Higgs Hunters Talk
potential #ocv but only one track picked up by computer.
This looks #weird. Probable #ocv at 5.00 and 9.00 in normal view. Both look good in slice view. The 5.00 ocv points to an energy deposit.
possible #ocv at 10.00 in normal view. Looks possible by slice view.
apparent #ocv at 4.00 in normal view. Looks possible also in slice view.
#ocv at 3.30 in normal view. Points to an energy deposit (but not the centre of it).
#ocv at 11.00 in normal view, in direction of energy deposit. Hard to locate the vertex in slice view as the two tracks ran so closely.
#ocv at 11.00 in normal view, opposite an energy deposit and possible quark. ocv supported by slice view.
apparent #ocv at 4.30 in normal view, in direction of energy deposit.
#ocv at 9.30 in normal view, with support in slice view. Points to energy deposit.
#ocv at 2.45 in normal view, leading to energy deposit. Looks supported by slice view.
a subtle #ocv at 9.10 (and the one at 9.30 could also be one); both supported in slice view.
#ocv at 11.30 in normal view but I can't see this in slice view. Leads to energy deposit.
#ocv at 5.30 in normal view, with support in slice view. Leads to energy deposit.
two muon tracks and two possible quarks alongside them, with an energy deposit opposite (something massive). Interesting pattern. #weird
at least one #ocv, probably 2 at 4.30 in normal view. Hard to pick in slice view as the tracks were so close and covered by the muon track.
apparent #ocv at 6.30 in normal view, but tracks bend in same direction (same charge)
I assume this is a trick question, as the ocv does not align with the central point.
nice little #ocv at 11.00 in normal view, with support in slice view.
computer got the #ocv at 10.30 but missed the likely #ocv at 5.00 (vertex visible in zoom view about 1/2 way to perimeter).
possible #ocv at 7.30 in normal view. The muon tracks are interesting; they have also triggered the quark recognition software. Explanation?
Nice #ocv at 10.00 in normal view, with probable quarks (both directions), but the computer picked this one well, so nothing to add.
possible #ocv at 11.45 in normal view, pointing to an energy deposit. Support in slice view but difficult to pinpoint crossover point.
nice #jet directed to a possible quark, with another quark opposite. Only one muon. Is this #weird enough?
perhaps an #ocv at 7.30 (normal view) - the tracks lead to an energy deposit and possible quark (blue mark at periphery).
apparent #ocv at 5.00 in normal view, and looks possible from slice view. Leads to energy deposit.
possible #ocv at 6.00 in normal view, with support in slice view.
two #ocv near each other at around 10.30 in normal, both supported in slice view. very nice.
an easy to miss #ocv at 1.00 in normal view, but is easier to see in slice view. Leads to energy deposit. Why is it so short?
apparent #ocv at 12.00 in normal view, with support in slice view.
A nice looking #jet leading to an energy deposit. In slice view it looks like maybe one #ocv with two other tracks that are almost parallel.
#ocv at 6.30 in normal view, with support in slice view. Leads to energy deposit.
#ocv at 11.30 in normal view, with support in slice view.
potential #ocv at 7.30 in normal view; support in slice view.
#ocv at 3.00 in normal view; support in slice view.
#ocv at 12.30 in normal view
#ocv at 10.00 and at 12.30 (close in) in normal view
#ocv at 7.00 in normal view; covered by other tracks. Pointing towards energy deposit.
#ocv hiding among tracks at 5.00 in normal view, with support in slice view. Points to energy deposit.
#ocv at 6.30 in normal view, with support in slice view.
#ocv at 7.00 in normal view, leading to energy deposit. Support in slice view.
#ocv at 3.00, but with an unusually wide angle.
what is going on here? a pair of symmetrical tracks that don't cross (so not an ocv) and not predicted to come from the centre.
#bundle of 4 tracks at 7.30 in normal view could be an #ocv, with good support in slice view. Leads to energy deposit and possible quark.
Hard to see what is happening in normal view because tracks occluded by muon, but in slice view it could be a a 4 track #ocv.
#ocv at 7.30 in normal view, not picked up by computer.
apparent #ocv at 3.30 in normal view.
~ symmetrical jet pattern at 3.00 to energy deposit, including the purple #ocv detected by computer. Perhaps #ocv under muon track at 8.00.
#ocv hiding under muon track at 5.30 in normal view. Looks good in slice view also.
#ocv at 4.30, with support in slice view.
#ocv at 9.30 and maybe another at 8.00 in normal view
#ocv at 2.30 in normal view.
#ocv at 3.30 in normal view, with support in slice view. Points in direction of energy deposit.
