<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A sigma here, a sigma there&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2012/05/09/a-sigma-here-a-sigma-there/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2012/05/09/a-sigma-here-a-sigma-there/</link>
	<description>Thoughts on work and life from particle physicists from around the world.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 16:14:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Qué significan cinco sigmas para el descubrimiento del bosón de Higgs &#124; Revista de ciencia</title>
		<link>http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2012/05/09/a-sigma-here-a-sigma-there/#comment-74948</link>
		<dc:creator>Qué significan cinco sigmas para el descubrimiento del bosón de Higgs &#124; Revista de ciencia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2012 10:16:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quantumdiaries.org/?p=22377#comment-74948</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] de una hipótesis? Nos lo contó Aidan Randle-Conde, &#8220;A sigma here, a sigma there…,&#8221; Quantum Diaries, 9 May 2012. La palabra “sigma” se refiere a la desviación estándar, denotada por la letra griega del [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] de una hipótesis? Nos lo contó Aidan Randle-Conde, &#8220;A sigma here, a sigma there…,&#8221; Quantum Diaries, 9 May 2012. La palabra “sigma” se refiere a la desviación estándar, denotada por la letra griega del [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Higgs: What&#8217;s In A Name? &#124; Whiskey&#8230;Tango&#8230;Foxtrot?</title>
		<link>http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2012/05/09/a-sigma-here-a-sigma-there/#comment-74769</link>
		<dc:creator>Higgs: What&#8217;s In A Name? &#124; Whiskey&#8230;Tango&#8230;Foxtrot?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2012 04:16:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quantumdiaries.org/?p=22377#comment-74769</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] &#8220;A sigma here, a sigma there&#8230;&#8221; &#124; AIDAN RANDLE-CONDE &#124; Quantum Diaries [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] &#8220;A sigma here, a sigma there&#8230;&#8221; | AIDAN RANDLE-CONDE | Quantum Diaries [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Qué significan cinco sigmas para el descubrimiento del bosón de Higgs &#171; Francis (th)E mule Science&#039;s News</title>
		<link>http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2012/05/09/a-sigma-here-a-sigma-there/#comment-74252</link>
		<dc:creator>Qué significan cinco sigmas para el descubrimiento del bosón de Higgs &#171; Francis (th)E mule Science&#039;s News</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 19:29:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quantumdiaries.org/?p=22377#comment-74252</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] de una hipótesis? Nos lo contó Aidan Randle-Conde, &#8220;A sigma here, a sigma there…,&#8221; Quantum Diaries, 9 May 2012. La palabra “sigma” se refiere a la desviación estándar, denotada por la letra griega del [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] de una hipótesis? Nos lo contó Aidan Randle-Conde, &#8220;A sigma here, a sigma there…,&#8221; Quantum Diaries, 9 May 2012. La palabra “sigma” se refiere a la desviación estándar, denotada por la letra griega del [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aidan Randle-Conde</title>
		<link>http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2012/05/09/a-sigma-here-a-sigma-there/#comment-72038</link>
		<dc:creator>Aidan Randle-Conde</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Jun 2012 17:38:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quantumdiaries.org/?p=22377#comment-72038</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi Rick, sure!  Keep an eye on the blog and I&#039;ll try to write a post like that.  At the moment we have a very busy conference season and there are already lots of topics and breaking results that need to be covered, so it may take a week or two before I get to it.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Rick, sure!  Keep an eye on the blog and I&#8217;ll try to write a post like that.  At the moment we have a very busy conference season and there are already lots of topics and breaking results that need to be covered, so it may take a week or two before I get to it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick</title>
		<link>http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2012/05/09/a-sigma-here-a-sigma-there/#comment-71798</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Jun 2012 17:26:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quantumdiaries.org/?p=22377#comment-71798</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi, 

I am an undergrad student and very much interested in joining a grad school. Thank you for the very clear explanation of sigma. I enjoyed reading it very much. I was wondering if you could also explain the meaning of chi-square, delta chi-square and likelihood in future blogs. These are some of the terms that have always confused me.

