11 November 2010

Christian W. FabjanHEPHY: answers to questionsof written evaluation report

HEPHY Evaluation

Comments and answers

• Clarifications and answers to questions raised in the evaluation report of HEPHY

• Issues related to HEPHY/ SMI merger and Physics Cluster will be addressed in tomorrow’s discussions

Evaluation of HEPHY: Reviewers A&B

• CMS– A&B: It is more difficult to assess the HEPHY effort in CMS data

analysis• Comment: Issues addressed by W. Adam

– A&B: SUSY theory group is sub-critical:• Comment 1: correct; the SAB also strongly recommended to

fill the position left vacant by Prof. Majerotto;• Comment 2: Could not be done so far due to reduction in

planned positions; presently freeze in hiring

• Belle – A&B: Questions about QCD tests at Belle II

• Comment: Issues addressed by C. Schwanda

Evaluation of HEPHY: Reviewers A&B• Summary and Conclusions

– A&B: How will CMS data analysis achieve similar recognition?• Answer 1: W. Adam: both research lines are very ambitious; BSM

effort well integrated with leading US institutions;

QCD: studies address a fundamental issue in a rather visible, albeit small group; is developing novel approach to polarization; has potential to develop into major pole of QCD studies

• Answer 2: priority is placed on hiring of experienced post-doc - the Academy permitting – to reinforce analysis effort; plan to build up CERN-based analysis with colleagues presently absorbed in trigger activities

– A&B: can theory group contribute effectively?• Answer 1: important point; there is potential for improvement; • Answer 2: hiring of phenomenological-oriented theorist with interest

to work closely with experimenters is still planned, pending clarification of personnel budget

Evaluation of HEPHY: Reviewers A&B

• Summary and Conclusions– A&B: How will the low-energy QCD measurements at Belle II

answer the important particle physics questions?• Answer 1: C. Schwanda: HEPHY plans to address BSM at Belle II• Answer 2: SMI has shown interest in the analysis of ‘exotic’ states

observed at Belle; HEPHY will provide assistance with data and data analysis

Evaluation of HEPHY: Reviewers C• CMS physics analysis

– C: The response of HEPHY to Question 11 dealing with the future physics and their role seemed soft.

• Answer: we have interpreted question 11 ‘What are your estimations with respect the future development of your research field?...’ to provide our general view of the development. The role of our research unite was - it is correct – only briefly ( 1page ) mentioned and reference made to the extensive discussion under question 3.

• Our medium range research plans addressing the important physics issues are explained in point 3

This may have been our misunderstanding.

• Choice of Belle II: optimal choice for HEPHY?• Answer: well integrated into Belle physics analysis; Belle II provides access to

BSM physics complementary to and possibly beyond LHC reach• Provides high-visibility detector project, matching well (and extending) HEPHY

competences• Good match to HEPHY’s ‘Phased Programmes’ Strategy