Dear Colleagues,

Everyone is confused about the time line on which the LHC experiments will contribute their white papers to Snowmass.
Chip and I apologize that we did not succeed in getting the ATLAS and CMS battleships moving in time for the schedule
that we had originally set.  Now those battleships are moving, but we are still worried that the time line is not the 
appropriate one for getting the reports done.

After some back and forth with members of ATLAS and CMS, we sent the following message yesterday to the 
experiment contacts for ATLAS, CMS, and LHCb, with cc to Beate Heinemann and Joe Incandela.  Please read
this message carefully.  The important ideas are "communication" and "flexibility".  Our understanding is that 
the collaborations are on board with this new schedule.  We will see what happens in reality. Anytway, it is still 
possible that, at the end of the process, we and the LHC experiments could end up on the same page.

Best wishes,

Michael

________________________________________
From: Raymond Brock [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 8:05 PM
To: James Olsen; Ashutosh Kotwal; Sheldon Stone
Cc: Peskin, Michael E.; Beate Heinemann; Joe Incandela
Subject: Suggested path for LHC experiments' Snowmass White Papers

Dear Jim, Ashutosh, and Sheldon,

With the Seattle Energy Frontier meeting approaching, we thought we should normalize ourselves regarding whitepapers that you may be preparing for Snowmass.  When we originally appealed to you to contribute, we asked that they be completed by June 30, the beginning of our Seattle meeting. We gave the same deadline to other groups with projects in Energy Frontier and, generally this seemed to be acceptable.

But we recognize that the situation with the running LHC experiments is different.  Data analysis from Run 1 has the highest priority, and much effort is needed to produce results that go beyond the work done for the European Strategy Group.  We also suspect that all three experiments anticipate presenting new results to  Snowmass, ECFA, and P5, and that Snowmass is earliest.  We realize that we need to be flexible in our expectations.

It would be unfortunate if the LHC experiments were to release documents in September that differ substantially in some major results from what the Snowmass groups will report at a similar time.  Were we to cause that through blind obedience to a schedule, it would be terrible. So we're trying to find a path that gets the ultimate Snowmass documents completed on the Snowmass timeline, but still allows them to include the relevant and most timely conclusions from your experiments.

So we propose the following guidelines and we'd appreciate your feedback:

a) The final written whitepapers for each experiment should be submitted to us before HEPAP meets on September 5th. As you appreciate, HEPAP will be anticipating convergence on specific estimates such as the reach in Higgs coupling uncertainties. This date then probably demarcates the logical due-date.

b) In Seattle, we ask that the plenary speakers for ATLAS and CMS outline what's happened since ESG, and anticipate what studies are underway for the whitepaper as much as is possible. The goal is to guide the physics conveners' planning.

c) On the first day of the Minnesota Snowmass meeting, July 29, one of us will have to describe the major conclusions of the Energy Frontier study in a plenary talk. We would like to represent your position with as much information as can be given without violating ATLAS, CMS, or LHCb rules. Obviously, some communication channels will have to be opened by then to inform the plenary speaker. That’s a month after Seattle, so we anticipate more detail might be possible?

d) During the Minneapolis meeting it would be important that your collaboration members clearly, but perhaps informally, brief the Snowmass EF conveners on where to leave placeholders, where to leave table entries empty, and where to partially report imprecise numbers anticipating final results as they become available. By the DPF meeting, the physics conclusions will have to be nearly fully-formed. Thus, it would be best if, by the end of Minneapolis, we were to have a picture of what the final results will be like.

e) The overall summary for Snowmass is supposed to be written between August 7-9. We would appreciate having your high-level conclusions by then, or at the very least, your expectation for immanent results on new topics beyond ESG.

f) The final working group writeups for Snowmass are due on August 30, but they will not be completely finalized until the end of September.  Between August 30 and September 30, it will be possible to replace numbers and update table entries.  But as we noted earlier, the HEPAP meeting will be a public presentation of importance and changes after that might be confusing. Nonetheless, we have confirmed that we do have ability to edit details through September.

One suggestion to help the efficiency of this: Each physics subgroup has conveners from at least ATLAS and CMS; our flavor group has a convener from LHCb.  We suggest tapping some of these individuals or others named from within each physics group to act as conduits into those groups. Each LHC experiment will hopefully produce one whitepaper, but the content from each will ultimately have to be divvied up among all of the subgroups’ individual write-ups. Naming a contact person in each group would help the group conveners (and us) to keep up with your results.

We recognize the considerable effort required of each of your experiments for internal approval. We're grateful in advance for your collaboration on making the Snowmass report as timely as possible and we're eager to work with you to make this happen.

We hope that this outline is helpful. Please share this with the appropriate people in your collaborations and let us know what you think.

Best,
Michael and Chip

cc: Joe and Beate

---------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Brock  *  University Distinguished Professor
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Michigan State University
Biomedical Physical Sciences
567 WIlson Road, Room 3210
East Lansing, MI  48824
sent from: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>

cell: (517)927-5447
MSU office: (517)353-1693/884-5579
open fax: (517)355-6661
secure fax: (517)351-0688
Fermilab office: (630)840-2286
CERN Office: 32 2-B03 * 76-71756

Twitter: @chipbrock
Home: http://www.pa.msu.edu/~brock/
ISP220: http://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/ISP220/
ISP213H: http://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/2007spring/ISP213H/
Facebook: http://msu.facebook.com/profile.php?id=2312233

########################################################################
Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list

To unsubscribe from the SNOWMASS-EF list, click the following link:
https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SNOWMASS-EF&A=1