Thanks very much!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi, </p>
<p>I am an undergrad student and very much interested in joining a grad school. Thank you for the very clear explanation of sigma. I enjoyed reading it very much. I was wondering if you could also explain the meaning of chi-square, delta chi-square and likelihood in future blogs. These are some of the terms that have always confused me.</p>
<p>Thanks very much!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: [blog post] A sigma here, a sigma there&#8230; &#171; aidan@cern</title>
		<link>http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2012/05/09/a-sigma-here-a-sigma-there/#comment-68807</link>
		<dc:creator>[blog post] A sigma here, a sigma there&#8230; &#171; aidan@cern</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 14:43:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quantumdiaries.org/?p=22377#comment-68807</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Keep reading&#8230; Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Keep reading&#8230; Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aidan Randle-Conde</title>
		<link>http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2012/05/09/a-sigma-here-a-sigma-there/#comment-68802</link>
		<dc:creator>Aidan Randle-Conde</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 14:03:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quantumdiaries.org/?p=22377#comment-68802</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Also, on a more politically motivated point, there are no Nobel prizes for non-discovery ;)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Also, on a more politically motivated point, there are no Nobel prizes for non-discovery <img src='http://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aidan Randle-Conde</title>
		<link>http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2012/05/09/a-sigma-here-a-sigma-there/#comment-68801</link>
		<dc:creator>Aidan Randle-Conde</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 14:02:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quantumdiaries.org/?p=22377#comment-68801</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi Gavin, good question!  Usually we&#039;re not so stringent about a non discovery, but we do have sigmas for non discovery too.  If you take a look at http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2011/12/atlas_higgs_plot.gif you can see that there&#039;s a data point at 135GeV that is two sigma way from the line at 1 (this line is 1 times the Standard Model expected number of events.)  This tells us that at 135GeV, if the Higgs exists at this mass point then there&#039;s a two sigma fluctuation down with respect to the Standard Model expectation.  Usually we just require ourselves to be 95% confident that a new particle doesn&#039;t exist at a given point.  We can never exclude it entirely, so we have to choose a cut-off point.  It turns out that 95% confidence is a good compromise between minimizing the probability of getting what are known as Type I and Type II errors, but that&#039;s a whole blog post in itself!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Gavin, good question!  Usually we&#8217;re not so stringent about a non discovery, but we do have sigmas for non discovery too.  If you take a look at <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2011/12/atlas_higgs_plot.gif" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2011/12/atlas_higgs_plot.gif</a> you can see that there&#8217;s a data point at 135GeV that is two sigma way from the line at 1 (this line is 1 times the Standard Model expected number of events.)  This tells us that at 135GeV, if the Higgs exists at this mass point then there&#8217;s a two sigma fluctuation down with respect to the Standard Model expectation.  Usually we just require ourselves to be 95% confident that a new particle doesn&#8217;t exist at a given point.  We can never exclude it entirely, so we have to choose a cut-off point.  It turns out that 95% confidence is a good compromise between minimizing the probability of getting what are known as Type I and Type II errors, but that&#8217;s a whole blog post in itself!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gavin Flower</title>
		<link>http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2012/05/09/a-sigma-here-a-sigma-there/#comment-68787</link>
		<dc:creator>Gavin Flower</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 10:19:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quantumdiaries.org/?p=22377#comment-68787</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thee is a certain asymmetry: surely if you require 5 sigma to accept, then 5 sigma should surely be required to reject?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thee is a certain asymmetry: surely if you require 5 sigma to accept, then 5 sigma should surely be required to reject?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tommy</title>
		<link>http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2012/05/09/a-sigma-here-a-sigma-there/#comment-68786</link>
		<dc:creator>Tommy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 10:04:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quantumdiaries.org/?p=22377#comment-68786</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I am a high school student and I&#039;m very interested in Physics. I have very limited (high school level) knowledge of statistics and the sigma thing has always confused me, but this post clarified a lot!
Thank you!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am a high school student and I&#8217;m very interested in Physics. I have very limited (high school level) knowledge of statistics and the sigma thing has always confused me, but this post clarified a lot!<br />
Thank you!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dequantizer</title>
		<link>http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2012/05/09/a-sigma-here-a-sigma-there/#comment-68773</link>
		<dc:creator>dequantizer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 07:25:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quantumdiaries.org/?p=22377#comment-68773</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi

You got me lined up behind you!

