Present: Stepan, Maurik, Tim, Matt, Raphael, Nathan, John

 

Please send comments/corrections to the above email list.

 

1. Procedures for reviewing papers and approving presentation of new physics results Norman Graf reminded us that HPS has established no written rules for how/when to unblind, what the role of a review committee should be, or  what level of detail was expected in an analysis note. The review committee he chairs was established and charged by the analysis group to help in the unblinding decision for the 2015 bump hunt analysis, but found their role confused by their own expectations and that called out in the bylaws for a physics publications review committee. We all agreed it is time to better spell out our procedures for reviewing for unblinding, reviewing new results, and preparing publications. The sooner the better.

 

To this end, Norman agreed, with the help of the present review committee, to circulate proposed guidelines for the level of detail needed in an analysis note before the upcoming collaboration meeting.  He also agreed that the present review committee (Raphael, FX, Valeri, and Norman) would propose changes to our bylaws, which more accurately spell out the role of the review committee for future physics results.

 

The analysis group convernors, Nathan and Matt, were asked to propose more formal procedures for reviewing an analysis and deciding upon its readiness to be unblinded. More discussion on what actually constitutes unblinding is in order. They should propose bylaw additions/changes if they think them appropriate. We were reminded that the analysis group was given the authority to decide on whether to unblind at our last Collaboration meeting. An analysis note is prerequisite to unblinding. To help with their decision, they constituted and charged (Norman's)  review committee. One of many questions worth settling is when in this process the analysis note should be released to the entire collaboration.

 

Our present bylaws do spell out procedures for how to present new physics results. These make no mention of an analysis note being circulated to the collaboration before approval, nor mention of any role for a review committee at the approval stage. It will be useful if Norman and his committee, the analysis group, and any other interested parties weigh in on any modifications needed in our present bylaws in these respects.

 

The lack of full and proper documentation of all aspects of the experiment impedes our backing up new physics results. We must continue to take steps to remedy this situation, especially concerning tracking.

 

2. The EC voted unanimously in favor of approving Robert Johnson (UCSC) and Domenico D'Urso (Sassari) for election to HPS membership.

 

3. CHL problems at JLAB and Implications for future HPS running.

Stepan outlined what's known about the CHL problems. A CHL failed, but apparently not the same sort of hard mechanical crash that ruined the compressor last time. Consequently, several different possible responses are being explored, as more facts are collected.  One is to repair the present unit, assuming that it is a relatively quick fix, and resume high energy running.  A second, also assuming a quick fix, is to resume the high energy program, but lower the energy perhaps 10% to reduce stress on the cooling units. A third is to mount a full repair, which can be very expensive and time consuming. In this case, running would only be possible at 6 GeV using the other CHL. This last possibility could open up more running opportunities for HPS before summer 2018.

 

Stepan also noted that, if in the 6 GeV scenario, CLAS 12 operations likely prevent HPS  running in Fall CY2017. CLAS needs time to check out and install the solenoid, and take data. Stepan mentioned that any work on the SVT needs to be done July/August 2017 or January 2018, when Hall B techs will be free of CLAS responsibilities. It is probably to HPS's advantage do delay running to at least next Spring, when the upgrades could be installed.  Tim ventured that the SVT upgrade could be ready in time for an April '18 run; Stepan thought the same time table was right for the trigger upgrade. So, especially if CEBAF is at 6 GeV, one could imagine a Spring 2018 run and/or a Summer 2018 run.

 

4. Our next meeting will be next Thursday at 9 or 10 AM PDT. TBD.

 

Respectfully,

 

John

  • No labels