I have a little dilemma. There is simple question that came up in my actual research that I'd like to ask, but I think it's forbidden by stackexchange rules, because it has more than one correct answer. The question (from exp. particle physics) would be something along:
What data-driven methods are there to estimate the QCD multijet background?
There are two, max. three methods that are well-known and can be described succinctly (and with references). But there might be more methods I don't know of, and these would probably be even more useful to me. I don't know all the techniques - otherwise I wouldn't be asking - so I don't know the total number of answers. But it's not open ended, in the sense that there is a small, finite number of answers.
Usually, I'd just reformulate the question slightly and pretend I didn't know the question had multiple answers:
How to estimate the QCD multijet background from data?
How does the technique work?
That's of course silly, and it makes the question less useful because I have to play dumb and can put less information in it. Someone will post an answer saying I have a misconception and explain two methods, and somebody else might post the third, so I'll eventually get what I want. I see this on Stackoverflow all the time.
(A third option: demand that the correct answer contains all techniques known to mankind. This is true to the word of the law, since there is only one right answer, but it's even more silly.)
I believe this question and its potential answer(s) are useful, yet I fear it will be closed and downvoted quickly. So, what should I do?