Minutes (L. Strigari)
----------------
Worcester:
We will cover the following items today
i) Plans for town hall next week
ii) Topical Group reports, focusing on LOIs received and a requested
iii) NF Workshop site selection committee report
Reminder of upcoming workshops and town hall
Town Hall: Probably have to go with Fermilab Zoom license for > 500 people.
The town hall discussion will be arranged around 3 primary questions:
1) Physics goals
2) Theory and Neutrinos
3) Structure of the program
About 16 questions as of 7/10/2020
19 requests for 3 minute comments. May redirect some of these to LOIs if there's not enough time.
Outline of structure of Town Hall: Short presentations, Panel discussions (likely drawn from topical conveners, including early career panelists). Panelists will respond to submitted questions, followed by open mic discussion.
Parno: Report from NF05 Mini-workshop
Workshop on direct neutrino mass measurements, focus on next 5-10 years.
Attending were largely nuclear physicists from US and Europe.
Started out with colloquium, followed by discussion of isotopes and discussion of systematics
The meeting was set up using a Stanford zoom meeting (max 500 participants, with 2 co hosts)
Did not require registration.
Used SNOWMASS indico pages
Presenters shared screens and videos, participants raised hands and got questions from Slack.
Video recorded to cloud, enabling auto transcription. New video for each speaker.
About 75 attendees, including many people who do not work in this area.
Discussion involving 5-10 people.
Talks went overtime mostly due to questions and discussion. Lots of discussion about LOIs.
Focus on individual experimental efforts in next 5-10 years.
Discussion topics:
How are results affected by cosmology?
Limits from molecular tritium sources?
Technical challenges for experiments.
Questions about spectral calculations from PTOLEMY.
LOI ideas for experiments or measurements with non-standard isotopes. Hopefully a few LOIs out of this.
Attendees plan to attend future NF05 workshops.
Lessons Learned:
1) Ahead of time allow speakers to test
2) Some participants dial in early-- host should log in early
3) Host received a lot of communication over Zoom
4) Valuable to have a lot of discussion time
5) Co-host in case of internet glitch
6) Slack back channel very useful.
7) Clear instructions to speakers were very important. In this case emphasized that the talks should be forward looking.
Questions from Klein: Can slides be posted online? What is the plan for discussion of cosmological bounds on neutrino mass?
Parno: Most of this probably happens in cosmic frontier.
Scholberg: Perhaps in neutrinos from natural sources
Klein: It would be an oversight by us if we don't put this bound somewhere
Denton: CF has probes of fundamental physics, including measurements of neutrino mass.
Scholberg:Yvonne is liaison to CF
Mocioiu: We should certainly have it in our frontier
Baha: We should call it ''induction'' from cosmology.
Tali: I'm liaison to CF. Sounds like something I can be useful for.
Scholberg: Tali and Yvonne should get together
Orebi Gann: In NF, do we agree it should be in NF04?
Scholberg: Probably, yes
Tamborra, O'Sullivan: They have it in their group
Coloma: An LOI has significant overlap with CF (BSM from neutrinos). Most constraints however come from cosmology.
Worcester: One purpose of LOIs is to help us organize topics and future speakers. Liaisons should bring appropriate LOIs to attention of other frontiers (and vice versa).
Huber: Want the neutrino section to be complementary, i.e. text from NF should coordinate with that from CF.
Worcester: Make sure discussions are had to make final text consistent.
Parno: Should we write a report on mini-workshop?
Scholberg: Put this in a chapter, probably not necessary.
Worcester: Only do it if it's useful
Topical Group reports:
NF01:
Denton:
No LOIs related to them. Expect some from T2K, Nova, DUNE, and other major experiments. Will solicit T2K/Nova joint analysis, future experiments like Hyper-K, JUNO, T2HKK, theory models and relation to global fits.
Talked about a meeting scheduled and formats. Thinking about 6 90 minute meetings, with 3 20 minute talks each, starting in September. 2 days on current picture, 2 days on mid term picture, 2 days on long terms. Still putting together a speaker list. Should have significant overlap with meetings from other groups.
Worcester: Think about reasons and goals from precision.
Denton: Revisit previous SNOWMASS documents
NF02:
Machado:
Question for the Town Hall: How can we use experimental data, and how should data releases go?
LOIs: reaching out to community working on sterile related topics. Already started inside DUNE, coordinating with NF03. Setting up a spreadsheet for people who could be interested in submitting.
Tali: Is there a planned meeting?
Pedro: Probably in September/October. Need to start working out the details.
Worcester: Should be in the slides from previous meeting.
NF03:
Coloma:
Received LOI on self-interactions and Lab searches for keV sterile neutrinos. Significant overlap for CF with the former. Latter more laboratory focused.
2 CEvNS LOIs, one generic, one specific for CONNIE.
Question of exactly where these go, deal with the topical conveners.
FCC-ee; probably better fit with energy frontier.
Expect LOIs from DUNE BSM, heavy neutral lepton searches (exchanged with a specific group of phenomenologists), radioactive sources for magnetic moments, and ALPs at neutrino experiments.
Question from Pilar regarding naming of files: easy to identify LOIs directly to NF03. What about others that have just NFO. Where do these belong?
