>> OK. As people are still joining in, I am going to wait for another minute. Caterina, you are the first one. 
>> Hello. 
>> Good morning, everyone. Yes, let's wait for another couple minutes because people are still connecting. 
>> OK. One more minute and then we will start. And Caterina, you will project your slides, right? 
>> Good. Thank you. 
>> Can you see them? 
>> Yes, we can see it. Definitely. 
>> And eventually we will record -- should I start? 
>> Yeah, please, go ahead and do the recording. Thank you. 
>> Recording in progress. 
>> OK. I will get started. Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the last day of the EF restart workshop. It has been a long and very intense week but they -- there have been many lively discussions and presentations. It has been really good to see what people were up to during the slowdown and also to review what all we need to do and how we will proceed after this workshop towards the final report in the next year. Today's agenda, the first three sessions, will be highlights from each one of the 10 topical groups about the highlights until now and the plans for the next year. And then we will close out the workshop with a discussion at the end of the day about the report preparation, what plots and tables and summaries we should have and that is an open discussion which we would like all of you in the community to participate. With that, we will start out with the summary from EF01 which is Higgs boson properties given by Caterina. Caterina, please start any time. 
>> I will start with EF01. We are focused on explicit properties. Just before I start, as we have heard over this week, the Higgs is playing a central element in exploration of the energy frontier and we have a strong synergy with other groups. The strongest are with the global fit EF04 and as we provide input and help with interpretation there. And another thing over the last year and next year we will explore is also very joined work with EF02 for the searches for Higgs boson and the complementary with EF01 for interpretation of Higgs measurements. What I want to say as we have discussed a lot this week, we think the Higgs precision is a guide to help us kind of address the different machines being proposed. Right now, we are targeting precisions on the Higgs cubling at the level of 50% and future Higgs factors being weighted will allow us to test the Higgs coupling and the level of percent which is a tarsal and position of most of the machines plus and minus. The very high energy target, and there are different options there that could be coming later in time, then would allow us to reach precision to the Higgs coupling and test the Higgs coupling at the percent level. And in the complementary between the dataset that we will have in the next 10-15 years and the plus and minus is the combination we are trying to understand at a deeper level. This is what, as a community, we should aim for in order to get the most precise understanding of the Higgs. In timelines, this discussion matters as well, as we are going to have a new seat and need to understand how to compliment that information the best way possible. Here is a summary of the collider that we heard of over this week. Can be classified into leadership -- lepton and hadron. This plot shows the number of Higgs boson in the center of mass energy and all the facilities. This has to be taken with some grain of salt because it is very different for each of the stars in terms of project readiness. We have a variety of lepton machines being proposed you can see. Linear nigh in American -- high in energy and with some of the Higgs measurements in order to announce the cross section. We have heard this week about the muon CQ and that could provide similar physic output and then we have hadron and muon collider which is high energy targeting up to 10 TeV and a little bit of what we have heard this week. And hadron colliders between 75-200 TeV being considered. This is the map. As group EF01 along with the others we will have to harmonize all the studies and assumptions for the final report comparison. What we started off with were the couplings projection from LHC in the European study group results. That was our starting point in terms of understanding the potential different machines in the context of Higgs coupling precision. This is plot from European strategy group which provided information from L HP -- LHC and others. One goal is to update this in order to include all of the latest machines and their parameters. One thing about this plot in terms of what we are targeting since I stressed about the compelementary between future colliders that should be further investigated, for instance, all of them, if you see this plot at glance and we have seen this multiple times, are targeting and improve precision with respect to LHC and push the understanding of Higgs boson couplings below 1% and 5% at most. The coupling to charm could be measurement with accuracy of is % in future machine allowing to probe this important cubling were the first time. Cubling is not accessible at low energy -- coupling. For statistically dominated channels, high LHC will provide the best sector. What we have -- what's new and something that we will have to work towards is to evaluate how to include in this map the muon collider. Then we need to present the fit results for 10 TeV muon collider physics case combined with the high LHC and the Higgs factory of 250 GeV. This is something we will have to work on preparation and I think later we will have more discussion about this. Specifically for EF01 I want to give an overview about the work that has been going on before the break and now right after the start we had one meeting last month. We had received about a little bit more than 60LOIs covering several topics and proposing new studies with respect to the European strategy group study. There are various teams and I am trying to highlight just a few. There are a few LOIs targeting understanding couplings. There is a nice study of the electron coupling in FCCee with four years running. This is the plot that restrains as a function of the