Hello everybody and welcome to the Latin American webinar of physics. I am Roberto Lineros. I'm going to be the host for this webinar. Today we have a very interesting talk. It's going to be about the data detection of dark matter. So first of all, remember that you can follow us in our social networks and especially in this YouTube channel. You are watching now the live transmission, but if you are watching it in the future, you can maybe consider to subscribe to the YouTube channel. So today's webinar is very interesting, as I said before, because it's going to be by Maria Lisa Sarza, she's a professor at the University of Zaragoza, in the center of the astro-particles and physics of the altosenergias from that university. She's going to talk about the Camp Frank underground laboratory and the title of her webinar is, Is the Dark Matter Wind Blowing at the Camp Frank Underground Laboratory? Welcome, Maria Lisa, and you can start this whenever you want. Thank you. So I'm going to share my slides. Okay, so you are seeing them. It's okay? Okay. Yes, okay. Perfect. So then it's my pleasure to be here and to present the recent results of the experiments I'm working in, that is the analysis experiment I will present you later. I want to thank the organizer for the opportunity to try to answer for you this question. Is the dark matter wind blowing at the Camp Frank underground laboratory? So to follow the talk more or less, I will cover the following topics. I will introduce the direct detection of dark matter and the annual modulation effect that is expected in the dark matter interaction rates. I will move them to the Dama Libra positive result, which has an associated long-standing puzzle covering really all the field of dark matter direct detection. I will present the Anais 112 experiment, that is the focus of my research, and the recently published result on the annual modulation corresponding to three years of data that have been very recently published in physical review there. This is the article that as you can see has been considered as editor suggestion and also featured in the physics magazine by the by the editors of the APA, the APS. So just a very brief introduction because probably all of you know about dark matter. The evidence on the existence of dark matter come from very different observational techniques, different scales, and different times of the universe evolution from galaxies to clusters of galaxies and larger scale structure, but also from the present back to the recombination and nuclear, the modern nuclear synthesis period of the universe. And we have a cosmological model that is very successful to explain all of this observation, but the expense of introducing a 27% of the energy and mass of the universe in the form of an invisible and non-baryonic matter, which is called called dark matter. This is the main topic, of course, how to look for this dark matter in the universe. There are a lot of candidates on a scene. They are covering orders of magnitude in mass and cross-section. We know very, very few things about this particle that we are searching for. But the most important thing is that none of the particles we know has the right properties. And so we have to look beyond the standard model of particle physics, what could be this dark matter. The best motivated candidates are coming from contexts different from the astrophysical context. So they in general are proposed for different parts of the particle physics. And I will focus on wings because they are a very convenient dark matter candidate. They are weak interacting massive particles, and they are really a very wide category of candidates. These particles have been thermally produced in the early universe, and they have the very nice property that frees out the annihilation cross-section that reminds the relic abundance that is compatible with the observed abundance of the dark matter. This is the wind-maya call, and it makes that for a GB particle in the scales of the weak interactions, we can explain the dark matter problem. Moreover, these candidates allow for direct detection and also indirect detection and also production at colliders because they are coupled to standard model particles. So you can see here in the diagram how these dark matter particles could annihilate and then produce cosmic rays, for instance, that could be searched for in satellites. But the dark matter particle could interact with the standard model particle and then produce a release of energy in our detectors. That is what I will call direct detection, but also two standard model particles interacting between them can produce dark matter particles at colliders. So this is a quite good thing for a candidate that could be detectable. And so this is the direct detection approach. Most of the experiments I will comment follow. For detecting dark matter, we need that the particle couple to the standard model particles by the somehow weak interaction and some energy could be released in the interaction with our detectors. Of course, we need very sensitive and radio-poor particle detectors because we expect this particle release a very, very small amount of energy and also that the interaction occurred very, very rarely in the detectors. Because of that, we have to shield our experiments against all the possible background contributions that could hide the signal we are searching for. And because of this, we are going to underground laboratories to seal the cosmic rays, but also introduce our detectors in very large shielding to protect against environmental radioactivity. And also, if possible, use the most innovative and successful background rejection techniques developing new technologies. But even in this case, how to be sure that we are finding the dark matter? How to be sure about a positive result of dark matter? For this, the key is to analyze a specific signature of the dark matter particle that is not shared by other backgrounds. And in this sense, I will commend the annual modulation, which is one of the most interesting features of these dark matter interactions. But there are also their possibilities. And it is very interesting, for instance, to develop detectors that are sensitive to the direction of the nuclear recoil produced by the interaction of the dark matter particle. Coming to this interaction of these whims with ordinary matter, as I have said before, a small transfer of energy in the form of a nuclear recoil is suspected in most of the models of the whims. But there are other options because we don't have really an idea of which is the interaction of the particle we are searching for. In any case, the interaction rate depends strongly on the specific wind particle properties.  The dependence is also on the halo model, not only in the density of these particles in the galaxy, but also in the distribution of velocities at the position of the solar system that is where our detector is sitting. And this interaction rate is quite an involved combination of these dependencies particle and halo properties dependencies. And as I said before, which could be the interaction mechanism for the particles we are searching, the wind interaction rate will change strongly depending on this interaction cross-section, which is unknown and contains the details from the dark matter particle model at the microscopic level that I want to say that is dependent on the coupling of the dark matter particle with the standard model particle quarks and elementary particles. To arrive to this cross-section, we have to take into account the target nuclear structure and then to use the nuclear properties of the system in order to derive this total cross-section with our nuclei. In principle, the most general case can be described by means of an effective field theory having 15 possible operators that could describe the most general interaction between the particle that we have no idea what it is with the target nucleus. And this is quite complicated because these parameters have dependencies some of them in the velocity, but in some complicated way with the spin of the nucleus in very different shapes. The energy dependence, the energy rate is plot here, for instance, you can see here the standard spin independent term that is the O1 operator, which is the to consider and it produce energy release in our detector that has enormous exponential shape, not very easy to distinguish from backgrounds. For different mass of the particle we obtain different energy depositions, but other of these operators will produce very different spectral shapes for the energy deposition in the detectors because they depend on the velocity of the particles in quite an important way. That means that we don't have much an idea about what we are looking for in our detector. We could be the nuclear recoil energies we have to observe in our detectors. And this is more complicated when we try to compare experiments that are using different target nuclei because this rate has the dependencies quite introduced in the calculation. What is the usual procedure to compare experiment? We take a given interaction model for the WIMS. In general, we consider only this O1 operator that is the easiest one. We consider a spin independent interacting WIMS because the rate scales very easily with the square number of nucleons in the target. In this case, the comparison between experiments is quite easy because the scaling is easy. We have here the square reduced mass and the number of nucleons in the target for the comparison. And so we can plot the nucleon cross-section, but this is only one of the possible couplings between the Darmator particle and the nucleus we are studying. Even if it's only one of the possible operators, it's usually adopted to compare experiments because it's the easiest one. The same is happening with the Hallow model. How are the Darmator particles distributed in the Hallow? Well, we don't know. We have more or less some indication about the simulation of the in a particle and gravitational coupling in very large systems, but we don't have really a measurement of the Hallow distribution for the velocity of the Darmator particles. So because of that, to compare different experiments, we use the standard Hallow model, which assumes a spherical anisotropic distribution of the particles of the Darmator in the Hallow, and then a Maswellian distribution of velocities, which is truncated at the escape velocity of the Hallow. This is also a model-dependent assumption, and if we change this velocity distribution in the rates, we change the results. And we change in correlation with the target nucleus mass and properties in a quite complicated way. The Hallow is quite important because in general, experiments are only sensitive to the tail of the distribution above a given energy, a minimum energy or velocity of the Whims, because the threshold energy of the experiment, which is also different from one experiment to another, makes this dependence quite important in some cases. And you will hear later because this is important, but so yeah, I can now explain what is the annual modulation that we expect in the Darmator interaction rate. It's an effect because the Earth is moving around the Sun along the gear with orbital motion with a period of one gear, as you know. The Earth velocities are around 30 kilometers per second, but the ecliptic plane is tilted with respect to the galactic plane in which the Sun is moving around the center of our galaxy. And this is like we are moving inside the Darmator Hallow, and then we are moving through the Whims. So then is this because I put in the title of my talk the Whimped Wind. There is a wind of winds coming to the Earth to our detectors, and this wind is modulated along the gear. This wind is not blowing at the same rate in June and in December, because the velocity of the Earth with respect to the Sun is in the same direction or in the opposite direction along the gear, and then we add our velocity to that of the Sun or we are subtracting that. And this is not a large effect because we are seeing only about 13 kilometers per second more in June than in March, and 13 kilometers per second less in December. But this effect can be noticeable, and it produces a modulation in the interaction rate of particles. This is what we should observe for spinning the spin independent interacting winds in summer and in winter. It