.000 But, yeah, Yeah. 00:49:41.000 --> 00:49:56.000 I mean, I, I certainly agree and I can maybe say a few things on that as well right so so you I mean I think the point is, how, how reliable Do you think these projections are, and you think that they have been done with due diligence, and with a realistic 00:49:56.000 --> 00:50:06.000 kind of setup right so for example the belt to resolve the belt to projections here right this make a very strong assumption about the amount of luminosity, they will have in the next 10 years. 00:50:06.000 --> 00:50:20.000 And a lot of people will say, well, maybe belt to actually will not achieve those luminosity rolls right, are those those luminosity targets and that that very well might not be possible for example for HGS this really depends upon how their trigger operates 00:50:20.000 --> 00:50:32.000 and how much data time they're going to be able to take right again, these are assumptions that go into this for both bell to MHPS they do take into background for ICP background is taken into account the assumption as well we'll be able to run for the 00:50:32.000 --> 00:50:44.000 entire BHL LLC. And will the triggering work as, as it's expected to trigger to to work right so there are of course assumptions going in there that are very different from the assumptions that are going to HTTPS or belt right. 00:50:44.000 --> 00:50:48.000 Same thing with for example the ship projections here. 00:50:48.000 --> 00:50:57.000 Some of the questions about the ship projections are do you really believe the QCD production, kind of calculations that have been done there with kind of a modified version of pithy edgy. 00:50:57.000 --> 00:51:00.000 Do you think that's reasonable or not. 00:51:00.000 --> 00:51:10.000 And then of course, well, what's the expectation of ship actually happening or not right. That's a whole different question, but there are certainly for all of these right there are question marks on certain aspects of them well do you think this is a 00:51:10.000 --> 00:51:24.000 realistic assumption that goes into it, whether it's background or runtime, or triggering or whatever right these all have some sort of question like that and i i agree that it's important to take that into account and discuss them I think that putting 00:51:24.000 --> 00:51:28.000 them into summary plots right that is a very difficult thing to do. 00:51:28.000 --> 00:51:40.000 I think at some point if you think that the you know that the projection is completely unreasonable. At that point, then I think you need to have a discussion with the people who are making that summary plot, or that projection plot right and asked for, 00:51:40.000 --> 00:51:55.000 kind of a more realistic projection for that. Yeah, okay. And I would just ask why do you show this plot for example when you show favor to and ship and so on, which are not approved project so you should add PS facet, which is also the same similar status 00:51:55.000 --> 00:52:02.000 has been proposed but not approved yet. So, so if if you'd like to ask it to show him this plot. 00:52:02.000 --> 00:52:17.000 I strongly suggest that you contact the Snowmass convener so this is Stefan steps to find your glory, and Michael Williams and contribute those projected bounce to the, to the relevant relevant sub working groups for that. 00:52:17.000 --> 00:52:18.000 Okay. 00:52:18.000 --> 00:52:24.000 They showed us some thoughts but I thank you. 00:52:24.000 --> 00:52:34.000 Thanks Phillip any more questions for Philippe or in general ago the, the talks that we had in the session now. 00:52:34.000 --> 00:52:42.000 Also, we have a model PDF file in the discussion session so you can take a look. 00:52:42.000 --> 00:52:45.000 Yes we. 00:52:45.000 --> 00:52:46.000 Yeah. 00:52:46.000 --> 00:53:03.000 I yeah thank you yeah thanks for putting this discussion together so I'm just come back to the specific proposals, made by an IVF talk. I don't know how you wanted to stretch the discussion I guess there's things to say about each of the specific proposals 00:53:03.000 --> 00:53:16.000 but maybe we can I would suggest we start with insect one. They're kind of to have it could you maybe just share your slides yeah exactly I want to say, let me share. 00:53:16.000 --> 00:53:18.000 Okay. 00:53:18.000 --> 00:53:22.000 Can you get to the one where you compare the two. Yeah. 00:53:22.000 --> 00:53:26.000 CMS and Atlas ones so far. 00:53:26.000 --> 00:53:37.000 Yeah, that's one. So, okay, I think there's one easy when that we can make immediately, and it was kind of related also to what Mike was saying that. 00:53:37.000 --> 00:53:41.000 One of the pluses and meters the other ones in millimeters. 00:53:41.000 --> 00:53:52.000 Can you just right now agree, which which unit we should use and even if it's, we should use either tea towel or just towel because it's true that if you see towel. 00:53:52.000 --> 00:54:05.000 The actual, like, the key position can differ from see towel by quite a lot due to the boost of the particles so maybe the best is if we just all agree to use a towel and then we just pick a scale of units. 00:54:05.000 --> 00:54:35.000 All we we keep see tell I don't mind, and I just think that we just should agree on one, and this goes for almost all the summary plots that you proposed just clarify what you mean just by refers to our first it see times the main purpose lifetime of 00:54:36.000 --> 00:54:43.000 Yeah, if you overlay here the boundaries of the detector sometimes people tend to do that but that's actually super misleading. 00:54:43.000 --> 00:54:46.000 And so I think we should discourage people from doing that. 00:54:46.000 --> 00:54:52.000 So that's why, at least at least we're not using inches, thank God, we're not using. 00:54:52.000 --> 00:55:04.000 For now, who knows. Knows in the future. I mean, but but you know the the boost information actually sort of depends also on the production mode that you've chosen. 00:55:04.000 --> 00:55:14.000 And so the both the plots here, sort of assume that you're producing the Standard Model takes by the standard production mechanisms. 00:55:14.000 --> 00:55:30.000 And so you factor that out and it's only the branching fraction that's been excluded, or constrained for which it makes sense to me to do it in terms of Seatown in terms of instead of doing it in terms of quantity that will change with the boost of the 00:55:30.000 --> 00:55:32.000 particle, you know. 00:55:32.000 --> 00:55:48.000 Yeah, i mean i don't disagree with the initiator, I, I just think that whatever we do, we should just pick one. So if it's meters, then we'll just pick meters and do it and see tell, and everyone understands what the caveats are 00:55:48.000 --> 00:55:52.000 yeah i mean i guess it'd be nice, that. 00:55:52.000 --> 00:55:57.000 So in these final format of the plot right i think i think that makes a lot of sense right. 00:55:57.000 --> 00:56:08.000 But it also be nice that if when when these are provided right because these as you say initiated these are mass and production mechanism dependent right so you define the model, but then you also have to define the mass. 00:56:08.000 --> 00:56:21.000 So it'd be nice if these were given, or provided right in this kind of three dimensional space so kind of the z axis would be this upper limit on this on this branching fraction right and that effectively is what I was talking about in the case of the 00:56:21.000 --> 00:56:35.000 dark photon as well it's effectively this ratio between the model and the standard model or whatever, but it's roughly the same thing and then and then you have mass and you have see towel and then if you want to recast it to a different model that's 00:56:35.000 --> 00:56:45.000 actually relatively easy to do. I realized that some of these projections right are based on a very specific mass but it'd be nice to have it continuous. 00:56:45.000 --> 00:56:51.000 Yeah, but then you really do need a 3d plot for that. And then you can also. 00:56:51.000 --> 00:57:01.000 Yeah, let's do you can provide like so so they're the plots right but then also providing the information independently, which I think is important to do right so, yeah, yeah, yeah. 00:57:01.000 --> 00:57:07.000 So, I would say that this, the plot on the left is a three dimensional top right the colors represent different methods. 00:57:07.000 --> 00:57:13.000 We also in Atlas provide this alternatively split, I think it's the next slide. 00:57:13.000 --> 00:57:21.000 That, or, you know, here we go. So this is one I guess you mean, where here we've taken a slice in, in. 00:57:21.000 --> 00:57:33.000 In the cross section but there's also versions where you do it in kind of two or three different slices. So I guess this is what you had in mind, but I think, as you said depends on what you're trying to show here the purpose of the bottom left is to 00:57:33.000 --> 00:57:37.000 show that there was a gap in the coverage and this shows it very well. 00:57:37.000 --> 00:57:53.000 I think, okay, so long as that information is out there, you can do it either way but I think probably the one that's easiest for everyone to converge on the moment is the one on site for whatever it was, where you have this format of branching fraction 00:57:53.000 --> 00:57:55.000 to see tell. 00:57:55.000 --> 00:58:07.000 So my point here is not not what the, not what the plot that you show isn't actually i would i would remove information here, honestly, because when you show all the masses and you're trying to show different experiments and other other limits, it can 00:58:07.000 --> 00:58:10.000 get very very busy very fast right. 