11 November 2010 Christian W. Fabjan HEPHY: answers to questions of written evaluation report HEPHY Evaluation

Comments and answers Clarifications and answers to questions raised in the evaluation report of HEPHY Issues related to HEPHY/ SMI merger and Physics Cluster will be addressed in tomorrow’s discussions

Evaluation of HEPHY: Reviewers A&B CMS –A&B: It is more difficult to assess the HEPHY effort in CMS data analysis Comment: Issues addressed by W. Adam –A&B: SUSY theory group is sub-critical: Comment 1: correct; the SAB also strongly recommended to fill the position left vacant by Prof. Majerotto; Comment 2: Could not be done so far due to reduction in planned positions; presently freeze in hiring Belle –A&B: Questions about QCD tests at Belle II Comment: Issues addressed by C. Schwanda

Evaluation of HEPHY: Reviewers A&B Summary and Conclusions –A&B: How will CMS data analysis achieve similar recognition? Answer 1: W. Adam: both research lines are very ambitious; BSM effort well integrated with leading US institutions; QCD: studies address a fundamental issue in a rather visible, albeit small group; is developing novel approach to polarization; has potential to develop into major pole of QCD studies Answer 2: priority is placed on hiring of experienced post-doc - the Academy permitting – to reinforce analysis effort; plan to build up CERN-based analysis with colleagues presently absorbed in trigger activities –A&B: can theory group contribute effectively? Answer 1: important point; there is potential for improvement; Answer 2: hiring of phenomenological-oriented theorist with interest to work closely with experimenters is still planned, pending clarification of personnel budget

Evaluation of HEPHY: Reviewers A&B Summary and Conclusions –A&B: How will the low-energy QCD measurements at Belle II answer the important particle physics questions? Answer 1: C. Schwanda: HEPHY plans to address BSM at Belle II Answer 2: SMI has shown interest in the analysis of ‘exotic’ states observed at Belle; HEPHY will provide assistance with data and data analysis

Evaluation of HEPHY: Reviewers C CMS physics analysis –C: The response of HEPHY to Question 11 dealing with the future physics and their role seemed soft. Answer: we have interpreted question 11 ‘What are your estimations with respect the future development of your research field?...’ to provide our general view of the development. The role of our research unite was - it is correct – only briefly ( 1page ) mentioned and reference made to the extensive discussion under question 3. Our medium range research plans addressing the important physics issues are explained in point 3 This may have been our misunderstanding. Choice of Belle II: optimal choice for HEPHY? Answer: well integrated into Belle physics analysis; Belle II provides access to BSM physics complementary to and possibly beyond LHC reach Provides high-visibility detector project, matching well (and extending) HEPHY competences Good match to HEPHY’s ‘Phased Programmes’ Strategy