[Particle-physics-affiliated] [Particle-physics-baes] IPR question

Makoto Fujiwara fujiwara at triumf.ca
Wed Nov 14 11:57:51 PST 2018


If we had to stick to just one highlight from the past, I would pick TRIUMF's leadership in T2K, rather than ALPHA. Something like:

T2K's discover of a new neutrino interaction, enabled by TRIUMF's leadership in the conception, the construction and the analysis of the T2K experiment. 

Makoto


---
Makoto C. Fujiwara,  TRIUMF
Ph:+1-604-222-7585/Fax:+1-604-222-1074


> On Nov 14, 2018, at 11:32, Makoto Fujiwara <fujiwara at triumf.ca> wrote:
> 
> Hi all, 
> 
> I was actually drafting something similar to what Akira had before I saw Jens's latest suggestion, since the original two slides with many bullets looked too much project-centred. 
> 
> - Past: TRIUMF's intellectual leadership in large international collaborations, ranging from the conception, the development, the construction, and high impact publications:
> 	e.g. ATLAS analysis leadership, conception of the NuPrime detector, production of UCN, precision spectroscopy on antimatter
> 
> - Future: Construction and exploitation of new large scale experiments to drive the discoveries:
> 	e.g. ATLAS detector upgrades, Hyper Kamiokande construction, EDM experiment for UCN, SuperCDMS, antimatter gravity 
> 
> - Concerns: timely succession of key personnel (both scientific and technical); support for the detector development and construction
> 
> In the above, I randomly picked one item from each of the focused projects, as examples. Other choices are possible, but the idea is to promote the entire particle physics activities. 
> 
> Cheers, Makoto
> 
> ---
> Makoto C. Fujiwara,  TRIUMF
> Ph:+1-604-222-7585/Fax:+1-604-222-1074
> 
> 
>> On Nov 14, 2018, at 10:59, Akira Konaka <konaka at triumf.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi.
>> 
>>   Here is my two cents in responding to this request:
>> 
>> We probably want to consider what we want the committee to write in the report and provide
>> materials for that purpose. They are charged with the past accomplishment and future prospects.
>> We want them to point out something like,
>> 
>> - TRIUMF particle physics group has high level of expertise and research scientists took
>>  the leadership the community to participate in the high impact particle physics experiments
>>  with innovations.
>> - TRIUMF particle physics group continue to take the leadership role and excellent future
>>  programs are planned.
>> - Support staffs and detector development facility is the backbone of TRIUMF’s contribution 
>>  in particle physics as a national laboratory. As the detector facility and equipments require
>>  renewal, support is essential. Maintaining the critical mass in the personnel is essential
>>  for TRIUMF to continue its prominent and innovative role in the community.
>> 
>> Probably, some of you can put these in better words. With this kind of statements in mind,
>> we can add some examples to make the case.
>> 
>> Akira
>> 
>>> On Nov 14, 2018, at 10:30 AM, Wolfgang Rau <wrau at triumf.ca> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Oliver, all,
>>> 
>>> I have to say that I’m really not sure what the purpose is at this point. What we had before was too wordy in my mind and I thought Isabel said it well, but putting down just these three points serves no purpose in my mind. I gives the  false impression that there is a clear one-project highlight that describes our situation appropriately. If we were in a situation that we can really only do one thing in the future and we have to pick which one, this might make sense, but fortunately (or at least I very much hope so) this is not the case. Without this restriction, this really gives the impression that other things are not important. So I’d rather not show anything that this.
>>> One way to save it might be by changing the headlines:
>>> Instead of ‘Past highlight’ we could say something like ‘Most important accomplishment’
>>> Instead of ‘Future’ we could say something like ‘One of the projects to look out for’
>>> 
>>> For the last one I’m not actually sure what it is supposed to express: are we worried that the government will cut this program in particular? Or that we won’t have enough funding (why then wouldn’t we have asked for more – now would have been the time); I’m sure there is a good reason to put this down, but I can’t extract that.
>>> 
>>> Anyway, in the end I don’t think it will actually make a significant difference – I hope that the rest of the session gives a more representative picture and that the reviewers remember that rather than this one slide.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Wolfgang
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: Particle-physics-baes <particle-physics-baes-bounces at trmail.triumf.ca> On Behalf Of Oliver Stelzer-Chilton
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 9:59
>>> To: Particle-physics-affiliated at trmail.triumf.ca; particle-physics-baes <particle-physics-baes at trmail.triumf.ca>
>>> Cc: Pietro Giampa <pgiampa at triumf.ca>
>>> Subject: Re: [Particle-physics-baes] IPR question
>>> 
>>> Dear Colleagues,
>>> 
>>> Thank you all for the fast turn around on giving inputs and feedback. Much appreciated.
>>> 
>>> Another update from Jens. The longer slides are off the table and we now asked that the session convenors shows only one slide with an example for past future and concern.
>>> The choice from the leadership team this morning is below and we are asked to just do word smithing…  Supposedly Jens notes that the snapshot goes into a field of the form report
>>> and the report is for NRC internal, non expert auditing. 
>>> 
>>> I have many questions and I am sure you do too. I am further not sure what the point is of showing such a slide in the parallel session. It clearly is a choice that weighs some aspects more than
>>> others. I would be more comfortable listing our “focus projects” at an appropriate level. If this is purely a formality motivated by various political constraints, I don’t think this should be asked of us.
>>> 
>>> In any case your feedback is welcome, also if the proposal from the leadership team can be defended at some level.
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> 
>>> Oliver
>>> 
>>> From: Jens Dilling <jdilling at triumf.ca>
>>> Subject: RE: IPR question
>>> Date: November 14, 2018 at 8:47:35 AM PST
>>> Thank you all for the excellent feedback, unfortunately , we will have to distill it even further.
>>> Further to the information from yesterday, we were told today by Jon that what the committee wants is:
>>> One sentence per field (past, future, concern), which will be put into a form field in their formal report (the report is for non-experts).
>>> So we can only use one highlight (as one example) for the field. The purpose of this part of the report is to provide a  snapshot, not to be comprehensive. We need to pick something that is TRIUMF centric, again, not for subject matter experts. 
>>> 
>>> Please feel free to do minor word smiting or tweaking (not too much, please).
>>> The session conveners should show the slide
>>> 
>>> Particle Physics:
>>> Past highlight:
>>> 
>>> Formation and precision spectroscopy of anti-matter (ALPHA) under TRIUMF leadership
>>> 
>>> Future:
>>> World-leading neutron-EDM experiment at TRIUMF
>>> 
>>> Concerns:
>>> Support for detector development
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Nov 14, 2018, at 8:46 AM, Oliver Stelzer-Chilton <stelzer-chilton at triumf.ca> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Isabel and Mark,
>>> 
>>> I agree that showing them at the end makes more sense.
>>> Good points to make the messages a bit more concise,
>>> but I don’t think we need to reduce by too much.
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> 
>>> Oliver
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Nov 14, 2018, at 8:34 AM, Mark Hartz <mhartz at triumf.ca> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi All,
>>> 
>>> These accomplishments and future achievements are largely covered in the parallel talks, so I would suggest leaving the slides on this until the end of the parallel session.  Maybe by that point we just need to flash it briefly.
>>> 
>>> If we want to keep it short, here are the brief answers for the long baseline neutrino.
>>> 
>>> Past Highlights:
>>> Construction and operation of the main components of the near detector, beam line monitor and remote maintenance systems. Analysis leadership, including development of new event reconstruction algorithms.
>>> 
>>> Future Accomplishments:
>>> Leadership on construction of Hyper-K intermediate water Cherenkov detector and leadership on international contribution for photodetectors to Hyper-K detector.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Mark
>>> From: Particle-physics-baes <particle-physics-baes-bounces at trmail.triumf.ca> on behalf of Isabel Trigger <itrigger at triumf.ca>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 7:56:09 AM
>>> To: Oliver Stelzer-Chilton
>>> Cc: Particle-physics-affiliated at trmail.triumf.ca; particle-physics-baes; Pietro Giampa
>>> Subject: Re: [Particle-physics-baes] Fwd: IPR question
>>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> Indeed, it may be fastest if David can show these just before his talk; however, I worry that putting them at the beginning could derail the whole session schedule if they spawn any discussion. We could instead save them for the end, although at this point, that would mean cutting the question periods after the talks shorter to save a few minutes for the end. Let me know if you want me to do that, or if it’s better for David to flash them fast. 
>>> 
>>> Comparing the two proposed slides with the explicit questions asked by the committee (goal posts keep moving):
>>> 
>>> - “in the last five years” excludes a few of the highlights listed (in particular the original ATLAS detector contributions, the T2K detector contributions, and the SNO detector contributions). We may be very proud of the Nobel prize for SNO, which did fall within this time period, but we should find somewhere else to emphasize TRIUMF’s contributions to SNO, which were mostly made before it became operational in 1999.
>>> - the slides would have more impact if we didn’t fill them quite so full e.g. for ATLAS, TRIUMF can be proud of many things, but it is hard to count upgrades for shutdowns that have not yet started as past highlights, even if we have been working very hard on them for the last few years, and I suspect that if TRIUMF had been closed down in 2015, the main thing that would have affected ATLAS directly would have been the loss of the Tier-1, so maybe we should emphasize that - we don’t need to summarize the whole ATLAS talk and list everything in one line. Similarly for T2K, developing a concept for a future detector is great, but it sits rather uncomfortably between past and future - being proud of it before it is actually built is certainly possible but looks a bit funny. And anywhere it says “key contributions”, proponents should pick the most key contribution and list that. It’s not list “everything we are proud of", it’s “what are we MOST proud of?”.
>>> 
>>> - “hope/expect to be most proud of” probably means pick one thing in progress now, assume it will come to fruition before the end of this 5YP e.g. for ATLAS if we get the NSW down the pit before the end of the long shutdown, and they work, we can expect to be very proud. But I think these need to be concrete - we should not be listing “leadership” as something we expect to be most proud of, in any of these items. 
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> Isabel 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Nov 14, 2018, at 5:39 AM, Oliver Stelzer-Chilton <stelzer-chilton at triumf.ca> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear Colleagues,
>>> 
>>> Thank you all for the prompt feedback. Much appreciated. 
>>> There is a more concrete request from Jens to prepare 1-2 slides that the first speaker or parallel session convenor should show.
>>> 
>>> I attach a first draft trying to merge in the comments I got. Please send comments and suggestions.
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> 
>>> Oliver
>>> Jens Dilling <jdilling at triumf.ca> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Here is the formal question from the committee, they want to see their questions addressed in the parallel session:
>>> They say:
>>> 
>>> For the breakout sessions.  1-2 slides max.  > 20 point font. 
>>> 
>>> 	• What accomplishment are you most proud of in the last five years?
>>> 	• What do you hope/expect to be most proud of in the next five years?
>>> 	• What are your top 1-2 concerns going forward?
>>> 
>>> For the past accomplishments, their timeline is the last five years (2013-2018).
>>> For the next five years, I think it should include the entire next 5 year plan period (2018-2025).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Nov 14, 2018, at 12:18 AM, Mark Hartz <mhartz at triumf.ca> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Oliver All,
>>> 
>>> Here is what I can say for long baseline neutrinos:
>>> 
>>> Past Highlights:
>>> - Construction and operation of the Time Projection Chambers (TPCs) and Fine Grained Detectors (FGDs) in the T2K near detector
>>> - As far as I know we did not contribute directly to the Target
>>> - Construction and operation of beam monitor just upstream of the target (OTR)
>>> - Construction and operation of the remote maintenance cell for target and horn.  Operation of the remote maintenance for target repair in 2015.
>>> - Development of fiTQun event reconstruction algorithm for Super-K
