ESPPU Core Editorial Team meeting

Tuesday 25 Feb 2025, 17:00 → 18:30 Europe/Zurich

Chris Rogers, Daniel Schulte (CERN), Federico Meloni (Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron (DE))

Overleaf link: https://www.overleaf.com/3781273291qffchfrfbbwz#c64fce 

17:00 → 18:00 Roundtable

Patrick Meade: II.2, III.8, IV.15
Kevin Black: II.4, III.7, III.9
Christian Carli: II.5, III.11
Steve Gourlay: II.6, III.10
Sergo Jindariani: III.7, III.9, IV.16
Roberto Losito: II.6, III.11, III.12
Donatella Lucchesi: II.3, II.4, III.9
Elias Metral: I.1, II.5, III.11
Simone Pagan Griso: II.4, III.9, III.14
Nadia Pastrone: I.1, III.14
Diktys Stratakis: II.5, III.11, IV.16
Taylor: II.5, III.14
Andrea Wulzer: II.2, II.3, III.8

Speakers: Andrea Wulzer (IFAE and ICREA -- Barcelona, Spain), Christian Carli (CERN), Diktys Stratakis, Donatella Lucchesi (Universita e INFN, Padova (IT)), Elias Metral (CERN), Federico Meloni (Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron (DE)), Prof. Kevin Black (University of Wisconsin-Madison), Nadia Pastrone (Universita e INFN Torino (IT)), Patrick Meade, Rebecca Taylor (CERN), Roberto Losito (CERN), Sergo Jindariani (Fermi National Accelerator Lab. (US)), Simone Pagan Griso (Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (US)), Stephen Gourlay

RTaylor_PartII_Ch5_Comments.pdf

RTaylor_PartIII_Ch14_Comments.pdf

Comments from Donatella

Part 1: you wrote that this could be the main IMCC submission to ESPPU. Based on my experience and what I have seen from other experiments, the current format and contents need adjustments. At the moment, it is the introduction of a very long document. As I wrote to some of you, other experiments are submitting multiple 10-page documents to the respective tracks identified by the strategy coordination group. The document describing a large project is more  "political" and addresses the requested points. As I already wrote, I believe this is the approach we should take.

Interface: it is improved

Detector: I the current version final? If so, an explanation of why MAIA and MUSIC use different  background sets should be added to the text, otherwise the comparison does not make sense. If not, disregard this comment, but we should have the final version in time to compare the two results.

Detector R&D: to me,it is somehow verbose, but it is OK.

 

Comments from Simone

In addition, there are a couple of comments I write here:

II.4 Figures 4.4.1, 4.4.2 (and others). We need to harmonize "Lattice v04" vs "EU24 lattice". => I guess it's on me/Donatella to follow up on this
II.4 I'm still undecided if we want to say anything about other performance objects, maybe in the introduction or at the end of the chapter?
II.4 Anything about DELPHES card and its compatibility in assumptions with full-simulation studies; we say something already e.g. in Sec 2.2 (forward reference needs to be corrected), so maybe it's enough.
II.4 Table 4.6.1, 4.6.2 (CPU and disk requirements) are missing. Might need to drop in favor of some rough numbers in the text with some significant caveats.

 

III.9 looks already good to me (although I'm biased since I read that several times and edited that already with Sergo a few times).

III.14 looks also pretty good. My only concern is sometimes we might make it seem some of our requirements are very ambitious while solution with less ambitious requirements exist (e.g. HTS magnets at 16T on L7035)