is a very, very slight difference, but if we compare, so if we look at the modulation amplitude that correspond to this difference between summer and winter, we will obtain a clear effect at different energies that is really very, very characteristic of the Darmator in the Hallow, because this period, the phase of the motion, and even the size of the effect is really not shared by backgrounds, and it's really a very distinctive feature of the Darmator interaction. As I told you, the effect is small. It should produce an inverse modulation at low energies. As you can see here, the modulation amplitude is expected to be positive for this spin independent interacting winds at the larger energies, but at a given point that depends on the mass of the nucleus and of the wind, the modulation should convert to negative modulation, and it's strongly dependent on the Hallow model. What we expect for the standard Hallow model is what we are showing here, but for another Hallow model, we should observe a different phase and a different magnitude of the effect. This is what an experiment in Italy, Damali Ibra, has been observing for more than 20 years. They have been observing a modulation in the interaction rate of serve by their detectors. Their detectors were at the beginning only 100 kilograms of sodium iodide detectors, starting the measurements in 1995, but they upgraded the experiment to 250 kilograms after 2003, and they are still taking data. The large results of Damali Ibra experiment were released in March 2018, and in this case, for the second phase of the experiment, they improved the performance of the experiment reducing the threshold to 1 KV, replacing all the PMTs, all the photomultipliers, with high quantum efficiency for the multipliers. The experiment has more than 20 years of data, and what they observe is really this kind of modulation in interaction rates that is here for only the 14 last years, so they have still more data before that, that have a very, very high statistically significant result for the presence of modulation. More than 12 sigma confidence level is what is attributed to this modulation signal of serve, and this modulation has the proper features that are expected for that matter, interaction modulation. They observe only the modulation at very low energies, below 6 KV of energy, not at the higher energies, as it should be produced. They don't observe the modulation for the backgrounds. For instance, when looking at events happening at the same time in two of the modules, the coincidences are attributed to background because the probability that the data matter particle produced two interactions at the same time in the detectors is really negligible. In principle, none of the systematics that have been proposed to explain this modulation is able to reproduce correctly the observation of the experiment of the malibra. This modulation, as I told you before, can be interpreted as produced by WIMPs, but this is a model dependent interpretation. In this case, I have chosen a model and in this case, for instance, the spin independent is a spin-conserving interacting WIMPs and a standard HALO. In order to find which parameters of the WIMP, in terms of mass of the particle on coupling to the nucleons, are compatible with the darn matter libre result. We obtain here these two regions in the parameter space, depending on the rate is dominated by sodium interaction or by iodine interactions. This is the compatibility with the malibra result and which is the experimental situation. The experimental situation is that only one experiment, the malibra, observes a model independent annual modulation compatible with darn matter and moreover in the standard HALO. But there are other much sensitive experiments that don't observe any hint of the interaction of these darn matter particles and the comparison is more than dependent. For your information, the most recent comparison done in the frame of the APEC committee report that was released last April, very recently, you can see here the darn matter libre regions I showed you before, and the results of many other very sensitive experiments around the world that don't observe anything compatible with the malibra. These lines show the splash on plots, the region of the parameters that are excluded by these experiments that are not compatible with the darn matter libre result. So this makes a strong tension not only for these candidates but also assuming more general and HALO interaction models. However, as far as we don't know the properties of the particles we are searching for, this comparison is always more than dependent. And this is a problem because we require a model independent confirmation or refutation of the malibra result. Is mandatory in order to you to answer the question, is the malibra result a door into new physics or is just systematic. To answer this question using the same target that the malibra has used is really one of the main points for doing more direct comparison. But it's not the only thing. Of course, using the same target, so you mayodide, as I said, is really very important because we could reduce many dependencies on the coupling to the nucleus of the WIMP, although these uncertainties are almost released. But a good knowledge of the detector response is required. And I will comment later on this question a little more. You can see here, according to the committee report, which is the status of the experiments of sodium aiodide that are presently running in preparation. You can see here, of course, the malibra is still taking data and running, there are two experiments, Anais 112 and Cosine, and there are some experiments in preparation. Just to say a few words about Anais and Cosine that they are both in data-taking phase, Anais has 112 kilograms is less than the malibra. Cosine is only using 60 kilograms of mass effective mass. They have a larger mass, but this is only the effective mass for the annual modulation search. They are taking data since 2016, and we are taking data since 2017. And then we are trying to confirm or refute the malibra result in the next few years. But other projects in preparation are, for instance, Sabre experiment, which is developing more radio-poor crystals, and they plan to use two detector sites, one of the north hemisphere in the Gran Sasso laboratory, another in Australia in the Stauel laboratory that is in construction, and also the Cosinus experiment that is also very interesting because it uses a different technique. They are planning to use volumeters of sodium aiodide in order to search better for this different response to nucleary molecules that is produced or that is expected in scintillation detectors. So concerning Anais, Anais stands for annual modulation with sodium aiodide scintillators and the goal is the confirmation of the malibra result with the same target and technique. But of course our experimental approach is different and this will be the focus of the rest of my talk. And the environmental conditions that would affect systematics are also different. We are working at the Canfrán underground laboratory that is in Spain under 2450 meters of water equivalent and we are taking data since August 2017. We use a three times three matrix of modules, 12.5 kilogram each that are cylindrical in shape and made by Alpha Spectra Company in the States. We have coupled in a second state but Canfrán clean room, high quantum efficiency photomultipliers from Hamamatsu and our data analysis that is also a very important part of our work is blind. The region of interest was blind from beginning so I will comment a little more. Concerning Canfrán is a laboratory under the Spanish Pyrenees in a tunnel, the Somportana, which is connecting Spain to France with a rock over a garden of 150 meters. That is a smaller rock over a garden than Gran Sasso laboratory. You can see here the death of Gran Sasso and this implies that for instance all the possible systematics related with my own residual flux could be different and should affect in a different way our experiment than that of the Malibra. The relevant experimental features of Anais, so for instance we work in collaboration with the company producing the crystals to build in mylar windows in order to allow for low energy calibration. To have a robust energy calibration at the very low energies where the signal is expected is one of the most important points in the analysis of our experiment. We can calibrate with cadmium 109 sources mounted on flexible wires that are introduced and taken out our shielding periodically. Every two weeks we can calibrate simultaneously all the nine modules in our experimental setup. Our crystals have sewn an excellent light collection. Cintillation is produced in the crystal by the energy deposition of a particle and then we have to collect this library of multipliers with the highest possible efficiency. In our modules the light is collected at the level of 15 photoelectrons per kb with a very very large and homogeneous distribution of the light collection between all the modules. The lowest one has 12.7 photoelectrons per kb and the highest one has 16 photoelectrons per kb. If you compare with the Malibra results even in the second phase which is the improved phase of the experiment their light collection is between 6 and 10 photoelectrons per kb. This implies our detectors collected much better the light produced by the particles and then our threshold energy and our response should be more sound should be better than that of the Malibra. We are monitoring continuously and on the data taking this light collection which is changing along the time but we can correct by these drifts that we are still trying to understand by calibration and correctly correcting any gain drift in the detectors. However the total light collection is quite stable in all of our modules after the three years and all of these parameters and the evolution of the parameters has been deeply studied in our last results paper. I commented you before. This is our setup but these are some pictures of the building. You can see here from outside to inside we have polyethylene and water to moderate neutrons and active muon beto consisting of 16 plastic ventilators, a tight box preventing the radon entrance into the shielding, 20 centimeters of left with low activity and the most internal part of our shielding are 2 centimeters of archaeological left. All of these is our shielding to prevent environmental radioactivity, produce interference with our detection of the of the matter that is our goal and in principle this is different from the Malibra that has no active beto against the residual muon flags. Of course in comparison it's more important because as I told you before our residual muon flags is higher than in Gran Sasso. This was the commissioning in March 2017 and the data taking started in August 2017. Our data acquisition system has been very well tested with previous prototypes. We have the two signals from every pre-empty after a particle interacting in the crystal is produced in a light that is reaching the photomultipliers and then the signal is processed by very nice matak digitizers with a high resolution 14 bits and two gigasamples per second and we trigger with the an between the two photomultiplier signals in a 200 nanosecond window. Our system is really very free of noise and is not affected by vibration of electrical contribution but as I will comment you our problem is different one of the threshold position. So with these signals produced by by our modules in this way by this data acquisition system we have to calibrate very well the light and to convert it into energy and we do the calibration at the region of interest with a very high accuracy combining the periodic external calibration lines of cadmium. This is the cadmium spectra obtaining the nine modules you can observe three lines below 100 keV at 18 22 and 12 kilo electron volts and this is done every two weeks and we combine this external calibration with potassium 40 and sodium 22 internal calibration contamination background lines at 3.2 and 0.9 kilo electron volts as background lines have a slower have a smaller statistics we use a very 1.5 months of accumulation these these events from the background in order to calibrate our our experiment and so then the region of interest is calibrated with four lines below 25 keV in order