author: Neil D. Lawrence[^1]
Amazon Research Cambridge
and
The University of Sheffield
date: 22nd May 2017
title: Living Together: Mind and Machine Intelligence

# Introduction

The narrative for the arrival and nature of artificial intelligence fails to take into account fundamental differences between the intelligence of humans and that of computers. One result is a conflation of characteristics which are likely peculiar to humans with capabilities that are only associated with machines.

In this paper we cast machine and human intelligences within a common framework. We base our ideas on considering fundamental characteristics of an intelligence, such as its ability to compute information versus its ability to communicate information, from that firm basis we will speculate as to why human intelligence is like it is, and what differences are occurring in the way machine intelligences are evolving.

Our conclusion is that it is not sentient artificial intelligence that we should be afraid of, in contrast the real challenge is understanding the pervasive intelligence, and specifically the form of pervasive intelligence that is already within our capabilities.

In this paper, we will frame our arguments about some fundamental properties of intelligence. We will try to be general, but to do so we must first be restrictive.

Let us think of intelligence as a property associated with an action, within a defined context. We judge some actions to be more intelligent than others, so there is a spectrum of intelligence.

To quantify the intelligence of actions we need to have an understanding of the goals of those actions. If two agents have the same goal, and the same information about their environment, then one agent could be judged as more intelligent than another, if it achieves that goal by deploying less resource. Where, for example, resource could be measured in terms of available energy.

Imagine you have the goal of recovering an object from a known position in an environment. Perhaps you have accidentally kicked a ball over a fence. Under our definition, it would be more intelligent to take the most direct route to retrieve the ball, rather than a circuitous route, because the direct route uses less energy. But what if environment was hostile? What if the ball had landed in the garden of an angry neighbour. Perhaps now it would be more intelligent to observe the environment first, or to take a circuitous route that provides a degree of cover. The possibility of invoking the neighbour's anger may result in greater energy expenditure over time. Much is dependent on the goal (ball retrieval) but also the context. Hence,

to determine which action is best we now need to have a model of our environment. A way of predicting the consequences of our actions. So although the definition is fairly simple, selecting the most intelligent action before events have unfolded can be very challenging.

While we'll think of intelligence as primarily the property of actions given a defined goal within a given context, we will also use the noun in the form "an intelligence" to refer to an entity that is capable of performing goal driven actions based on information

# Some Necessary Components

Intelligence requires prediction about the environment and its possible evolving states. They are, thus, essential to choose actions to achieve our goal with the minimum energy outlay. In other words, the ability to predict is fundamental to the ability to plan. Therefore, rather than focussing on the details of planning, we will start by considering the requirements for prediction.

The concept of a predictive intelligence was expressed beautifully by Laplace.

This idea is known as Laplace's demon. Laplace's demon underpins a concept known as the mechanistic, or clockwork, Universe. A world in which everything is predictable. In practice there are three obstacles to overcome in achieving it.

1.  … *an intelligence which could comprehend all the forces by which nature is animated* …

    This is the *modelling problem*.

    In practice we don't have full knowledge of the Universe, we use models. A model is an abstraction of the real system. One which represents particular aspects of the system for us. The word also implies an idealization of the real system. We cannot operate directly on the real world for our predictions. In practice we operate with idealized version.

2.  … *and the respective situation of the beings that compose it* …

    This is the *data problem*.

    The data problem is that even if we have a functional model of how the our universe works, to make predictions of how the universe will evolve, we have to understand what state it's in currently. For example Newton's laws tell us how a ball will bounce, but to make predictions of where it's going to be next, we need to know where it is now.

    Unfortunately, we almost never have *complete* data, indeed our challenges are characterized by missing almost all data, almost all the time. Intelligence has to perform well from a position of *ignorance* about aspects of the system.

3.  *… an intelligence sufficiently vast to submit these data to analysis …*

    This is the *computation problem*.

    Even with full data and a complete model, predictions may be intractable because they can involve an exponentially increasing number of computations.

Ironically, despite the power of this view and the extent to which it captures even a modern understanding of intelligence, Laplace was actually describing his demon as a straw man. The quote is taken from Laplace's essay on *probabilities*. Laplace knew that combining these three elements was not possible. In a complex Universe such as ours we cannot hope to resolve these requirements, the modelling problem, the data problem, and the computational problem. Laplace's idea was to use *probability* to deal with our ignorance. The universe is laced with a significant doses of uncertainty. We will not have full data, we will not have an accurate model and, most of the times, we will not have the necessary computational power to resolve our predictions in a timely manner. So these three pillars of intelligence need to be deployed with a dose of skepticism about the predictions they make.

## Communication

Model, data, computation, and measured skepticism,[^2] are four components of intelligence. However, there is yet a fifth aspect that is missing. That is the communication of the results of such an analysis, or partial analysis. The ability to share information to ensure that a community of collaborating entities can take intelligent actions. Communication is a side effect of our definition of intelligence. It is a case of circles within circles. It is a way of acquiring more data, sharing, compute, *and* better modelling the environment, because those entities with which we communicate often perform changes in our environment. If they themselves change the environment, and we have the ability to understand their intent, then any communication we receive from them will be an aid to decision making.

Even a simple intelligence, which doesn't communicate explicitly, will communicate through its observable actions. This communication may begin as uni-directional, but if we respond to our understanding of that intelligence with actions of our own, we are also providing information about our own intent. If the other-intelligence becomes sophisticated enough to attempt to interpret our actions, then a form of bi-directional communication has already been established.

Of course, once bi-directional communication is established, then increasing the rate of communication could also improve our ability to understand intent, and therefore allow more intelligent actions.

## Embodiment Factors

Computation underlies prediction. Communication aids in acquisition of data and refining prediction. We will now argue that a fundamental property of any intelligence is the ratio of its ability to compute to its ability to communicate. Without the ability to communicate, an intelligence operates as the proverbial falling tree, it makes no sound. Such an intelligence would be totally *locked-in*.

A locked-in intelligence is embodied, it is constrained. It may have the ability to compute many predictions and resolve a course of action, but it does not have the ability to share all those predictions with the outside world. The nature of that intelligence is therefore more embodied. Conversely, if an intelligence's ability to communicate is high, if it can share all its thoughts and imaginings,[^3] then that entity is arguably no longer distinct from those which it is sharing with. It could be thought of as merely a sensor. For high ratios of compute to communicate, we have high embodiment, we therefore define this ratio as an intelligence's embodiment factor.

$$\text{embodiment\ factor} = \frac{\text{compute\ power}}{\text{communication\ bandwidth}}$$

# Humans

Let us now compare humans and computers using the embodiment factor, we start with the human.

For humans, our maximum rate of communication via talking or reading,[^4] has been estimated to be 60 bits[^5] per second \[2\]. In contrast, a modern computer can exhibit communication rates measured in gigabits per second or around a hundred million times faster.

To compute our ratio, we now need to estimate the computational power of the human mind in bits per second. This is hard to estimate. But as a proxy, let's consider estimates of how much computing power it would take to simulate a brain. One estimate from Ananthanarayanan et al \[3\] suggests that it would require over an exaflop[^6] to perform a full simulation of the human brain. That's around the power of our fifty fastest[^7] super-computers today.[^8] A desktop computer has much less power, typically around 10 gigaflops.

The embodiment factor of the computer is around 10 whereas the human is around $10^{16}$. Embodiment factors mean that we can only distribute an extremely small fraction of what we compute. In the table we use rough order of magnitude approximations to the figures we've mentioned in the main text.

|             | Machine        | Human         |
|:------------|:---------------|:--------------|
|             | Machine        | Human         |
| compute     | \~10 gigaflops | \~ 1 exaflop? |
| communicate | \~1 gigbit/s   | \~ 100 bit/s  |
|             | \~ 10          | \~ 10^16^     |

The embodiment factor of the computer (around 10) vs the human (around 10\^{16}). Embodiment factors mean that we can only distribute an extremely small fraction of what we compute. In the table we use rough order of magnitude approximations to the figures we've mentioned in the main text.

In terms of our ability to share our states of mind, to share in all our motivations and whims, we are extremely limited. Our actions can be observed but we are unable to communicate all our thoughts.

As an analogy, we could think of human intelligence as an extremely powerful engine. We might think of it as a Formula 1 racing engine. But, we can't communicate all our inferences. So don't think of us as a normal F1 racing car, but replace the normal oversized tyres with tyres of the width of bicycle wheels. Our limited ability to communicate means we cannot deploy our power on the track directly. We must demonstrate extraordinary control in deploying that power if we are to make our communication effective. Imagine the dances such vehicles would perform as they completed laps of the cognitive circuit.

## An Intellectual Dance

Our power is intellectual power, and because of the vital importance of communication in intelligent decision making, it would make sense that intellectual power was also deployed in making the most sensible use of the low bandwidth communication we have.

The challenge is to make use of a limited resource (the bandwidth of our communication) to achieve our intermediate goal of better understanding the intent of different actors in our environment. This allows us to, in turn, select our own actions to better achieve our ends.

This is consistent with our definition of intelligence. The limited resource is now the bandwidth of communication channel. Intelligent use of that bandwidth involves deciding what to communicate and when to communicate it given our prediction and model of the environment and other agents in it.

For a community of embodied intelligences, the locked-in nature of their intelligences requires that each maintains an independent model of the environment: they do not have the bandwidth to access a communal model. If we think of these embodied models as an internalised film or play, then each of us develops the script of life with our own independent playwright and production crew. These scripts are tailored to reflect our personal concerns and our personal desires. Each of us is a director. We can see our independent self-models as stories with actors, and each actor maps onto a real entity in the world. The storyboard is our circumstance. Within these models, all our friends and foes are accounted for. These stories operate at an emotional level and a rational level.

In these circumstances, communication reduces to a reconciliation of plot lines among us. In the real world, we express ourselves in many ways. Communication requires that each of us develop our own plotlines according to how we see the real world evolving. We tune our plot lines to resonate better with reality. And in that way, we are also ready to orchestrate our goals.