00:58:10.000 --> 00:58:24.000 My point is that when the information is provided to make these plots right that you provide it in the three dimensional case so if you go to the case where the ECB three dimensional plot is given right that that's how the information is provided. 00:58:24.000 --> 00:58:32.000 Right, not displayed, but provided. And then when you want to go make a plot like this you can choose what you want to do. 00:58:32.000 --> 00:58:44.000 And then I would actually argue for a less busy plot in this where you choose, maybe to mass points and you have to separate you know plots and then you show the various limits for those those mass points. 00:58:44.000 --> 00:59:06.000 The beginning of the beginning. We're not trying to replace that they provide more information than the individual analysis, I think I agree so the LCD, Todd has all the information that you want and you would use the original plot to reinterpret. 00:59:06.000 --> 00:59:20.000 And that's why I also mentioned, very specifically at the beginning that the focus is on this kind of complementarity rather than making it super useful for any particular interpretation. 00:59:20.000 --> 00:59:22.000 So, I guess. 00:59:22.000 --> 00:59:35.000 Yeah, I mean I think we all agree that be nice to have three dimensional information but this is not a discrete access for the full of historical searches we have some CMS, so I think it's something to work towards but I don't think it's always easy to 00:59:35.000 --> 00:59:40.000 to penetrate that in a continuous way, but kind of going. 00:59:40.000 --> 00:59:51.000 I just want to focus on like concrete deliverables So, so do we all agree to, to just say see towel in meters away from now on. 00:59:51.000 --> 01:00:05.000 So, I guess this sort of relates to the question I will ask which is what is, what is the plan for like who is making these quants who is providing information. 01:00:05.000 --> 01:00:12.000 Is it analyzers are supposed to provide information to the LA, she LLP working group. 01:00:12.000 --> 01:00:21.000 If so it doesn't, the x axis that they use to provide the information doesn't really matter and the other Co Op working group can do the conversion. 01:00:21.000 --> 01:00:36.000 But the mechanism for how we're going to make these sponsors, a little bit unclear to me so I can just bounce back that I agree that it's up to whoever makes the plans to in the end decide how they present the information but I think that the role some 01:00:36.000 --> 01:00:45.000 reports coming up CMS and Atlason a CV to begin with should at least be broadly comfortable. I mean we have this example with the step tons right where. 01:00:45.000 --> 01:00:51.000 At first glance the to a couple comfortable searches but one is in nanoseconds. The other one is in meters. 01:00:51.000 --> 01:00:57.000 And I think we should avoid that situation, even before we make the overall summary. 01:00:57.000 --> 01:01:07.000 Sorry to interrupt there but for the nanoseconds versus meters is that one of the plots the slept on plot. That's later and have your slides. Yes. 01:01:07.000 --> 01:01:15.000 So, the CMOS plot, I want to point out that on the right hand side it's in tau, and to the left hand side. 01:01:15.000 --> 01:01:29.000 In both vertical axes are there so therefore you can directly compare with Atlas one right but not at a glance right because it's super, my point is it's super misleading if you just look at these two you can go look they both go to 10 to the minus two. 01:01:29.000 --> 01:01:43.000 And I, okay, yes, I want to push back. I mean, the vast majority of us have PhDs in physics like we know how to reports and this is a really easy conversion to do any research unit. 01:01:43.000 --> 01:02:02.000 If we want to do, if we, if we want to make substantial changes to the summary plots the thing I would focus on is more the choice of masses and the branching ratio assumptions, because that's something that requires producing Monte Carlo, which analyzers 01:02:02.000 --> 01:02:06.000 can use to do interpretations. 01:02:06.000 --> 01:02:21.000 I completely agree with that. I mean that there are very very easy things to fix right. We're talking like five seconds to fix unit conversions versus things that are hard to fix or hard to change right which is understanding defect it detector efficiency 01:02:21.000 --> 01:02:36.000 is a function of lifetime things like this right. That second one is hard. The first one is easy and I really think the focus should be on the hard ones and wanted to kick off the discussion with what I thought would be in uncontroversial is all due to 01:02:36.000 --> 01:02:41.000 make everyone's life easier. But I totally agree we should agree on the project fractions is there. 