to take into account the non-linear behavior of sodium iodide below 100 keV and so our calibration is quite good in this regime and these two lines are fully in the region of interest of our experiment so then we can say that we are calibrating very very nicely our experiment these are the lines accumulating the time of measurement 3.2 and 0.9 kilo electron volts selected by the coincidence with high energy gamma in a second module and so then we are not affected by any problem with the triggering because it's done by the high energy background gamma line and we demonstrate that we are triggering below 1 keV you can see here not only the line of sodium 22 but also the L capture in sodium in potassium 40 decay we are observing events below 1 keV very nicely but this is not our threshold energy because of other problems with the with the experiment analysis that I will focus later so the calibration is determined with these cardinal lines in the background and we can correct any gain drift with this with this calibration procedure in a very robust way and so after calibration we can develop our analysis strategy we have done this with the first year of data we blind the events of interest that are even is the 1 to 6 keV energy region and only single heat events and the coincidence events between modules and for determining the fine tuning analysis parameters and efficiencies for the selection procedures we are using only m2 events in the ROE which are youtube background for instance this potassium 40 and sodium 22 events but also the cadmium calibration events and we are blind 10% of the first year of data for background assessment but all this procedure was published before doing the first analysis in this 2019 paper in the european physics journal c with the first year analysis we fixed the selection criteria and we have kept this criteria for subsequent analysis we have just updated efficiencies but not changed the parameters of the filtering and this is our filtering procedure so our rate of events in the region of interest is dominated by non-sintillation of sodium iodide events so we have to apply a stronger event selection procedure first we select only single heat events to reject the backgrounds produced by radioactivity in the environment we select also events arriving more than one second after the moon interacting in the beta system this is because we want to reject all the possible moon related events in our detectors and then we have to remove this non-compatible with blue scintillation events they are some events that are too fast to be produced by scintillation in sodium iodide that has a scintillation constant of 250 ns on second but also two slow events that are associated with tails of pulses and you use a v parametric cut considering the tail of the scintillation pulse with respect to the total scintillation pulse and the distribution of the mean photoelectron arrived by times moreover we have to reject asymmetric events that means events that have a strong signal in one photo multiplier but a weak signal in the second photo multiplier these events are not compatible with the bull scintillation in sodium iodide and we established the cut at the number of photoelectrons the peaks for instance here you can see two peaks we require more than four photoelectrons in every PMT of every module in order to keep the event as produced by as good scintillation events so you can see here this is our total rate draw data after applying this same behavior and v parametric cut we reduce very strongly the events that are passing the cut and you can observe here the peak that is appearing in our data this is the potassium 40 background line that won't be observed if we should keep only raw data in the region of interest so this is all the cuts we are applying and you can observe really the effect below 10 kb that is really the reducing strongly the interactions that we observe in our detectors and these criteria of selection of events are the motivation of the analysis threshold we have to establish but the parameters for the filtering where established as told you before before unbinding with the first year of data and using only population of events outside the region of interest these are the efficiencies we have calculated with the cadmium sodium and potassium events that fix our analysis threshold at one kb because we require that our efficiencies for keeping good scintillation events are larger than 10 percent and for that we have to go only down to one kb the efficiencies are calculated detector by detector are larger than 90 about 2.5 kb below two kb they strongly reduce down to one kb which are at the level of 15 and 25 percent depending on the detector module so we use these efficiencies to correct of course our even rate after filtering in order to recover the estimated even rate at every energy but we can check the the goodness of this efficiency and the good the energy of calibration stability for instance using potassium and sodium population that are very well tagged by the high energy gamma that is triggering the detection in a second module and then we are almost free from a noise in this population you can see here the events compatible with potassium 40 the evolution of the rate in the three years of data and this is for sodium 22 behavior along the three years in potassium we observe a constant rate compatible with the half life of the isotope because that is of the order of billion of years and in the case of sodium 22 we obtain a decay an exponential decay that is compatible with the half life of the sodium 22 isotope so this is really a very good indication that our checking of good events is quite well established at the threshold because these events are in the one kb energy region so before presenting results I have to comment that despite the large effort of analysis team looking for ultra-poor sodium iodine detectors our background is worse than the malibra our background in the region of interest is dominated by the crystal radioactivity we have higher potassium for the level and higher lead to 10 level in our crystals than the malibra has this is the main problem in our region of interest but I have to stress that the quality of the macrystals has has been still not reached by any experiment sabrian cosine collaboration are working strongly and progressing towards more radio poor crystal growing but they are still having troubles with lead lead to 10 for instance so this is our background is worse than the malibra we are higher value than two counts per kb kilogram and a between two and four in the region of interest but we have a very good background model so we understand our background is not good but it's understood in all the energy regions it can be explained but natural change led to 10 potassium 40 and 3dium but we underestimate the right in the one to two kb energy region you can see here more clearly in this plot and we are working to understand this underestimate of this region of interest below two kb but although this is this is quite important because it affects our region of interest and we are working on matching learning techniques trying to reduce the possible leaking in our filtering protocols because we think that this stress of events is related with our selection criteria so we are trying to improve it we remark that constant backgrounds should don't affect the annual modulation analysis and we can say this because our model predicts very well that the evolution of the background detector by detector you can see here which are the evolution of the rates that we expect in three years so no here is for more than three years three years or more or less here we can predict the behavior of our rates and we are producing satisfactorily the time evolution of cell for instance for background events in the one to six kb region this is just adjusting to a factor f our background model that is just at a few percent of the unity and here is for events in the outside the region of interest between six and ten kb that is also in the few percent level of our estimates of our background model so we can use these to present our results on our final modulation we published our first results in 2019 in physical review letters but now we have updated for more time for more exposure 300 kilograms per year with a very excellent duty cycle 95 percent of our time is lifetime and most of the downtime of our experiment is due to the calibration that are done every two weeks so this is a very very nice performance of our experiment and we are using for the present results more than 1000 days of data after removing me on tag related events with respect to the previous analysis we have improved our background modeling and we have checked also some systematics and the consistency of the result and we have simulated to see the experiments by Monte Carlo to analyze possible bias and checking the sensitivity in our experiment so what we do is to minimize the number of events that we observe in 10 days 10 days being enough our data considering a poison disturb uncertainty of course and correcting conveniently by the lifetime of every beam and the efficiency for every energy region in the case of this expected number of events miss me we are considering a background modeling that i will comment now and a term due to the modulation expected for the for the tar matter signal that has an amplitude that should be fixed to zero in the new modulation hypothesis and should be free in the modulation hypothesis study the frequency will be fixed to one year period and the phase should be fixed also to the second of june for the maximum of the modulation as corresponding to the standard hollow model in order to compare with the malibra experiment so for the background modeling we have considered two different background modelings combining the detectors of the nine modules together and exponentially decaying background we have three parameters our zero is the background parameters that is including also the possible signal of the matter that is averaging time tau and f take into account the contribution for the for the background that is exponentially decaying but here could be also any a constant in time background contributing as i commented before in the region below to kb a constant background should be included also in this rco parameter thanks to this term in the background modeling function we have also taken the probability distribution function from the background modeling that i showed you before corrected by a factor f and the r0 parameter which is also led free as noise parameters in our fitting we obtained these results for the two modeling of the background and for the new hypothesis and the modulation hypothesis you can see here the results for the p values and for the modulation amplitudes that we are fitting i will show you better later these values we obtained better p values in the two to six kb region and in the one to six kb region i will comment a little in this later but this is the comparison with the values obtained for the modulation of the malibra so here we have fixed the modulation amplitude to the malibra result and you can see here how the p value is much worse in both scenarios in both energy region with respect to the new hypothesis and to our best fit best fit to a modulation hypothesis the third modeling considers every detector individually and can take into account possible symptomatic effects related with the different backgrounds and efficiency of the different modules that we can observe here in this case the results are more difficult to see but we reproduce quite nicely the behavior of all the detectors some detectors have very low p values we think that these detectors are the problem of the global low p values in the one to six kb energy region and we think that these detectors are affected by a worse filtering procedures selection criteria and we are trying to correct this in the future for other analysis however this analysis combined for all the crystals has the slide the slower the smallest sorry standard deviation and this is the value fully compatible with all the other values derived from the other techniques that we have we have taken for comparing and presenting our results with respect to the malibra this is the modulation derived from our fitting in black points derived with respect to the malibra result that is shown