### The Hot Drink

In March I had dinner with Beau Willimon, the playwright and screenwriter. We were talking about communication. He described to me a scene. He told me that I had known that my partner's mum was seriously ill. He told me that I arrive home to find my partner sitting silent on the sofa. He told me that as soon as I arrive I go to the kitchen and make my partner's favourite hot drink. He described that at the moment my partner hears the kettle boil, at that moment she burst into tears, because she then knows that I knew what had happened. And she knows I am doing the thing she wants most, the unspoken comfort of a hot drink. And she knows in a very deep way that I am close to her, and she knows exactly what she had lost by losing her mother who was also close to her.

This scene can all be understood without a word of dialogue. Indeed the absence of dialogue is critical. It makes it an emotionally powerful scene. The scene relies on each of us each knowing the relationship between partners. It relies on each of us knowing, or at least imagining, how the loss of a loved one feels. It relies on us having a personal narrative (or self-model) and a deep understanding of those who are close to us. If we watch this scene being played on film, it effects us because even though it's about other people, we can relate to those people and their emotions. The depth and quality of the communication in this scene comes through understating and understanding. By understating the interaction, by making the hot drink, there is a demonstration that communication is not necessary, there is a demonstration that the two actors are in tune, even without a word passing. The depth of understanding means the actions can be simple, the mental equivalent of a parity check,[^9] but the meaning is deep. These are the exquisite lengths to which we have been driven to overcome the bandwidth limitations we are faced with. Another example is credited to Ernest Hemingway, the six word novel, "For sale: baby shoes, never worn".

## Self Modelling and Dual Process Theories

We do not understand how the brain works. So cognition is inscrutable for us. We do not yet understand it in terms of its hardware (e.g. the interconnectivity of the brain, the connectome \[4\]) or its software (e.g. the algorithms or principles by which it represents knowledge \[6\]), . Therefore, for the purposes of this discussion we will limit ourselves to analogy and fairly simple qualitative models of cognition. In particular we will make use of dual process theories \[7\]. Dual process theories divide our cognition into two parts. For the level of granularity we are considering in this paper we will conflate these different analogies and models together. Stretching back we have Freud's separation of our psyche into the Ego and the Id \[8\]. Whereas more recently Daniel Kahneman writes lucidly about this separation in "Thinking Fast and Slow" \[9\] where the processes are characterized as System 1 (the sub-conscious) and System 2 (the conscious). But they are often painted more colourfully through analogy, for example the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt \[10\] refers to them as an elephant (System 1) and a rider (System 2). This analogy is meant to reflect the fact that the sub-conscious (elephant) is more powerful and in control, despite the fact that the conscious part (the rider) believes itself to be in charge. The sports psychologist Steve Peters \[11\] calls them the chimp (System 1) and the human (System 2). Camerer et al suggest that the human brain is just a monkey brain (System 1) with a press secretary (System 2) ) \[12\], an analogy that captures nicely System 2's role in post-facto rationalization. Even religious theories separate us into the flesh (System 1) and the spirit (System 2) or the body (System 1) and the soul (System 2).

Each of these models indicates our characteristic of having a more base form of behaviour (System 1) that is regulated, or justified, by our conscious selves (System 2). In the original German, Freud referred to the psyche as the Es and the Ich, or the "it" and the "I". Each of the analogies associates a more human part alongside System 2 (the rider, the human, the press secretary, the "I"). Whereas the sub-conscious is seen as more animalian (the chimp, the elephant, the monkey brain, the "it").

How do these dual process models of cognition fit within the framework of intelligence we have described?

### Dual process models of cognition

| The sub-conscious | System 1 | the "it", the chimp, the monkey brain,   |
|:------------------|:---------|:-----------------------------------------|
| The sub-conscious | System 1 | the "it", the chimp, the monkey brain,   |
|                   |          | the elephant, the flesh, the body        |
| The conscious     | System 2 | the "I", the human, the press secretary, |
|                   |          | the rider, the spirit, the soul          |

Dual process models of cognition

One possibility is that part of the nature of System 2, the system that we align so closely with the human in the analogies, is to act as a self-model.

Even if there are no other intelligences in our environment, to be predictive about the way events will play out, we need to have a model of ourselves. A model that allows us to predict what we would do given a certain set of circumstances. A sense of self. Such a model would need to be able to imagine circumstances, explore feelings, and predict responses. It would need to be able to predict our own response to what we might experience in the future.

Each of the dual process theories and analogies described above agrees that System 2 is dominated by System 1. That when we are forced to think quickly, the sub-conscious dominates. Haidt's analogy captures this well. The rider (System 2) thinks it's in charge, and even plans the elephant's (System 1) day. But at any given moment the elephant may choose to wander off in to the forest and there's little the rider can do about it.

The idea of the monkey brain with the press secretary emphasizes the importance of the nature of communication between entities. Selfish motives may not be best shared with a wider group as they will lead to a lack of trust. Whatever underlying motivations may be arising in System 1, System 2 as press secretary is likely to present them in the best light possible. In any environment of different intelligences, there will be drives towards conflict and drives towards co-operation. Some potential for dishonesty in our self model is therefore unsurprising, but equally it would be unsurprising if other intelligences were well tuned for detecting such dishonesty.

## Sense of Self

The tendency to associate System 2 with the human, with "I", reflects the fact that it embodies our preferred view of ourselves. If System 2 gives us our sense of self, then it's natural that it gives us also a sense of freedom. Our conscious mind clearly has a strong role in planning. Imagine the converse, imagine our conscious selves had a sense of pre-determinism. This would be prohibitive for planning. "What if?" questions would be prohibited by our underlying knowledge that our actions were predetermined given the circumstances. Whether or not they are, it remains important for our System 2 to believe they are not. This sense of control is an important part of the "User Illusion" \[13\]. Just as the rider of the elephant has to believe he controls the elephant if he is to plan a tomorrow's work in the forest.

Note that any self-model necessarily has to be a approximation to our true nature, it cannot capture our entire complexity because it sits within us. To be 100% predictive of ourselves, our self-models need to fully replicate ourself, i.e. to distort Laplace's language our self-models must contain "all the forces by which we are animated". But if we place the model inside the system, then the model must contain itself. So in the manner of the snake trying to swallow its own tail, it actually has to predict its own behaviour, as well as the behaviour of our wider selves. So it is a computational Russian doll, to sit within us it must be smaller than us, so it cannot represent all of us. This recursive effect means that necessarily, our sense of self must be an approximation of what we are.

One symptom of that requirement may be the sense of separation between our minds and our bodies that characterizes Cartesian dualism. It seems necessary for our self-model to believe it is in control.[^10] This necessity and that could lead to the disconnnectedness that dualism focuses on. The same disconnection that causes people to think of their spirit as sperate from their flesh \[13\].

Many of the characteristics of our conscious selves may emerge as a consequence of our high embodiment factor. If I'm driving and following another car, I can judge the mental state of the driver by the way they are driving. Are they hesitant because they are looking to park or are they hesitant because they are a young driver? Are they angry or are they late for work? I can form these inferences because I have an understanding of myself, and I can project that understanding onto others. We have a shared base of experience, and even with minimal communication (the flashing of lights, the hoot of a horn) I can imagine the other driver's mental state. I can do this for me and, and I can do this for others.

In our society there is a tension between our individual goals, and shared goals. So this level of understanding of each other also comes with pitfalls. We withhold information, to better protect ourselves, if we think there is dissonance between motivations or goals across the group. We share more information if there is a relationship of trust between group members.

In summary, we have argued that the nature of our intelligence is largely dictated by what we've defined as the embodiment factor, the ratio of our ability to process information to our ability to communicate information. With humans (and other animals) the major constraint is the very limited ability to pass information between intelligences. We've suggested that our complex cognitive processes are a direct result of the need we have to make best use of the limited bandwidth we have for communication.

# The Computer

The complexity of our communication, and the limited channels with which we express ourselves, is arguably the driver of much that is beautiful in our society. Much that we admire in each other, in our culture, and in our own sense of individual identity and freedom. It could even be argued that consciousness itself is merely arising because of our inability to directly communicate our mental state. The many plays we each direct in our minds would not need actors or other imaginings if we could simply synchronize their scenes with the touch of a button.

Our computers are in a very different position. They can communicate almost as rapidly as they compute. If the human brain is an F1 car with bicycle wheels, then the more lowly machine intelligence we have developed has far less cognitive power, but it can deploy it far more efficiently. To use our race car analogy, it is like a well balanced go-kart. Small engine, but sensible tyres. Machines can deploy their intelligence through rapid inter-communication. This efficiency means that in many tasks they are already overtaking us, and they are deploying their intelligence in ways which we find difficult to understand because they are so different architecturally. They don't conform to our evolved understanding of how other intelligences should behave. What would we think if we replaced one of the actors in Beau Willimon's hot drink scene with a computer. What would we think if it was our a digital assistant, rather than our partner, that made us a coffee in that moment? Would that be spooky or comforting? The power of the scene is centred around shared experience, experiences that we, arguably, can't share with a computer. If the entire scene was between two computers. Then it wouldn't make sense at all, because if one computer was to form such an emotional attachment to another, it could simply download itself onto the other and have a permament companion.

## Modern Computer Algorithms

In comparison to our own intelligence, the machine intelligence of today is data inefficient: it requires vast quantities of data to recreate what humans can do with very little data. Current state of the art visual systems are trained on many millions of images \[14\], the AlphaGo \[15\] program which beat Lee Seedol had played over 30 million games of Go before facing him (more than any human could play in a lifetime). But although our machine intelligences are very inefficient, they have become effective because they have high bandwidth communication and now they have access to all the data they need. The machine intelligence technology of today is entirely dependent on our computers' ability to access our data.

Our modern learning algorithms are ignorant of context and are mainly driven by fairly simple goals like guessing whether or not you'll click on a particular advert \[16\]. Or whether or not your face is in a particular photo \[17\]. Having understood their simple goal, these cognitive go-karts can monotonously complete laps of their information processing circuits extremely efficiently. In contrast, humans, with our over powered, locked-in intelligence, seem to aimlessly pirouette and collide like a rugby club production of The Nutcracker.

Algorithms are operating according to a different set of rules. So how do we constrain the operations of the machines? How do we regulate their interaction with data so that they do not transgress our freedoms?

In the real world we develop relationships of trust with our friends and family that enable us to share our innermost thoughts and failings. Whether its our health, our political beliefs or our sexual desires. We are protected by our limited bandwidth of communication, our bonds of trust, our tendency to forget things and the finite nature of our lives. By retaining something of our *self* to *our* self, we retain freedom of action because there are motivations which are known only to us.

Modern algorithms simply watch our decision making. They monitor our inputs, and they monitor our actions. They use mathematical models to reconstruct the responses we'll make given the known inputs. They emulate our intelligence, not through a deep understanding of motivation, but through large scale data acquisition and clever reconstruction. It turns out, that if you have large storage and a lot of data, then you don't need the internal actor-driven model of human behaviour, because with sufficient data we also turn out to be very predictable \[18\]. Machine predictions about humans are made in a fundamentally different way from those that humans make. They are purely data driven, and since our data reflects our prejudices, so do the machine's predictions. Machine predictions are also context-constrained, they reconstruct on the basis of the information they're given. That won't include the entire basis of our decision making, so while they can store more data, they are fixed in terms of what they take into account. This makes them brittle: they will fail when placed in unfamiliar circumstance.

The algorithms we develop don't have a sentient nature, if we were to characterise them according to the dual process model of cognition, they are data driven, input-output. They see then do. In Kahneman's parlance, they think fast. If they see data that is biased against a particular race, they are racist. They don't incorporate contextual regularizers like we do. They also operate below our cognitive radar. We occasionally see the outcome of their decision, with an advert placed or a loan application denied, but we cannot relate to the computer in the way that we relate to each other.

## System Zero

The algorithms we create can also exploit our own cognitive biases. Many of them are designed to change our behaviour. To make us buy something or read something. They improve their effectiveness at achieving this by running large scale tests across populations containing millions. They explore what is most effective at encouraging us to click an ad, to make a friend, or to read an article. They adapt our digital environments to encourage more of the behaviour they prefer.

In recent electoral cycles there has been a lot of concern about Fake News. But arguably the real story is how did we develop social communities where such Fake News can pass unquestioned, and even be celebrated?

Such communities develop because many of us, at a superficial level, seem to prefer to interact with people who reinforce our own prejudices. Even if, at a deeper level, we each want to overcome prejudice and improve ourselves. When we are thinking fast, we choose friends and read material that validates us.

Once we are in such communities we are happy to read and share news articles that further confirm those prejudices, regardless of underlying truth. Our cognitive regularlizers are overwhelmed by the resulting syrupy harmony in our social set.

Note that there was no grand plan to bring this unhappy circumstance about. It is a consequence of machine intelligence fulfilling our superficial desires. It sees that we drink from the syrup, so it feeds us more. This is non-sentient, reactive intelligence. It is even more disturbing because of its interconnectedness. I call it System Zero because relating it to a dual process model, it sits underneath the elephant, and therefore under the rider. It interacts with our subconscious and is not sufficiently embodied to be represented as an actor in our mental play of life. But nevertheless, it is there, effecting all our evolving story lines, and so pervasive that it is accommodating very many of our personal elephants at the same time. It is the proverbial turtle on which our world of elephants resides. And on the back of that turtle each of our elephants feels an artifice of freedom, oblivious to the movements beneath. So the rider continues to feel in control despite the fundamental change of direction. Ironically, all the time we are actually steering the turtle, it feeds on our unregulated subconscious desires.

Our own freedom of action fundamentally depends on the high embodiment factor of our intelligence. System Zero now acts as a new high bandwidth channel to limit that freedom of action. And it does so while operating beyond our cognitive horizons.

# Next Steps

Machine intelligence may be undermining our cognitive landscape driving us into what R. Scott Bakker has referred to as a crash space,[^11] \[19\] a cognitive environment which has moved beyond that we are mentally equipped to deal with.

There are, of course, many advantages to an information society. But to fully reap their rewards we need to be more cognisant of the perils. With that motivation, this paper has presented a fairly dystopian perspective of contemporary machine intelligence. There are already, and there will continue to be, many benefits for society from machine learning. As a researcher in machine learning, I have long been, and will continue to be, inspired by those benefits. But those benefits will not be realised if we do not overcome the pitfalls.

One objective of this article is to debunk certain myths about machine intelligene that can dominate the debate. In particular, there is a great fear of 'sentience' in our artificial intelligence systems. There is concern for the death of the species through the creation of a sentient entity with goals that are not aligned to ours \[20\]. But sentience is not required for this to be brought about. System Zero is already aligned with our goals. It's just that it's aligned with our subconscious goals. And because System Zero is not sentient it cannot regularize with the necessary context. Therein lies the problem. It is fully aligned with what we want, but not what we aspire to. It gives us friends that agree with us and fake news that confirms our prejudice. System Zero short-circuits the complex connections we have evolved between our selves, it reflects the needs of flesh and body, and it undermines our spirit and our soul.

These challenges are addressable. Three particular actions stand out.

1.  Encourage a wider societal understanding of how closely our privacy is interconnected with our personal freedom. When we share our data with non-sentient intelligenes, they reflect back at us a caricature of ourselves that is driven by that aspect that we have variously characterised as "it", "the elephant", "the chimp", the "monkey brain", "the body" or "the flesh".

2.  Develop a much better understanding of our own cognitive biases and characterise our own intelligence better. This would allow us to develop machine intelligences that are sensitive to our foibles, rather than exploitative of them. System Zero emerges when we develop intelligences that are incentivised by short term reward, the most efficient way of achieving such reward is to exploit our cognitive biases for greater profit. This exploitation also occurs without understanding, because machines can unpick our cognitive biases through large scale experiment, but yet they are unable to relate their discoveries to us. They do this relentlessly driven by our data and society's profit motive. By better understanding our conscious selves we can better reflect our own sensitivities in the machine.

3.  Develop a sentient aspect to our machine intelligences which allows them to explain actions and justify decision making. Force them to do so in terms which humans understand. This will bring these intelligences back into our cognitive ecosystem. We should make machine intelligence self aware, not so it rises against us, but so that it works with us. Self awareness is the mechanism for high level communication with humans. It is required so that the machines can also be represented as actors within our mental plays.

As so often when faced with new challenges, the right reaction is not to generate fear of the unknown, but understanding of the known and research into the unknown. Innovation continues to be the watchword, but innovation in an enlightened society. Innovation in a society that understands the issues and the consequences. There is a need for more research and more education. We require better understanding of ourselves and our society. Our society requires better understanding of machine intelligence. Since such understanding has always been at the core of the human condition, the challenges of machine intelligence should be seen as an opportunity. We have crossed the Rubicon, now we must march on Rome.

# Acknowledgements

The author thanks Mariariosaria Taddeo, Tom Stafford and R. Scott Bakker for comments on an earlier draft and Beau Willimon for permission to use the hot drink story.

# Bibliography

\[1\] P. S. Laplace, *Essai philosophique sur les probabilités*, 2nd ed. Paris: Courcier, 1814.

\[2\] C. Reed and N. I. Durlach, "Note on information transfer rates in human communication," *Presence Teleoperators & Virtual Environments*, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 509–518, 1998.

\[3\] R. Ananthanarayanan, S. K. Esser, H. D. Simon, and D. S. Modha, "The cat is out of the bag: Cortical simulations with $10^9$ neurons, $10^{13}$ synapses," in *Proceedings of the conference on high performance computing networking, storage and analysis - sc '09*, 2009.

\[4\] P. Hagmann, "From diffusion MRI to brain connectomics," PhD thesis.

\[5\] O. Sporns, G. Tononi, and R. Kötter, "The human connectome: A structural description of the human brain," *PLOS Computational Biology*, vol. 1, no. 4, Sep. 2005.

\[6\] J. B. Tenenbaum, C. Kemp, T. L. Griffiths, and N. D. Goodman, "How to grow a mind: Statistics, structure, and abstraction," *Science*, vol. 331, no. 6022, pp. 1279–1285, 2011.

\[7\] K. Frankish and J. Evans, "The duality of mind: An historical perspective," in *In two minds: Dual processes and beyond*, J. Evans and K. Frankish, Eds. 2009, pp. 1–29.

\[8\] S. Freud, *Das ich und das es*. Internationaler Psychoanalytischer Verlag, 1923.

\[9\] D. Kahneman, *Thinking fast and slow*. 2011.

\[10\] J. Haidt, *The happiness hypothesis*. 2006.

\[11\] S. Peters, *The chimp paradox*. 2012.

\[12\] C. F. Camerer, G. Loewenstein, and D. Prelec, "Neuroeconomics: Why economics needs brains," *Scandinavian Journal of Economics*, vol. 106, no. 3, pp. 555–579, 2004.

\[13\] D. Dennett, "Consciousness explained," 1991.

\[14\] O. Russakovsky *et al.*, "ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge," *International Journal of Computer Vision (IJCV)*, vol. 115, no. 3, pp. 211–252, 2015.

\[15\] D. Silver *et al.*, "Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search," *Nature*, vol. 529, no. 7587, pp. 484–489, 2016–1AD.

\[16\] H. B. McMahan *et al.*, "Ad click prediction: A view from the trenches," in *Proceedings of the 19th acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (kdd)*, 2013.

\[17\] Y. Taigman, M. Yang, M. Ranzato, and L. Wolf, "DeepFace: Closing the gap to human-level performance in face verification," in *2014 ieee conference on computer vision and pattern recognition*, 2014, pp. 1701–1708.

\[18\] M. Kosinski, D. Stillwell, and T. Graepel, "Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior," *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, vol. 110, no. 15, pp. 5802–5805, 2013.

\[19\] R. S. Bakker, "Crash space," *Midwest Studies in Philosophy*, vol. 39, pp. 186–204, 2015.

\[20\] N. Bostrom, *Superintelligence: Paths, dangers, strategies*, 1st ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2014.

[^1]: This work done while at the University of Sheffield.

[^2]: Here we are using measured skepticism to refer to the ability to deal with uncertainty in a balanced way, an acceptance that the picture may not be complete. Absolute skepticism would be the refusal to accept any information we are given, i.e. a complete lack of trust in the data or the model.

[^3]: Of course, here we are presuming that there are other entities capable of receiving and interpreting this communication.

[^4]: Here we are neglecting visual forms of communication, but this estimate will serve for our rough purposes.

[^5]: Here we are using *bits* in the Shannon information theoretic sense, which defines one bit of information is the amount of information you gain from knowing the result of a fair coin toss.

[^6]: A flop is a computer-centric way of measuring computation. It stands for a **fl**oating point **op**eration. In other words a computation on a floating point number, which in many modern representations contains 64 bits. An exaflop is $10^{18}$ flops.

[^7]: As of today, the world's fastest super computer is operating at around 34 petaflops by some benchmarks.

[^8]: And yet, we cannot simulate the brain, that is because we have not solved the modelling problem, we do not understand yet how the brain works.

[^9]: In technical terms a parity check is a simple check used to ensure that the message sent was the same as the message received. It requires little information to encode (only one bit) but it gives confidence that the sender and receiver are aligned.

[^10]: To see why, just imagine the converse. Imagine that the self-model was aware that we are subservient to circumstance. In this case when thinking ahead, when asked to suggest how events might pan out, the self model would always answer with "I don't know, it would depend on the precise circumstance", which might be true, but it's not particularly useful. It would seem more useful for the self-model to believe it would actually be in control, so that it could rise above circumstance. That being the case our self-model can always give an answer. But by the same token it implies our self-model would have an over-inflated sense of the extent to which it can dictate events.

[^11]: Roughly speaking, a crash space is an environment where our internal models, our psyche, is no longer fit for purpose. In this environment Bakker speculates that human behaviour would degrade very rapidly. In the language of this paper, the failure of our internal predictive models would lead us to a situation where "all cognitive bets are off". Bakker's paper on Crash Space is driven by the notion of wiring the brain, physical implants within the brain that make a direct change on way in which we receive information. System Zero differs slightly in that it is not a conscious intervention, but just systemic side effect of large scale interaction with the machine.


abstract: This brief review deals with recent interest in the prospects of observing a Massive Metastable Charged Particle (MMCP) at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), and measuring its properties there. We discuss the motivation for scenarios with MMCPs in a phenomenological context, focusing on supersymmetric models that allow us to explore the expected experimental signatures of MMCPs at the LHC. We review current bounds and give estimates of the LHC reach in terms of MMCP masses.
address: Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB3 0WA, UK
  email@example.com
author: ARE R. RAKLEV
title: MASSIVE METASTABLE CHARGED (S)PARTICLES AT THE LHC

# Introduction

With the turn-on of the LHC, the High Energy Physics community will have access to energies that have hitherto been un-probed in lab-based experiments. It is then perhaps natural that at this time there is a plethora of ideas for what New Physics might hide at these energies. Three main ideas seem to underpin most of the work currently being done: i) the need for a viable Dark Matter candidate, ii) the want of an explanation of the hierarchy problem in the Standard Model, and iii) the desire for a Grand Unified Theory (GUT).

Solutions to any one of these problems seem to require an extension of the particle content of the Standard Model, and such extensions often predict a rich New Physics sector at the TeV scale. This is not surprising, since both the Weakly Interacting Massive Particle (WIMP) interpretation of Dark Matter and the scale of electro-weak symmetry breaking point to this energy range, if not even lower.

In exploring the TeV scale with the LHC, most suggested New Physics searches focus on the decay products of short-lived resonances. Weakly interacting Dark Matter candidates, assumed stable, appear only as missing energy signatures. However, several mechanisms are known that could result in Massive Metastable Charged Particles (MMCPs), [^1] with a broad range of possible lifetimes. The long lifetime for these particles is often intimately connected with the stability of a Dark Matter candidate. The spectacular signatures of such models and their great physics potential has attracted a lot of attention over the last years. Indeed, the recent popularity of MMCPs is perhaps best gauged by the multitude of names they have been given in the literature: Stable Massive Particles (SMPs), Long-Lived Charged Massive Particles (CHAMPs), Heavy Stable Charged Particles (HSCPs), Charged Massive Stable Particles (CMSPs), and so on.

To focus our discussion within the limited space available in this brief review we will use supersymmetric models to illustrate the most important properties of MMCPs at the LHC. There are certainly many interesting possibilities beyond supersymmetry; a more complete listing of MMCPs candidates, that demonstrate their seemingly ubiquitous nature in New Physics models, can be found in Section 2 of the excellent review by Fairbairn *et al.* given as Ref. . Nevertheless, in terms of the expected LHC phenomenology, most other candidates are very similar to one or more supersymmetric MMCPs, with the exception of MMCPs with magnetic charge or fractional electric charges. We will also refrain from any extensive discussion of the cosmological implications of MMCPs, although these do contribute in setting bounds on MMCP properties.

We shall begin this review by looking briefly at possible mechanisms behind the stability of massive particles, exemplified by supersymmetric models that give MMCPs, in Section , before we discuss the experimental signatures and issues at colliders in Section . We then review the current bounds on sparticle MMCPs in Section  and give our expectations for the LHC in terms of the discovery reach and the measurement of MMCP properties in Section , before we conclude.

# Massive Metastable Charged Particles in Supersymmetry

In the Standard Model (SM) we have a wide selection of different types of long-lived particles: the stable elementary — or so we believe — electron, the metastable elementary muon, and (very) long-lived composite particles such as neutrons and protons. These SM particles illustrate very well various possibilities for stability mechanisms:

The electron has no lighter electrically charged state in the SM, while the proton, although decays such as $p\to\pi^0e^+$ are kinematically allowed, is protected by the conservation of lepton- and baryon-number. It is interesting to note the different origins of these conservation laws; charge conservation is the result of a local gauge symmetry, while lepton- and baryon-number are global non-gauge accidental symmetries of the SM that can be broken by higher dimensional operators. Clearly both mechanisms can be used to provide MMCPs in New Physics scenarios.

In the second mechanism metastability comes about through small couplings to kinematically allowed decay products. Very small couplings on their own raises the question of fine tuning in the theory. However, an effective coupling can be small due to large differences in scales between the decaying particle, and some mediator of the decay. This is the case for the muon whose decay proceeds through an effective four-fermion dimension-six operator with coupling $g^2m_\mu^2/8m_W^2$.

Another option is the lack of phase space for an otherwise allowed decay. Again mass degeneracies may seem fine tuned for elementary particles, less so for composite particles that get their mass from the same dynamics. In the SM the neutron decays as $n\to
p^+e^-\bar\nu_e$, where the available kinetic energy of $0.8$ MeV to the final state is tiny compared to the neutron mass, giving a very long lifetime. The mass degeneracy between the proton and the neutron is a fortunate consequence of QCD dynamics. Stability mechanisms that are not seen in the SM particle spectrum, have been suggested. Topological defects such as magnetic monopoles and Q-balls are MMCP candidates. These distinguish themselves by the possibility of having much larger charges than other MMCPs.

In the following discussion of supersymmetric MMCPs we will tacitly assume that R-parity is conserved for the scenarios considered unless stated otherwise. This conserved quantum number, corresponding to point (i) above, ensures that sparticles can only decay into other lighter sparticles, resulting in a completely stable Lightest Supersymmetric Particle (LSP), which as a possible Dark Matter candidate needs to be neutral. This also prevents the rapid decay of an MMCP candidate into SM particles.

We can broadly classify all MMCPs on the basis of their electric and colour charges. This distinction will be important for the discussion of collider phenomenology in Section . For the $N=1$ supersymmetric spectrum we find sleptons and charginos in the first class, while the colour charged possibilities are gluinos and squarks. After production, colour charged MMCPs immediately hadronize into so-called R-hadrons with additional quarks and/or gluons, and may or may not acquire an electrical charge in the process. Several models exist in the literature that attempt to describe this hadronization process. For a colour triplet MMCP the possible composition of the R-hadron is that of a meson- or baryon-like state, *e.g. *the neutral R-meson $\tilde t_1\bar d$ or the positively charged R-baryon $\tilde t_1 dd$, while a colour octet may also form a glueball-like state with a gluon, $\tilde gg$. R-meson production is dominant in current hadronization models, and the equivalence of up- and down-quarks means that roughly half should be charged.

An R-hadron is expected to be surrounded by a small amount of hadronic energy from the hadronization process and QCD radiation from the massive particle, forming a jet-structure in the direction of the MMCP. However, the energy of the jet is limited in magnitude due to the large mass of the MMCP, and the R-hadron is expected to carry more than 80% of the jet energy in the vast majority of events.

Let us now briefly discuss the individual MMCP candidates in supersymmetry that have recieved the most attention in the literature. The chargino has mostly been considered in scenarios with Anomaly Mediated Supersymmetry Breaking (AMSB). Here the gaugino masses have a strict hierarchy $|M_2|\ll |M_1|\ll |M_3|$, so that the lightest neutralino, which is the LSP, has a dominant wino component, and the lightest chargino, also dominantly wino, is only marginally heavier. The mass difference is in the sub-GeV range, but due to model constraints it is typically above the pion mass for natural parameter values.[^2] This means that the decay $\tilde\chi_1^\pm\to\tilde\chi_1^0\pi^\pm$ is very important to the collider signature. The chargino decay length $c\tau$ is relatively restricted and lies between 7 cm at 160 MeV mass difference and 1.6 cm at 230 MeV. For a phenomenological study of a minimal AMSB scenario at the LHC see Ref. .

It is of course possible to ignore the supersymmetry breaking motivation and resulting constraints of AMSB in the generic Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM), setting $|M_2|\;\raisebox{-0.9ex}{$\textstyle\stackrel{\textstyle<}
           {\sim}$}\;|M_1|$ and $|M_2|\ll |\mu|$ by hand at the weak scale to provide a wino LSP, degenerate with the chargino. In this case the mass difference can become even smaller, depending on the parameter tuning, allowing for substantially larger decay lengths dominated by the three-body decay $\tilde\chi_1^\pm\to\tilde\chi_1^0e^\pm\nu_e$. These are easily hundreds of meters when the mass difference is less than the pion mass, making the chargino appear stable in the LHC detectors. Another option for a chargino MMCP is to have $M_{1,2}\gg |\mu|$, giving a degenerate higgsino LSP and chargino, which can even be realised in the focus-point region of the Constrained Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (CMSSM). When we later discuss the LHC discovery potential for a chargino MMCP, we will differentiate between the wino and higgsino cases.

In scenarios with Gauge Mediated Symmetry Breaking (GMSB) and in supergravity (SUGRA) inspired models, the gravitino may be the LSP. Any sfermion Next-to-Lightest Supersymmetric Particle (NLSP) has no choice but to decay to the gravitino, and may thus naturally be metastable due to the small effective coupling to the gravitino. For GMSB the suppression is given by $\sqrt{\left<F\right>}$, the effective supersymmetry breaking scale, and may be as low as $10-100$ TeV. In SUGRA models the suppression is set by the reduced Planck mass $M_P=2.4\cdot 10^{18}$ GeV. This leads to a great range of possible decay lengths for a sfermion NLSP. In GMSB scenarios this has been estimated as, $$\label{eq:gmsb}
c\tau_{\tilde f}=10^{-2} \left(\frac{100~{\rm GeV}}{m_{\tilde f}}\right)^5
\left(\frac{\sqrt{\left<F\right>}}{100~{\rm TeV}}\right)^4~{\rm cm},$$ which, considering realistic values of $\sqrt{\left<F\right>}$ and sfermion masses, gives decay lengths from sub-micron to multi-kilometre. The main upper bounds on $\sqrt{\left<F\right>}$ are of cosmological origin. To avoid ruining Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) the sfermion lifetime should be less than $10^4$ s. This implies that $\sqrt{\left<F\right>}\;\raisebox{-0.9ex}{$\textstyle\stackrel{\textstyle<}
           {\sim}$}\;10^9$ GeV. For a recent evaluation of the bounds see Ref. . For Planck scale supersymmetry breaking one arrives at a similar result with the substitution $\left<F\right>\to\sqrt{3}m_{3/2}M_P$ in Eq. ().

Third generation sfermions are usually lighter than the two first due to RGE running effects from a common mass at some high GUT scale, and as a consequence tend to work better as MMCP candidates in models with GUT unification of masses. For a given sfermion flavour $\tilde f$, it is similarly the lightest of the states, $\tilde f_1$, generally a mixing of the left- and right-handed sfermion, that works as an MMCP. However, given mass degeneracy between the NLSP candidates, several particles may become metastable, and models that are less restricted at GUT scale may provide different flavors for the NLSP. Still, this means that it is the lightest stop, sbottom and stau that are most commonly considered as MMCPs in the literature. In Gravitino Dark Matter (GDM) scenarios the stau is typically the NLSP for small $m_0$, giving $m_{\tilde\tau_1}<m_{\tilde\chi_1^0}$, a region otherwise disallowed due to a charged LSP. If, in addition to small $m_0$, we take small $\tan(\beta)$ and large $|A_0|$, the NLSP may be the stop, while large $\tan(\beta)$ and $|A_b|\gg |A_t|$, gives small sbottom masses.

The NLSP mass degeneracy to a neutralino, or even sneutrino, LSP may also provide MMCP candidates. However, the needed mass parameters tend to be fairly fine tuned and unmotivated. Some motivation can be found in a mass degeneracy that is simultaneously used to explain the measured Dark Matter density through co-annihilation of LSP and NLSP. Unfortunately the small mass differences needed for metastability tend to give too large co-annihilation cross sections and consequently too little Dark Matter. For a stop NLSP the situation is a little better because the lifetime of the main decay modes $\tilde t_1\to c\tilde\chi_1^0$ and $\tilde t_1\to b
ff'\tilde\chi_1^0$ are suppressed by loop-factors and a four-body phase space, respectively.

The final MMCP candidate we will discuss here is the gluino. In GDM scenarios the gluino can clearly be metastable like all other sparticles, if for some reason $M_3$ is small compared to the other supersymmetry breaking masses so that the gluino is the NLSP, but perhaps more interesting is the split-SUSY scenario where the scalars — except the lightest Higgs that decouples — are much heavier than the gauginos. This ignores the Higgs mass hierarchy problem, but naturally suppresses CP violation and avoids constraints from flavor physics. Since the gluino can only decay through virtual squarks, either to two quarks and a gaugino, or in a loop-decay to a gluon and neutralino, the decay is suppressed by the mass ratio $m_{\tilde
g}^2/m_{\tilde q}^2$, giving the scaling behaviour, $$c\tau_{\tilde g}=10^{11} \left(\frac{1~{\rm TeV}}{m_{\tilde g}}\right)^5
\left(\frac{m_{\tilde q}}{10^9~{\rm GeV}}\right)^4~{\rm cm}.$$ The CMSSM focus-point region with sufficiently large values for $m_0$ displays these properties, but the constraint on electro-weak symmetry breaking means that $m_{1/2}$ must also be rather large, and the sparticle mass spectrum might be outside of the reach of the LHC.

With non-zero R-parity violating couplings the LSP will eventually decay unless it is very light. If the LSP is the gravitino it may still live long enough to constitute Dark Matter. For couplings less than ${\mathcal O}(10^{-6})$, the exact value depending on sparticle mass and flavor of the coupling, the lifetime of stable or metastable sparticles is not shortened enough for them to decay inside a detector, and thus has no direct influence on the collider phenomenology of MMCPs. However, a new and interesting possibility opens up: the LSP may well be charged if it has a short lifetime on cosmological scales. This allows for less fine-tuning for many MMCP candidates discussed above that formerly decayed to the LSP, they now simply need to be the lightest sparticle.

# Experimental Issues

The signatures of MMCPs traversing a detector are determined by their interactions with the matter of the detector. The main source of energy loss for electrically charged massive particles with large velocities, $\beta\gamma\;\raisebox{-0.9ex}{$\textstyle\stackrel{\textstyle>}
           {\sim}$}\;0.1$, is ionisation energy loss through the removal of electrons from atoms in the material. For a particle of velocity $\beta\gamma$ this is given by the Bethe-Bloch formula for mean rate of ionisation energy loss, or stopping power, $$\left<-\frac{dE}{dx}\right>=\frac{Kz^2Z}{A\beta^2}\left(\frac{1}{2}
\ln\frac{2m_ec^2\beta^2\gamma^2T_{\max}}{I^2}-\beta^2-\frac{\delta}{2}\right),
\label{eq:BB}$$ where $K=4\pi N_Ar_e^2m_ec^2$. The physical constants and properties of the material and particle involved are: the electric charge $z$ of the particle, the atomic number $Z$ and mass $A$ of the material, the classical electron radius $r_e$ and mass $m_e$, Avogadro's number $N_A$, the maximum kinetic energy that can be given to a free electron in a single collision $T_{\max}$, and the mean ionisation potential of the material $I$.[^3]

The $\delta$ term in Eq. () is a function of velocity that corrects for density effects at relativistic velocities, $\beta\gamma\;\raisebox{-0.9ex}{$\textstyle\stackrel{\textstyle>}
           {\sim}$}\;3$. In addition to the ionisation energy loss, lighter charged particles also have significant radiative losses at high velocities. For muons radiative effects reach 1% at around 10 GeV energy. However, this is mass dependent, and should be insignificant for masses not already ruled out for MMCPs.

From Eq. () one finds a minimum around $\beta\gamma\simeq
3$, roughly independent of material and particle mass, for masses much greater than the electron mass. Such a particle is usually termed a minimum ionising particle or mip. The asymptotic behaviour $dE/dx\propto\beta^{-2}$ of the Bethe-Bloch formula at low velocities is tempered for velocities less than the bound electron velocity, of the order of a few percent of $c$, where the energy loss is simply proportional to $\beta$.

The fact that the ionisation energy loss of a charged particle is almost independent of the particle's mass, but dependent on its velocity is crucial in searches for MMCPs at colliders. Firstly, it means that the MMCPs will appear as muon-like objects in detectors and their momenta can be reconstructed by a tracking system that relies on ionisation energy deposits. Secondly, while the energy loss of an MMCP produced may very well be that of a mip, an accompanying measurement of the particle's momentum $p$ from the curvature of its track in a magnetic field will reveal that the mass $m$ is large since $m=p/\beta\gamma$, and as we have seen above, a measurement of $dE/dx$ fixes the velocity modulo fluctuations in single measurements.

For strong interactions of MMCPs with detector material the situation is much less well understood as we lack sufficiently similar SM counterparts. Several models have been proposed that attempt to describe the scattering of R-hadrons on atomic nuclei. The common feature of these models is the spectator nature of the MMCP. Its interactions with partons in the nuclei are suppressed relative to those of the light constituents of the R-hadron by the square of the MMCP mass. The implication is that an R-hadron's properties are largely determined by its light-quark/gluon components.

Despite the spectator role of the MMCP it carries the majority of the R-hadron momentum since the relative momentum of the interacting system is given by the ratio of its mass to the total R-hadron mass. Thus, for an MMCP mass of ${\mathcal O}(100~{\rm GeV})$ or above, the momentum of the scattering system is maximally a few GeV at the LHC. The low-energy scatters means that the energy loss per interaction is also limited, of the order of 1 GeV over a large spectrum of $\beta$. While the energy loss to strong interactions is still expected to dominate at high velocities, the rise in ionisation energy loss below the mip velocity means that it dominates at low velocities.

One important consequence of the limited energy loss is that most strongly interacting MMCPs are expected to penetrate large detectors, their tracks, if charged, being in effect reconstructed as muons. The additional complication with R-hadrons is that they may flip charge in inelastic scattering off nuclei, interchanging their non-MMCP partons with those of the nuclei. Thus R-hadron tracks in detectors can be stubs that end or appear abruptly in the tracking system. Recently it has also been shown that R-mesons will tend to convert into R-baryons due to scatterings of the type $R_{\tilde gq\bar q}+ N\to R_{\tilde
gqqq}+\pi$ that are energetically favoured, and where the reverse reaction is suppressed due to a lack of pions in the detector material.

The second staple of MMCP searches is the Time-of-Flight (ToF) measurement. With the use of high magnetic fields it is safe to assume that any stable or metastable SM particles reconstructed by a tracking system travel with a velocity of $\beta\simeq 1$. Despite this, due to the large size of modern detector experiments, the ToF from the interaction point and out of the detector can be of ${\mathcal
O}(100~{\rm ns})$. Given a time resolution in the nanosecond range, particle velocities can then be reconstructed with good precision. Since massive particles are produced with much smaller velocities, these can be discriminated from SM backgrounds, and again the combination of momentum and velocity measurements leads to a measurement of the mass.

While the low velocity of the MMCPs is an advantage for measuring masses, it poses serious challenges for triggering on signal events and the acquisition of data in modern high luminosity colliders. This is particularly true for the LHC, where the distance between two bunch crossings (BCs) is only $25$ ns at design luminosity. This corresponds to $7.5$ m at light-speed, meaning that up to three BCs are simultaneously contained inside the large ATLAS and CMS detectors. This is taken into account in detector design and read-out, however, assuming particle velocities near $c$. Slower particles may cause triggers to be assigned to the wrong BC, or the MMCP not to be recorded in the triggered BC. Simple estimates from ATLAS geometry give that MMCPs with $\beta>0.7$ reach the outer parts of the muon trigger system inside the correct BC. This is confirmed in a full simulation study of MMCPs that show large efficiencies for hits in the muon trigger chambers at $\beta\;\raisebox{-0.9ex}{$\textstyle\stackrel{\textstyle>}
           {\sim}$}\;
0.7-0.8$ with standard trigger windows. If MMCPs are indeed discovered at the LHC, trigger windows can be enlarged to values used in calibration and debugging to improve efficiencies and reach lower velocities.

For the particular case of R-parity conserving supersymmetric models, MMCPs are produced in pairs at colliders, either through cascade decays or direct production. This means that there are at least two possible muon trigger objects in each event, which improves the final trigger efficiency, in particular for cascade decays where the MMCPs may be produced with wildly different velocities. The exception is the R-hadron scenario, where one or both of the R-hadrons may be neutral by the time they pass through the muon system, either from being produced neutral or by charge flipping interactions.

The second difficulty with slow moving MMCPs is the drop in track reconstruction efficiency. Tracking software also operates under the $\beta=1$ assumption, so that slow particles typically have a bad quality of fit for their tracks and may be discarded, *e.g. *for the Monitored Drift Tubes (MDTs) in the ATLAS muon system, hits from slower particles are assigned too large drift distances from the tube centre so that the reconstruction is attempted with mismeasured coordinates. As a result the reconstruction efficiency is found to decrease dramatically below $\beta=0.75$. The solution suggested in Ref.  is to keep $\beta$ a free parameter of the fit and maximise the fit quality over $\beta$. This simultaneously allows for better reconstruction efficiencies and a determination of the MMCP velocity. In a full simulation study, using also information from the timing of hits in the muon trigger system and recovering trigger hits from the next BC, Ref.  finds good reconstruction efficiencies down to $\beta\simeq 0.5$.

# Current Constraints

The best current collider bounds on MMCP cross sections and masses originate from the OPAL experiment at LEP and recent results published by the Tevatron CDF and D0 experiments. The lower mass bounds are typically the result of a comparison between the predicted pair-production cross section of an MMCP in a particular model, and a limit on the number of events with particles reconstructed above a certain mass from the experiment. Below we review these bounds and comment briefly on the assumptions going into them. In general, the reliance on pair-production cross sections gives conservative mass bounds for sparticle MMCP candidates, with little or no model dependence. If interpreted in specific constrained models, the Tevatron bounds can improve dramatically, in particular for weakly interacting sparticles, where the dominant production is expected to be from the decays of strongly interacting sparticles with much higher cross sections.

The OPAL experiment uses a measurement of $dE/dx$ for each track compared to the momentum to distinguish massive charged particles from SM backgrounds. The ionisation energy loss is measured with a good resolution of 2.8%, using multiple, above 20 required, hits on sense wires in the OPAL jet chamber. The results are based on data collected at centre-of-mass energies from 130 GeV to 209 GeV, with a total integrated luminosity of $693.1$ pb$^{-1}$. In the absence of any signal, a 95% C.L. bound on the pair-production cross section of weakly interacting MMCPs is given in terms of the MMCP mass and spin, assuming $s$–channel production. Translated into sparticle masses this implies a lower limit of 98.0 GeV and 98.5 GeV on right- and left-handed sleptons, respectively, for smuons and staus. Note that this bound does not translate to selectrons, as their cross section depends on other sparticle parameters in $t$–channel production. The same model-dependence is also present for chargino pair-production in terms of the wino–higgsino mixing and the sneutrino mass. By minimising the chargino cross section over the CMSSM parameter space for a fixed chargino mass, a lower limit of 102.0 GeV is found.

For squark MMCPs the ALEPH experiment at LEP has given direct mass bounds, with the conservative assumption that stop and sbottom mixing angles are such that their couplings to the $Z$ disappear. The resulting lower limits on the lightest mass eigenstates are $m_{\tilde t_1}>95$ GeV and $m_{\tilde
b_1}>92$ GeV at 95% C.L. For a gluino MMCP, the bounds from LEP are much weaker. The dominant production process is $e^+e^-\to q\bar
q\tilde g\tilde g$, where a gluon radiating off one of the quarks splits into two gluinos. The ALEPH collaboration gives a bound of $m_{\tilde g}>26.9$ GeV.

The Tevatron CDF experiment reports complementary bounds for weakly interacting MMCPs and more stringent bounds for strongly interacting MMCPs set with $1$ fb$^{-1}$ of data at $\sqrt{s}=1.96$ TeV. The CDF experiment uses a ToF detector to measure the masses of particles with high transverse momentum in a sample of events collected with the muon trigger. Standard Model backgrounds are estimated from the mass resolution on muon-like particles found in a control-region, and no excess of events is found for masses above $100$ GeV. Along with an evaluation of the signal efficiency, this allows fully model independent cross section bounds of $\sigma<10$ fb and $\sigma<48$ fb to be set on weakly and strongly interacting MMCPs, respectively, for a single MMCP within the experimental cuts of $p_T>40$ GeV, $|\eta|<0.7$, $0.4<\beta<0.9$ and $m>100$ GeV. Note that the CDF analysis does not consider the R-meson to R-baryon transition mentioned in Section  when evaluating the signal efficiency. The R-baryon should have a larger interaction cross section, leading to lower efficiency, so that the final mass limit may be slightly overestimated.

For an interpretation of these bounds in terms of sparticle masses, the differential pair-production cross sections need to be evaluated and integrated over the acceptance region. This was done for a stop MMCP candidate, yielding a lower bound of $m_{\tilde t_1}>249$ GeV at the 95% C.L. for a specific supergravity inspired scenario where the other squark masses are set to $m_{\tilde q}=256$ GeV, the gluino mass $m_{\tilde g}=284$ GeV and the stop mixing angle $\sin(2\theta)=-0.99$. However, the stop pair-production cross section at NLO is known to be rather insensitive to these parameters, see Ref. . We evaluate this effect using Prospino 2.1, decoupling the contribution from gluinos and other squarks by setting their masses to 2 TeV and minimising the cross section over the mixing angle. As expected, this gives only a slightly softer bound of $m_{\tilde t_1}>241.5$ GeV.

No explicit mass limits for other supersymmetric MMCPs were found in Ref. . For the gluino in particular the CDF data should result in an improvement of the LEP mass limit, and its evaluation would be feasible with Monte Carlo simulation of the kinematics of gluino pair-production and a re-evaluation of the signal efficiency for a gluino based R-hadron. Similar considerations apply to the sbottom, where the cross section should be identical to the stop's in the decoupling limit, but where the signal efficiency for an R-hadron containing a down-squark could be different due to the preferred formation of a neutral R-baryon.

The D0 experiment presents a similar analysis using $1.1$ fb$^{-1}$ of data, measuring particle velocity through ToF with timing from scintillation trigger counters in the muon system. The results are less model independent in that they are interpreted directly in terms of upper cross section bounds on the pair-production of staus and charginos. For the stau, no mass limit can be set as the predicted cross section is too low. For the chargino, mass limits of 206 GeV and 171 GeV, for a wino- and higgsino-like chargino, respectively, is given at the 95% C.L.

We give a summary of the best limits discussed above in Table . In addition to these bounds there are also indirect bounds such as the measurement of the invisible $Z$ width, which constrains the mass of supersymmetric MMCPs that couple to the $Z$ to be above $m_Z/2$, and the running of $\alpha_s$, which limits colour charged particles beyond the SM to have masses greater than about 6 GeV. While these limits are less constraining than the direct bounds discussed above, they have the advantage of closing low-mass loopholes in the direct bounds. As mentioned in Section  there are also limits on the MMCP lifetime from cosmology that translate to mass limits, given model dependent assumptions on couplings and/or other sparticle masses.

<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;">MMCP</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">Mass limit [GeV]</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">Notes</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">Source</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;"><p><span class="math inline"><em>χ̃</em><sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup></span></p></td>
<td style="text-align: center;">206.0</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">Assuming <span class="math inline"><em>χ̃</em><sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> ≃ <em>W̃</em><sup>±</sup></span>.</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">D0, Ref. </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;">171.0</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">Assuming <span class="math inline"><em>χ̃</em><sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> ≃ <em>H̃</em><sup>±</sup></span>.</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">D0, Ref. </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;"><span class="math inline">$\tilde\ell_1$</span></td>
<td style="text-align: center;">98.0</td>
<td style="text-align: left;"><span class="math inline">$\tilde\ell=\tilde\mu,\tilde\tau$</span>, assuming <span class="math inline">$\tilde\ell_1\simeq\tilde\ell_R$</span>.</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">OPAL, Ref. </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;">98.5</td>
<td style="text-align: left;"><span class="math inline">$\tilde\ell=\tilde\mu,\tilde\tau$</span>, assuming <span class="math inline">$\tilde\ell_1\simeq\tilde\ell_L$</span>.</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">OPAL, Ref. </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;"><p><span class="math inline"><em>g̃</em></span></p></td>
<td style="text-align: center;">26.9</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">Could be improved using Tevatron data.</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">ALEPH, Ref. </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;"><span class="math inline"><em>t̃</em><sub>1</sub></span></td>
<td style="text-align: center;">241.5</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">Re-evaluated in this review.</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">CDF, Ref. </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;"><span class="math inline"><em>b̃</em><sub>1</sub></span></td>
<td style="text-align: center;">92.0</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">Could be improved using Tevatron data.</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">ALEPH, Ref. </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;"><p></p></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: left;"></td>
<td style="text-align: left;"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

# LHC Prospects

With the large increase in centre-of-mass energy from the Tevatron to the LHC, the LHC experiments will naturally be sensitive to more massive MMCPs. We begin this Section with a discussion of the prospects for applying $dE/dx$ and ToF techniques to discovering MMCPs and measuring their masses in the large LHC experiments. We then show an estimate of the discovery reach of the LHC in terms of sparticle MMCP masses, before we touch on the exciting possibility of stopped MMCPs.

In both ATLAS and CMS the principal sub-detectors for measuring $dE/dx$ are in the inner tracking systems. Although more energy will deposited in the calorimeters, a reliable determination of $dE/dx$ needs several measurements on account of large fluctuations. In published ATLAS results the current optimal strategy uses a measurement of the time a hit in the Transition Radiation Tracker (TRT) is over an ionisation threshold. This is strongly correlated with $dE/dx$ and can be used on slow particles, $\beta\;\raisebox{-0.9ex}{$\textstyle\stackrel{\textstyle<}
           {\sim}$}\;0.7$, where from the Bethe-Bloch formula we have $dE/dx\propto
\beta^{-2}$. Results given in Ref.  indicate that in this region a resolution on the velocity of somewhat better than 20% is achievable. For CMS, the inner tracking system consists of silicon pixel and silicon strip detectors, the $dE/dx$ resolution of these devices is somewhat worse than for gaseous detectors such as the ATLAS TRT.

Assuming that the error on the momentum and velocity measurements are uncorrelated, the mass resolution is given by $$\left(\frac{\sigma_M}{M}\right)^2=\left(\frac{\sigma_p}{p}\right)^2
+\left(\gamma^2\frac{\sigma_\beta}{\beta}\right)^2.
\label{eq:mass_res}$$ As expected the resolution becomes very bad for $\beta\to 1$. With a typical transverse momentum resolution of $4-10\%$ for the 100 GeV to 1 TeV momentum range in ATLAS, we see that the mass resolution is dominated by the $\beta$–resolution. Thus a 20% resolution on the MMCP mass should realistically be achievable in ATLAS using the time-over-threshold technique.

For a mass measurement using ToF, the error in the velocity measurement is dominated by the timing resolution since the positions of hits inside a detector will be very well known from an extensive calibration programme. Thus we can substitute $\sigma_\beta/\beta=\sigma_t/t$ in Eq. . From a simple order of magnitude estimate, using the size of a generic LHC detector and a $1$ ns fluctuation on the time measurement, we get a resolution of $\sigma_t/t\simeq 0.02$, showing the advantage of the size of the LHC detectors. This matches well with various full simulation studies of the ATLAS detector using the track re-fit method described in Section , timing information from the muon trigger system, or both. These arrive at similar resolutions of $\sigma_\beta/\beta=0.02-0.03$ for a stau MMCP, which is competitive with the contribution to the mass resolution from the momentum measurement at low velocities ($\beta\;\raisebox{-0.9ex}{$\textstyle\stackrel{\textstyle<}
           {\sim}$}\;0.8$).

The final precision with which the MMCP mass can be determined is of course to some degree dependent on the available statistics, the MMCP mass, and to an extent on whether the MMCP has electric and/or colour charge.[^4] However, the good resolution achievable with ToF techniques quickly reduces the statistical error to below 1 GeV, so that the mass determination is dominated by systematic errors that have been found to be around $1-2$ GeV in Monte Carlo simulations. This level of precision has been shown to allow the efficient reconstruction of many heavier sparticles, if not too heavy to be produced, that decay into the MMCP, giving precise access to a large fraction of the sparticle spectrum.

At present little has published by the LHC experiments on their potential discovery reach in terms of MMCP masses; exceptions are found in Refs. , and . This is understandable as potential main backgrounds such as muons with mis-reconstructed velocities are difficult to estimate from Monte Carlo alone, without the benefit of the detector understanding that comes with data. Nevertheless, we can attempt a rough estimate the LHC reach under the assumption that an MMCP search at the LHC will be a low background search, with ${\mathcal O}(1)$ background events expected for some fixed integrated luminosity and a corresponding signal efficiency; this is based on similar analysis at the Tevatron and at LEP, described in Section .

We adopt a fairly conservative guess for the signal efficiency of 20% and 5%, for electrically charged and strongly interacting MMCPs, respectively, based on CMS numbers for a search with first data. With the NLO pair-production cross sections computed by Prospino 2.1 in the limit where other sparticles effectively decouple, we show the integrated luminosity needed for "discovery" as a function of MMCP mass in Fig. . The required luminosity is of course dependent on the expected number of background events for a given luminosity, and we have assumed $B=1$ for $100~{\rm
pb}^{-1}$, but the required luminosity scales linearly with $B$ if one takes $S/\sqrt{B}$ as the significance. In the same way the interested reader can easily re-scale Fig.  to a different signal efficiency, since the required integrated luminosity scales as $\epsilon^{-2}$.

While the above discussion has focused mostly on properties of the ATLAS detector, the situation for CMS is similar, with somewhat better signal efficiencies expected due to its "compact" design, and a somewhat worse mass resolution for the same reason. For the smaller experiments work on MMCPs has been limited, but it is possible that the LHCb detector may be competitive in some areas of parameter space due to excellent particle identification properties. The LHCb will certainly be in an good position to observe long-lived particles decaying inside the detector, a topic which is outside the scope of this paper. In addition, the MOEDAL experiment has proposed to search for highly ionising exotic particles such as magnetic monopoles and Q-balls, through the use of a passive plastic track-etch detector surrounding the LHCb vertex detector.

Finally in this Section, we want to mention a very interesting possibility due to MMCP energy loss: MMCPs produced with small momenta may lose enough energy to ionisation to be stopped inside the detector, most probably inside a calorimeter, or in a dedicated stopper detector as suggested in Refs. , and . Due to the small energy losses expected the fraction of stopped MMCPs will be a small unless the MMCP is very heavy, in which case the small cross section limits the number of stopped MMCPs. Even if rare, stopped MMCPs may open up a very exciting new direction of exploration: that of detecting late decays of MMCPs, with lifetimes from a fraction of a second to years. This idea has already seen initial exploration at the Tevatron D0 experiment, looking for stopped gluinos.

Decays in the detector out of sync with collisions, or even with no beam present, will enable a measurement of the MMCP lifetime and its dominant decay channel(s), if the decays can be separated from cavern backgrounds and cosmic ray hits, and enough statistics is available. In models with a gravitino LSP the gravitino mass could also be measured given knowledge of the MMCP mass and the recoil energy against an invisible gravitino in the MMCP decay. The implication of all this is that the coupling of the MMCP to the gravitino will be indirectly determined from the MMCP lifetime, which constitutes a microscopic measurement of Newton's constant, and a powerful piece of evidence in favour of supergravity.

# Conclusion

We have given a brief review of the prospects for discovering Massive Metastable Charged Particles at the LHC, focusing on supersymmetric scenarios. The unprecedented centre-of-mass energy of the LHC allows mass scales far above current constraints to be probed even with limited statistics. The discovery of such a particle will herald a revolution in particle physics: measuring the properties of the MMCP will give clear indications of the structure of physics beyond the Standard Model, in the same way that the properties of stable and metastable Standard Model particles have helped reveal the structure of that model.

The general purpose LHC detectors are well suited to measure the mass and charge of an MMCP as a result of their size and the excellent timing and momentum resolution in several sub-detectors. If stopped in the detectors, the MMCP lifetime can also be determined, with possible implications even for Planck scale physics.

# Acknowledgments

ARR acknowledges funding from the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) and wishes to thank John R. Ellis and Ola K. Øye for fruitful collaborations on this topic, as well as David A. Milstead and members of the Cambridge Supersymmetry Working Group for many interesting and helpful discussions.

[^1]: By metastable we mean any particle that is stable on the scale of a lab-based detector experiment, *i.e.* that normally passes through the detector before decaying. The average distance travelled by an MMCP with energy $E$ and mass $m$ before it decays is given by $\gamma c\tau$, where $\gamma=E/m$. Charged particles are in this context electromagnetically charged and/or have strong interactions.

[^2]: The mass difference in the pure wino case can be though of as the difference between the charged and neutral wino self-energies, which should be ${\mathcal O}(\alpha m_W)$.

[^3]: Note that $x$ takes the form of length times density of the material and the units are given by $K/A=0.307075$ MeV g$^{-1}$ cm$^2$ for an atomic mass of $A=1$ g mol$^{-1}$.

[^4]: Because of interactions with nuclei, R-hadrons lose more energy in the calorimeters. Charge flipping also makes precise momentum and velocity determination more difficult.


abstract: Please include a brief abstract of this paper. Avoid using figures or equations in the abstract.
author: Author Name(s) (do not put prefixes, titles, or job description such as Dr., CEO, lab manager, etc.); Professional Affiliation; City, State/Country: Author Style
title: Paper: Title Style

# Overall Document Guidelines: Head

Clear document of any fonts other than Times, Arial, and Symbol. The paper should be formatted using the tags provided in the template, i.e., title, author, section, subsection, subsubsection, eq./fig., references, etc. in a 2 column format on US letter size paper ($8.5
\times 11$ inches, or $21.6 \times 27.9$ cm).

The left and right margins are set automatically to .75 inch (1.90 cm), and the top and bottom margins to 1.0 inch (2.54 cm). The document is in a 2-column format with column widths set at 3.38 inch (8.57 cm) and the gutter -the space between columns- at .25 inch (0.635 cm).

Papers should be a maximum of 4-6 pages; longer papers will be returned for revision. Please do not place folios or page numbers in your paper. That information is inserted when we assemble the book.

# Graphics and Equations

Graphics and equations should fit within one column (3.38 inches wide), but full width (7 inch) figures are also acceptable. Equations, figures and figure captions each have their own style tags. Equations are numbered using parentheses flushed right as shown below.

$$\label{eq:ist}
\textrm{IS\&T} + \textrm{members} \times \textrm{Confs.} = \textrm{Success}$$

## Helpful Hints and Style Tags: Subhead

For a complete listing of the style tags for use in this template refer to Table . These are the style tags for conference proceedings; if you use the wrong template/style tags your paper will be sent back to you to be reformatted. All of these forms and templates related to the publication of conference papers are available at

www.imaging.org/conferences/guidelines.cfm.

Select the specific conference and download the Authors Kit. The template may vary from one conference to another.

The template is set up for MS Word and LaTeX. Please check the paper carefully to confirm that the styles have been applied correctly, then print it out and double check to ensure that the paper appears as intended.

| 1\. Title | title environment |
|:---|:---|
| 2\. Byline: |  |
| Author/Affiliation | author environment |
| 3\. Head | section environment |
| 4\. Subhead | subsection environment |
| 5\. Tertiary head | subsubsection environment |
| 6\. Abstract | abstract environment |
|  |  |
| 7\. Body | regular text |
| 8\. Equation | equation environment |
| 9.1 Figure | align left |
| 9.2 Figure caption | caption environment |
| 10.1 Table head | caption environment |
| 10.2 Table text | tabular environment |
| 11\. References | bibliography + command *small* to have a 1pt smaller font |
| 12\. Author Bio text | biography environment |
| 13.1 List, bullet | itemize environment |
| 13.2 List, numbered | enumerate environment |

Style Tag Table: Table head

# Submitting Your Paper

The submission of your paper has to be performed through the IS&T submission website. Authors receive a login for this site by e-mail. Papers can be submitted in Postscript, Word, or WordPerfect format, and will be converted to PDF by the submission server. Please carefully review the generated PDF and verify that all the text, equations, figures and tables are displayed correctly before approving its submission.

## Margins in LaTeX

Because of the differences between dvips conversion utilities, the margins of your generated PDF document might vary. Please print your document, and verify its margins. If they are incorrect, please adapt the sizes of the margins in the file *ist.sty*. Typically the top margin should be decreased.

|                   |                                               |
|:------------------|:----------------------------------------------|
| Paper Size        | US Letter                                     |
| Left/right margin | .75 inch (1.90 cm)                            |
| Top/bottom margin | 1 inch (2.54 cm)                              |
| Columns           | 2 at 3.38 inch (8.57 cm) wide.                |
|                   | Spacing between columns: 0.25 inch (0.635 cm) |

Document Specs: Table head

Please contact IS&T with any questions or requests for assistance in helping prepare the paper. We look forward to having your paper presented at the conference and published in the conference proceedings.

# Reference Preparation

Use the standard LaTeX *cite* command for references in the text. You can then use the standard bibliography command to generate the list of references. Add the command *small* before the bibliography to give it the right font size. Reference style should be used for books, Reference style should be used for Journals, and Reference style should be used for Proceedings.


abstract: To a large degree information and services for chemical e-Science have become accessible -anytime, anywhere -but not necessarily useful. The Rule Responder eScience middleware is about providing information consumers with rule-based agents to transform existing information into relevant information of practical consequences, hence providing control to the end-users to express in a declarative rule-based way how to turn existing information into personally relevant information and how to react or make automated decisions on top of it.
author: Adrian Paschke; Zhili Zhao
title: Rule Responder: A Rule-Based Semantic eScience Service Infrastructure

# Introduction

The Semantic Web builds upon XML as the common machine-readable syntax to structure content and data, upon RDF as a simple language to express property relationships between arbitrary resources identified by URIs, and ontology languages such as RDFS or OWL as a means to define rich vocabularies (ontologies) which are then used to precisely describe resources, their relations and their semantics. This prepares an infrastructure to share the relevant meaning of content and leads to a more machine-processable and relevant Web.

Many bioinformatics projects, such as UniProt, Tambis, FungalWeb, YeastHub, BioPax have meanwhile adopted the Semantic Web approach (in particular the RDF standard) and large ontologies such as the Gene Ontology are provided as RDFS or OWL ontologies. This has been utilized by several bioinformatics projects, such as W3C HCLS RDF or Bio2RDF, to solve the old problem of distributed heterogeneous data integration in health care and life sciences.

The goal of this article is to show how the Rule Responder approach can be used to build a flexible, loosely-coupled and service-oriented eScience infrastructure which allows wrapping the existing web data sources, services and tools by rule-based agents which access and transform the existing information into relevant information of practical consequences for the end-user.

# A Rule-Based Pragmatic Agent Web Model for Virtual eScience Infrastructures

A virtual eScience infrastructure consists of a community of independent and often distributed (sub-) organizations which are typically represented by an organizational agent and a set of associated individual agents. The organizational agent might act as a single agent towards other internal and external individual or organizational agents. In particular, a virtual organization's agent can be the single (or main) point of entry for communication with the "outer" world.

In the architecture of the eScience Agent Web model(Figure ), the syntactic level controls the appearance and access of syntactic information resources such as HTML pages. The representation languages such as XML, RDF and OWL on the semantic level make these Web-based resources more readable and processable not only to humans, but also to computers to infer new knowledge. Finally, the pragmatic and behavioral level defines the rules that how information is used and describes the actions in terms of its pragmatic aspects. These rules e.g. transform existing information into relevant information of practical consequences, trigger automated reactions according to occurred complex events, and derive answers from the existing syntactic and semantic information resources.

In this paper we focus on the pragmatic and behavioral layer and build it upon existing technologies and common language formats of the Semantic Web such as HTML/XML Web pages, RDF/RDFS, OWL and etc. We assume that there is already a critical mass of such data sources on the semantic and syntactic layer. Furthermore, we integrate data and functionality from legacy applications.

# Distributed Rule Responder Agent Services

The core parts of the distributed Rule Responder Architecture for the eScience Agent Web are the common platform-independent rule interchange format (RuleML), the communication middleware (ESB) and the execution environments (Prova).

The Rule Markup Language (RuleML) is a modular, interchangeable rule specification on standard to express both forward and backward rules for deduction, reaction, rewriting, and further inferential-transformational tasks. Reaction RuleML is a sublanguage of RuleML and incorporates various kinds of production, action, reaction, and KR temporal/event/action logic rules as well as (complex) event/action messages.

To seamlessly handle message-based interactions between the responder agents and with other applications, an enterprise service bus (ESB), the Mule open-source ESB is used. The ESB allows deploying the rule-based agents as highly distributable rule inference services installed as Web-based endpoints in the Mule object broker and supports the Reaction RuleML based communication between them. Mule is based on ideas from ESB architectures, but goes beyond the typical definition of an ESB as a transit system for carrying data between applications.

Prova ,which is a highly expressive Semantic Web rule engine to the reference implementation for complex agents with complex reaction workflows, decision logic and dynamic access to external Semantic Web data sources.The current version of Prova follows the spirit and design of the recent W3C Semantic Web initiative and combines declarative rules, ontologies and inference with dynamic object-oriented Java API calls and access to external data sources such as relational databases or enterprise applications and IT services.

# Rule Responder Use Case

The discovery process for a researcher to find the Alzheimer's drug target candiates is very complex and time-consuming.He/she first discovers from Uniprot, the W3C HCLS KB and the SWAN data that Beta amyloidal in various forms, and in particular ADDLs, which are good therapeutic targets. He/she then searches the PubMed database about articles on ADDLs and ranks the results to find the top location, which is Evanston, and the top author, who is William Klein. From this, the researcher makes the hypothesis that William Klein works in Evanston, and simply proves it using Google. Finally, the researcher queries the EMBI-EBI database for the patents addressing ADDLs as therapeutic target for AD and concludes that William Klein who also holds two patents is one of the top experts in ADDLs research.Implicitly, the researcher executes the following rule: IF a Person has most publications in the Field and one or more Patents in the field THEN the Person is an expert for this Field. Figure 6 shows how this rule can be implemented in terms of Rule Responder agents.

The HCLS Rule Responder agent service (Figure ) implements the main logic of the eScience infrastructure and acts as the main communication endpoint for external agents. It's the rule code defines the public interfaces to receive requests (queries, tasks) to the eScience infrastructure and the logic to look up the respective source agents and delegate requests to them in order to answer the queries and fulfill the tasks. Each existing legacy data sources / service is wrapped by a Rule Responder source agent which runs a Prova rule engine. The agent's rule base comprises the local rule interface descriptions, i.e. the rule functions which can be queried by other agents of the eScience infrastructure, the respective transformation rules to issue queries to the platform-specific services and access the heterogeneous local data sources, and the rule logic to process incoming requests and derive answers / information from the local knowledge.

# Conclusion

With Rule Responder HCLS we have evolved a rule-based approach which facilitates easy heterogeneous systems integration and provides computation, database access, communication, web services, etc. This approach preserves local anonymity of local agent nodes including modularity and information hiding and provides much more control to users with respect to the relatively easy declarative rule-based programming techniques. The rules allow specifying where to access and process information, how to present information and automatically react to it, and how to transform the general information available from existing data sources on the Web into personally relevant information accessible via the eScience infrastructure. The Rule Responder eScience infrastructure is available online at responder.ruleml.org.