Higgs does not exist as an independent particle. As I explained in many responses on this topic, Allow to label Higgs as ISM &quot;Invisible State of Matter&quot; because it exists as an ultra-rapid state-2-state transition of matter at speeds several folds the speed of light. ISM state lifespan is less than 1.0 X 10-33sec which is technologically infeasible to detect.

I confidently conjecture and predice that CERN&#039;s scientists will one day agree on such findings from their CMS and ATLAS experiments, possibly also from othes.

Well! One way to know, is wait and see.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi</p>
<p>You got me lined up behind you!</p>
<p>Higgs does not exist as an independent particle. As I explained in many responses on this topic, Allow to label Higgs as ISM &#8220;Invisible State of Matter&#8221; because it exists as an ultra-rapid state-2-state transition of matter at speeds several folds the speed of light. ISM state lifespan is less than 1.0 X 10-33sec which is technologically infeasible to detect.</p>
<p>I confidently conjecture and predice that CERN&#8217;s scientists will one day agree on such findings from their CMS and ATLAS experiments, possibly also from othes.</p>
<p>Well! One way to know, is wait and see.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dequantizer</title>
		<link>http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2012/05/09/a-sigma-here-a-sigma-there/#comment-68770</link>
		<dc:creator>dequantizer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 07:09:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quantumdiaries.org/?p=22377#comment-68770</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Aidan:

Hi, I like your positive argument. I am pleased and did not expect less. Will read more of your blogs. Thanx]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Aidan:</p>
<p>Hi, I like your positive argument. I am pleased and did not expect less. Will read more of your blogs. Thanx</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aidan Randle-Conde</title>
		<link>http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2012/05/09/a-sigma-here-a-sigma-there/#comment-68701</link>
		<dc:creator>Aidan Randle-Conde</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 18:55:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quantumdiaries.org/?p=22377#comment-68701</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi Al, I agree and I&#039;ve already come out of the closet as a Higgs skeptic (http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2011/09/08/higgs-skeptic/)  My mind is slowly being changed as the data come in and the peak seems to get higher, but as I say, there&#039;s still a good chance that there is no Higgs.  We&#039;ll see once either one of two things happens, either we get a 5 sigma excess, or every point will be excluded to 95% confidence.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Al, I agree and I&#8217;ve already come out of the closet as a Higgs skeptic (<a href="http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2011/09/08/higgs-skeptic/" rel="nofollow">http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2011/09/08/higgs-skeptic/</a>)  My mind is slowly being changed as the data come in and the peak seems to get higher, but as I say, there&#8217;s still a good chance that there is no Higgs.  We&#8217;ll see once either one of two things happens, either we get a 5 sigma excess, or every point will be excluded to 95% confidence.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aidan Randle-Conde</title>
		<link>http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2012/05/09/a-sigma-here-a-sigma-there/#comment-68698</link>
		<dc:creator>Aidan Randle-Conde</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 18:42:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quantumdiaries.org/?p=22377#comment-68698</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi, thanks for your comment, but I must disagree with what you&#039;ve said.  The tagline of Quantum Diaries is &quot;Thoughts on work and life from particle physicists from around the world.&quot; and as an author it&#039;s up to me to interpret what that means.  Now if you already understand the basics of statistical analysis then good for you, and if you felt this post was below your abilities then that&#039;s too bad for both of us.

However, not everyone has this knowledge, and if someone is genuinely interested in what we&#039;re doing at CERN, but they get put off by the jargon that we use then there is a need to explain these terms.  It&#039;s always preferable to show someone how to make their own minds up about the jargon we use, rather than being spoon fed a result, which is often what I see in a lot of articles.