in blue you can observe how our best fits are incompatible with the malibra result at 3.3 sigma level and 2.6 sigma level in the two energy region that we are considering for a sensitivity at the 2.5 and 2.7 level in this two energy region the sensitivity is plot as the the green yellow and blue lines in this in this figure and this is what we expected for our a priori sensitivity estimates so these were our estimates in terms of sigma confidence level with respect to the malibra and we should be at 3 sigma from the malibra result within the two scheduled five years of data taking so we think that we are really very nicely reproducing our estimates and that we can be at this level next year along next year the time we could need for the analysis of the of the results concerning our checking just a brief comment we have checked the VIN size changing from 5 to 30 days negligible effect on the results for the modulation we have a check possible bias with our Monte Carlo so the experiments modulation we observe no bias and our result is fully compatible with the standard deviation derived from the Monte Carlos we have compared one two years with respect to two three years and results are fully compatible we have also released the phase of the modulation and then we have observed with respect to dama that our result is bias but any modulation search in this parameter space should be bias and if we take into account this bias we observe our result compatible at one sigma with zero in all the with the absence of modulation in all the phase of the parameter space and we have also released the frequency no statistically significant modulation at any frequency is observed in our data so in principle all of our results and tests are compatible with the absence of modulation so I conclude by saying that we are searching for an one modulation since august 2017 with 112 kilogram of sodium iodide come from and our experiment is ruining quite smoothly with very nice experimental features with three years of data the new hypothesis is well supported by all of our analysis and the best fits are incompatible with the malibra for the sensitivity more than 2.5 by less than three sigma now but the best fits are incompatible already at three sigma level in the 2126 kV energy region so we confirm our sensitivity projections and we expect to reach in 2022 three sigma level of the malibra test however before ending and let me now a few words about is this really a modern independent testing of the malibra result and I hope you make some question about this issue because using same target material should be just enough the comparison is more direct but the response of both detectors has to be very very well known and we don't know so well the response function of sodium iodide especially for nuclear recoils this is because of the quenching factor the scintillation produced by nuclear recoils is quenched with respect to electron recoils and this factor is required for the calibration scale to convert energy in terms of electron equivalent energies to nuclear recoil energies and this is the present situation for sodium iodide quenching factors this is the dispersion of experimental results that are present now in the literature so there are still too many uncertainties in the quenching factors for sodium iodide and this would be improved in order to say that two experiments as the malibra and anis are the compatible or incompatible in our case we are measuring our quenching factor for different crystals and we are trying to determine this quenching factor at the best level we expect to have results very soon but the comparison with the malibra will be still dependent on the results for the malibra crystals we are also studying possible explication of the modulation signal in terms of for instance the muon possible modulation that has been suggested to explain the malibra many times but the drama reply is robust the phase of the modulation is inconsistent and the muon interactions don't fulfill the darmator requisites however we are observing quite a lot of interaction related with muons that we are removing but we are trying to understand better how these events could be contributing in the low energies and so we expect also to do some works in this direction in the next future so how can we do a test of a damalibra experiment with less time and less mass of detection and also with a worse background I have to say just that the modulation amplitude is large but our sensitivity should be enough to distance between three and four sigma confidence level to go beyond lowering the background is a must and then we have to develop a lower background crystals higher radiopurity crystals of sodium iodide and the most important things we plan to do our data public to allow for independent analysis because we really are convinced that sharing the data and procedures is the way to find a solution to this puzzle thanks a lot for your attention thank you very much Marisa for the for the nice talk and for the nice results from Anais experiment so for the for the people that is following the the live transmission you can write your questions in the youtube chat for the moment we are going to start with maybe some question from here for the audience in the zoom session so if somebody has a question for Marisa we can start with with that question so I okay I'm going to start with Marisa when you mentioned the okay that Anais can contrast the results of the damalibra three sigma it's just now that you have this three years of period but at most you expect that Anais can rule out at four sigmas that is a matter of statistics or yeah it's a matter of statistics with time we improve but so in our estimates to reach five sigma we need 10 years and then this is maybe too much so we are not really deciding yet how to finish our measurement but it will depend if there are a better experiment running or not yet at the moment I think that we are the with cosine we are the only experiments that are taking data and then okay we can take data for some more years but really to get to five sigma uh it's a very very long time so we are speaking about 2020-17 yeah so another question with regarding in the case of the damalibra modulation is just a systematic issue I mean it's not that matter it's something else is there is a way to to contrast these points that we other I don't know because I know that point that kanfrank is it's not in the same latitude that the gran Sasso but but almost like if it is atmospheric yeah so in so in our opinion if it's atmospheric but strange it should be similar to to gran Sasso if it's atmospheric but related with mions then it should be much worse in kanfrank because we have a low rock over burden that is lower and so then if it's related for instance with a neon modulation then we should see the effect it's true that we are removing these events in our data now but we are not observing actually our effect in the modulation of mions in in our case so then we are working in this direction because it's one of the systematics that is more easy to to face on our point of view other possible systematics are really much more complicated to to contrast because of course our experimental approaches are the same and and so then there are possibilities in the in the measurements that that are not taken into account by by the other experiment in the same way so I will say that there is place to study systematics but for that the best way will be that the Malibra will share their data and the other people look at their data in different ways and that more information of their acquisition and and protocols for filtering for instance the filtering is very important with all the experiments working in these energy regions and the filtering there is not much information on how it's done or which even are removed for kept by by the Malibra so but but it's not easy from our side maybe to find the systematic that is explaining the result okay thanks I don't know if there is another question from here for the for the audience otherwise we can go to some question from youtube because we have a couple first we have one from from Karen MC that she's asking how useful is animal modulation to differentiate between a wind signal and the neutrino background and higher energy like atmospheric or the dsnb benefit no of course a annual modulation will be very useful if a signal is found so I will say that the the most important question so it's probably at this at this rate of improvement in backgrounds in the experiments of that matter probably neutrinos will be detected before that matter and so if there is enough statistically speaking events so of course they should be searched for all the possibilities so I mean for neutrinos there will be also some modulation for the solar neutrinos because the distance to the sun is not the same along the gear although the difference is is quite small but I will say that for that the most important problem in this case to compare these effects will be the statistics always but it will be a very distinctive feature because the amplitude of the modulation is dependent of course on the on the relative velocity with respect to the halo and this is not shared by atmospheric or solar neutrinos backgrounds but but it's involved of course there are many modulations in when these neutrinos are detected but the directionality will be also quite very important think probably this is the most interesting experimental issue to be sensitive to direction not not in global to the annual modulation okay so there is a it's not a question but it's a comment from paolo salucci he's saying that well first of all he's congratulating to you the same very very interesting result not crucial but it is fair to not to claim a standard halo model with that work on it have got an agreement even at the level of the gas core issue problem so he's more or less commenting I mean trying to about yeah when when they compare all the direct detection experiment with the same halo model of course if it is maybe it could be a little some bias in that of course now that is clear that this implies an important bias and for some and in the case of the annual modulation even more than the comparison of the of the normal cross-section of interaction the normal interaction rate and but so it's very difficult to make comparisons halo independent and so there are some some proposals and some ways to try to do comparisons so in our case of course the question is that to test the maribra modulation we have to assume the same the maribra modulation result is compatible with the standard halo modulation yeah but but but it's true that if we don't know how is the halo we should face the problem on the contrary if we detect an annual modulation we could use the result to test the halo models yeah so and also in some way yeah also in that sense since the damalibra is claiming another modulation they are claiming with the standard of course halo yeah so yeah at least not halo is compatible with the maribra modulation exactly so there is no no issue related to the other motivation itself i mean you are comparing the same halo model with the same kind of initial setup so this is because of that our comparison is more than independent because so we put the same detector with the same target in the same place we should observe the same modulation so we are not assuming anything about interaction mechanism or the halo model the only problem that i mean with our comparison with the maribra is really the energy scale if the point in factor for instance is not the same for the maribra detectors and for our detectors our energy region from one to six tb could be different because we would have there an uncertainty in the scaling of the detector but this is a quite very different problem with respect to the comparison with other experiments where the model dependencies are really inside of the calculation of the interaction rates and so because of that we think that our comparison is important and we should check really these these very small questions that are still to be fixed yes so i don't know if there are other questions because also we have some another question about the the how is the damalibra damalibra sorry and it's for the for the for the total cross-section regarding the it's been it's been independent cross-section like our analysis yes so i mean