[Rivet] Rivet "collaboration meeting"?

[Andy Buckley]

On 02/05/13 14:05, Frank Siegert wrote:
>>> sounds interesting. I'd love to talk to them to convince them that
>>> Pseudo-Sims are not a good idea :-) And to show them what we've already
>>> done with Valya. But like James I'm not sure the Rivet meeting fits for
>>> that.
>>>
>>> I'd also like to ask them if they'd contribute the ~80 analyses they
>>> talk about.
>>
>> All this reminds me of Sezen Sekmen's and Sabine Kraml's talk at the
>> DASPOS/DPHEP data preservation meeting at CERN in March. They have
>> "started efforts on building an analysis code database where analysis
>> code written by phenomenologists can be collected [and] are also working
>> on a common format for such analysis codes". Their "main issue [with
>> Rivet] is that Rivet is in principle for unfolded data. BSM results are
>> however not unfolded, and will not be in the foreseeable future."
>>
>> I'd *LOVE* to write them back saying that there are about 80 BSM
>> analyses in Rivet!!!
> 
> I don't know enough about the different approaches to judge. But to me
> these two statements sound like it's important to work out a good
> collaboration with Rivet-based BSM projects like AToM, on the one hand
> to avoid upstream-vs-downstream issues as far as possible and on the
> other hand to avoid the potential duplication of a "database and
> common format for analysis codes".
> 
> Maybe we can have a phone meeting during those 3 days where we invite
> them to discuss their approach?

Hi Frank,

That sounds good to me. BSM exploration/constraint isn't something we
should discourage even though it isn't the main aim of Rivet, and while
we're talking about other extensions and changes for the future it would
be good to take into account what they're saying. Plus, avoiding private
forks of the code (= "upstream-vs-downstream issues" etc.) is always good.

We are anyway going to provide a Vidyo connection at some points --
would that be okay for them? I guess other BSM uses are represented by
David and me... although we decided not to use Rivet for the collider
part of our one because the search analyses tend to be very simple and
doing it a "custom" way gives more scope for optimisation and use in a
big sampling algorithm. I might change my mind if they add 80 useful BSM
analyses to the collection!

By the way, I'm assuming that arriving/starting on the afternoon of 28th
May is ok for everyone and that you'll sort out your own accommodation
etc. Any recommendations, UCL people?

Cheers,
Andy

PS. David, I've not yet persuaded my collaborators that detector sim
isn't needed, but Delphes can now at least be used in an event loop so
we can now do some comparisons to discover that for ourselves ;-)

-- 
Dr Andy Buckley, Royal Society University Research Fellow
Particle Physics Expt Group, University of Edinburgh