Present: Stepan, Maurik, Takashi, Tim, FX, Raphael, John

Please send comments/corrections/additions to the whole EC. 

1. Thesis Topics
We reviewed proposals from Sho, Omar, and Holly, and saw two new "placeholders" from Guidal and D'Angelo.

We agreed to approve the proposals from Sho and Omar. 

We agreed to do extra homework concerning the proposal from Holly and the placeholders because of possible overlaps.

We saw potential overlaps in Holly's work and the various directions proposed by Michel Guidal; we also saw overlaps between
D'Angelo's proposal and Guidal's. Stepan will address the first with Michel. 

Several general points emerged from our discussion:

A. Theses which must be completed by 2015 and depend on analyzing HPS data appear very aggressive. It is not clear that
results can come quickly enough to maintain the 2015 defense schedule. 

B. Mention is made of doing polarization studies. HPS does not now have a clear idea of the physics possibilities with polarization,
or our ability to have polarized beams, or the impact of having polarization on our other measurements. This case is very interesting,
but it needs to be made to the collaboration, and if the collaboration is in favor, it needs to be worked out with JLAB management
and machine physicists to see if it is practicable. 

C. Both Guidal and D'Angelo mention the possibility of having students study tridents. Do both intend to use HPS data, or are theoretical studies imagined? 

D. Both Griffioen (Holly)  and Guidal mention the use of Ecal improvements to benefit A' searches by improving momentum resolution.
Could one do this on bump hunt data, the other on vertex data? 

E. The present draft policy, attached above, states, "The scope of the results presented in an HPS thesis is to be commensurate with that of a
publication reporting on new HPS results. Ideally, a thesis corresponds to a publication." HPS Thesis Policy.ppt

This statement is generating confusion. Do we allow multiple bump hunt analyses on the 2015 data or not? We might consider amending the policy. 

Consensus at the meeting was that many students could conduct A' search analyses if their work contained new intellectual contributions to the
search. This guidance is also given in the policy. A distinction was drawn between generating HPS published results, which ideally would use
all the best tools available to us on a reasonable time scale (such as improved momentum measurements, and our best background estimates),
and would be the work of the entire analysis team,  and the student's production of a thesis, which could concentrate on his/her individual contributions,
and could present an analysis different from that in our publication. 

2. Software Meeting at SLAC 

There was general if largely tacit agreement that a one week Software Workshop at SLAC at the time of the HPS collaboration meeting at
SLAC would be useful and would be attended. Preference was for the week January 27-31, after the workshop. This will be vetted with
the whole collaboration at the Wednesday meeting. 

3. Stepan agreed to draft a list of authors for the Test Beam paper in preparation. After EC approves it, it must be approved by the collaboration proper.

4. EC was asked to consider whether HPS should arXiv its proposal, perhaps with some minor modifications. Discussion was deferred to our next meeting because of the hour.

John

  • No labels