not the animal modulation but if it is planned for the so in principle our background is really much worse than the background of most of the experiments in the in the field so so i have said before i will show you again the plot of the comparison between the different experiments searching for the armata so we are not competitive at all with the most of the armata searches because these detectors have a have a background which is quite large also damalibra background is large with respect to most of the most sensitive experiments searching for the armata so we are not aiming at doing a real exclation in in the parameter space because we cannot compete with most of the experiments in the field but but in principle our sensitivity should be similar to that of cosine experiment you can see here the plot because our background is really very similar to that of cosine so in principle we should be at this level at the level of the amalibra signal that is at the level of our backgrounds that that in all the sodium iodide present experiment is at this level but so in principle we have not tried up to now to to do this more independent effort because we think that is not really interesting to compare with amalibra it's much more interesting focus on our annual modulation result which is more than independent this plot is more than dependent also for sodium iodide because we are fixing an interaction cross-section scheme and and then but but we are not better than 10 to the minus 42 centimetre square of cross-section so I mean this is really limited by the background and and so then this is our this is our limitation we cannot go far that if we don't change the crystals I mean yeah also if you don't increase the volume of okay yeah so and a small question also because many of these other experiments they try to use also the cross-section regarding two electrons in in the case of crystal can be done this type of analysis so it's because usually it's for phenol kind of liquid they are using so they have considered this migral effect I probably they refer to this question know that that they use the energy released to the electrons in the in the material in order to in order to to get also a information at the lower energies but so in principle in our case we will we have focused up to now so of course this will take it this into account for the final analysis with the five years in order to take all the possible take out all the information possible from our data but but I mean for the comparison with amalibra it shouldn't be important because if this effect is happening it's happening in the amalibra detectors also and also in our detectors so we are looking globally at the scintillation light produced by any particle that is releasing energy in the detectors so so in principle for our comparison I wish I should say that this is not much important it's important to do this analysis in the in the model-dependent way and well okay we will try to look if this we could be sensitive to some of these proposed effects that have not been confirmed by measurements that have been only proposed to be there but I should say that it's not the the most important thing in our case that we are so background limited that we are really very very low sensitive to to this kind of of a special effects sent on experiments are are really in other order of magnitude of a ground so you can see here the several orders of magnitude they can reach in cross-section okay so I don't know in youtube we don't have other questions I mean paolo salucci is saying thanks for the when you answered I don't know if there are other questions from here for the audience if they want to ask to marisa otherwise we are in the also we are in the time to to close the transmission so we we thanks marisa for such a nice webinar and such an important result with the analysis experiment and for the for the people that are following us in in youtube please you can consider to subscribe also to be updated I mean to keep up update with the with the following webinar that is more or less in in two weeks the webinar 117 and for the moment we can say goodbye to everybody and see you in the next time in the physics yeah


Charles Davis, there's so much going on at the NFL Scouting Combine as there is every year. There's a lot going on here, yeah. And one of the main things that is being discussed is the Jacksonville Jaguars. Obviously, they have that first pick in the draft for the second year in a row. And it has been casually mentioned that they could be open to trading that number one pick. Who would be willing to trade with them? Well, Amy, you know normally that number one pick if someone's going to trade up, we're talking quarterback, right? This is not the year for that at all. So if we're going to play this game, let's take the quarterbacks and set them aside because no one should be trading up to a number one to take a quarterback this year. And there's no disrespect intended. They're just not rated that highly. But how about a wild card, the Atlanta Falcons? I think they're sitting at eight. Can they come up and get that pass rusher they desperately need? Sacks were at a premium last year. Pressure on quarterback at a premium. And right at the top of the draft, Aiden Hutchinson out of Michigan, the runner for the Heisman, Kavon Tibidale out of Oregon. Best two edge rushers in the draft rated by most people. If you're going to make a move, and the beauty is, we're talking about Jacksonville at one, I think they could make that move with someone a little bit behind that and possibly get up there and get the pass rusher. But they need that desperately. Here's another team that's been kind of the talk of the town, and that's the Giants. They've confirmed that they are somewhat over the cap. They need to create some space. In the event that they were willing to trade someone, let's say a guy like Saquon Barkley. Boy, let's just go big. Yeah, let's just go all the way with it. What's a potentially good landing spot for him? Well, within the division, no. Philadelphia loves to run the football, but no, they're not going within the division to get him. Dallas, of course, Ezekiel, where is he in his career? Again, within the division, I don't see that happening. Here's my wild card for them. Go to the AFC, stay in state, and the Buffalo Bills. Sean McDermott is their head coach as a defensive-minded guy. He does not want to be one-dimensional. They throw it way more than they run it. He's not saying you'll be perfectly balanced in what you're doing. You're not going 50-50. You're still using Josh Allen as your main weapon, but maybe Exit takes some pressure off of his legs. Devin Singletary had a bounce back year last year. Zach Moss trying to find his footing as well. You see what I did there with the footing? That was pretty good. Bottom line is Saquon Barkley there, running it, catching it, pass-protecting. It would be an accessory piece to Josh Allen and what they're doing. That could be a big play for him and a boon to his career and to what Buffalo wants to do because Saquon McDermott definitely wants to run it more. Here in Indianapolis, there are a lot of question marks around Carson Wentz and his future with the Colts. In the event that the two end up parting ways, is there another veteran quarterback who would be a good fit for the Colts? Well, the way the Colts run the football with Jonathan Taylor, Jimmy Garoppolo would be a natural coming from San Francisco because they run the heck out of the football work-off-of-play action. But my wild card is someone that you guys know pretty well. His name is Marcus Mariota, a guy who could get a second opportunity to be a starter again, a rebirth after sitting in Las Vegas after he left Tennessee.   Give some interesting thoughts, Charles Davis. I like this. I don't know how good they are, but they're interesting, right? Let's talk a little draft coming up. In your expert opinion, which do you think comes off the board first in the 2022 draft, a safety or a cornerback? A safety named Kyle Hamilton, coming out of Notre Dame. I think he's coming off the board early, wouldn't surprise me if he's in the top five. I believe the Giants have five and seven. That might be the ideal spot because depending what happens with these Edge Rushers, if Hutchinson goes early, if Tibidow goes early before the top five, the Giants will have a decision to make. Edge Rushers, always a prime guy, but Kyle Hamilton with his ability to drop in the box, but his ability to range, rove, and center field, we keep coming back to it, but you're gonna see it all through the draft process. The interception on opening night against Florida State, where he came from the middle field to the sideline, that demonstrates what he has. Big, strong, physical kid. No, we don't normally take safeties that high, but you take safeties that can cover. Kyle Hamilton can do that. As a former safety yourself, are there other safeties in this draft that have caught your eye that you really like? Well, the one I have the biggest man crush on is Jaylen Petrie out of Baylor. Absolutely love him. Watch how he operated at the senior ball, plug in his tape and watch what he does. Ranges all over the field, makes plays. He has instincts that I call Tyron Matthew, Antoine Winfield. If you have a young man named Elijah Mulden, same type of instincts, knows where the football is, makes plays on the ball. That's why I like him so much. Let's talk about the cornerback from LSU, Derrick Stingley. Does he have the most to lose or to gain in the weeks leading up to the draft? The answer is yes, to both, because this is a kid that was a lock top five pick after his freshman year at LSU. He struggled a little bit in the last couple of years. Some injuries have been involved. Obviously we had the COVID year. So many things have gone into it, but you can't forget what we saw him coming out of the gate, plus the bloodlines are pretty excellent. His grandfather, Derrick Stingley, an NFL player. His father was an arena football league player. He's been trained right out of the womb to be a heck of a player. So he has plenty to gain. Somebody might take a chance on him early, but let's say he slides a little bit. Someone hops on him. Oh my goodness, you've got a heck of a deal. I'm gonna give you a second guy. Tight end named Tray McBride out of Colorado State. Kind of winning this process is kind of the consensus number one tight end. So I'm at the senior bowl, love everything about him, except, I'm not sure he gets away from people. Everything he's doing is a contested catch. Can't wait to see him run here at the combine, because if he runs a really nice time, that might put him back as the number one guy. Otherwise, he's competing with Jalen Weidemeier out of Texas A&M, Isaiah Likley out of Coastal Carolina. I could go on all day. A number of guys don't wanna miss anyone, but he's back into that mix. Oh yeah, Greg Dulcich out of UCLA. A former walk on who can fly it out fly. It's an exciting week here in Indianapolis. Absolutely, absolutely. So interesting thoughts. We don't know if they're good or not, but interesting, I like that word. Interesting thoughts. We'll take it. Charles Davis, thank you so much. Thank you as always.


I think a lot of people avoid investing for the wrong reasons. And often it's because they're fearful, that it looks complicated, it looks, what if I get it wrong? So there's a real, for many people, a huge emotional burden to getting invested. And I would say for most people, the biggest behavioral cost, most reliable, reliable behavioral cost to investing is actually not what they do when they invest. We can solve some of that with the investing rules and investing constitution. But the biggest cost for most people is they leave too much of their available savings doing nothing in a bank account year after year after year. And that is enormously costly because even if I take that person and I put them in a completely tediously boring, moderate risk, passive, ETF, asset allocation that's blind sell, no engagement whatsoever. Over time, that moderate risk portfolio should be expected to earn above what you would get in a bank account roughly in the region of four to 5% per year. If I'm leaving four to 5% per year on the sidelines because I'm emotionally uncomfortable is a phenomenally expensive way of getting to sleep better at night.


