Comment on "Reproducibility and Replication of Experimental Particle Physics Results"
arXiv:2105.03082 · doi:10.1162/99608f92.b9bfc518
Abstract
I would like to thank Junk and Lyons (arXiv:2009.06864) for beginning a discussion about replication in high-energy physics (HEP). Junk and Lyons ultimately argue that HEP learned its lessons the hard way through past failures and that other fields could learn from our procedures. They emphasize that experimental collaborations would risk their legacies were they to make a type-1 error in a search for new physics and outline the vigilance taken to avoid one, such as data blinding and a strict threshold. The discussion, however, ignores an elephant in the room: there are regularly anomalies in searches for new physics that result in substantial scientific activity but don't replicate with more data.
arXiv commentclosely matches published comment & final words on rejoinder
References in corpus (6)
- Search for resonances in diphoton events at =13 TeV with the ATLAS detector
- Search for new phenomena in high-mass diphoton final states using 37 fb of proton-proton collisions collected at TeV with the ATLAS detector
- Search for high-mass diphoton resonances in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV and combination with 8 TeV search
- Search for resonant production of high-mass photon pairs in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 and 13 TeV
- The LHC Olympics 2020: A Community Challenge for Anomaly Detection in High Energy Physics
- Reproducibility and Replication of Experimental Particle Physics Results