Fake Banner
The Problem With Peer Review

In a world where misinformation, voluntary or accidental, reigns supreme; in a world where lies...

Interna

In the past few years my activities on this site - but I would say more in general, as the same...

The Probability Density Function: A Known Unknown

Perhaps the most important thing to get right from the start, in most statistical problems, is...

Summer Lectures In AI

Winter is not over yet, but I am already busy fixing the details of some conferences, schools,...

User picture.
picture for Hank Campbellpicture for Heidi Hendersonpicture for Bente Lilja Byepicture for Sascha Vongehrpicture for Patrick Lockerbypicture for Johannes Koelman
Tommaso DorigoRSS Feed of this column.

Tommaso Dorigo is an experimental particle physicist, who works for the INFN at the University of Padova, and collaborates with the CMS and the SWGO experiments. He is the president of the Read More »

Blogroll
This morning I arrived to my office with one idea to develop, and I decided to work on the blackboard that is hung on the wall opposite to where I sit. I seldom use it, but for some reason it seems that writing with coloured markers on that white surface is more thought-inspiring than my usual scribbling on a notebook.

One clear practical advantage of the (white) blackboard is that whenever my train of thoughts hits a dead end or I write some nonsense, I just erase it and start over, keeping the good stuff untouched and still in sight; on the notebook this is not possible, as one needs to turn the page. On the negative side, there is less backward traceability - if I had a good idea and left it alone, it is lost forever.
Statistics data analysis is one of those things that experimental physicists learn along the way. It is not a topic usually included in the curriculum studiorum of physics students at Universities: only few basic ingredients are taught during laboratory courses, and not much is added to that during a typical Ph.D. program.

One usually learns the most common tools to fit histograms, combine measurements, estimate uncertainties on the field, as these things are always needed to produce publishable physics results. But several key statistical concepts often remain fuzzy and obscure in the mind of a large fraction of experimental physicists throughout their career. I know this because this happened to me, too - for quite a few years after my graduation.
"The abandonment of superstitious beliefs about the existence of Phlogiston, the Cosmic Ether, Absolute Space and Time, ... , or Fairies and Witches, was an essential step along the road to scientific thinking. Probability, too, if regarded as something endowed with some kind of objective existence, is no less a misleading misconception, an illusory attempt to exteriorize or materialize our true probabilistic beliefs."

Bruno De Finetti
[The title of this article comes from a T-shirt with ten advices on what to do when everything else fails]

It has always surprised me to realize how confident we physicists are of the good faith of our colleagues. We may argue endlessly over one graph or result, getting to the point of publically casting doubts on the dexterity or intelligence of our peers (yes, I've seen that), but we never seem to doubt -privately or otherwise- their scientific integrity.
"The cusp in the dark matter distribution required to explain the recently found excess in the gamma-ray spectrum at energies of 130 GeV in terms of the dark matter annihilations cannot survive the tidal forces if it is offset by 1.5° from the Galactic center as suggested by observations."

Dmitry Gorbunov, Peter Tinjakov, "On the offset of a DM Cusp and the interpretation of the 130 GeV line as a DM signal", Arxiv:1212.0488
"Oh Wind, if Winter comes, can Spring be far behind ?"

Good old Shelley inspired me to start today's article with the above verse, taken from his magnificent "Ode to the West Wind". With the weather we are experiencing these days in Geneva and northern Italy, I found it a relieving thought...

So, winter conferences are over, and summer ones are still far away. This is therefore a nice moment to try an assessment on the quality of the results that the two competing CERN experiments have produced on the study of the Higgs boson. Why ? Because we are not going to have to change our conclusions in a short time scale caused by a result about to be published.

How to compare the results