What is voting below the line? There are two options for filling out your white ballot paper for the Australian Senate. You can vote above the line, based on the party, or below the line for individual candidates. Above the line, number at least six choices, or if voting below the line, you must number at least 12 choices. Either way, you can choose more than the recommended number, and the more you choose, the better. If you don't fill out enough boxes, there's a chance that the parties can decide where your vote goes. Due to above the line voting, some senators are elected with very low personal votes. In 2016, one nation senator Malcolm Roberts took his seat after receiving just 77 below the line first preference votes. He was later replaced by Fraser Anning, who only received 19 votes. They won their places based on the number of votes for their party. Understandably, places high on the party's Senate ticket are highly coveted by politicians chasing one of each state's six Senate seats. When voting for the Senate, consider voting below the line. The number of candidates might be daunting, but it gives you more say about who makes up this powerful House of Parliament.


Right, so my name is Demeter and I'll be speaking about architecture concept design It's something that I'm quite passionate about Just a little bit of information about me. I'm an architect that's been using Blender since 2007 I work currently as an architecture designer at HOK in London and I also do a Lot of architecture education tutorials on my YouTube channel, which is youtube.com slash UH Studio So a little bit about my company HOK. It's a global design firm with offices throughout US, London Middle East and Asia and we mostly do large and complex projects We're working across many typologies So arenas, airports, churches, cultural buildings The Air and Space Museum in Washington DC, the Smithsonian is also HOKs So that's a little bit about me and how can Blender be used within architectural design. That's a question I've been interested in probably since I started using Blender So one of the ways to we all know is architectural visualization. These are some of my examples You can clearly see that's not what I do all day every day But what I'm more interested in is Blender as a design tool So let's take a step back Let's look at architecture and the kind of tools that we use typically for design So we have explicit modeling tools Some of them are concept modeling tools like SketchUp and Rhino and some of them are more production oriented like like Revit and ArchiCat On the other hand we have parametric modeling tools like Grasshopper, Dynamo and also scripting Languages that plug in nicely with all the different packages So the parametric tools they talk pretty well with their explicit modeling tools counterparts So Grasshopper with Rhino, Dynamo with Revit and so on and ArchiCat with actually Grasshopper But what I'm more interested in is this space in the middle between explicit modeling and between parametric design How can that space be used? How can software within those sort of have the ease of use as an explicit modeling But with some with some of the inherent complexity that we get with parametric modeling tools So as an example here is in Rhino how we create something simple, right? We have a cube or sort of a cube We have two lines that we start we create a planar surface in between them and then we extrude The issue is if we want to change the cube I can turn on the vertices and move some elements around But at some point I'm going to break The object and I'm going to have to rebuild it from scratch from the bottom up On the other hand we have tools like Grasshopper which allow us to be very precise create exactly what we want and Have a lot of control trouble is to create this really nice catch that you see here only in 2d this is the amount of scripting that we need and I consider myself a fairly advanced Grasshopper user, but it still takes a bit of time And that's because we basically have to reinvent the wheel every time every Operation like offset move trim is represented in one of those nodes So thinking about that space in between again, what what kind of software within architectural design is there? That sort of fills that nice gap between explicit and more parametric or procedural modeling So Maya believe it or not is actually one It's quite used within some circles of architectural design and he has the history So it sort of remembers all the history so you can modify a cube quite late into the process We even though it's one of the first operations that you've done on the other hand We have Katia, which is one of the most Successful cat and 3d nerf softwares usually used for aeronautics aviation Transportation industries, but they're investing a lot to get their architectural tool set on par and similar like my even though it's cat based he has full history So let's say you start with a sketch of a line at some point You when you extrude the sketch you offset you bully and remove some elements You can go back to the original sketch and remove and adjust something everything that follows adjusts after We also have free cat, which is an open source sort of sketching based a sketch based nerfs modeler Which I'm starting to use It also has full history. It's not as advanced as Katia is but he has some excellent startings Which especially if you're an architectural designer recommend to try it and then we also have blender So with blender doesn't have history like the other tools do at least this far But as we all know as we've seen in a series of the presentations in this conference There's the modifier based approach is significant For example, if we go back to this example and try to do something similar in blender It's actually a piece of cake. So I start with a cube. I Only leave one part of it. I mirror it along the x-axis and then I rate That a hundred and twenty degrees twice based on an empty I know the sudden we have something in which we can only work a six on a six to the project to get something fairly complex Then with loop cuts we can continue to refine it later. So this approach allows us to work in architecture fairly quickly So now I want to tell a little bit of my story. So again, I as I mentioned earlier, I started using a blender when I was a student in Philadelphia and in fact That guy over there see this thing is working It's actually me with a bandana and long hair But the rest of the images they actually for my postgraduate course in London, which is at the architecture association Design research lab and in it It's a mostly computational design course where we get to all kinds of different software how to use them Maya processing grasshopper Python Java C sharp we get exposed to a lot of things. It's a year and a half course So we although we get exposed there isn't a lot of time to actually go in full depth without it so what what I particularly liked in that course was Maya and In particular Simulations doing then with nucleus dynamics. So some of the examples like the one on the top right hand corner For example, we did a lot of simulations digital ones and then physical and the physical one sort of informed the materiality and something That we couldn't quite understand but near the end of the course. I sort of Step back a little bit and I remembered about blender Again, and what I realized is blender can actually do a sub diff modeling You know, I knew about the concept before but not to the level that I was taught in this program so It's it's hard to talk about sub diff modeling and architecture without talking about the UK based architectural studio code Zaha Hadid design Those of us that model with polis and sub diff would clearly recognize some of the way that some of these shapes have been formed We start with something rough. We add some edge loops and they do all theirs in Maya And then we take it usually into grasshopper and refine them further to allow Penalization structure windows penetrations to actually happen So a friend of mine and a colleague of mine actually at work had the idea because I do tutorials But they're fairly simple. He said I want to I want to see you do something complex Let's see show me your chops in a way. So I thought this would be a proof of concept of sort of attracting the audience that's Typically uses Maya or is interested in sub diff based Architectural modeling into blender. So this is another Zaha project that I remodeled It's called the Grand Rabat theater in Rabat, Morocco And I got a series of reference photos. I matched some of the camera angles in my Model and then I modeled it away. So that's sort of the final result Again, those of you the probably model cars can do this in your sleep. That's the best I can do but in regards to Explaining the architecture the curve the sort of growth from it from from this swing and going up and becoming the shape That it actually is almost like a fish. I think it's done a good job So now I want to talk a little bit about how you use Blender in the office So I'm lucky enough to be able to use Blender professionally alongside Rhino most of the time So besides modeling we do use it for representation as well We have something that we call the game of Jones style one of my directors. His name is John and we wanted to do Images like the opening sequence in Game of Thrones Probably less greedy. We didn't want to sell images to people that think they're gonna go there and die But we think that at the same time, you know having something it's still quite conceptual Yet it has a little bit of texture richness that adds to the image if anything and we think that's important to move away from these Materialist hidden line renderings that we do so often At some cases it's it's okay to describe diagrams, but we want to show something a bit more physical We think of it. It was also almost as a scale copy of a physical mono We also do normal visualizations every once in a while This is an arena in Valencia, which is currently in the final stages of design And it's going to get built fairly soon Down there and that's our view. It's all these are all done with Blender This is another arena in Barcelona that we won and this is all done in blender And the models come from all different kinds of places And these were actually very fun to do another arena. So I used to work in Sports and entertainment for quite a bit of time. I also do mixed-use residential Done aviation projects as well So so these are done in Blender internal, which I thought was absolutely great for architectural diagrams And it's a section of a arena in yas actually currently in construction And Modifiers were very useful in here All the structure was done by a basic shape that we have the triangulate modified the wireframe in the array modifier to get our large trusses the The auditorium the seating actually came in from Rhino and now I'm going to talk a little bit more about how I use blender as a Design to win the office This was a competition entry for a tram stop in the middle of a busy road in the Middle East And it was meant to be a very sculptural object something that you can see from quite far away In that sense you can sort of understand this if you're moving fast on one side or in the other You just want to see something kind of beautiful in sculpture And that's sort of where the intention from the form came in in between those two columns in the top right hand the series of Columns, that's where you have your Stairs that gave to bring you on the ground for people to actually come and experience this So this was all modeled in blender sub-diff and then we 3d printed it in the office My favorite typology is theaters And this is a theater proposal we did for a council in England and it's a it's a proscenium civic theater with 1500,000 seats, so these are the typical kinds of theaters that you would have really nice performances in I Love teachers because they're quite civic in nature, right? This is in the center of town There's a lot of public functions in between the sort of theater space here and the public realm in this side So in this case the interior was modeled in blender a very simple sub-diff modeling