01:02:41.000 --> 01:02:46.000 For example, as a next thing. Maybe we should discuss that. Now, instead. 01:02:46.000 --> 01:02:48.000 I have a gentleman. 01:02:48.000 --> 01:02:50.000 For curry. 01:02:50.000 --> 01:03:06.000 Yeah, I was just for passing it to you anyway, thank you know i mean i i also be described by a keras comments I just want to point out that, I don't know if they do that at the analysis of every analysis or misinformation to me and then I have to do 01:03:06.000 --> 01:03:23.000 somebody else's you know what I would like to do. So I think probably what, at least in my mind we are after he says sort of agreement or consensus which is a minimal information that should be provided with a, with an analysis such that address can do 01:03:23.000 --> 01:03:33.000 zero summary plots but they can't really insert CMS plots. The they need to multiply, divide by three tested eight or whatever i think that's that's all fine. 01:03:33.000 --> 01:03:40.000 But the question will be to say for instance in this Hidden Valley model that we were discussing, right, we pointed out there are five variables there. 01:03:40.000 --> 01:03:49.000 So something that we should say is there any way that we can provide. If it is kinda we are not going to do it let's just say that I never say no we will not do it. 01:03:49.000 --> 01:04:03.000 Okay, can we provide it for the scan the two masses, the lifetime, or the sitter whatever you want to provide and the overall right cross section 500 fight a physical organizations like the number of conflict you do, this is a form of you mentioned that, 01:04:03.000 --> 01:04:17.000 it, then we can agree. Yes, we got we got but a lot of information in there whether Interpol level, and then taking stock from fields, talk we can say okay we could do something like darkest, but for the Hidden Valley model. Or we could not but we could just give 01:04:17.000 --> 01:04:34.000 just give the guidelines such as anybody can in principle enable that and translate one block into the other, or we can say no we will not do this, but we will all agree in to the slices of this for the parameter space that we are always going to present. 01:04:34.000 --> 01:04:47.000 And then each of us has your favorite more than their own commitment your favorite theory, so we will can also present in every analysis, every frame plot early so they will be a common, a common capital have to realize is that we are ugly now, so I tried 01:04:47.000 --> 01:05:05.000 to to shape it from the full find information for this model to a bunch of to the slices. And I see new things back to the model that we that we agree and the working group somehow tries to come up with recommendations of how this could be done the work 01:05:05.000 --> 01:05:24.000 for everybody that is not a ton of work, to have a ton of extra work, but at the same time can be reused. So, I learned this gauge. I think this is where we should be discussing essentially how this information can come full flow properly. 01:05:24.000 --> 01:05:34.000 We have that information already did kind of four dimensional when I'm in one pulling into to branch and raises the point where I was, but this is part of us. 01:05:34.000 --> 01:05:50.000 Working Group. We should be provoked. I mean, I think, at least what I had in mind, maybe we communicated that differently. If we provide, if we produce those temporary clubs, so that we can first guide and experiments into using Chrome benchmark, and 01:05:50.000 --> 01:05:56.000 also provide information for both commercial and to make this kind of physics. 01:05:56.000 --> 01:06:11.000 Physics methods of which regions are covered in which one's not because I think the information from analysis, are there, and if not clearly we providing will say we producing those drugs, should be with a very strong case for anybody that's not for providing 01:06:11.000 --> 01:06:15.000 that information to actually include that. 01:06:15.000 --> 01:06:23.000 Okay, so let me think why my favorite place in the blood of the working group not buddies in the last, but what I'm saying is if someone comes right now and tells me. 01:06:23.000 --> 01:06:39.000 Please give me the solution for the 750 gb guy that the case can two to $50 a lifetime of one meter and Catholic cross section of one particular application only have calculated 2000 down to me you know Dino's. 01:06:39.000 --> 01:06:45.000 And I don't think we can get from any of the plaza we showcase these limit. 