#ocv at 6.00 in normal view, with support in slice view.
possible #ocv at 5.00, supported by slice view
#ocv at 8.30 in normal view.
potential #ocv at 1.00 leading to bottom quark
Possibly two #ocv, one each along the muon tracks, but hard to be certain. Computer got the ocv at 8.30 but not the one at 2.00.
computer marked a single track, missing the #ocv nearby at about 12.00 in normal view. Slice view supportive.
#ocv at 6.00 but computer went for the tracks at 7.30 (normal view)
very busy and likely much more of interest (multiple #ocv ?? 1.30 and 3.30) than just the two coloured tracks that the computer detected.
computer went for a possible #ocv at 10.00 in normal view but did not register the other #ocv at 5.00 (the short one at the outer rim).
possible #ocv at 5.00 with backtrack
unusually wide angled #ocv at 1.00
it looks like an #ocv is hiding along the 8.30 muon line (normal view). Is that 3 muons at 1.00??
clear #ocv at 4.30 in normal view; with support in slice view.
nice #ocv at 9.00 in normal view, and looks good in slice view.
nice looking #ocv at 7.30 in normal view, with support in slice view. Does not seem to lead to anything detected.
FAQ: https://talk.higgshunters.org/?_ga=1.199557225.676721221.1483506937#/boards/BHH0000001/discussions/DHH00000np
Have a read of the FAQ (link left on discussion board page); explains the lines, crazy little circles, coloured patches at the periphery...
#ocv suspected to be hiding under muon track at 10.00, in both normal and slice view.
potential #ocv at 6.00 in normal view, obscured by muon track. Support in slice view.
#ocv at 6.30 in normal view, with support in slice view. Computer seemed to get confused (red tracks)
remarkably symmetrical tracks
#ocv at 7.00 in normal view, leading to energy deposit.
possible #ocv at ~12.00 in normal view (if longer path is backtrack). Tracks appear to curve in opposite directions in the magnetic field.
computer went for unlikely event at 11.00 in normal view but missed clear #ocv at 1.00 (maybe more than one). Slice view supportive.
PS: so in this case I think the detection algorithm would fail, as there are unlikely to be any slice view clicks.
potential #ocv at 5.00 (normal view) but could not identify any track intersection in slice view because tracks are beneath muon track.
#weird, two #ocv at 10.00 and another opposite at 4.00. Support in slice view.
#ocv at close to 9.00, with support in slice view.
potential #ocv at 12.30, supported by slice view.
computer went for motif at 1.30 but missed the clear #ocv at 11.00 (normal view). Slice view supportive and 1.30 ocv leads to energy deposit
#ocv buried among other tracks at 8.00 in normal view, with support in slice view.
apparent #ocv at 8.30 in normal view, with support in slice view.
#ocv hidden among other tracks at 3.00 in normal view. Supported by slice view.
#ocv at 7.30 in normal view, best seen with zoom. Support in slice view.
PS: in zoom view there are only 3 tracks, and two fuse to one after the cross-over, so not as weird as I first thought.
#weird - what is going on here? There appears to be 4 tracks issuing as a jet at 3.00 in normal view, then they cross to reappear as two?
#ocv at 7.00 in normal view, with support in slice view.
computer got one 2-track #ocv at 6.15 but missed the potential #ocv at 11.00 - probably because it is mingled with 2 other tracks.
one, maybe two #ocv at 11.00 in normal view, with support in slice view.
#ocv at 5.00 in normal view, leading to energy deposit. Support in slice view.
There must be an #ocv at 11.00 but the vertex is obscured by the muon track in normal view (and also in slice view).
PS: the FAQ is on left menu side of discussion page: https://talk.higgshunters.org/?_ga=1.241303621.676721221.1483506937#/boards
It is an artifact and something to be ignored. In the FAQ there is a description of these, along with many other useful bits of information.
#ocv at 10.00 leads to possible bottom quark. OCV at 5.30 is not joined to form a vertex but tracks very close and go in opposite directions
How #weird. The computer has labelled a 3-track #ocv (orange) but missed the second 2-track #ocv that arises within the orange tracks.
nice #ocv at 3.00 while the computer missed it and went for something crazy at 7.30 (normal view).
potential #ocv at 10.00 (maybe one track backtracks beyond vertex).
#ocv at 5.30 in normal view (perhaps more than one), leading to energy deposit. Slice view supportive.
computer has gone for something at 2.30 but there is a nice #ocv that it missed at 6.30.
It looks at first glance like an #ocv at 7.00 in normal view, but in zoom they are just closely apposed. I tagged it anyway. Slice view OK.
paired tracks at 5.30 that lead to an energy deposit appear to start in the centre but could be more interesting.
#ocv at 11.00. In zoom it is a single track next to an OCV. Support in slice view. Leads to energy deposit. Also #missingmuon.