yet at the same point Quite easy to get exactly what we need because when we design within architecture when we move any single point It actually has ramifications It's similar to what was mentioned in the first day that we sort of built our own worlds, right? When we design architecture is very similar We build our own world and we have to understand what those design rules are to make this a successful or successful place in this case The ceiling and this is sort of a finished rendering of it from a different company So the ceiling needed to perform architecturally as well It needs to look beautiful, but it needs to be curved curved and In order for sound to not bounce too awkwardly We also have the bands on top which are for lights to come through Over here and then we have to make sure that all the people that are sitting outside of the balconies They have a good view out as well So it's a few things to consider in something in terms regards to modeling is fairly simple But in regards to architecture, it is not and I also want to mention a little bit about the images finished images in Architecture many times we don't have the time to work in in-house to create beautiful images So we'll work with a lot of external companies to help us with the visualization This one was done by wire collective the director is actually a friend of mine who's up here as well We met because of Linda So to continue this is a portal an outdoor space and the idea behind it is that we have a fixed Structure for events to occur, but it could be open for people to pass through if you imagine that sort of blue stage layer Disappearing. Oh, this was completely done in blender. Again, if you look at the trusses, they're very simple It's a it's a box. It's a plane with edge loops There we have a Triangulate modifier wireframe modifier and then a ray modifier And if you look at the series of different structures that are happening across that top structural bit all of them are modeled in a similar manner The light and the rake as well. So we have something fairly complex that render allows us to produce in a fairly easy manner So this was one of those 11th hour competitions for an airport Basically the one of the directors on the project came to me two two hours before the project was due And he said we're doing an airport. We need a roof. We need to come up with something Fine, let's see what we can do here So we started with the module. We knew the idea was I needed to design the module a little bit in such a way That's it's easy to arrange both directions. So then we have a series of modifiers We have a modifier in the x direction once we have an array modifier in the y direction once And then a third array modifier that brings the whole thing out Then that's followed by a lattice modifier that sort of picks it up And then we have a second lattice modifier that locally deforms it as you can see in some of those elements And we're left with something that again, this is done by a third visualizing company We have something that starts to suggest Architectural space and atmosphere This is a cultural master plan in a part of London. We're looking for Suggestions to the council. It's on a site with an existing theater And we're thinking if we make this in a cultural and entertainment master plan, what can we put there? So in this case, we're looking at extending the existing theater or creating a new theater And creating a black box for larger events and an existing outdoor space All these some of the geometry came from Reiner some of it was modeled simply in blender And you know, it's very simple everything is parented to the massing So when we move something around, we just take a screenshot of rendering and then we have a new option Also in these kinds of scenes I use particles to put people they're quite abstract We don't have the typical architecture detail that allows us to understand scale like doors and windows So people help significantly and these have used by using particles to put them in hours since also help This is a bit more detailed study So we do a lot of assaats for our buildings as well This is for competition and it's a diagram and it's using the wonderful plug-in that the center's been working on tissue So we have a series of groups here that modify the depth of any of these Triangulated panels that come out the idea is that based on the solar studies that we're doing some of these can be Can pop out more and some of them actually blend in with the rest of the facade up higher And here's another a series of different oscillations again using tissue These were studies for a facade pattern for an arena So we have the same base mesh in all three options in which we're just using a different panel to understand that And this is with regular modifiers You can imagine one of the modules. It's a rate along the x-axis and then we use the footprint of The actual arena as the curve we use that curve to array it and then we have a second one which is divided by in thirds So again, I all kinds of quick facades, especially a little bit more complex I would do them in blender because it's fairly easy Once we did a series of studies. We sort of had an idea of what we wanted to achieve This is one of the options. So the idea is if we have a facade that's Draped over the whole building is there a way that we can sort of expose the important parts reveal some of the guts in this case We're pinching the points of the entrance and also the concourse level Which is meant to be used public with restaurants and it's meant to be a destination on non-event days as well So I did a series of these tests in blender as well Where it's a very simple mesh and with soft selection and shape keys I pick up some of the forms to look at whether that's achieving something along the lines that I want in this case from this Example I grabbed a couple of the loop curves so you can see here we grabbed the bottom the middle and the top curve from this previous example and After that I took it into Rhino took those curves subdivided them nicely to create a rational structure for both the Long-term that the beam spanning the long direction in this beam spanning in the short direction That we then penalize afterwards So it to do these kinds of curves you can do them in in Rhino as well You probably won't get the same sort of effect because with with with subdivision modeling You understand that the whole element is acting as an entity which is something very important for preserving the Continuity of the curves and because I'm using soft selection on a continuous mesh It's sort of adjusts what I want later down the line as well Not just the bottom curve for example, but the middle curve in here as well So we continue to do a series of studies for timings These are just done with modifiers to understand how light reflects on all of these and how smooth the gradient between something That's shaded and non-shaded is So that I also continue to use in projects. Unfortunately, I cannot talk about at the moment at work, but My wife's not too happy that when I go home I I work on computers all day and then I go home and I continue to work on blender all night as well So this is some of my personal work again. I think this understanding this sort of Functionality in blender beyond our fists is still in its infancy and I only wish to promote that further So in my YouTube channel, I create tutorials on how to do some simple elements within architecture The pavilion is a great typology because it's fairly simple and we use it a lot to Explain either design concepts or software and how to do things on the software side of things So in this case, we have a simple pavilion. This is one of my first tutorials And it's created with an array modifier with a curved modifier It's around a curved garden in London and then we have a couple of lattice modifiers that create something fairly rich Quickly again if I were to do something like this in grasshopper, I would do it It would probably be a little bit more buildable and more rationalized But it would take probably three times as long if not even more to achieve So as I mentioned before I love theaters. So once I understood how to do real theaters in the office I visited a note Project of mine student project in a very tight site in Philadelphia, and I decided to see if I can redo it and sort of put A theater inside of it I did quick sketches in CAD in Rhino about what the theater layouts at the different levels need to be in a section Which I then imported into Blender and used as a basis for understanding how to mass the shape The idea behind this is that it's it's fairly large building. It sits in a fairly classical context It's not gonna look like a house because it's significantly larger neither Shit it looked like a house in my opinion, but those vary But the idea is that it does have some relationship to the context in this case We're sort of picking up the top line and we have a setback that happens beyond it doing this in blender Was very useful because it's what I call digital modeling and not digital modeling in the Sense that we literally scope with a scope brush digital modeling in the sense that we start with a box We look cut and we pull vertices with ease that we can then apply modifiers to afterwards And this is sort of the final result from that study as well Does anybody here get a niche sometimes to do something? You know, you're really good at something It's been a while that you've done it and you just you gotta do it, right? So this was one of these again at the university. We did a lot of polygonal modeling Subdiff modeling so I kind of understand how topology works fairly well at least within architectural context So this is again very simple. We start with a very small chunk that we array both in the x and y axis Then sorry mirror on the x and y axis then we array it and then we use a curve to deform it And by just modifying a very small chunk. I can see the global effect as well So it's a it was a fairly fun project to do which creates some sort of interesting Very rich expression in regards to to bridge So this is a more recent project that I worked. I wanted to push tissue actually a little bit more. It's a Yeah, something that I'm quite interested in so I did this quick sketch of Having two buildings. So it's a mixed use site somewhere imaginary Where we have one solid site and another solid site and there we have this sort of public space, right? It's retail perhaps on the ground levels in the podium and then the public space becomes that middle bit here Which is sort of the public elements in between the buildings So that's where you would have your lifts you have some matriams some sort of regular lounge spaces Sort of like if you imagine here outside, we have the stair so that's sort of the blue part in the sketch and This was the first sort of sketch idea and this is more of a finished element and again It's all using tissue. I'm going to show you the base mesh initially But I found this very kind of fun way to approach in some ways computation with design within architecture And here's sort of another view. I want to show you Some of very fast Yeah, so that's the base mesh that we start with and then I think I did a Subdivide and then unsubdivide to get the diagram so I had my diagram panels and after I had those Then I applied my panel and if I go back now to Presentation and you can sort of see the effect that we have now This was also using vertex weights with an empty and you can sort of see where the empty was Located It's around here and there's a sort of a spherical effect that reduces the intensity of the effect afterwards Now I've been playing with tissue quite a bit and I wanted to show you something else Which is a very non-standard way of using tissue as an architect and fascinated by urban design and actually working some projects in the office So this project I think I have another video that shows it better So this project was what was sort of a test to see what we can do with with With tissue in regards to architecture design So this started with it was a very simple mesh that I put some vertices and subdivided and then I went and in this case