01:06:45.000 --> 01:06:58.000 I don't know if you agree with that statement or not, that's that's fine Lucy, but I think cover was already stressing that if you want to do reinterpretation for different branching fractions, then you need to go back to the original analysis anyway. 01:06:58.000 --> 01:07:02.000 You can't really do this with the summary plot. 01:07:02.000 --> 01:07:04.000 So yeah. 01:07:04.000 --> 01:07:10.000 Yeah, I think in that sense I think it sort of makes sense to have the branching fractions. 01:07:10.000 --> 01:07:23.000 Set to either hundred percent because I really don't see the point of setting it arbitrarily to some other value. I mean, it doesn't doesn't necessarily make any sense. 01:07:23.000 --> 01:07:32.000 So then you just remove that there's just a total cross section of producing this particular final state, in whatever way. 01:07:32.000 --> 01:07:44.000 I'm just fixing a bunch the ratio that we can put all plugs in one case because if you look at for example, the CMS blog is very useful for interpretations but effectively they're all different models. 01:07:44.000 --> 01:07:54.000 So putting them all in one plot is a bit misleading. 01:07:54.000 --> 01:07:58.000 Not sure what you mean. 01:07:58.000 --> 01:08:03.000 Doing a one plot for one final state is that at uni. 01:08:03.000 --> 01:08:12.000 No, I mean, take some assumptions so we can put all of them in a consistent model, being that will say to cover branches or whatever other choice you want. 01:08:12.000 --> 01:08:29.000 But in this case, those lines are incompatible with each of them a few hundred percent franchises to this file their final state, okay maybe the meals not, but those are all different models effectively and making some assumptions the brain to ratio of 01:08:29.000 --> 01:08:40.000 course makes it less general but you still have the original analysis for interpretation, but makes it the meaningful comparison when you put all lines into the same plot. 01:08:40.000 --> 01:08:57.000 I think also one of the points is to be able to look at where we still have room to look and what's meaningful to look where, where things are meaningful to look for its best if we have something that's I don't know some sort of attempted realistic great 01:08:57.000 --> 01:09:12.000 batting practice. So, okay, so some context for this particular plot is that all of the analyses interpreted in terms of different wrenching ratios, and it is the summary plot that could be made in time for conferences for people presenting long with 01:09:12.000 --> 01:09:17.000 Parker results to highlight a lot of analysis on one spot. 01:09:17.000 --> 01:09:35.000 There are other hints to on the particles summary plots, made by CMS, which focus on say just the hedonic decades, how consistent masses, assume 100% wrenching ratio to either BBDD or towel towel. 01:09:35.000 --> 01:09:45.000 And as we have more electronic analyses coming out the plan would be to have a separate set of electronic to case. And those summary thoughts. So, I do. 01:09:45.000 --> 01:09:55.000 I don't think this is calling it misleading and it goes like this is a little bit excessive right. Um, I think the point of this conversation is more. 01:09:55.000 --> 01:10:08.000 What, what do we want do we want to assume 100% branching ratio, and do some templates for different decay modes, or do we want to just pick an arbitrary model and put all of the pots on the same on the analysis in the same spot. 01:10:08.000 --> 01:10:11.000 I think both are valuable. 01:10:11.000 --> 01:10:18.000 Is it too much to ask analyzers to do both. I don't know, but I would like your conclusion on what we're going to do. 01:10:18.000 --> 01:10:33.000 I think if both can be done that would be really super because the hundred percent Francina ratio basically just gives me the answer to the question I have this model is it visible, is it ruled out or not, right. 01:10:33.000 --> 01:10:42.000 So, I make a suggestion that perhaps, wait a way that we could compromise between the two is to present in terms of say this up our coupling. So the way that. 01:10:42.000 --> 01:10:48.000 Where's the Higgs Higgs like the case so these are kind of well understood. 01:10:48.000 --> 01:10:59.000 The Case of the old Peter whatever final state but then if we mentioned that on the plot, in, in the legend, what was the assumption. I guess we just kind of done already in the CMS plot. 01:10:59.000 --> 01:11:09.000 But then to pick kind of more realistic number then you can just, you can. The theorists can then just use that number to get back to 100%. They don't have to go digging through the paper. 