[Rgc] [EXTERNAL] Comments on dihadrons_with_long_target_PAC_proposal-4852205-2020-05-27-v1.pdf

[Sebastian Kuhn]

Sorry, I just realized that I attached the wrong version of the proposal - the review site hasn’t been updated yet. Here is the newest version.

- Sebastian



On Jun 16, 2020, at 10:07 AM, Sebastian Kuhn <kuhn at jlab.org<mailto:kuhn at jlab.org>> wrote:

Dear members of RG-C,

the spokespersons of one of the new PAC48 proposals have decided to turn their proposal instead into a Run Group C addition. This means they are asking to use the already approved RG-C beam time and running conditions for their channel of interest, dihadron production. The CLAS review committee (L. Pappalardo, A. Biselli and F. Benmokhtar) have endorsed this conversion, but they still have some concerns about the proposal as presently written (with which I agree).

In any case, I strongly encourage all of you to read the present proposal - attached - and also the discussion on the review web page (see link below in Luciano’s email) if you are a CLAS collaborator. Keep in mind that, if approved by the CLAS collaboration, this proposal will more or less be rubber-stamped by the PAC. So we should focus on whether we think this is a useful addition to the RG-C program and also whether there are any conditions/requirements by the proposers that we feel would be incompatible with our run plans.

Just to be sure, there is no way the proposers can ask for  more or different allocation of beam time through a run group proposal; so, if they want to increase the total amount of running on ND3, they will have to defend this in a separate proposal for a NEW run group (similar to what some of us have tried - so far unsuccessfully - before). Or they could decide to write another run group addition if the 3He target proposal gets approved.

Anyway, feel free to contact the proposers directly with your comments (I left some of my earlier ones attached), with cc to the CLAS collaboration chair (Kyungseon), Working Group Chair (Marco) and, if you don’t mind, me (so I have an overview of what has been said). Keep in mind that the submission deadline is 6/22 (only 6 days from now), so your replies should come as soon as possible.

Thanks - Sebastian



Begin forwarded message:

From: pappalardo at fe.infn.it<mailto:pappalardo at fe.infn.it>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Comments on dihadrons_with_long_target_PAC_proposal-4852205-2020-05-27-v1.pdf
Date: June 15, 2020 at 10:47:57 PM EDT
To: "Kuhn, Sebastian E." <skuhn at odu.edu<mailto:skuhn at odu.edu>>
Cc: pappalardo at fe.infn.it<mailto:pappalardo at fe.infn.it>, "Joo, Kyungseon" <kyungseon.joo at uconn.edu<mailto:kyungseon.joo at uconn.edu>>, fatiha at jlab.org<mailto:fatiha at jlab.org>, abiselli at fairfield.edu<mailto:abiselli at fairfield.edu>, mcontalb at fe.infn.it<mailto:mcontalb at fe.infn.it>

Dear Sebastian,

we have just uploaded our final comments in:

https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.jlab.org%2FHall-B%2Fshifts%2Findex.php%3Fdisplay%3Dadmin%26task%3Dpaper_review%26rid%3D4852205%26operation%3Dview&data=02%7C01%7Cskuhn%40odu.edu%7C4febe951a14c421436c508d8119faea3%7C48bf86e811a24b8a8cb368d8be2227f3%7C0%7C0%7C637278724828701088&sdata=WmPCBCyic1Rhp4L2HA7qFAS1R7L6dT5yISc6LWiw8yo%3D&reserved=0

Please, go ahead!

Best regards,
Luciano (for the Review Committee)

Here are my previous comment on version 3 of the proposal (now superseded):

Dear all,

I have read the original proposal a while ago, and today I read the very detailed comments by the review committee and the reply by the authors. I agree 100% with the points raised by the committee, and find that neither the response of the authors nor the newest version of the proposal addresses these issues completely.

The main problem is that the authors do not clearly state what this proposal is: A Run Group addition proposal (for RG-C), a stand-alone proposal for a complete new run group, or some hybrid thereof. This should be made crystal clear already in the title (maybe in a byline), and for sure in the abstract and the introduction. Instead, the reader is still left with the impression that the proposers are asking for a full 208 PAC days of new beamtime (which would be the most extravagant request ever for an experiment in Hall B). Their response to the Commitee’s “Note” (in red on p. 1 in the comments) has it both ways: “We have decided to proceed as a RG-C addition…” but then continue that they want to reverse the ratio of H to D running. A run group addition does NOT get any new (or different) beam time / conditions approved by the PAC; if the proposers would like to change the ratio of H to D running WITHIN RG-C, they should discuss this with the co-spokespersons on RG-C. In any case, it looks as if the proton part of RG-C is by far sufficient for the purposes of the present proposal; so the only request for NEW beam time should be limited to 60 additional PAC days of ND3. I note that several of us have tried to convince the PAC before that we need higher statistics on polarized D, so far without success (see below). It also doesn’t help that the proposers seem unsure whether they could also get their n data from the new 3He proposal - in that case, they should (have) join(ed) that proposal as one part of a full-blown new run group proposal with a defensible request for beam time for their specific channel.

In summary, the only reasonable way forward to me seems to be to recast the proposal as an addition to RG-C (which has to be accepted by the CLAS collaboration, while the PAC only comments on it) - this seems to be the intention of the proposers, but it isn’t clear from the proposal. In that case, the proposers should show what results they can get from the already approved beam time AS IS (with the APOLLO target presently under construction). It may be good to point out in such a run time proposal that additional statistics on the deuteron/neutron would be highly desirable; this could then be followed up with a DEDICATED proposal just for that additional beam time (either on ND3 or 3He) next year. (If you plan to go the ND3 route, it would be very helpful to contact the spokespersons of the already existing proposals PR12-15-004 (PAC43) / C12-15-004 (PAC44).)

- Sebastian
<v4_draft_proposal-4852205-2020-06-11-v4.pdf><2h_proposal_Review_Comments_round2_v1-4852205-2020-06-15-v5.pdf>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/rgc/attachments/20200616/490cff4c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: di_hadrons_with_long_target_PAC_proposal__v06152020.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 2528225 bytes
Desc: di_hadrons_with_long_target_PAC_proposal__v06152020.pdf
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/rgc/attachments/20200616/490cff4c/attachment-0001.pdf>