Manually randomly selected elements, so we have different materials with those different materials afterwards I model the series of simple buildings and this is showing the modeling part So those are sort of the final Buildings and each one of them. Let's say let's call this a b and c it responds to one of the colors That will go on the site So in the end we can get something Kind of rich in a way I mean very simple in this sense, but it showed sort of a beginning where you can start You know applying tissue in ways that I didn't think it's possible what I see this and actually it's used in here three ways so the first way is to position the actual Footprints of the buildings so the plot sizes, so that's the street Summification of lighting poles and so on in the middle of it. He had just blank Surfaces the next way I use tissue was to create the the tessellations on the actual buildings So all of those are simple modules That on a subdivided mesh that I just applied and the third way was to actually position the buildings Along the site so as you saw in the previous video Each one of those plots was colored a different way so I can apply a different building to it So that's just the beginning of a more sort of personal interest and exploration or how we can use Blender not only for architectural design, but more in the urban design sense, which I think he has some great potentials to do Yeah, so the next steps for me is to continue to spread the use of blended for architectural concept design And I'm also working on a course on Blender as well, which is very much looking at the things that I was just showing So thanks again for checking this out Please visit me on YouTube studio and in case you're interested in architectural course you can scan this QR code here to sign up for the mailing list So you'll be one of the first ones to know when when they're available Thanks


Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States and Mrs. Reagan. Ladies and gentlemen, the national anthems of the Republic of India and the United States. Prime Minister Gandhi, Nancy and I are delighted to welcome you to the White House. And let me add a personal note. It is good to see you here again as leader of the great Indian democracy, which provides a unique opportunity for us to broaden and deepen the dialogue we began last autumn in Mexico. Through our talks, we can help to reach a renewed recognition of the mutual importance of strong, constructive ties between India and the United States. In searching for words to describe the focus of your visit to Washington this week, I came upon a statement that you had made in Delhi when Roy Jenkins visited in 1980. And at that time you said, the great need in the world today is to so define national interest that it makes for greater harmony, greater equality and justice, and greater stability in the world. Well, that is more than an eloquent description of enlightened national interest. It can also serve to describe the foundation of the relationship between the United States and India, a relationship we seek to reaffirm this week. A strengthening of that relationship based on better understanding is particularly important at this time. Your father once said that the basic fact of today is the tremendous pace of change in human life. The conflicts and the tensions of the 1980s posed new challenges to our countries and to all nations which seek as India and the United States do freedom in a more stable, secure and prosperous world. As leaders of the world's two largest democracies, sharing common ideals and values, we can learn much from one another in discussing concerns and exploring national purposes. From this understanding can come greater confidence in one another's roles on the world stage and a rediscovery of how important we are to one another. Prime Minister Gandhi, we recognize that there have been differences between our two countries, but these should not obscure all that we have in common, for we are both strong, proud and independent nations guided by our own perceptions of our national interests. We both desire the peace and stability of the Indian Ocean area and the early end of the occupation of Afghanistan. We both seek an equitable peace in the Middle East and an honorable settlement of the Iran-Iraq conflict. We both seek a constructive approach to international economic cooperation, building on the strong links even today being forged between the economies of the United States and India. Beyond that, India and the United States are bound together by the strongest, most sacred tie of all. The practice of democratic freedoms denied to many peoples by their governments. My devout hope is that during this visit we can weave together all these threads of common interest into a new and better understanding between our two countries. Welcome to the United States. Mr. President and Mrs. Reagan, to me every journey is an adventure, and I can say that this one is an adventure in search of understanding and friendship. It is difficult to imagine two nations more different than ours. As history goes, your country is a young one. Over the years, it has held unparalleled attraction for the adventurous and daring for the talented as well as for the persecuted. It has stood for opportunity and freedom. The endeavors of the early pioneers, the struggle for human values, the coming together of different races have enabled it to retain its elon and dynamism of youth. With leadership and high ideals, it has grown into a great power. Today, its role in world affairs is unmatched. Every word and action of the President is watched and weighed and has global repercussions. India is an ancient country, and history weighs heavily on us. The character of its people is formed by the palimpsest of its varied experiences. The circumstances of its present development are shadowed by its ears of colonialism and exploitation. Yet, our ancient philosophy has withstood all onslaughts, absorbing newcomers, adapting ideas and cultures. We have developed endurance and resilience. In India, our preoccupation is with building and development. Our problem is not to influence others, but to consolidate our political and economic independence. We believe in freedom with a passion that only those who have been denied it can understand. We believe in equality because many in our country were so long deprived of it. We believe in the worth of the human being, for that is the foundation of our democracy and our work for development. That is the framework of our national programs. We have no global interests, but we are deeply interested in the world and its affairs. Yet, we cannot get involved in power groupings. That would be neither to our advantage nor would it foster world peace. Our hand of friendship is stretched out to all. One friendship does not come in the way of another. This is not a new stand that has been my policy since I became Prime Minister in 1966. No two countries can have the same angle of vision, but each can try to appreciate the points of view of the others. Our effort should be to find a common area, howsoever small, on which to build and to enhance cooperation. I take this opportunity to say how much we in India value the help we have received from the United States in our stupendous tasks. I look forward to my talks with you, Mr. President, and getting to know the charming Mrs. Reagan. I thank you, Mr. President, for your kind invitation, for your welcome and your gracious words. I bring to you, to the First Lady and to the great American people, the sincere greetings and good wishes of the government and people of India.


So, we've already looked at the structure diagram. It's worth taking a minute to look at this text summarization. It takes advantage of in every cottonwood block and every layer of our neural network, there is a short text description of what it is and a listing of all the meaningful parameters. If you wanted to or needed to make a detailed report, say, for publication, these are all of the things that you would need to describe to someone else how to build an identical network. So, we can look through this and see what it looks like for this particular diagram. We can see things like the number of kernels in each convolution layer. It shows all of the regularization parameters. It shows for each layer what optimizer is being used and what its learning rate is. Note that we don't have to use the same learning rate or even the same optimizer for different layers. It shows what the loss function is, it shows all the individual pieces, and even some of those small parameters or tweaks that we might not think to include when describing a network, it's all here in a text file. Now, it's not really easy to read, so it's more for the sake of documentation and completeness and communication, but when paired with the structure diagram, it does give a pretty good sense of what's going on, and even if someone wanted to recreate this, say, intense or flow, this gives them a really good running start to be able to get something that is either identical or very close. So now let's come back to the custom visualization that's specific to this dataset, our render results. To get at this, we use our model that we've loaded, we add the testing data block in like we did before in our test script, and we connect it up to our convolution layer and our one-hot layer using the right ports, and we initialize lists of examples that we got right and got wrong, correct and incorrect examples. And then we run through a while loop until we're done. So we just keep doing forward passes through the classifier. We pull out all the bits, the image, the label, what the actual predictions were, what the labels are of each position in that prediction array, what the one hot representation of the labels are, what that top choice was, so what the hard max was, and then pulling out the index of the top choice and getting the appropriate label name, so the predicted label that goes with that. To be able to represent this, the predictions really nicely in a bar chart, it's nice to have them ordered so that class 0 is in the bottom and class 9 is on the top. So to do that, we'll take our predictions and order them, and that's what this loop does, is it goes through and for each index of the label, it pulls out the name associated with it and then goes into our ordered predictions array and for the position corresponding to that name, it puts the value associated with that index. So I don't pretend that that was made sense or was easy to follow, but it's some indexing fancy footwork to get those predictions in the order of the label names so that the order of the label names makes sense. Then we take all of that, the image, the actual label, the predicted label, and the ordered predictions and we bundle them together into a tuple, which we call the outcome for that example. And then we check, is the label array and that top choice array, so our hardmax, so these both should be one hot arrays. If we subtract one from the other, take the absolute value and then take the sum of that, if they're predicted and the actual labels are the same, that should be 0. So we'll give it a little bit of a wiggle room. If it's less than one one-thousandth, so if it's close to zero, then we'll say the actual and the predicted were the same. Then if our collection of correct examples is still short, if we fall short of the end render examples, we'll add that to the list. Otherwise, we know it's a wrong example and if our collection of wrong examples is still short of end render examples, we'll add it to that list. If both lists are sufficiently long, then we jump out of this while loop. Now there are two layers of if statements there and there's a break in a infinite while loop. Sometimes the logic is tricky here, so during development, I put a couple of assert lines here just to add a check to make sure I didn't make any mistakes. So at this point, the length of these two lists, right and wrong, should both equal end render examples if I did it right. So quick check on that just gives me a warm feeling inside that whatever, if the code gets past this, I know those lists are the right length.