Coordination meeting

Monday 19 Feb 2024, 14:00 → 15:00 Europe/Zurich

Cordination meeting minutes

Date : 2024/02/02

Attendees : Adnan Ghribi [AG], Sabrina Lecerf [SL], Thomas Shea [TS], Giuanluca Valentino [GV], Annika Eichler [AE], Jonas L’Haridon [JL], Andrew Mistry [AM], Ivan Knezevic [IV], Christine Darve [CD], Jim Dowling [JD], Amelia Pollard [AP], Adrian Oeftiger [AO], Stefano Pioli [SL]

Absent (distribution) : Jade Varin [JV], Verena Kain [VK], Lex Avstreikh [LA], Evalds Urtans [EU], Emmanuel Detsis [ED], Carsten Welsh [CW]

Summary

• Updates on budget : discussion and decision
• Updates on Part B - comments
• Coherence of the implementation with the methodology : the case of WP3
• Updates on budget : The case of CEA and ESS Bilbao
• RICH Europe review : participants. questions preparation
• Submission to external review
• Round table / news
• Next meeting

 

Updates on budget

• Presentation of the without ESS Bilbao in WP2.
• The situation of ESSB has to be clarified as they require a participation in another WP (even symbolic) in order to confirm their contribution to WP2. [AE] proposes that GSI contribution to WP4 is swapt with ESSB. A dedicated meeting will be organised by [GV] with ESSB (Ibon Bustinduy).
• Budget needs to be sent soon to all partners. Cosylab asks for it urgently in order to confirm their participation to the project. [SL] will send the present budget table on the Feb. 19th to Ziva Brglez.
• Budget table needs to be frozen this week. The deadline is set for Wednesday 21st of February.

Updates on part B

• A first advanced draft has been submitted to the RICH Europe review. A copy of it has been made available to everyone for comments. This copy can be found here under the name artifact_part_b_internal_review.docx. The deadline to include all comments is set on Thursday February 22nd.

Please be careful as not to use the overleaf or sharepoint version anymore.

•  By Thursday February 22nd, the comments will be moved to the document artifact_part_b_working_copy.docx in the same box space. The modification of this document is restricted.

Coherence of the implementation with the methodology

• The coherence of the methodology and the implementation part needs to be checked. This is a specific task for every WP leader.
• In particular, WP3 shows a difference with the methodology described in the document. It has too many deliverables (10) and too many tasks. Other aspects discussed between [CW] and [JL] have not been implemented. [CW] being in holiday, the implementation of WP3 will be discussed with [CD] (WP co-leader) on Wednesday 9am this week.

RICH Europe review

The RICH Europe review will take place on zoom this Thursday February 22nd from 10 am to 11 am. Only 3 participants are allowed to participate. These will be : GSI (Adrian and Oxana), GANIL (Sabrina, Jade, Adnan) and ESF (Jonas).

If you have any questions you want to be asked to RICH experts, please send them before Wednesday Feb 21st.

External review

On Friday 23rd, the corrected draft will be sent to external experts (Phil Burrows, Maurizio Vretnar, Toms Torrins and Jose Manuel Perez). They will have 10 days to give us their feedback. Email will be sent to these experts today.

Round table / News

Diplo foundation accepted to participate to the external advisory board pro bono. See link here. They are involved in AI adoption locks in developing countries, ethical aspects and AI policy. Their involvement should be centralised in WP4. [TS] will arrange meeting between Diplo and [GV].

Mayer Brown law firm was foreseen to contribute in the external advisory board but not pro bono. We would need about 10 kE for their participation. We will need to find a solution for their participation.

It is foreseen that the external advisory board be constituted by 3 experts from within the field and 3 experts from outside the field.

[JV] and [SL] will send a link to the latest version of the budget soon.

[JV] will send a summary of inkind contributions balance with respect to project funding.

[AE] is meeting with several WP6 participants this week to organise resources sharing.

[SL] will send a poll for next coordination meeting.

[IK] proposes SEEIIST (hadron therapy) from the Baltics as a use case. This is to be discussed with [AO] and included in the white paper if relevant.

[CD] proposes a case from SESAME. This is to be discussed with [AO] and included in the white paper if relevant.

[CD] proposes iThemba lab in the list of external reviewers.

[AG] proposes QST (F4E, Japan) in the list of external reviewers.

ESA has been confirmed for external reviewers.

We need to freeze the abstract and keywords this week. Please read it and comment it if needed.

Abstract

Particle accelerators, integral to advancing knowledge, face sustainability, energy and scientific efficiency, and environmental impact challenges. With over 40,000 worldwide, these devices contribute to diverse fields, from healthcare to fundamental physics. ARTIFACT, short for "ARTifical Intelligence For Accelerators, user Communities and associated Technologies", aims to address these challenges by leveraging Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML). A network of 30 institutes collaborates to achieve three main objectives: reduce downtime, develop tools for critical issues, and ensure sustainable AI implementation. The ambitious aims of the project are delivered by seven work packages, with four covering technical developments and three covering transversal topics. The technical activities include a Pan-European AI-enabled Accelerator Data Platform to support Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) Data, features and models; optimized control and modeling, reliable fault detection, developing software frameworks and methods optimized for accelerator RIs; and demonstrating the new AI and data tools in host facilities to produce smart accelerator prototypes. The transversal work packages manage these developments with an agile approach, communicate progress to the stakeholders, and assure knowledge and skill transfer between experts and institutes while contributing to training the next generation scientists. They also ensure compliance to ethical and robustness constraints within the scientific environment as well as alignment with EU policies in the rapidly evolving AI regulatory landscape. This proposal emerges as a pioneer in accelerator research infrastructures (RIs) at an optimal time—during the digital transformation of our society, promising wide-reaching benefits for research facilities throughout Europe.

Keywords

Particle Accelerators, Pan-European Development, Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, AI Digital Transformation, FAIR-data, Open Science