>>> - Leadership of T2K analysis - M. Scott (former TRIUMF postdoc) as Oscillation Analysis working group convener and M. Hartz as analysis coordinator
>>> - Development of NuPRISM detector concept - M. Hartz and M. Wilking (former TRIUMF postdoc) are spokespeople of J-PARC E61 experiment
>>> - Development of multi-PMT photosensor design (ongoing)
>>> 
>>> Future achievements:
>>> - Primary contribution (50%) to the Intermediate Water Cherenkov (NuPRISM) detector with $5 million CFI-IF for multi-PMT photosensor production
>>> - Potential contributions to the Hyper-K photosensors, readout electronics and calibration system
>>> - Leadership in analysis including analysis of near and intermediate detector data, bottom-up calibration of Hyper-K and machine learning techniques for event reconstruction and classification.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Mark
>>> From: Particle-physics-baes <particle-physics-baes-bounces at trmail.triumf.ca> on behalf of Oliver Stelzer-Chilton <stelzer-chilton at triumf.ca>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 6:47:54 PM
>>> To: particle-physics-baes; Particle-physics-affiliated at trmail.triumf.ca
>>> Subject: [Particle-physics-baes] Fwd: IPR question
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dear Colleagues,
>>> 
>>> See request from Jens below. Deadline is noon tomorrow, so please send me your comments by 10am.
>>> 
>>> My own comments
>>> 
>>> For Past:
>>> - 1A should include the Tier1.
>>> - 1B, mention Mark for analysis coordinator
>>> - 1C name it lepton universality
>>> looks like we can add “E” to make it 5. Alpha?
>>> 
>>> For Future:
>>> - 1B since this goes to 2025, we will not have HL-LHC yet, so this is focusing on Run 3. We could say Higgs characterization, e.g. coupling to second generation. 
>>> - 1C should mention the multi-PMT development
>>> 
>>> Thanks in advance.
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> 
>>> Oliver
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>> From: Jens Dilling <jdilling at triumf.ca>
>>> Subject: IPR question
>>> Dear Colleagues,
>>> For the IPR we are being asked to provide 3-5 bullet points for past high-lights and 3-5 bullet point for future science achievements (up to 2025).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> We need to have something for tomorrow noon.
>>> 
>>> 	• Particle Physics
>>> Past highlights (please check if consistent with parallel talks):
>>> 
>>> A.      Key contributions to ATLAS for detectors and analysis (Higgs spin analysis coordinator, current overall physics coordinator, deputy spokesperson TRIUMF-affiliate)
>>> B.       Key contributions to T2K for detectors and analysis (near detector concept from TRIUMF, major contributions to target, and overall analysis)
>>> C.       Best weak-electrophysics test of  pion decay (PiENu), conceived and executed at TRIUMF
>>> D.      Key contributions to SNO detector (universal interface) and analysis (TRIUMF joint position Canadian collaboration spokesperson -D.Sinclair, who was invited to come to Stockholm with Art MacDonald)
>>> 
>>> Future achievements (projected)
>>> A.      Key achievements for UCN production and science program, including limits on n-EDM (level of 10-27e/cm)
>>> B.       Key contribution to detector and analysis for ATLAS upgrade, HiLumi upgrade and Higgs-potential mapping
>>> C.       Key contributions for Hyper-K detector system, development and production, and early science analysis for systematics
>>> D.      Canadian Leadership for Dark Matter searches in SuperCDMS, key contributions to physics analysis
>>> E.       Best hadronic limits on Anti-Matter-Matter, limits on Anti-Gravity measurements
>>> 
>>> <Particle_Highlights.pptx>
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Particle-physics-baes mailing list
>>> Particle-physics-baes at lists.triumf.ca
>>> http://lists.triumf.ca/mailman/listinfo/particle-physics-baes
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Particle-physics-baes mailing list
>>> Particle-physics-baes at lists.triumf.ca
>>> http://lists.triumf.ca/mailman/listinfo/particle-physics-baes
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Particle-physics-baes mailing list
>> Particle-physics-baes at lists.triumf.ca
>> http://lists.triumf.ca/mailman/listinfo/particle-physics-baes
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Particle-physics-baes mailing list
> Particle-physics-baes at lists.triumf.ca
> http://lists.triumf.ca/mailman/listinfo/particle-physics-baes




More information about the Particle-physics-affiliated mailing list