Sousa: If you get `0' no topic selected.
Scholberg: Probably just have to go through them one by one.
Sousa: Organization makes sense, but not easy to understand.
Scholberg: Format does not all multiple topic groups. Template has boxes they can click.
Sousa: Multiple Frontiers, but multiples topics not allowed.
Machado: Showed website outlining how LOIs submitted
Parno: Could we include physics content of each topical group in dropdown menu?
Scholberg: We can ask
Worcester: Probably just to make things easy across frontiers. Though not sure how hard if it is to change.
NF04:
O'Sullivan:
No direct LOIs yet for NF04. Have gone through a round of solicitations. Have targeted experiments and theorists for LOIs that they would like. Would expect LOIs from SNO+, JUNO, Theta, Hyper-K, IceCube (they are planning 10-12 LOIs, expect heavy cross listing), and P1 neutrino telescopes in pacific ocean.
On theory side, received interest in signing up for channel.
Tamborra: Many theorists interested, though nothing yet. But it's still early.
O'Sullivan: Workshop will be near December and January, probably in beginning of January. Hopefully will finalized details at next NF meeting.
Orebi Gann: Should we make public the list of LOIs that we receive? Maybe useful for theorists to self-organize. Authors can check that the LOIs are in the group that they think is the most relevant
Worcester: It's all on the wiki. Could link which ones are associated with a given topical group.
Huber: What feedback do we give people who submit LOIs? A list like Gabriel suggests can help communicate this to authors
NF05:
Parno: talked to experimentalists/theorists, using mini workshops to advertise LOI process. Though nothing yet directly related to them for LOIs
NF06:
Baha: Contacting experimentalists, nuclear (specifically with INT), and astrophysicists. No direct LOIs yet.
Getting interest from HEP.
Want to hear about relevant measurements over all energy regimes, operational concerns for theory and software, and neutrinos from natural sources.
Planning workshop for September 3 and 4. Appears to be no conflict with these dates.
Would like to include (in addition to neutrino scattering) the role of electron scattering data and collate the plans for the different ongoing efforts. Use this to determine what we can learn about nuclear, astro.
Worcester: Expect an LOI from NuSTEC
Huber: Should expect have 2-3 LOIs from them
NF07:
Bowden: No specific LOIs for NF07 yet.
Considering coordinating a single LOI from the Applied Antineutrino community to highlight connections with HEP. An example is the effort from CEvNS.
An LOI from study group on the utilities of neutrinos. Workshop at the end of July will focus on this topic.
Anticipate significant overlap with other groups, such as sterile, artificial sources, and oscillation
NF08:
Mocioiu: Received one LOI about computing oscillation probabilities in matter. Overlap with other groups as well. Will solicit generically a request for LOIs. Waiting to hear from Town Hall about interested topics.
Are planning a future meeting with other theory topical groups, in order to better coordinate LOIs and future meetings.
Question: When can we see the questions submitted to the town hall?
Scholberg; Will send them out in the next couple of days.
Mocioiu: Biggest task to coordinate with other topical subgroups.
NF09:
Fields:
No direct LOIs from them yet. A couple of submitted LOIs have relevance for them.
Soliciting LOIs from various groups listed on indico slides.
Smaller groups will submit LOIs, including reactors measurements, and tau appearance with accelerators.
Planning a workshop October 5-7, pushed after LOI deadline. A 3 hour zoom meeting each morning. Thinking about agenda items to overlap with submitted LOIs.
Discussion of having a joint session with another topical groups.
Would like to announce their dates for a meeting as soon as possible. (already on the calendar)
Worcester: Do we expect an LOI from PIP-III?
Fields: On going discussion at Fermilab, probably would be submitted to accelerator group.
Tali: Any LOIs from Cr-51 sources?
Link: I plan to submit one
Scholberg: Also one from Oak Ridge.
NF10:
Klein: One LOI relevant for NF10 on CONNIE on CEvNS. Conveners are finalizing list of people that they will solicit requests from.
Report on NF site selection:
Gann: 5 candidate proposals to host NF workshop. Seems unlikely meeting would be fully in person. Hybrid scenario seems most challenging. Each site asked if they would be willing to host virtual meeting, largely positive responses received.
Huber: Do we need to make a decision soon that this will be entirely online? Other groups seem to also be hinting at this
Baha: Maybe overlap with March meeting doing computational works. Should decide maybe something like 2 months ahead of time.
Klein: Should we plan on it completely virtual? Then if world allows we could flip to in person.
Huber: Bringing back students for small likely not smooth, maybe by Spring campuses won't have any students on campus. Maybe shelve the idea of in person meeting.
Worcester: Should we pick a proposal that would help coordinate for a virtual meeting, then knowing by Jan we could convert to in person.
Link: How much lead time does each proposal need to cancel meeting?
Orebi Gann: Should we plan fully remote, then revise in early Jan about a possible in person conversion.
Worcester: Whatever group is chosen would be part of the LOC. They would be on the hook for evaluating the in person Jan meeting. Would leave fewer options.
Orebi Gann: Agree that we should pick a date and site asap.
Scholberg: Dates and sites seem correlated.
Orebi Gann will email proposal leads to ask if they are ok with a planned virtual meeting, with possibility to change to in person around Jan.