Patrick Meade Institute for Advanced Study. Number of ways to extract data from models have been/are being developed (more in Dirk’s talk) Are these.

EXTRACTING MODEL PARAMETERS - ARE OUR

TECHNIQUES FIT FOR THE JOB?Patrick Meade

Institute for Advanced Study

Outline

Number of ways to extract data from models have been/are being developed (more in Dirk’s talk)

Are these techniques robust? What models do we actually care about?

Models that have a point – can in principle talk about extracting parameters Old Standards (with some new twists perhaps) Newly Needed Ones

Models that don’t (at least from theory point of view) How quickly adaptable are the techniques

for new models?

Models that we care about?

How do we decide which to “fit”?

Mura

yam

a

Trends in Theory Possibilities for the LHC

Time

Trends in Theory Possibilities for the LHC

Trends in Theory Possibilities for the LHC

NOTE: THEY M

AY ALL BE BAD CHOICES!

Disclaimer: Candidates are not representative of models or authors of said models

Motivated Models – Old School

SUSY Strong Dynamics

Extra dimensions Techni… Little Higgs

...

Fitting easy because motivated models have few parameters and

distinct signatures?

AMSB+common scalar mass Gauge Mediation

MSUGRA

Gauge Mediation

General Gauge Mediation

6 Numbers

Fitting easy because motivated models have few parameters and

distinct signatures?

General Gauge Mediation

m2Q ¡ 2m2

U + m2D ¡ m2

L + m2E = 0

2m2Q ¡ m2

U ¡ m2D ¡ 2m2

L + m2E = 0

Arbitrary Gaugino Masses

Other Models?

As model builders we have a lot of ways out so make sure techniques

for fitting are adaptive

New Models?

How do we think about fitting when new physics pops up? Effective lagrangians/Models

Again we need to be adaptive!

“Un”motivated Models

How do we characterize them? Effective lagrangians / form factors? Leftover questions from Matt’s talk

yesterday?

Thanks to the Organizers!(that came!)

Thanks especially to Tilman! Graham has your present but forgot to wrap it,

you’ll get it at lunch