01:11:09.000 --> 01:11:20.000 And then you also get the, let's say the experimental a spot where you can see kind of where the most interesting parameter space to target next experiment with the. 01:11:20.000 --> 01:11:26.000 It would be if that was a constant number The point is that the number would change with Mars. 01:11:26.000 --> 01:11:50.000 For example, so it will not be a fraction, would just change with loss. 01:11:50.000 --> 01:12:05.000 just maybe what what car he proposed I mean clutter cheese and throughout the input in the 300% format has provided a CMS and we have the rescaling can come to provide both looks great, actually. 01:12:05.000 --> 01:12:11.000 Yeah, I think that seems fair and then just came up which is which. 01:12:11.000 --> 01:12:21.000 Okay. 01:12:21.000 --> 01:12:32.000 Well there's another another issue of course which is in this block for example where you have, you show brunch make sure 100% of the Higgs which clearly is out of the question. 01:12:32.000 --> 01:12:40.000 I mean, but there's a third axis, which is in this case, a slice contract at 95% confidence level that you could also make the slicer to the five sigma discovery, or three single observation. 01:12:40.000 --> 01:12:56.000 You could also make the slicer to a five sigma discovery, or threesome with observation and saw, which is very different for the different countries and it raises the point when you show comparison between experiments with their three event or a five 01:12:56.000 --> 01:13:09.000 event culture. They may overlap, but it may be that within that control one experiment with see for events. In other words, when we see 40 events, depends on the, on the third access if you like so. 01:13:09.000 --> 01:13:13.000 So these 2d plots which show a slice. 01:13:13.000 --> 01:13:21.000 certain controller height can be quite misleading. 01:13:21.000 --> 01:13:25.000 But we don't have. it's not the two three or four the graph paper. 01:13:25.000 --> 01:13:32.000 Whatever we do what we can. 01:13:32.000 --> 01:13:46.000 Okay. So just to summarize what we talked about so far, so I think we agreed that we are going to stick with seat dow and not go with boost boost dependent final states. 01:13:46.000 --> 01:14:03.000 Whether you choose to express it in meters or nanoseconds is not super important that's a trivial conversion, but it would be nice to have one, so that we can compare more easily but it's not kosher, and which said that we would have lots more data hundred 01:14:03.000 --> 01:14:14.000 percent, and with you cover like scalars. So both of these can be made so these are things that we've agreed upon. 01:14:14.000 --> 01:14:31.000 There's another thing that we've missed here, which is visible in the Atlas plot which is that there is some mass information that we are missing so should we talk about what exactly we want to do about that very rich information. 01:14:31.000 --> 01:14:51.000 Humans are their loyalty. 01:14:51.000 --> 01:14:54.000 and 01:14:54.000 --> 01:15:07.000 try to understand the biggest part is are we have we put them, the LP mass ranges, because they're the Atlas blood shows the mass ranges, the CMS God does not. 01:15:07.000 --> 01:15:11.000 Does it i think i think they are in the legend that. Yeah, yeah. 01:15:11.000 --> 01:15:13.000 CMS or some choices. 01:15:13.000 --> 01:15:34.000 They just choose fixed fixed benchmarks Finch sticks benchmark masters, and then use that think one of the proposals that we had is actually doing the spirit versus master show the dependent actual, physical versus the mid middle aged man, and this other 01:15:34.000 --> 01:15:50.000 one, sorry I LP Martin versus maybe tomorrow. I think that's give us insight into. Yeah. A few slices of this four dimensional four five dimensional parameters space, which hopefully will illustrate better, where we stand. 01:15:50.000 --> 01:16:08.000 Yeah, yeah. So something like this because, I mean, so we all know that this this hierarchy in masses would essentially change the kinematics of the final states in the end right so it would have significant effect on, what is the beauty of the objects 01:16:08.000 --> 01:16:11.000 that comes out at the end of certain. 01:16:11.000 --> 01:16:28.000 So, yeah, so, yeah, I mean, I would, I would comment here that I mean, again. 01:16:28.000 --> 01:16:47.000 is a function of this parameter space right most experiments have really rapid drop offs of this, of this right. And so what that means is you can effectively get a 3d plot for free as a 2d plot where you define your kind of color access in terms of brightness 01:16:47.000 --> 01:16:55.000 and darkness has kind of the the confidence level. And so then you actually can encode all the information in a single plot. 01:16:55.000 --> 01:16:57.000 So not only is it useful. 