What a nice looking #ocv at 2.00 in normal view, leading to a photon. Support in slice view.
potential #ocv at 10.00
could be that all 3 tracks at 11.30 (normal view) originate in centre but it could also be an #ocv with one track extending to centre.
#jet and/or #ocv at 6.30 in normal view. All pointing to an energy deposit at periphery.
#ocv at 2.00, with support in slice view.
The computer has picked out one track (orange) but there may be something more complex going on here than one #ocv .
#ocv at 12.30, with support from slice view.
possible #ocv at 3.30 in normal view. At zoom level the two tracks do not quite meet. Point to a possible bottom quark, and energy deposit.
PS: so why were these not picked up by the automated ocv detecting software?
#ocv at 5.00, in direction of energy. Support from slice view.
#ocv at 10.00 in normal view, but slice view does not seem to support it.
two beautiful looking #ocv in normal view, one at 4.00 and the other at 6.30. Slice view looks supportive.
can't see what is happening under the 9.30 muon track, either in slice or normal view, but there are 2-3 tracks that might be an #ocv
computer went for the motif at about 1.00 but missed the one at 5.00, which looks to me far more likely as it leads to an energy deposit
apparent #ocv at 7.00, with potential support from slice view
computer got the #ocv at 3.30 in normal view, but there could be another at 1.00 - hard to say.
computer has detected the #ocv at 4.00 in normal view, but what is the small 'V' at 8.00 - a micro-ocv??
nice looking #ocv at 3.30 in normal view. Slice view seems to support this.
#jet and/or #ocv at 5.30 in normal view.
possible #ocv at 10.30.
computer has picked one #ocv at 5.00 (normal view), with track coloured grey, but maybe a second ocv next to it.
at least one #ocv at 11.30 in normal view, and slice view looks very supportive, with 6 tracks crossing at same point.
A #jet and/or #ocv at 4.00 (normal view) that goes in the direction of a possible bottom quark signal (blue mark at periphery).
possible #ocv at 6.00, although at zoom level the two tracks are very close but do not join
possible #ocv at 1.30 in normal view, with support from slice view.
PS: but you really needed zoom view to see the tracks clearly. Hopefully others will mark the two crossover points further out from the base
#ocv at 9.30 in normal view, and supported in slice view. I should have also marked the cross-over point of three tracks near the edge.
potential #ocv at 6.00, with 5 tracks all passing through the same point in normal view. Looks good in slice view also. Looks interesting!
possible #ocv at 4.00 in normal view, but hard to say from slice view, and no evidence of energy in that direction.
at least one #ocv at 10.30, with support from slice view. The two pairs of tracks look remarkably symmetric.
apparent #ocv at 7.00, with support from slice view.
possible #ocv at 8.45. Two tracks very close together, but where do they really start? My guess was the inner surface of the first ring.
possible #ocv at 11.00, and looks possible by slice view.
PS: I did not mark as an ocv because the lines do not meet and form a vertex. The moderator suggested it is better to mark such patterns.
#ocv at 11.00, and looks possible also by slice view.
apparent #ocv at 11.00, with support from slice view.
#weird pattern at 6.30. Not an #ocv, but the two tracks start together are symmetrical & point to the blue bar (bottom quark) at perimeter.
#ocv at 3.30. Looks OK by slice view also.
possible #ocv at 5.00, but slice view is too busy to interpret.
#ocv at 11.00, with support from slice view.
two #ocv, and both look supported by slice view. Looks interesting.
#ocv at 2.00, with possible support from slice view (but hard to tell).
Well, at 8.30 in normal view there are at least two features that could be #ocv, and slice view looks supportive.
#ocv at 5.30, and looks supported by slice view.
#ocv at 9.00, can't tell from slice view if supported or not.
Nice #ocv at 6.30, with support from slice view.
#ocv likely at 10.30 in normal view, and also looks good by slice view.
computer got the #ocv at 10.00, but there is a potential #ocv at 2.00 (all 3 tracks hit the same cross-over point) that looks more valid.
#ocv at 2.30 in normal view, with potential support from slice view.
computer got it right at 10.00
computer got the #ocv at 2.00 but has missed the second one at 6.30. Both look OK by slice view.
#ocv at 2.45, that looks possible also by slice view. Central to muon tracks.
#ocv at 12.00, and looks possible also by slice view.
@rhea_a48: see the FAQ: https://talk.higgshunters.org/?_ga=1.41615201.2111149700.1480296941#/boards/BHH0000001/discussions/DHH00000np
answer to rhea_a48: the muon tracks leading from the centre to the red bars at the periphery have not been drawn - a software error.