Not every post can be as exciting as we&#039;d like, and some of the posts are necessary in order to help explain the more exciting posts.  In fact, quite a large number of posts on here are laying the groundwork for something grander, and we refer people back to those posts as we need to.  It&#039;s a fine line to walk, and this feedback helps a lot.  I hope you keep reading my posts, I&#039;ll be back with more exciting posts!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi, thanks for your comment, but I must disagree with what you&#8217;ve said.  The tagline of Quantum Diaries is &#8220;Thoughts on work and life from particle physicists from around the world.&#8221; and as an author it&#8217;s up to me to interpret what that means.  Now if you already understand the basics of statistical analysis then good for you, and if you felt this post was below your abilities then that&#8217;s too bad for both of us.</p>
<p>However, not everyone has this knowledge, and if someone is genuinely interested in what we&#8217;re doing at CERN, but they get put off by the jargon that we use then there is a need to explain these terms.  It&#8217;s always preferable to show someone how to make their own minds up about the jargon we use, rather than being spoon fed a result, which is often what I see in a lot of articles.</p>
<p>Not every post can be as exciting as we&#8217;d like, and some of the posts are necessary in order to help explain the more exciting posts.  In fact, quite a large number of posts on here are laying the groundwork for something grander, and we refer people back to those posts as we need to.  It&#8217;s a fine line to walk, and this feedback helps a lot.  I hope you keep reading my posts, I&#8217;ll be back with more exciting posts!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aidan Randle-Conde</title>
		<link>http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2012/05/09/a-sigma-here-a-sigma-there/#comment-68697</link>
		<dc:creator>Aidan Randle-Conde</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 18:33:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quantumdiaries.org/?p=22377#comment-68697</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi Roger, thanks for your comment!  I&#039;ve tried to keep the treatment as simple as possible, and the point about 68% to the power 100 was made assuming that we only had to deal with statistical uncertainties.  As you point out, if the data points are not statistically independent then we start to run into problems.  As long as we have one entry per physics event then it&#039;s usually safe to assume that the data points are statistically independent, since each physics events is independent of the other physics events.

Things start to get very complicated if there is an overall fluctuation (up or down) of the total number of events summed over the whole distribution.  When this happens we need to make our best estimate of the shape of the distribution, and the significance of individual fluctuations.  There can also be problems in a distribution that has a large gradient, where a fluctuation at one data point can cause a dramatic shift in the overall shape.

To take uncertainties into account where the data points are not statistically independent (eg if we have several entries per event) we can either choose to weight the contributions to each data point, or to include a covariance matrix that takes the correlations between the data points into account.  A good example of a distribution where the data points are not statistically independent would be the transverse momentum of leptons.  Suppose we have a Z boson decaying to two leptons.  We can then find the relationship between the transverse momenta of the two leptons and we find that when we get one high transverse momentum lepton we also get one low transverse momentum lepton.  If we don&#039;t take this into account we can end up with all kinds of unwanted correlations.  We usually separate out the &quot;leading&quot; from the &quot;subleading&quot; lepton for this reason.

I hope that answers your question!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Roger, thanks for your comment!  I&#8217;ve tried to keep the treatment as simple as possible, and the point about 68% to the power 100 was made assuming that we only had to deal with statistical uncertainties.  As you point out, if the data points are not statistically independent then we start to run into problems.  As long as we have one entry per physics event then it&#8217;s usually safe to assume that the data points are statistically independent, since each physics events is independent of the other physics events.</p>
<p>Things start to get very complicated if there is an overall fluctuation (up or down) of the total number of events summed over the whole distribution.  When this happens we need to make our best estimate of the shape of the distribution, and the significance of individual fluctuations.  There can also be problems in a distribution that has a large gradient, where a fluctuation at one data point can cause a dramatic shift in the overall shape.</p>
<p>To take uncertainties into account where the data points are not statistically independent (eg if we have several entries per event) we can either choose to weight the contributions to each data point, or to include a covariance matrix that takes the correlations between the data points into account.  A good example of a distribution where the data points are not statistically independent would be the transverse momentum of leptons.  Suppose we have a Z boson decaying to two leptons.  We can then find the relationship between the transverse momenta of the two leptons and we find that when we get one high transverse momentum lepton we also get one low transverse momentum lepton.  If we don&#8217;t take this into account we can end up with all kinds of unwanted correlations.  We usually separate out the &#8220;leading&#8221; from the &#8220;subleading&#8221; lepton for this reason.</p>
<p>I hope that answers your question!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