01:16:57.000 --> 01:17:09.000 And I show as an example and the different model is kind of an official overlay of this stuff for the model you see here the different colors are two different branch and ratios. 01:17:09.000 --> 01:17:23.000 I guess this is what you're after. Yeah, would you say continuous, right, what you can do. You don't have to segment into those specific contours but just to make it continuous, I mean, I guess depends on the number of analysis that we're overlaying but 01:17:23.000 --> 01:17:36.000 I mean, that's right compromise could be found. Yeah, That's right. Exactly. 01:17:36.000 --> 01:17:41.000 This is actually this is kind of nice so if you have mass NC double. 01:17:41.000 --> 01:17:50.000 And then you have different regions for different punching ratios. 01:17:50.000 --> 01:18:00.000 Yes, I think and back to the original. I think I didn't include the clock. But I think there's a second version of this class where instead of showing each analysis. 01:18:00.000 --> 01:18:10.000 It just shows the kind of the best of each of them and then it shows different unto yourself branch erasers and 10% 1% and so on. I think that what we were up now. 01:18:10.000 --> 01:18:40.000 Yeah, I mean, if that's not too busy depends, as I said, How many analysis going to definitely additional information that can be included. 01:18:40.000 --> 01:18:54.000 Thank you things so people have comments on this agree disagree. 01:18:54.000 --> 01:19:02.000 Okay, so we seem to have some, some ideas, which we will summarize and discuss more. 01:19:02.000 --> 01:19:05.000 Should we move on to another model. 01:19:05.000 --> 01:19:06.000 Before we end. 01:19:06.000 --> 01:19:31.000 Is there any, Any favorites that people would like to talk about. 01:19:31.000 --> 01:19:41.000 perhaps people are getting tired. But in any case, so heavier slides are open for comments. 01:19:41.000 --> 01:19:44.000 So if you have any thoughts. 01:19:44.000 --> 01:19:49.000 You can place them there. 01:19:49.000 --> 01:20:00.000 We should have another discussion, or for the working group will let everyone know when that. 01:20:00.000 --> 01:20:10.000 Okay, so I think this is a good start where we've actually cataloged at least all the models, and the kind of parameters that each model has. 01:20:10.000 --> 01:20:16.000 So I think we need a little bit of back and forth to decide what kind of thoughts everybody wants to produce. 01:20:16.000 --> 01:20:20.000 But this can be done. 01:20:20.000 --> 01:20:32.000 I mean doesn't have to be done online right now like this. I think this was an interesting exercise, to talk about the one model that's the most popular one. 01:20:32.000 --> 01:20:34.000 Talking about the other ones as well. 01:20:34.000 --> 01:20:40.000 So, does anyone have any concluding comments. 01:20:40.000 --> 01:20:45.000 Any of the convener want to say something. 01:20:45.000 --> 01:21:01.000 So I only wanted to make the obese remark that we chose to discuss interpretations here because obviously a very hot topic and there's a lot of interest but of course we, I mean as well the middle barrel also happy to, to hear other needs, or wishes or 01:21:01.000 --> 01:21:17.000 desires of the community either on the experimental side or on the theory side right so we know with welcome I mean, our email addresses are there, we have the, they were basically you can always contact us and and tell us, I don't know, I would like 01:21:17.000 --> 01:21:28.000 to have a proper regional law the convention to display my results for in doing the shower so maybe we like to have another Monica welcome because we can try to go on to a multicultural elevator. 01:21:28.000 --> 01:21:39.000 So, a collaboration for PTA, and try to tell them, Look, there's a certain need for working with each other but Steve they will tell you okay pick these people is not interested. 01:21:39.000 --> 01:21:54.000 but I literally would have tried so we are certainly open to any of these kinds of requests or meets the can come from the community I know this is an obvious thing to say but I just wanted to say 01:21:54.000 --> 01:22:12.000 thank you everyone. It's been late on Friday, so. Have a nice weekend, and we'll hopefully see you all soon for more discussions and also at the next workshop James you want to say something to end, just to maybe close out the entire workshop thanks for 01:22:12.000 --> 01:22:25.000 sticking through to the end. Thanks for everybody that was the speakers and the convener is in the chairs. And there's some been some really good discussions and some great information that has been passed around and yeah we totally look forward to lp 01:22:25.000 --> 01:22:49.000 12 in the fall.