#ocv at 2.00, with potential support in slice view.
nice looking #ocv at 8.30, with potential support from slice view
#ocv at 8.00 and looks possible also by slice view
in slice view, the computer got it right (green intersecting lines), but I would not have picked it. Normal view is of course obvious.
#weird, #ocv (2x) at 7.30. What is going on here?
Apparent #ocv at 3.00, with vertex very close to centre. I can't work out if slice view supports this.
#ocv at 12.30, with support from slice view
Nice #ocv at 11.45 with potential support from slice view.
computer got the ocv at 2.30 but missed the one at 8.30. Both look possible from slice view.
#ocv at 11.00, with some support from slice view
#ocv at 4.00, with some support by slice view.
#ocv at 1.00, with support from slice view.
Computer recognized the blue ocv at 5.30 but not the apparent #ocv at 11.30. Slice view looks good for the former but not the latter
PS: or (more likely) the middle track curves upwards to join with the upper track, so no vertex under the dashed red line.
nice #ocv at 5.00, opposite two muon tracks (with blue markers also?). Support from slice view.
There is a vertex that is hidden by the red broken line, but I think it goes to the centre point, and so should be disregarded.
apparent #ocv at 12.30 but I'm not sure there is much support in slice view.
apparent #ocv at 9.00
is there an #ocv hiding under the 3rd muon track at 7.00?
#ocv at 6.30, with support from slice view
A strange #ocv at 6.00 that appears to split again? Slice view supports ocv. Did the muon split or is that a computer error?
nice #ocv at 8.00, with potential support in slice view
#ocv at 6.30 and at 10.00.
#ocv at 8.00, in direction of blue spot on periphery. Support for ocv in slice view.
could be an #ocv hidden among the other closely parallel tracks
#ocv at 7.00 in normal view, with support in slice view
apparent #ocv in normal view at 9.00, but I can't see much support in slice view
#ocv at 4.00 in normal view, with potential support from slice view
apparent #ocv at 4.00, with possible support from slice view
yes, but there is no way we can see if there is support from slice view
possible #ocv at 9.00 in normal view, and could be supported by slice view
apparent #ocv at 2.30, but not clearly supported in slice view
Is this the shortest apparent #ocv on record (4.00, normal view)? Does not seem to be supported in slice view though.
either just a #bundle of 4 or an #ocv at 10.30 where some tracks over-extended to centre
3 potential #ocv, at 3.00, and two at around 10.15 - 10.30. Slice view could support these.
apparent #ocv at 7.30, beginning in the outer band. Can't read the slice view well, but could support it. (at zoom the tracks do not meet?)
apparent #ocv at 8.30, with possible support from slice view
possible #ocv at 2.00 but uncertain support from slice view
possible #ocv at 11.15, right at edge of normal view. Looks like slice view could support this.
#ocv at 9.00?
#ocv at 5.00 in normal view, and looks supported by slice view
#ocv at 3.15
Is there an #ocv at 12.00?
#ocv at 2.00 in normal view, and possibly supported by slice view (hard to tell)
#bundle along 7.00 green track
looks like a #ocv in both normal and slice view.
looks like an #ocv in both normal (4.00) and slice (4.00) view
marked as #ocv in normal view but does not look likely in slice view
potential #ocv at 10.30 in normal view
Had two guesses at where the #ocv begins at 10.30. Hard to localise vertex.
is that a potential #ocv at 1.00 in normal view? Possible also by slice view, although obscured by muon.
potential #ocv at 5.30 in normal view, that also looks possible by slice view
obscured in both slice and normal view, so just guessed it might be an #ocv
I think there is an #ocv at 7.00; looks reasonable in slice view also
not sure what was meant to be correct, so I labeled 2 ocv's starting close to the centre, assuming one track of each was predicted too long
#ocv at 1.00 in normal view, supported by slice view
#ocv in slice and in normal view
#ocv at 7.00
#ocv at 5.30, also supported by slice view
not off-centre on a line radiating from the centre point, so ignored it. Nothing in slice view either.
Yes, the normal view of this is difficult, as is the slice view, due to overlap with the muon track.
nothing to see
It is a calibration exercise, and in normal view the three jets all started in the centre, so I just put a #weird sticker on it and went on.
potential #ocv in slice and normal view, in #bundle
#ocv looks nice
very hard to place #ocv pointer in slice view as the two white trails at 8.00 are so close.
red oval at head of red potential #ocv makes interpretation difficult
#bundle
#weird in slice view but looks like #ocv in normal view
In slice view it still looks like an #ocv, and that is how I marked it in normal view. These could be used for training purposes...
No green tracks? Something missing?
#weird about 6 tracks in parallel #bundle (in slice view) going off at 2 o'clock
#ocv at 10.00?
potential #ocv but only one track picked up by computer.
This looks #weird. Probable #ocv at 5.00 and 9.00 in normal view. Both look good in slice view. The 5.00 ocv points to an energy deposit.
possible #ocv at 10.00 in normal view. Looks possible by slice view.
apparent #ocv at 4.00 in normal view. Looks possible also in slice view.
#ocv at 3.30 in normal view. Points to an energy deposit (but not the centre of it).
#ocv at 11.00 in normal view, in direction of energy deposit. Hard to locate the vertex in slice view as the two tracks ran so closely.
#ocv at 11.00 in normal view, opposite an energy deposit and possible quark. ocv supported by slice view.
apparent #ocv at 4.30 in normal view, in direction of energy deposit.
#ocv at 9.30 in normal view, with support in slice view. Points to energy deposit.
#ocv at 2.45 in normal view, leading to energy deposit. Looks supported by slice view.
a subtle #ocv at 9.10 (and the one at 9.30 could also be one); both supported in slice view.
#ocv at 11.30 in normal view but I can't see this in slice view. Leads to energy deposit.
#ocv at 5.30 in normal view, with support in slice view. Leads to energy deposit.
two muon tracks and two possible quarks alongside them, with an energy deposit opposite (something massive). Interesting pattern. #weird
at least one #ocv, probably 2 at 4.30 in normal view. Hard to pick in slice view as the tracks were so close and covered by the muon track.
apparent #ocv at 6.30 in normal view, but tracks bend in same direction (same charge)
I assume this is a trick question, as the ocv does not align with the central point.
nice little #ocv at 11.00 in normal view, with support in slice view.
computer got the #ocv at 10.30 but missed the likely #ocv at 5.00 (vertex visible in zoom view about 1/2 way to perimeter).
possible #ocv at 7.30 in normal view. The muon tracks are interesting; they have also triggered the quark recognition software. Explanation?
Nice #ocv at 10.00 in normal view, with probable quarks (both directions), but the computer picked this one well, so nothing to add.
possible #ocv at 11.45 in normal view, pointing to an energy deposit. Support in slice view but difficult to pinpoint crossover point.
nice #jet directed to a possible quark, with another quark opposite. Only one muon. Is this #weird enough?
perhaps an #ocv at 7.30 (normal view) - the tracks lead to an energy deposit and possible quark (blue mark at periphery).
apparent #ocv at 5.00 in normal view, and looks possible from slice view. Leads to energy deposit.
possible #ocv at 6.00 in normal view, with support in slice view.
two #ocv near each other at around 10.30 in normal, both supported in slice view. very nice.
an easy to miss #ocv at 1.00 in normal view, but is easier to see in slice view. Leads to energy deposit. Why is it so short?
apparent #ocv at 12.00 in normal view, with support in slice view.
A nice looking #jet leading to an energy deposit. In slice view it looks like maybe one #ocv with two other tracks that are almost parallel.
#ocv at 6.30 in normal view, with support in slice view. Leads to energy deposit.
#ocv at 11.30 in normal view, with support in slice view.
potential #ocv at 7.30 in normal view; support in slice view.
#ocv at 3.00 in normal view; support in slice view.
#ocv at 12.30 in normal view
#ocv at 10.00 and at 12.30 (close in) in normal view
#ocv at 7.00 in normal view; covered by other tracks. Pointing towards energy deposit.
#ocv hiding among tracks at 5.00 in normal view, with support in slice view. Points to energy deposit.
#ocv at 6.30 in normal view, with support in slice view.
#ocv at 7.00 in normal view, leading to energy deposit. Support in slice view.
#ocv at 3.00, but with an unusually wide angle.
what is going on here? a pair of symmetrical tracks that don't cross (so not an ocv) and not predicted to come from the centre.
#bundle of 4 tracks at 7.30 in normal view could be an #ocv, with good support in slice view. Leads to energy deposit and possible quark.
Hard to see what is happening in normal view because tracks occluded by muon, but in slice view it could be a a 4 track #ocv.
#ocv at 7.30 in normal view, not picked up by computer.
apparent #ocv at 3.30 in normal view.
~ symmetrical jet pattern at 3.00 to energy deposit, including the purple #ocv detected by computer. Perhaps #ocv under muon track at 8.00.
#ocv hiding under muon track at 5.30 in normal view. Looks good in slice view also.
#ocv at 4.30, with support in slice view.
#ocv at 9.30 and maybe another at 8.00 in normal view
#ocv at 2.30 in normal view.
#ocv at 3.30 in normal view, with support in slice view. Points in direction of energy deposit.
#ocv at 6.00 in normal view, with support in slice view.
possible #ocv at 5.00, supported by slice view
#ocv at 8.30 in normal view.
potential #ocv at 1.00 leading to bottom quark
Possibly two #ocv, one each along the muon tracks, but hard to be certain. Computer got the ocv at 8.30 but not the one at 2.00.
computer marked a single track, missing the #ocv nearby at about 12.00 in normal view. Slice view supportive.
#ocv at 6.00 but computer went for the tracks at 7.30 (normal view)
very busy and likely much more of interest (multiple #ocv ?? 1.30 and 3.30) than just the two coloured tracks that the computer detected.
computer went for a possible #ocv at 10.00 in normal view but did not register the other #ocv at 5.00 (the short one at the outer rim).
possible #ocv at 5.00 with backtrack
unusually wide angled #ocv at 1.00
it looks like an #ocv is hiding along the 8.30 muon line (normal view). Is that 3 muons at 1.00??
clear #ocv at 4.30 in normal view; with support in slice view.
nice #ocv at 9.00 in normal view, and looks good in slice view.
nice looking #ocv at 7.30 in normal view, with support in slice view. Does not seem to lead to anything detected.
FAQ:
https://talk.higgshunters.org/?_ga=1.199557225.676721221.1483506937#/boards/BHH0000001/discussions/DHH00000np
Have a read of the FAQ (link left on discussion board page); explains the lines, crazy little circles, coloured patches at the periphery...
#ocv suspected to be hiding under muon track at 10.00, in both normal and slice view.
potential #ocv at 6.00 in normal view, obscured by muon track. Support in slice view.
#ocv at 6.30 in normal view, with support in slice view. Computer seemed to get confused (red tracks)
remarkably symmetrical tracks
#ocv at 7.00 in normal view, leading to energy deposit.
possible #ocv at ~12.00 in normal view (if longer path is backtrack). Tracks appear to curve in opposite directions in the magnetic field.
computer went for unlikely event at 11.00 in normal view but missed clear #ocv at 1.00 (maybe more than one). Slice view supportive.
PS: so in this case I think the detection algorithm would fail, as there are unlikely to be any slice view clicks.
potential #ocv at 5.00 (normal view) but could not identify any track intersection in slice view because tracks are beneath muon track.
#weird, two #ocv at 10.00 and another opposite at 4.00. Support in slice view.
#ocv at close to 9.00, with support in slice view.
potential #ocv at 12.30, supported by slice view.
computer went for motif at 1.30 but missed the clear #ocv at 11.00 (normal view). Slice view supportive and 1.30 ocv leads to energy deposit
#ocv buried among other tracks at 8.00 in normal view, with support in slice view.
apparent #ocv at 8.30 in normal view, with support in slice view.
#ocv hidden among other tracks at 3.00 in normal view. Supported by slice view.
#ocv at 7.30 in normal view, best seen with zoom. Support in slice view.
PS: in zoom view there are only 3 tracks, and two fuse to one after the cross-over, so not as weird as I first thought.
#weird - what is going on here? There appears to be 4 tracks issuing as a jet at 3.00 in normal view, then they cross to reappear as two?
#ocv at 7.00 in normal view, with support in slice view.
computer got one 2-track #ocv at 6.15 but missed the potential #ocv at 11.00 - probably because it is mingled with 2 other tracks.
one, maybe two #ocv at 11.00 in normal view, with support in slice view.
#ocv at 5.00 in normal view, leading to energy deposit. Support in slice view.
There must be an #ocv at 11.00 but the vertex is obscured by the muon track in normal view (and also in slice view).
PS: the FAQ is on left menu side of discussion page:
https://talk.higgshunters.org/?_ga=1.241303621.676721221.1483506937#/boards
It is an artifact and something to be ignored. In the FAQ there is a description of these, along with many other useful bits of information.
#ocv at 10.00 leads to possible bottom quark. OCV at 5.30 is not joined to form a vertex but tracks very close and go in opposite directions
How #weird. The computer has labelled a 3-track #ocv (orange) but missed the second 2-track #ocv that arises within the orange tracks.
nice #ocv at 3.00 while the computer missed it and went for something crazy at 7.30 (normal view).
potential #ocv at 10.00 (maybe one track backtracks beyond vertex).
#ocv at 5.30 in normal view (perhaps more than one), leading to energy deposit. Slice view supportive.
computer has gone for something at 2.30 but there is a nice #ocv that it missed at 6.30.
It looks at first glance like an #ocv at 7.00 in normal view, but in zoom they are just closely apposed. I tagged it anyway. Slice view OK.
paired tracks at 5.30 that lead to an energy deposit appear to start in the centre but could be more interesting.
#ocv at 11.00. In zoom it is a single track next to an OCV. Support in slice view. Leads to energy deposit. Also #missingmuon.
What a nice looking #ocv at 2.00 in normal view, leading to a photon. Support in slice view.
potential #ocv at 10.00
could be that all 3 tracks at 11.30 (normal view) originate in centre but it could also be an #ocv with one track extending to centre.
#jet and/or #ocv at 6.30 in normal view. All pointing to an energy deposit at periphery.
#ocv at 2.00, with support in slice view.
The computer has picked out one track (orange) but there may be something more complex going on here than one #ocv .
#ocv at 12.30, with support from slice view.
possible #ocv at 3.30 in normal view. At zoom level the two tracks do not quite meet. Point to a possible bottom quark, and energy deposit.
PS: so why were these not picked up by the automated ocv detecting software?
#ocv at 5.00, in direction of energy. Support from slice view.
#ocv at 10.00 in normal view, but slice view does not seem to support it.
two beautiful looking #ocv in normal view, one at 4.00 and the other at 6.30. Slice view looks supportive.
can't see what is happening under the 9.30 muon track, either in slice or normal view, but there are 2-3 tracks that might be an #ocv
computer went for the motif at about 1.00 but missed the one at 5.00, which looks to me far more likely as it leads to an energy deposit
apparent #ocv at 7.00, with potential support from slice view
computer got the #ocv at 3.30 in normal view, but there could be another at 1.00 - hard to say.
computer has detected the #ocv at 4.00 in normal view, but what is the small 'V' at 8.00 - a micro-ocv??
nice looking #ocv at 3.30 in normal view. Slice view seems to support this.
#jet and/or #ocv at 5.30 in normal view.
possible #ocv at 10.30.
computer has picked one #ocv at 5.00 (normal view), with track coloured grey, but maybe a second ocv next to it.
at least one #ocv at 11.30 in normal view, and slice view looks very supportive, with 6 tracks crossing at same point.
A #jet and/or #ocv at 4.00 (normal view) that goes in the direction of a possible bottom quark signal (blue mark at periphery).
possible #ocv at 6.00, although at zoom level the two tracks are very close but do not join
possible #ocv at 1.30 in normal view, with support from slice view.
PS: but you really needed zoom view to see the tracks clearly. Hopefully others will mark the two crossover points further out from the base
#ocv at 9.30 in normal view, and supported in slice view. I should have also marked the cross-over point of three tracks near the edge.
potential #ocv at 6.00, with 5 tracks all passing through the same point in normal view. Looks good in slice view also. Looks interesting!
possible #ocv at 4.00 in normal view, but hard to say from slice view, and no evidence of energy in that direction.
at least one #ocv at 10.30, with support from slice view. The two pairs of tracks look remarkably symmetric.
apparent #ocv at 7.00, with support from slice view.
possible #ocv at 8.45. Two tracks very close together, but where do they really start? My guess was the inner surface of the first ring.
possible #ocv at 11.00, and looks possible by slice view.
PS: I did not mark as an ocv because the lines do not meet and form a vertex. The moderator suggested it is better to mark such patterns.
#ocv at 11.00, and looks possible also by slice view.
apparent #ocv at 11.00, with support from slice view.
#weird pattern at 6.30. Not an #ocv, but the two tracks start together are symmetrical & point to the blue bar (bottom quark) at perimeter.
#ocv at 3.30. Looks OK by slice view also.
possible #ocv at 5.00, but slice view is too busy to interpret.
#ocv at 11.00, with support from slice view.
two #ocv, and both look supported by slice view. Looks interesting.
#ocv at 2.00, with possible support from slice view (but hard to tell).
Well, at 8.30 in normal view there are at least two features that could be #ocv, and slice view looks supportive.
#ocv at 5.30, and looks supported by slice view.
#ocv at 9.00, can't tell from slice view if supported or not.
Nice #ocv at 6.30, with support from slice view.
#ocv likely at 10.30 in normal view, and also looks good by slice view.
computer got the #ocv at 10.00, but there is a potential #ocv at 2.00 (all 3 tracks hit the same cross-over point) that looks more valid.
#ocv at 2.30 in normal view, with potential support from slice view.
computer got it right at 10.00
computer got the #ocv at 2.00 but has missed the second one at 6.30. Both look OK by slice view.
#ocv at 2.45, that looks possible also by slice view. Central to muon tracks.
#ocv at 12.00, and looks possible also by slice view.
@rhea_a48: see the FAQ:
https://talk.higgshunters.org/?_ga=1.41615201.2111149700.1480296941#/boards/BHH0000001/discussions/DHH00000np
answer to rhea_a48: the muon tracks leading from the centre to the red bars at the periphery have not been drawn - a software error.
#ocv at 2.00, with potential support in slice view.
nice looking #ocv at 8.30, with potential support from slice view
#ocv at 8.00 and looks possible also by slice view
in slice view, the computer got it right (green intersecting lines), but I would not have picked it. Normal view is of course obvious.
#weird, #ocv (2x) at 7.30. What is going on here?
Apparent #ocv at 3.00, with vertex very close to centre. I can't work out if slice view supports this.
#ocv at 12.30, with support from slice view
Nice #ocv at 11.45 with potential support from slice view.
computer got the ocv at 2.30 but missed the one at 8.30. Both look possible from slice view.
#ocv at 11.00, with some support from slice view
#ocv at 4.00, with some support by slice view.
#ocv at 1.00, with support from slice view.
Computer recognized the blue ocv at 5.30 but not the apparent #ocv at 11.30. Slice view looks good for the former but not the latter
PS: or (more likely) the middle track curves upwards to join with the upper track, so no vertex under the dashed red line.
nice #ocv at 5.00, opposite two muon tracks (with blue markers also?). Support from slice view.
There is a vertex that is hidden by the red broken line, but I think it goes to the centre point, and so should be disregarded.
apparent #ocv at 12.30 but I'm not sure there is much support in slice view.
apparent #ocv at 9.00
is there an #ocv hiding under the 3rd muon track at 7.00?
#ocv at 6.30, with support from slice view
A strange #ocv at 6.00 that appears to split again? Slice view supports ocv. Did the muon split or is that a computer error?
nice #ocv at 8.00, with potential support in slice view
#ocv at 6.30 and at 10.00.
#ocv at 8.00, in direction of blue spot on periphery. Support for ocv in slice view.
could be an #ocv hidden among the other closely parallel tracks
#ocv at 7.00 in normal view, with support in slice view
apparent #ocv in normal view at 9.00, but I can't see much support in slice view
#ocv at 4.00 in normal view, with potential support from slice view
apparent #ocv at 4.00, with possible support from slice view
yes, but there is no way we can see if there is support from slice view
possible #ocv at 9.00 in normal view, and could be supported by slice view
apparent #ocv at 2.30, but not clearly supported in slice view
Is this the shortest apparent #ocv on record (4.00, normal view)? Does not seem to be supported in slice view though.
either just a #bundle of 4 or an #ocv at 10.30 where some tracks over-extended to centre
3 potential #ocv, at 3.00, and two at around 10.15 - 10.30. Slice view could support these.
apparent #ocv at 7.30, beginning in the outer band. Can't read the slice view well, but could support it. (at zoom the tracks do not meet?)
apparent #ocv at 8.30, with possible support from slice view
possible #ocv at 2.00 but uncertain support from slice view
possible #ocv at 11.15, right at edge of normal view. Looks like slice view could support this.
#ocv at 9.00?
#ocv at 5.00 in normal view, and looks supported by slice view
#ocv at 3.15
Is there an #ocv at 12.00?
#ocv at 2.00 in normal view, and possibly supported by slice view (hard to tell)
#bundle along 7.00 green track
looks like a #ocv in both normal and slice view.
looks like an #ocv in both normal (4.00) and slice (4.00) view
marked as #ocv in normal view but does not look likely in slice view
potential #ocv at 10.30 in normal view
Had two guesses at where the #ocv begins at 10.30. Hard to localise vertex.
is that a potential #ocv at 1.00 in normal view? Possible also by slice view, although obscured by muon.
potential #ocv at 5.30 in normal view, that also looks possible by slice view
obscured in both slice and normal view, so just guessed it might be an #ocv
I think there is an #ocv at 7.00; looks reasonable in slice view also
not sure what was meant to be correct, so I labeled 2 ocv's starting close to the centre, assuming one track of each was predicted too long
#ocv at 1.00 in normal view, supported by slice view
#ocv in slice and in normal view
#ocv at 7.00
#ocv at 5.30, also supported by slice view
not off-centre on a line radiating from the centre point, so ignored it. Nothing in slice view either.
Yes, the normal view of this is difficult, as is the slice view, due to overlap with the muon track.
nothing to see
It is a calibration exercise, and in normal view the three jets all started in the centre, so I just put a #weird sticker on it and went on.
potential #ocv in slice and normal view, in #bundle
#ocv looks nice
very hard to place #ocv pointer in slice view as the two white trails at 8.00 are so close.
red oval at head of red potential #ocv makes interpretation difficult
#bundle
#weird in slice view but looks like #ocv in normal view
In slice view it still looks like an #ocv, and that is how I marked it in normal view. These could be used for training purposes...
No green tracks? Something missing?
#weird about 6 tracks in parallel #bundle (in slice view) going off at 2 o'clock
#ocv at 10.00?