[Cuga] Setting the Scientific Priorities and Beam Allocations for currently approved 12 GeV proposals to begin with PAC35 - a message from Larry Cardman

[Rachel Harris]

We have decided to begin setting scientific priorities and establishing 
beamtime allocations for the currently-approved 12 GeV proposals over 
the next few years, with the first session at the upcoming (January 
2010) PAC35. This memo outlines these plans. If you have questions 
please address them to me: if they are of general interest I will post 
an updated version of this memo. We plan to review how the process is 
working after the first session (at PAC35) and make adjustments as 
experience warrants.

Larry Cardman

*Setting the Scientific Priorities and Beam Allocations for currently 
approved 12 GeV proposals*

As has been discussed at Users Group and PAC meetings, we have delayed 
the assignment of scientific priorities for 12 GeV proposals in order to 
set these priorities as close to the start of 12 GeV science as 
possible. The original plan was to begin to do this next year, but the 
combination of the large number of experiments now approved and the 
desire to carry out the review in a thoughtful and unhurried manner, 
incorporating an overview of the completeness of our plans in each major 
research area, has led to a decision to begin this assessment with the 
January PAC. We want to have this evaluation well-advanced before we 
begin commissioning activities for 12 GeV.

*Prioritization by Science Category*

For the original (4 GeV) program the scientific prioritization was 
carried out at three successive PACs, examining the proposals 
hall-by-hall. We have decided (with the advice of the UGBOD and Hall 
Leaders) that it makes more sense to review and prioritize the program 
by science category. This will facilitate the PAC’s rating of 
experiments according to their scientific quality and make it easier to 
assess the overall breadth and completeness of our plans for the 
research to be carried out using the Upgrade. In preparation for this 
review, a revised set of science categories has been established:

1) *The Hadron spectra as probes of QCD
* (GluEx and heavy baryon and meson spectroscopy)

2) *The transverse structure of the hadrons
* (Elastic and transition Form Factors)

3) *The longitudinal structure of the hadrons
* (Unpolarized and polarized parton distribution functions)

4) *The 3D structure of the hadrons
* (Generalized Parton Distributions and Transverse Momentum Distributions)

5) *Hadrons and cold nuclear matter
* (Medium modification of the nucleons, quark hadronization, N-N 
correlations,
hypernuclear spectroscopy, few-body experiments)

6) *Low-energy tests of the Standard Model and Fundamental Symmetries
* (Møller, PVDIS, PRIMEX, …..)

Before beginning the review we will post and circulate a list of the 
science categories that have been assigned to each presently approved 
proposal. A number of the proposals have an impact in more than one 
category, and the spokespersons will be allowed to determine the primary 
category for their proposal. That will be the category assigned for the 
rating process. Of course they are also encouraged to emphasize the 
multi-faceted nature of the experiment in the updates and viewgraphs 
they provide.

*The Prioritization Process*

Prior to the PAC at which a particular science category will be rated, 
and at about the time the call for proposals is sent out, spokespersons 
of currently approved experiments in that category will be notified that 
their proposal will be given its scientific rating and beam time 
allocation at the PAC and requested to provide the a written update to 
their proposal and a set of three viewgraphs to be shown at the PAC 
“grading session” as detailed below. These documents will be due at the 
same time as normal proposal submissions. (Since for PAC35 this 
information is going out late, we will require the documents be 
submitted no later than Tuesday, January 5, 2010, as late as reasonable 
for the PAC members to have adequate time to review the update before 
the meeting.). The documents to be provided include:

1. a brief written update on their proposal (a few pages to 10 pages 
maximum) to be provided to the PAC members in advance of the meeting, 
summarizing:

1.1. the scientific case for the proposal (emphasizing developments 
since the written proposal that are relevant) and

1.2. technical progress toward realizing the experiment.

As part of the PAC process, the updates will be sent to the PAC ahead of 
time, and the PAC members assigned primary responsibility for leading 
the review discussion will contact the spokesperson with any questions 
or a statement that there are no questions at least 1 week before the 
PAC meeting.

2. a set of three viewgraphs to be shown in the “open” portion of the 
rating session, with content as follows:

2.1. The first VG should summarize the scientific case for the experiment.

2.2. The second VG should summarize the data anticipated and its 
projected accuracy (e.g. range of relevant variables covered and the 
statistical and systematic errors anticipated at the nominal beam request).

2.3. The third VG can be anything else the collaboration would like to 
add that they feel is relevant.

Spokespersons of conditionally approved proposals in the scientific 
category to be rated at the PAC will be notified that their proposal 
might be considered in the rating process, but only if they resubmit 
their proposal and it is then fully approved by the PAC before the 
rating session begins (see the section on conditionally approved 
experiments below).

At the PAC meeting the prioritization session will begin with a public 
presentation of the sets of three viewgraphs for all experiments in the 
category under review. The presentation will be shown to the PAC during 
the open portion of the “grading” session by an uninvolved but 
knowledgeable scientist. At least one spokesperson should be in the 
audience (and available either in person or by phone for 24 hours after 
the public session) to answer questions as the PAC’s discussion 
progresses. Following this public session the PAC will continue its 
discussions in closed session.

The results of the PAC’s deliberations will become public as follows: 
the list of scientific ratings and beam time allocations will be 
provided to the Hall Leaders at the PAC closeout and then distributed to 
spokespersons within 24 hours.

*Continuation of the Process at Future PACs*

The rating process will begin with a review of proposals in the “/The 
transverse structure of the hadrons/” category at PAC35. Proposals in 
this same category coming to future PACs will be rated and given beam 
time allocations at the PAC to which they are submitted. This process 
will continue with at least one category rated at each future PAC (and, 
possibly, with a special PAC held just to rate two or three of the 
categories). Once the rating process has begun, any new proposal in a 
scientific category that has already been rated will receive its 
scientific rating and beamtime allocation at the PAC at which it 
received its approval.

*Conditionally Approved 12 GeV Proposals*

We take this opportunity to clarify the situation for conditionally 
approved proposals. In the past we have given conditionally approved 
proposals a one year (2 PAC) period to return to the PAC and resolve the 
issues that lead to conditional approval. For 12 GeV we have not 
followed this procedure – some proposals were given conditional approval 
as early as 2006, and have not been required to return to the PAC. From 
PAC35 forward, the rule for newly conditionally approved 12 GeV 
proposals shall be that they have two PACs to return. For now, with the 
norm being one PAC a year, this means a 2 year period. Once we return to 
two PACs/year, the rule shall remain “return within two PACs” and the 
period shall be reduced to one year. The 12 GeV proposals that are 
currently conditionally approved shall be “grandfathered” and allowed to 
stay in the conditional category no longer than the PAC at which the 
scientific rating is done for their category (they are, of course, 
welcome and encouraged to return for review sooner if they are ready).

*Prioritization of Run Groups*

There are a large number of experiments (currently only in Hall B) which 
have been organized into “run groups”. Run groups include multiple 
experiments that can take data simultaneously on different and/or 
related physics using the same detector, target, and beam conditions. In 
addition to the individual experiment ratings reviews discussed above 
for the experiments within the run groups, we will carry out a review of 
the run groups themselves to establish their overall scientific 
priority. This will be done in a PAC session roughly one year before 
CLAS12 starts taking data. If similar situations evolve in the other 
halls we will do a similar “overall scientific priority” assignment to 
the run groups that evolve there.