Registration is now closed. Everyone is welcome to attend the plenary talks. If you would like to participate in the round table discussions, please contact the Organizing Committee . Thanks to workshop support from KIPAC, there will be no registration fee. Thanks to the LSST Corporations's Enabling Science program, we have limited tavel support for students and postdocs, please email Elisabeth Krause to inquire about travel support.
SOC and LOC
- Steve Allen - KIPAC
- Pat Burchat - KIPAC
- Elisabeth Krause - KIPAC
- Ashish Mahabal - Caltech
- Adam Mantz - KIPAC
- Maria Elena Monzani - KIPAC
- Phil Marshall - KIPAC
- Aaron Roodman - KIPAC
- Risa Wechsler - KIPAC
- Charles Lawrence - JPL
- Ben Loer - PNNL
- Robert MacCoun - Stanford
- Aaron Manalaysay - Davis
- Bill Molzon - Irvine
- Holger Müller - Berkeley
- Jessie Muir - Michigan
- Saul Perlmutter - Berkeley
- Caroline Simard - Stanford
- Massimo Viola - Leiden
- Alan Weinstein - Caltech
- Nathan Whitehorn - Berkeley
- Bonnie Zhang - ANU
- Ben Loer: Blinding and Salting in SuperCDMS
- Robert MacCoun: Psychological and sociological motivations and challenges for blind analyses
- Aaron Manalaysay: Salting in LUX
- Holger Müller Blind Analyses in AMO experiments
- Jessie Muir Blinding DES-Y3 cosmology analyses
- Caroline Simard: Implicit Bias in Science
- Massimo Viola: Blinding the KiDS cosmology analysis
- Alan Weinstein: The Role of Blind analyses and Blind injections in LIGO Discovery
- Bonnie Zhang: Blinding the Hubble constant
Charles Lawrence is Chief Scientist for Astronomy and Physics at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena. He was twice awarded the NASA Outstanding Leadership Medal -- in 2010, for leadership of the US Planck science and data analysis effort from concept through spacecraft launch and commissioning; and in 2004, for scientific and technical leadership related to the Spitzer Space Telescope. He is the chair of the Planck Editorial Board, which is responsible for the scientific and technical papers from Planck, an extremely high-stakes cosmological survey, and the lead for the US Planck Project. Bill Molzon is Professor of Physics and Astronomy at UC Irvine. Since the mid-1980s he has worked on extremely precise experiments to test the conservation of additive quantum numbers associated with electron- and muon-type leptons. In a series of experiments that he co-led at BNL, he and collaborators placed an upper limit on the probability of decay of neutral kaons to a muon and an electron of ~5x10-12. He now works at PSI on the MEG search for anti-muons decaying to a positron plus photon, which has already set an upper limit of ~5x10-13. He also participates in a collaboration building the mu2e experiment to search for muons converting to electrons in muonic atoms, which should detect one event if the conversion probability is 3x10-17. He has incorporated blind analyses in all his rare search experiments. Saul Perlmutter is Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley, co-Director of the Berkeley Center for Cosmological Physics, and Director of the Berkeley Institute for Data Science. He led one of two teams that simultaneously discovered the accelerating expansion of the universe using Type Ia supernovae, and shared the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery. He has incorporated blind analysis techniques in his team’s supernova research, and has collaborated across fields to understand the role blind analyses can play in minimizing confirmation bias. Nathan Whitehorn is a member of the Berkeley Cosmology Group and works on the South Pole Telescope and POLARBEAR experiments. He was awarded the 2014 APS Division of Astrophysics “Young Star” award for his contributions to the IceCube experiment while a graduate student and postdoc at U of Wisconsin-Madison. His thesis research resulted in an upper limit on energetic neutrinos from gamma-ray bursts that was significantly lower than predicted rates (Nature 2012). He was also one of the lead researchers of an analysis that presented the first evidence for high-energy extraterrestrial neutrinos (Science 2013).
The Round Table is named after King Arthur’s fabled congregation of Knights; given the shape of the table, it has no head — everyone has an equal voice. Each Round Table will have a moderator and a scribe/reporter. The role of the moderator is to ensure each participant is invited to voice their opinion or ask probing questions about the topic at hand. We have suggested questions for each Round Table, but the moderator should feel free to adapt or expand the questions as the discussion unfolds. The role of the scribe is to take notes on the discussion (as well as participate) and then synthesize the main points and give an informal ~five-minute summary to the Workshop later in the schedule. The scribe and moderator may want to work together preparing the synthesis. Each physical round table (which is actually rectangular...) will have 12 participants, including the moderator and scribe. There will be a mix of experts and non-experts discussing the topic of each Round Table. We are hoping the 'non-experts' will challenge the 'experts' on some of their underlying assumptions. Sometimes it is the 'non-expert' questions that are the most probing... or the 'non-expert' scribe who gives the most refreshing summary.
Round Table Assignments
Round Table 1: Blinding -- Motivation, perceptions and responsibilities
- What motivates scientists or collaborations to conduct blind analyses?
- What are the objections to blinding that scientists articulate?
- Do individuals, collaborations, or scientific communities have a responsibility to adopt procedures that minimize experimenters' bias?
Round Table 2: Challenges and experience with blinding
- What challenges have you experienced -- or do you anticipate experiencing -- in implementing blinding techniques?
- Are the challenges primarily technical, or philosophical / cultural / sociological?
- How can the two types of challenges be addressed?
Round Table 3: Solutions for implementing blinding techniques
- Which blinding methods are best suited to different types of experiments or analyses?
- What are the greatest implementation challenges that each type of experiment faces? Are there any perceived “show stoppers”?
- When is cross-working group or cross-collaboration coordination needed to effectively minimize experimenters’ bias?
Round Table 4: Blind analysis methods for specific experiments or probesOne table per experiment or probe: CMB (Havasu), DM (FKB3), individual LSST probes (Toluca), LSST joint probes (Tulare).
- What are the specific technical solutions that can be used for your experiment or probe, to minimize experimenter bias?
- What are the specific technical challenges?
- Are there resources or support -- from the collaboration or the community -- that would help you address these challenges?
- SLAC Visitor Map (PDF)
- Meeting location: Kavli Auditorium (1st floor), Kavli Building, SLAC (Google Map)
Hotel: Stanford Guest House
General info |
We have a limited room block at the Guest House, please email Martha Siegel to reserve a room.
Getting thereThe nearest airports are San Francisco International Airport (SFO) or Mineta San Jose International Airport (SJC). From the airport, transportation options include:
- SuperShuttle: provides shared ride vans to/from SFO only (unavailable from SJC), which costs $26 (+tip) one way. Ride length varies but is typically an hour.
- Wingz: provides flat-rate private taxis to/from SFO and SJC.
- Public transportation: not recommended due to multiple transfers and limited schedules. If necessary and possible, you may wish to check Google Maps for directions from San Francisco Airport or from San Jose Airport.
- More ground transportation from SFO
- More ground transportation from SJC