Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:42:03.670Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Signature-Based Model-Independent Searches at the Large Hadron Collider: An Experimental Strategy Aiming at Safeness in a Theory-Dependent Way

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Pierre-Hugues Beauchemin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Signature-based model-independent (SBMI) searches for new physics form an explorative component of High Energy Physics experiments that aims at avoiding biases toward beyond-the-standard-model theories. In order to maximize their chances of meeting their objectives, however, SBMI searches must be guided by theory about the target phenomena. They correspond to strategy-driven experiments as defined by Koray Karaca, in contrast to Friedrich Steinle’s conception of explorative experiments. A concept of type II safeness is proposed to explain how the objectives of the experiment introduce theory dependence in the search strategy. Empirical evidence obtained from Large Hadron Collider experiments can therefore not avoid dependence on theory.

Type
Physical Sciences
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 87 , Issue 5: PSA 2018 - Proceedings of the 2018 biennial meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part II Symposia Papers , December 2020 , pp. 1234 - 1245
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

I would like to thank Kent Staley, Michael Stöltzner, and Peter Mättig for useful discussions on theory-ladeness, as well as Kevin Elliott for useful comments on the manuscript.

References

Collaboration, ATLAS. 2012. “Observation of a New Particle in the Search for the Standard Model Higgs Boson with the ATLAS Detector at the LHC.” Physics Letter B 176:1–29.Google Scholar
Collaboration, ATLAS. 2017. “Measurement of Detector-Corrected Observables Sensitive to the Anomalous Production of Events with Jets and Large Missing Transverse Momentum in pp Collisions at √s = 13 TeV using the ATLAS Detector.” European Physics Journal C 77:765–809.Google Scholar
Beauchemin, Pierre-Hugues. 2017. “Autopsy of Measurements with the ATLAS Detector at the LHC.” Synthese 194:275–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behnke, Olaf, Kroninger, Kevin, Schott, Gregory, and Schorner-Sadenius, Thomas. 2013. Data Analysis in High Energy Physics: A Practical Guide to Statistical Methods. Weinheim: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogen, James, and Woodward, James. 1988. “Saving the Phenomena.” Philosophical Review 97 (3): 303–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogen, James, and Woodward, James. 1989. “Data and Phenomena.” Synthese 79 (3): 393–472.Google Scholar
Burian, Richard M. 1997. “Exploratory Experimentation and the Role of Histochemical Techniques in the Work of Jean Brachet, 1938–1952.” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 19:27–45.Google ScholarPubMed
Collaboration, CDF. 2010. “Search for New Physics with a Dijet plus Missing Transverse Energy Signature in p-pbar Collisions at sqrt(s) = 1.96 TeV.” Physics Review Letter 105:131801.Google Scholar
Collaboration, CMS. 2012. “Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC.” Physics Letter B 176:30–61.Google Scholar
Collaboration, CMS. 2018. “Search for Pair-Produced Resonances Decaying to Quark Pairs in Proton-Proton Collisions at √s = 13 TeV.” Physics Review D 98:112014.Google Scholar
Elliott, Kevin C. 2007. “Varieties of Exploratory Experimentation in Nanotoxicology.” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 29:311–36.Google ScholarPubMed
Franklin, Allan. 2017. “The Missing Piece of the Puzzle: The Discovery of the Higgs Boson.” Synthese 194:259–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, Laura R. 2005. “Exploratory Experiments.” Philosophy of Science 72:888–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphreys, Paul. 2004. Extending Ourselves: Computational Science, Empiricism, and Scientific Method. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karaca, Koray. 2017. “A Case Study in Experimental Exploration: Exploratory Data Selection at the Large Hadron Collider.” Synthese 194:333–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lykken, Joseph D. 2010. “Beyond the Standard Model.” In CERN Yellow Report CERN-2010-002, ed. Grojean, C. and Spiropulu, M., 101–9. Geneva: CERN.Google Scholar
Nachman, Benjamin, and Rudelius, Tom. 2012. “Evidence for Conservatism in LHC SUSY Searches.” European Physics Journal Plus 127:157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collaboration, OPERA. 2012. “Measurement of the Neutrino Velocity with the OPERA Detector in the CNGS Beam.” Journal of High Energy Physics 10:93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinle, Friedrich. 1997. “Entering New Fields: Exploratory Uses of Experimentation.” Philosophy of Science 64:65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinle, Friedrich. 2002. “Experiments in History and Philosophy of Science.” Perspectives on Science 10:408–32.Google Scholar
Waters, C. Kenneth. 2007. “What Was Classical Genetics?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 35:783–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar