Sunday, August 18, 2013

Gfitter01 - history of a webpage

particlephysicist, e-mail:

The DESY webpage is a bit curious.
Not only that search engines like Google do not point to the webpage.

Normally, the webpage Gfitter01 is authored by the authors of Gfitter01.
This seems to be the Gfitter collaboration.
But the author of is the Representative of the German Helmholtz centre DESY, Professor Helmut Dosch.
He is representing DESY if no other person is mentioned as contact.
And we read at

"DESY takes responsibility for the publication of this version and this page."

We will try to decribe how things developed.

Everything dates back to March 2011, if not even back to Summer 2006.

Summer 2006:
The Gfitter collaboration begins to create Gfitter.

2 March 2011:
Members of the ZFITTER collaboration find out, by a dedicated internet search, that the C++ Standard Model library of Gfitter, Gfitter/gsm, consists of non-authorized, hidden copy-paste-adaptations out of the Fortran Standard Model library of ZFITTER v.6.42.   
Without any attribution to ZFITTER v.6.42.
Without respecting the licence of ZFITTER.

3 March 2011:
Within days, ZFITTER spokesperson Tord Riemann contacts Gfitter representatives Johannes Haller (then professor of physics at Heidelberg University, now at Hamburg University) and Klaus Moenig (leading scientist at DESY).
The Gfitter representatives contact immediately the research director of DESY with a request for help.   

Friday 11 March 2011:
The research director of DESY asks Gfitter for a statement on the accusations by ZFITTER.
We quote from the statement, authored by the PhD student, former diploma student, Martin Goebel, dated Friday 11 March 2011 (remarks by the blog authors in square brackets):

"... unten stehend finden sie eine Aufzaehlung von Bereichen, die entweder aus ZFitter uebernommen wurden oder intensiv mit ZFitter verglichen worden sind. ...

Die 2-loop Korrekturen der Ordnung O(g4 mt2/mw2) fuer die
elektroschwachen Formfaktoren wurden vom Fortran-Code, m2tcor5_11.f, uebernommen. ... Diese Berechnungen und Fortran-Routinen stammen von den externen Autoren, Degrassi und Gambino, und wurde in unserem Programm zitiert. [We cannot see this.] ...

Die Klasse ZFitterQCDCorrection.cxx enthaelt QCD Korrekturen ebenfalls zu den elektroschwachen Formfaktoren. Diese Klasse basiert auf dem Paket bkqcdl_5_14.f, welches wiederum auf einer Bibliothek von B. Kniehl beruht. [Kniehl's article was quoted in Gfitter/gsm, but not the source of formulas, i.e. ZFITTER.] ...

Die Klassen Vertex.cxx, ZFitterFermionPart.cxx und ZFitterBosonPar.cxx
enthalten ebenfalls Korrekturen zu den elektroschwachen Formfaktoren rho
und kappa. Sie wurden nach den in unserem Code angegebenen
Veroeffentlichungen programmiert. ...

Berechnungen, die nicht veroeffentlicht wurden aber in ZFitter (dizet6_42.f) implementiert waren, wurden mit Verweis auf die Zeile in dizet6_42.f  uebernommen. ...

All diese Korrekturen laufen in den Programmteilen Z0Zfitter und WZFitter zusammen. Dieser Teil wurde so gut es moeglich war aus Theorie Papern genommen aber auch intensiv mit ZFitter verglichen. Gab es Unterschiede bzw. Zusaetze wurden diese mit Verweis auf die Zeile im ZFitter-Code uebernommen. ...

Die Radiator-Funktionen sind aus dem ZFitter Paper (bzw. The Standard
Model in the Making, Bardin & Passarino ,Oxford 1999) programmiert. ...
Fuer Fragen bzgl. des ZFitter Codes stand uns ["A"] beratend zur Seite. ..."

The English translation of the complete document may be found at the webpage under the link

The above are clear-cut statements.
A concise comment is beyond the aim of this post and will be given later.

We summarize Martin Goebel as follows:
  • Intensive use of published (and quoted) scientific literature, and only minor - negligible - take-overs from the ZFITTER software; 
  • Code "integrations" are exclusively from Degrassi/Gambino [not attributed in the code] and Kniehl [attributed in the code], but not taken from ZFITTER authors;
  • Although, there was code taken from ZFITTER authors (!); but every case is mentioned with quoting line numbers of ZFITTER/dizet in Gfitter01/gsm.  

ZFITTER authors confirm that this last fact concerns 12 comments in (the unpublished) Gfitter01 code telling  that some C++ lines agree with corresponding Fortran lines of ZFITTER (labeled by their line numbers in dizet6_42.f).
Please remember this number: 12 cases of "integrations"

No statement by Martin Goebel that Gfitter01 was not publicly available, so that these 12 hints on "integrations" from ZFITTER into Gfitter/gsm are by no means attributions of authorship to others, visible to the public.

No statement here that the "integrations" were not mentioned in all the about 30 publications using Gfitter01.

No statement on the "integrations" of text from ZFITTER publications into the diploma thesis of Martin Goebel and into the so-called main paper on Gfitter01.

Monday, 14 March 2011:
On the following Monday, 14 March 2011, the research director of DESY  Joachim Mnich invited to a  telephone meeting with participation of Haller, Moenig, T. Riemann, and the representative of the Zeuthen branch in the DESY directorate. The proposed participation of ZFITTER author S. Riemann (DESY employee) in that meeting was not allowed.
Meeting details are not of interest here.
The main outcome was that Gfitter authors stated that they did use the scientific literature and not the ZFITTER software (although, to some extent, of no relevance, ...).
And that the DESY research director stated that DESY is holder of all the relevant rights on ZFITTER.
So, it was completely unclear to Gfitter and to DESY, on which foundation ZFITTER accuses Gfitter.
The written statements by Martin Goebel from last Friday were not mentioned and not known to ZFITTER authors, but one has to assume that they were an important back-up information for the DESY representative.

Unfortunately, not all of the statements on 11 March 2011 by Martin Goebel are correct.

We refer to the contradicting findings by ZFITTER authors:
  1. 10 May 2011:
    gfitter-uses-175-functions-of-zfitter.txt - List of the known 'integrations' from ZFITTER v.6.42 into Gfitter/gsm (available on request).
  2. Since 3 August 2011:
    zfitter-code-in-gfitter.html - Samples of the 'integration' of ZFITTER software in Gfitter/GSM software.
  3. Since 10 August 2011:
    gfitter-publications.html - Informations on publications of Gfitter where the use of [next word was misprinted until 24 Oct 2011] ZFITTER software is not quoted. Last update 19 September 2012 by adding several items.
  4. Since 24 October 2011:
    zfitter-text-in-gfitter-publications.html - Samples of [latex source] text, found in the main Gfitter publication and also in a diploma thesis, taken from latex source files written by ZFITTER authors.
  5. Since 28 Oct 2011:
    gfitter-gsm-patches.html - Patches of misprints in Gfitter/GSM arising from the `integrations'. 
Martin Goebel in his written statement and later other Gfitter authors (orally and in written form) quoted "A" as a contact, "transferring" ZFITTER software as author of this software by a cooperation with Martin Goebel to the Gfitter group, in effect "legalizing" the use.   
(This construct would not solve the problem of lack of attributions.)

31 March 2011:
For this reason, we quote here from a statement of "A" concerning the cooperation with Gfitter ("A", 31 March 2011, private communication to T. Riemann, with agreement on future use):

"To make the situation between us clear let me explain my contacts with gfitter group. I met J.Haller once and I had no scientific discussions with him. He asked me to help his diploma student, a Martin Goebel. So I met Martin twice. He asked me a few pretty basic questions about EW corrections plus a few that were answered on another page of my paper. He also asked two questions on Zfitter. Again, questions he asked were answered in Zfitter paper itself. ... In total I spent one hour with this guy. As the discussion was mainly on my work, honestly I didnt feel I should have reported it to you. As concerns J. Haller, I expected a Thank You for teaching somebody elses student was nice. To say that I helped to transform zfitter to gfitter is strong exaggeration."

13 April 2011:
After few weeks, the Representative of DESY professor Helmut Dosch asked for a statement by Gfitter on the accusations by ZFITTER.
This was days before the confidential final statement by the  Ombudspersons of DESY, dated 18 April 2011
We quote from this Gfitter statement, authored by Martin Goebel and Johannes Haller, Andreas Hoecker (staff at CERN), Klaus Moenig, dated 13 April 2011 (remarks by the blog authors in square brackets):

- Die Implementierung der Standardmodell-Bibliothek und die zugehoerige
numerische Analyse war das Thema von Martin Goebel's Diplomarbeit im Jahre 2008, die er mit Bravour abgeschlossen hat. ...
In einigen Faellen kam es vor, dass die veroeffentlichten Formeln von denen in ZFITTER abwichen, oder Formelteile in den Veroeffentlichungen fehlten. In solchen Faellen hat Martin auf oeffentlichen Code von ZFITTER zurueckgegriffen. [These are the 12 cases mentioned in our comment to the Goebel staement.] Die extrem komplizierten Formelbibliotheken fuer 2-loop elektroschwache und einige QCD Rechnungen, die von den Autoren Degrassi et al. bzw. von B. Kniehl stammen (beide sind keine ZFITTER Autoren), und in ZFITTER integriert wurden, wurden von Martin aus ZFITTER in C++ uebersetzt. [As Goebel already said, Gfitter agrees that these parts were "integrated".] Um diese Rechnungen besser zu verstehen hat Martin sich haeufiger mit ["A"] aus Prof. Kniehl's Gruppe getroffen. [See the corresponding statement by "A".] ...
- Der Gfitter Code, obwohl nicht oeffentlich durch uns vertrieben (im Gegensatz zum ZFITTER Code), beinhaltet in vorbildlicher Weise an allen
relevanten Stellen klare Hinweise auf Ursprung (Literatur oder Software)
und Autoren der Rechnungen bzw. der benutzten Software. An keiner Stelle wird hier versucht zu plagiieren. Die zugehoerige Veroeffentlichung unser Fit-Ergebnisse weisst mit deutlichen und kompletten Referenzen auf die Arbeiten hin, die wir benutzt und auf denen wir aufgebaut haben. ...
Die Gfitter Gruppe ist vergleichbar mit der LEP Electroweak Working Group, die ZFITTER benutzt, um experimentelle Daten zu interpretieren. Nur das die Gfitter Gruppe statt ZFITTER, das Gfitter
package dazu benutzt.

... "


1) In Konferenz Talks und Seminaren werden wir noch deutlicher als bisher
klarstellen, dass wir
+ ZFITTER Code Implementierungen in Gfitter benutzen wo die entsprechenden theoretischen Veroeffentlichungen ungenau oder lueckenhaft waren [here again the famous 12 lines are meant];
+ die Implementierung von 2-loop Korrekturen der Ordnung O(g^4mt^2/mw^2) zu den elektroschwachen Formfaktoren, die von den Autoren Degrassi und Gambino stammen, aus ZFITTER benutzen;
+ die Implementierung von QCD Korrekturen zu den elektroschwachen
Formfaktoren, die aus einer Bibliothek des Autoren Kniehl stammt, aus
ZFITTER benutzen.
2) Entsprechendes wird auch in Veroeffentlichungen noch klarer als bisher
herausgestellt werden. [It was never mentioned, not "clear" and not "unclear".]
3) wir wuerden uns unter Umstaenden bereiterklaeren mit den ZFITTER Autoren an einem gemeinsamen Paper ueber die numerische Analyse theoretischer Unsicherheiten in den Vorhersagen elektroschwacher Praezisionsobservablen zu arbeiten. Dies aber nur, wenn damit absolut sichergestellt waere, dass Herr Riemann seine unertraeglichen Nachstellungen beendet, und auch nur wenn alle ZFITTER Autoren an einer solchen Arbeit beteiligt waeren. ..."

The English translation of the complete document may be found at the webpage under the link

These again are clear-cut statements.

Unfortunately, not all of the statements on 13 April 2011 by four Gfitter authors are correct.

A concise comment is beyond the aim of this post.

We summarize as follows:

  • The four authors of Gfitter01/gsm are Martin Goebel, Johannes Haller, Andreas Hoecker, Klaus Moenig. 
  • They repeat, about four weeks later, basically the statements of Martin Goebel (11 March 2011).  
  • Again, the kernel statements are not correct: They claim that the accusations by ZFITTER authors are wrong.
These statements are: 
  • About 175 identities were "integrated", and in about 30 publications this was not attributed. 
  • No statement by Gfitter authors about text "integrations". 
  • Nevertheless, Gfitter/gsm authors offer some changes of their publishing policy for the future (points 1 to 3 in their statement).
The statement of the four dates 13 April 2011.

14 April 2011:
A day later, on 14 April 2011, the ZFITTER spokesperson was invited by the Representative of DESY professor Dosch and got quite rigid comments by him on ZFITTER's accusations against Gfitter authors.
Evidently, the recent Gfitter statement was accepted as-is and played an important role. Unfortunately the existence of the document was not made known to the ZFITTER spokesperson that moment.
And, on the contrary,  he was not allowed to present any details of the ZFITTER findings.

11 May 2011:
 We now jump another four weeks to 11 May 2011.
The meeting is described under the label "Naumann report" at
Participants were S. Riemann and T. Riemann from ZFITTER, A. Hoecker and K. Moenig (plus later also M. Goebel) from Gfitter, and as independent moderators G. Weiglein (for Gfitter), S. Moch (for ZFITTER), T. Naumann (designated by Professor Dosch).
Gfitter authors claimed that only the scientific literature has been used for programming Gfitter/gsm.
T. Riemann presented several waterproof samples of direct code-integrations.
He estimated the complete number of "integrations" to be about 175 identities of different length.
This is basically the scientific essentials of the complete Standard Model library of ZFITTER with about 8200 lines in total, and is nearly the complete scientific essentials of the Standard Model library of Gfitter.
After that, Martin Goebel was questioned twice by Sabine Riemann whether he used ZFITTER code and answered, on the amount of this: "Any number but 12 is wrong."
The contradition was not discussed.
Lack of proper attribution and violations of licence and copyright were not allowed to be discussed by the moderator of the meeting.

20 July 2011:
The Erratum to the main Gfitter paper (dated on 20 July 2011, at an intermediate stage of the ZFITTER/Gfitter negotiations, which finally failed) is the last official statement by Gfitter authors, known to us, on the ZFITTER/Gfitter conflict.
ZFITTER authors commented on the Erratum on 12 Februar 2012, see

Here are the data of the "main Gfitter[01] publication":

"Revisiting the Global Electroweak Fit of the Standard Model and Beyond with Gfitter"
Authors: H. Flächer, M. Goebel, J. Haller, A. Höcker, K. Mönig, J. Stelzer
Published: Eur. Phys. J. C 60, 543 (2009), Erratum-ibid. C 71, 1718 (2011)
Reference: Inspire, arXiv:0811.0009 [hep-ph]

24 September 2011:
The final document, the "Naumann report" dated 24 September 2011, is not published and was not accepted by ZFITTER and S. Moch.
Another result of the negotiations after 11 May 2011 is the Erratum to the main article on Gfitter01, which contains incorrect statements and refers to a Gfitter version which never legally existed.  Let us call it Gfitter01_v_21jul2011; see

After failure of the ZFITTER/Gfitter negotiations lead by professor Naumann, it was not clear what to do.

3 August 2011:
 The ZFITTER spokesperson took the initiative and published, step by step, the basic "raw" data of the accusations of Gfitter. See above.

12 August 2011: 
Further, he wrote on 12 August 2011 a draft agreement for ZFITTER/Gfitter which might resolve the conflict. Sent to Gfitter authors and the Representative of DESY.

26 September 2011
The version of this draft agreement dated 26 September 2011 got by the Representative of DESY the following introductory, additional statement:

Gfitter wishes to express - with apologies to [Z]fitter- its deep regret to have violated the scientific rules in the use of the Zfitter Code."  

This is a remarkable step:
The Representative of DESY would never introduce the statement that Gfitter "... violated the scientific rules in the use of the Zfitter Code", if he would not believe that it is true.
The statement was not accepted by Gfitter authors and disappeared in the next version. The negotiations failed finally.
November 2011:
The Representative of Helmholtz centre DESY asked in November 2011 professor Wolfgang Loewer, Ombudsman for Science in Germany, related to Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG, for an Ombuds procedure.
The same did the ZFITTER spokesperson.

3 July 2012:
The main result of the Ombuds investigation is the Ombuds award dated 3 July 2012. See for a certified English translation of the complete document at

Concerning the Gfitter software, basic demands to the parties are:

(1) GFITTER ist im Netz zur Verfügung zu stellen.

(2) Der Grad der Übereinstimmung zwischen ZFITTER und GFITTER ist festzustellen. Dazu sollte neutraler Sachverstand hinzugezogen werden.

(3) Der Grad der Übereinstimmung ist im Anschluss an den offengelegten GFITTER Code kenntlich zu machen. Die Kenntlichmachung wird gewissermaßen zum Teil der GFITTER-Publikation, darf also nicht aus dem Netz entfernt werden.

(4) ... Die GFITTER-Beiträge, die auf der Basis des bisherigen privaten Codes publiziert worden sind (und die ZFITTER genau im oben beschriebenen Sinn hätten zitieren müssen), werden im Netz nochmals benannt.   

28 March 2013:
The Ombuds award has not been realized.
This is just a matter of fact.
As a consequence, the Representative of DESY took the decision to push forward a realization as a DESY internal project.
This was expressed by a Decision of the DESY Directorate Nb. 1735 "Verdachtsfall wissenschaftlichen Fehlverhaltens Zfitter/Gfitter", dated 28 March 2013.

8 July 2013:
The decision was made public on, but the link had to be closed because the decision was declared confidential by a letter dated 8 July 2013.

We have the privilege to quote from the decision:

"... Das Direktorium beschließt die folgenden Maßnahmen zur abschließenden Beilegung des Konflikts:

1. Der Code Gfitter in der Version 01 aus dem Jahr 2009 soll bis zum 1. Mai 2013 veröffentlicht werden.

2. Es wird ein neutraler Sachverständiger bestellt, um den Grad der Übereinstimmung zwischen Zfitter und Gfitter festzustellen.

3. Der Grad der Übereinstimmung ist im Gfitter-Code, Version 01, kenntlich zu machen. Die Kenntlichmachung wird Teil der unter 1. beschlossenen Publikation und darf nicht aus dem Netz entfernt werden.

4. Die unter Verstoß gegen das ordnungsgemäße Zitieren von Zfitter entstandenen Gfitter-Beiträge sind im Netz ausdrücklich zu benennen.


We think it is fair to say that these items of the DESY decision are in a certain one-to-one correspondence with items of the Ombuds award, also quoted here.
It is also interesting to observe the differences:

Items 1:
The DESY regulations are more definite.

Items 2:
The DESY regulation is more definite.

Items 3:
The Ombuds award says, we translate: 
"The degree of agreement is to identify, following the published Gfitter code." 
The translation of the original phrase "im Anschluß" is not unique. 
We understand the main intention of the formulation that the original code has to be identifiable, and the agreement with ZFITTER has to be made evident additionally.
DESY says, we translate:
"The degree of agreement is to be made identifiable in the code Gfitter 01."
This  is a different statement, strictly speaking.
The Ombuds' demand includes the publication of the original code Gfitter, in the form used for the publications. This makes sense in view of the conflict.
We speak here about "raw data".
DESY seems to demand to mix original code and identification of agreements. Or, maybe it is only imprecise phrasing?
The strict interpretation of the phrase "to be made identifiable in the code" makes no scientific sense, because this changes the "raw data" of the conflict into some artifical, non-authentic text.
Of course, one may also interpret the DESY demand as a "two-step procedure". Demanding for publisheing the original code, and also for publishing a commented version of it.

Items 4:
The two demands are basically identical.

13 March 2013:
There is one letter by three of the Gfitter/gsm authors, dated 13 March 2013, with some explanatory statements.
They are truly interesting.
Because we assume, for the time being, that the statements were not made for the public, we refrain from quoting.

25 June 2013:
Another three months later, we see the webpage
Statement on Gfitter01:

"DESY takes responsibility for the publication of this version and this page."

The only conclusion is, after knowing all the facts presented here:
The Representative of DESY, professor Helmut Dosch, decided to fulfill his decision about the ZFITTER/Gfitter conflict by himself.
And so he publishes the Gfitter01 code.

This event is delicate in many respects.
Some comments will be given later in special posts, e.g. on
- Legal aspects, licence aspects;
- the degree of agreements, confronting the findings of professor Dosch with those by ZFITTER authors .

Looking at the Gfitter01 webpage, immediate questions arise.
Let us ask few of them.

Questions originating from "Item 1":
We translate the DESY version:
"The code Gfitter in version 01 from 2009 shall be released until 1 May 2013."

The webpage dates 25 June 2013, and says:
"The code of Gfitter01 is available as tar-file: Gfitter01.tar.bz2."
This code was composed on 21 June 2013, and not in 2009.
And where is it from?

The ZFITTER group knows the following Gfitter01 versions:

Version was found on 2 March 2011 by ZFITTER authors in the internet at the location ../atlas_Index_of_groups_catsusy_Gfitter_gsm.htm, see

Available on justified request from the ZFITTER spokesperson.
Version was made available to ZFITTER authors by professor Haller on 3 March 2011. According to Gfitter, it is not intended to get public.
Gfitter/gsm is practically identical to that in gfitter01-2008.

We can assume that these two versions are those used for the diploma work of Martin Goebel and for the additional about 30 publications from December 2007 until July 2011.
These two Gfitter versions should be made public when the DFG  Ombuds award shall be realized.

Gfitter01-2011-07-21, see
Gfitter01-2011-08-23, available on justified request.
Gfitter01-2011-09-05, available on justified request.
These three version were published by Gfitter without knowledge of or even agreement by ZFITTER.
They are in accordance with the mentioned, wrong Erratum. 

The files seem to go back to 25 September 2012
This is one year after the last known use of Gfitter01.
At first glance, it is in some respects close to e.g. Gfitter01-2011-09-05, but it is definitely not identical to it. We did not go into detail.

The questions arise:
What is the origin of the Gfitter01 version, published by the Representative of DESY? Who authors it?
We do not find information on the authors, version  number, date, licence statement etc. 
No legal notice at all.
Frankly speaking: This is bad scientific style, not at the high standards of 2013. 
Why does the Representative of DESY not mention that the version is dated in 2013, maybe in September 2012, and definitely not in 2009? 

We see only one reasonable answer:

The Representative of DESY is closely coperating with Gfitter authors.
They gave him a code version for his publication.
And: He decided not to cooperate with ZFITTER authors.

Why does he ignore the unique opportunity to cross-check the information given to him from the accused party by independent information from the accusing party?
We do not know.   

From a professional point of view, we see certain deficits in the handling of the case.

Questions originating from "Item 2":
We translate the DESY version:
"A neutral expert will be appointed to determine the degree of agreement between Zfitter and Gfitter."

The webpage of the Representative of DESY says:
"Less than 5% of the classes in this version contain code lines ported to C++ from the Fortran package ZFITTER. The quantative fraction of code based on ZFITTER in this version is estimated to be less then 7%.
The locations are clearly marked in the source code of these classes."

We have to state:
  • The accusations of the Gfitter group by ZFITTER authors concern exclusively Gfitter01/gsm. To determine percentages based on the complete Gfitter01 package is nonsense.
If one plagiarizes Goethe's "Faust I" and says that this amounts to about 1/20 of Goethe's complete works (e.g. printed in the famous "Cotta edition"), then this would be about 5% of Goethe's work. A true statement. But it is exactly 100% of "Faust I".
So, taken realistically Gfitter01/gsm as a basis of percentages, we might assume that about 90% (maybe plus 10%/minus 5%) of its scientific contents  are "ported".
  • A complete, careful analysis of the degree of agreement is beyond the today's post. But it is evident that not all of the "... locations are clearly marked in the source code ..." The Gfitter01 (2013) contains about 98 "markings", compared to the 175 "integrations" found by ZFITTER authors in Gfitter01/gsm (2008).
Another question:
Who is the "neutral expert" authoring the statements on the agreements of the codes?
We do not know this from the webpage.

DFG recommends to ignore anonymous analyses of ethically questioned scientific work.
This applies not only to the accusations, but also to the "defenders".
Or not?

There is evidence to assume that the "neutral expert" is just the Gfitter collaboration itself.
If you know that this assumption is wrong, please let us know. 
If the assumption is correct, then the Representative of DESY did not fulfill his own demand correctly. 
Or is he not aware of that fact?

Questions originating from "Item 3".
Here, we see that the Representative of DESY took the decision NOT to publish the original "raw" version of Gfitter01, but an edited one.
This is, from a scientific point of view, regrettable.

Questions originating from "Item 4".
We translate the DESY version:
"The Gfitter publications which violate against proper citation of ZFITTER are to be indicated explicitly in the internet."

The webpage says:
"Publications making use of this code are listed here.
From the talks and proceedings listed here the ones up to July 2011 are based on this version."

The information at the webpage is by no means as correct as it is expected from the Ombuds award or from the DESY decision:
  • It not mentioned - but was expected to be - that Gfitter authors suppresssed the authors' attributions to the creators of the ZFITTER software and violated the licence conditions of ZFITTER when writing the publications.
Why not?
Isn't to clarify this kind of question the only reason for the existence of the webpage?
  • The phrases "Publications making use ..." and "From the talks and proceedings listed ..." leave open whether the corresponding lists are complete or not.

In fact, they are NOT complete.

- The article "Updated Status of the Global Electroweak Fit and Constraints on New Physics"  was accepted for publication by "European Physics Journal" on 12 September 2011 (written information from Dr. Hoecker on 20 September 2011), but did never appear in the journal. 
In fact it was retracted before getting printed.
As long as it is hold for download as a publication in the internet as (submitted 5 July 2011) the list of the articles relying on Gfitter01 in the webpage is not complete.

- The diploma thesis of Martin Goebel, "A Global Fit of the Electroweak Standard Model", Universität Hamburg, March 2008, is available e.g. at
Why is it not listed?

- At the webpage are links to 14 "talks and proceedings", but ZFITTER authors identified about 30 of them.

One specific example is the very first publication of the Gfitter project, Martin Goebel's talk at the Kick-Off Workshop of the German "Alliance for physics at the Terascale" in Hamburg, 4 December 2007. See
Why is it not listed?

The Representative of DESY is responsible for the contents of the webpage. 
As he stresses: 
"DESY takes responsibility for the publication of this version and this page."
But the lists of articles and talks and proceedings contributions are not managed - and controlled - by himself, but by the Gfitter collaboration.
Both the links to these publications are under exclusive control of Gfitter authors. 
I.e. under independent control of the accused party.

We find this kind of close collaboration with, and this blind trust to the accused party a bit disappointing.
The more if compared to the fact that any collaboration or cooperation or, at least, information exchange, with the accusing party is lacking completely.

Further, to be mentioned on sliding, we miss any remark on the "integrations" of text of ZFITTER authors into Gfitter publications: the so-called main article and the diploma thesis of Martin Goebel.

Our summary for today: 
  • We find that the representative of DESY fulfilled his own decision on the finalization of the ZFITTER/Gfitter conflict with relatively low scientific standards.
One gets the definite impression that he hides - intentionally or not - some important circumstances and that he cooperates to an amount with the accused party which is questionable.
  • Nevertheless, he clearly demonstrates - without spelling this out - that the Gfitter collaboration violated substantially the rules of Good Scientific Practice in several respects.
He comes in all the basic aspects of the accusations by ZFITTER to the same factual conclusions as ZFITTER did.
He does not agree on the ethical estimation of ZFITTER, insofar as he considers Gfitter's actions as legal and tolerable.

See for this: ZFITTER's one-page-memo dated 5 November 2012.

Unfortunately, he does not respect the licence agreement for ZFITTER software. We will come back to this fact.

Also of importance:
The Gfitter colaboration seems to be unable to understand that there are very basic problems in their approach to the use of scientific results of collegues.
And to draw the corresponding conclusions.


Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Gfitter01 - Why this DESY website about Gfitter, and why now?

particlephysicist, e-mail:

The DESY webpage is quite curious.

It is an official webpage of the Helmholtz centre Deutsches Elektornensychrotron DESY on the Gfitter project, but no one of expected links is pointing to it, see e.g. or or

- added Aug 11, 2013 - 
Search engines like Google do not point to the webpage, after 6 weeks of its existence. This could be intentional.

The webpage is an important document because it brings a momentum into the ZFITTER/Gfitter case. We had no more hope.

We cannot describe here the full history of the ZFITTER/Gfitter case.
In March 2011, ZFITTER authors discovered that substantial essentials of their scientific results (software and texts) have been copy-paste-adapted by Gfitter in 2006 to 2011. Non-authorized and carefully hidden. And used as it were Gfitter's own inventions. In about 30 publications of different importance, including a regular journal article and a diploma thesis (with distinction, Otto-Stern-Preis 2008).

ZFITTER contacted, on 3-8 March 2011, two Gfitter authors - Professor Johannes Haller of Göttingen University (now Professor at Hamburg University) and DESY Leading Scientist Klaus Moenig. These two denied all the observed facts and contacted immediately the DESY director of research Professor Joachim Mnich with a request of support.

According to the DESY regulations, what ZFITTER observed has to be considered  a case of plagiarism.

Since then, ZFITTER authors accuse Gfitter of plagiarism and of violation of the ZFITTER authors' copyrights and its licencing, while Gfitter is publicly silent. 

Members of the directorate of DESY defend the interests of Gfitter and consider the accusations against Gfitter as being wrongfully. Without taking notice of the evidence presented by ZFITTER to the authorities of DESY in March to May 2011, and later.

One has to recognize failures of  
  • a DESY ombuds investigation in April 2011 (reporting to the Board of directors: Professor Wilfried Buchmüller);
  • an independent ZFITTER/Gfitter moderation in Zeuthen in April to July 2011 (reporting to Professor Helmut Dosch: Professor Thomas Naumann).
Both initiatives ignored the factual details of the case.
In this situation, ZFITTER decided to inform the public about the known details of the case.
Since August 2011, by and

In September/October 2011, Professor Helmut Dosch initiated a moderated contact of ZFITTER and Gfitter under his personal responsibility - and also failed. 
Again the basic facts, now publicly available, were not taken into account. 

The ombuds case A-43/2011 of the Ombudsman of German Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG, initiated in November 2011 by the Representative of DESY, Professor Helmut Dosch, failed also, due to the non-cooperative behaviour of the parties and without proving the basic facts by a DFG investigation.  (According to the Ombudsman, the rules of DFG do not foresee such an investigation.)
The ZFITTER spokesperson Tord Riemann was informed about this by an official letter on 3 July 2013.
What remains from the DFG Ombuds involvement is the arbitration award by DFG ombudsman Professor Löwer of 3 July 2012, publicly available in an English translation since February 2013 at     

For what reason ever, the representative of DESY Professor Helmut Dosch decided to fulfill parts of the recommendations of the Löwer award by 
  • publishing the code of Gfitter01 (dated 21 June 2013); 
  • linking a list of references relying on Gfitter01; 
  • reproducing an independent expert's report on the amount of the 'integrations'
at, created on 25 June 2013.
That's why there is the Gfitter01 webpage at DESY.

We cannot reproduce here the DESY directorate's decision of 28 March 2013 on the matter because the directorate declared the decision as being confidential on 8 July 2013. The copy of the document was retracted from, correspondingly.

The above is our answer on the question: "Why?"
There are also the questions: 
  • Why is the webpage on Gfitter01 authored by DESY, and not by Gfitter?
  • Why did it appear just now?
  • What do we learn from the webpage on Gfitter01?

Let us go through the questions and try to answer them.

Why is the webpage on Gfitter01 authored by the Helmholtz centre DESY, and not by Gfitter's authors?
The observation is correct: The webpage on Gfitter01 is authored by the representative of DESY, Professor Helmut Dosch.
We read:
"DESY takes responsibility for the publication of this version and this page."
According to DESY regulations, the content of a DESY webpage is due to the representative of DESY if no other author is named.   
    Evidently, the Gfitter collaboration was not willing to publish the 2006-2011 Gfitter version or to inform on suspicious details of the project. 

Why did the webpage on Gfitter01 appear just now? 
The answer is speculative.
The DFG Ombuds activity failed officially on 3 July 2013. 
In fact it was earlier that Professor Dosch failed in trying to urge a fulfillment of the DFG Ombuds' award of 3 July 2012. The decision of the Board of DESY directors dated 28 March 2013 demanded a publication of the 2006-2011 version of Gfitter until 1 May 2013.
This publication was finally done by 25 June 2013. 

What do we learn from the webpage on Gfitter01? 
The following questions have to be answered:
  • Who authors Gfitter01? This is left open at the webpage, but is known. 
  • Is Gfitter01 the questioned "2006-2011 version of Gfitter"? Not truly.
  • Is the list of dependent publications complete? No, it is not.
  • The DESY directorate's decision demands: "Die unter Verstoß gegen das ordnungsgemäße Zitieren von Zfitter entstandenen Gfitter-Beiträge sind im Netz ausdrücklich zu benennen."   [The Gfitter contributions which are created by violating the rules of correct citation of ZFITTER have to be named in the internet.] Has this been done at the Gfitter01 webpage? No, not really and by far not completely.
  • ZFITTER questions exclusively the Standard Model library of Gfitter, named Gfitter/gsm. Deviating, the webpage considers the complete Gfitter01 package. Why? We will try an answer.
  • How should one estimate the professionality of the "independent expert's" expertise? As being extremely low, if the expertise is authored by an expert.
  • Why are the ZFITTER text 'integrations' not considered? No idea. We will speculate on the answer.
  • Did the DESY representative Professor Dosch respect ZFITTER's licencing and author's rights when publishing the webpage? No; these legal and ethical issues are known to him, but he did not respect them.
We will find answers to the questions in forthcoming posts of "Friends of ZFITTER".

Leaving aside the questionnaire, our conclusion after a careful reading of the webpage is as follows:

Undoubtedly, the DESY webpage on Gfitter01 proves that the Gfitter authors plagiarized the software of ZFITTER over a long term and with high intensity. 
"Plagiarism" understood as defined in the Company Regulations of DESY, Appendix 5.

Plagiarized  - by 'integrations' from ZFITTER into Gfitter in 2006 to 2011, and by never attributing this in the publications.

The Gfitter authors team stays silent until now.

We express our full respect against Professor Helmut Dosch for his decision to publish, although his motivations and conclusions are more hidden than explicit, and the precision is not at the professional level.

The publication of Gfitter01.htm on 25 June 2013 is the first substantial step in the ZFITTER/Gfitter case since the first accusations by ZFITTER in March 2011.

We would welcome if the DESY representative Professor Helmut Dosch would initiate, finally, an open-minded dialogue with the ZFITTER collaboration.
This is timely since long.