integrated luminosity and the spread of the beam. The results are ongoing to assess the sensitivity to the strings. You have a coupling with the Higgs to assess bar at plus and minus. And in terms of studying and understanding the constraints, future constraints, there has been recently results from LHC community and so that motivates new studies to understand better what high luminosity would provide in that respect. We also have heard this week, and last month from Krysztof and others about the Higgs production would provide additional constraints at pT machine. It will be interesting to understand the complementary and hopefully by the end of the year we have progress on that. There has been progress on CP violation studies. We expect an update with respect to the 2013 Snowmass study. Andre has shown earlier this week the plan for this update. The goal is to sharpen theoretical expectation as well as the model interpretation and to connect these measurements to the broader EFT interpretation and distinguish between linear and quadratic effects in the observable. Another thing that has emerged from our discussion is the Higgs inverse problem. There has been recent progress on how to map BSM models to the SMEFT contraints. Both of them have presented earlier this month in our EF01 meeting and there are their talks. The plan is to include complete loop one matching for the models so we can account for more next leading order effect as well as more distribution. Sorry this is just right on the plot. It was not supposed to be like that. The idea is to show distribution like the one shown here where we can show for constraints to the -- how the constraints on the SMEFT fit maps to the given model. This would be a nice way to visualize for is subset of benchmarks the phase space that is constrained as we increase precision on the constraints. Another main theme of our discussion is the self-coupling. This is the usual map that at this point has been shown multiple times and shows the precision that we expect to constrain the self-coupling from single and double Higgs and a combination of different colliders. I want to highlight here that high-LHC shows a 50% phase space of the report and we have received updated data from the high luminosity experiments on this projection. Because the 50% quoted here was based on earlier untuned analysis. -- run2 analysis. They pushed the limits beyond the luminosity scales. We should expect an update in this direction for the precision projected for LHC. It will be good is in the discussion of exploring more on the complementary. The muon collider is not on this map and we should think how to add all the caveats and the backgrounds. We had a discussion earlier this week about this. But in principle, for what January -- Jan has shown we should expect constraints at 6% at a 10 TeV muon collider. Another area of where we are active is to understand and provide benchmark on which precisions in the self-coupling have a target. The idea is that we want to understand the goal of the measurements for the Higgs production process given the possibility of different future colliders and implications that each level precision would have on the physics model. For instance, this would be key to understanding whether or not the breaking occurs as per silver or as a strong precision. This is connected with all the biogenesis implications and so on. What we want to provide and we started discussion in this direction, we want to converge on providing sort of benchmark that can map out the precision we can expect on the self-coupling to specific model and what our implications are. Precision of 100%. Then we are testing sensitivity to models that have the largest effect where we should expect residency at the level of 200 GeV appearing in there. Precision of 25% is when we start probing testing models and mixing up the Higgs boson with the heavy scalers and with mass of the order of the 1 TeV. Also, models that require biogenerous predict this level of self-coupling and at this level of precision we should be able to exclude physical hypothesis and Higgs self-coupling. Higher precision should be compatible with finding new particles. Precision better than 10% should be compatible with finding really important particles at that point. In summary, take away message is we are planning to define new physic benchmark for the res onant and non-resonant interpretation that we can use as the precision for the self-couple improves. Towards the finaler report. This is a list of questions we put together at the beginning and we have kept updating it as the activities have progressed. Essentially, our to-do list includes accessing all these questions. Which physics beyond the standard model can be probed by precision of the measurement of the Higgs coupling? How precise does the measurement have to be? How we can connect searches to Higgs like particles to precision coupling measurements? And the gain should be studied by exploring the complementary between high LHC and future colliders taking into count the different timelines. In order to understand, the Higgs boson is connected to this potentialized standard model. We want to try to come up with benchmark that can tell us how the W Higgs production could be used to test potential and what's the target given it is connected to other measurements we are waiting for in the hadronic approach in SMEFT. The measurement in the sector can be combined with other measurements in the sector in order to understand the overall sector and what are the input theory calculations needed in the future to enable these precision theories we need. We are making progress in this direction Scheie are -- and we are aiming and I started sketching the summary plots and tables that we think we want to have. Those would be super interesting to have input strong from the community and in general to understand what would be interesting to see to summarize the performance of future colliders. We are aiming to, of course, work towards an update on the Higgs coupling starting from 1 to ESG and expect reports from the EF04 to include an updated list of machines and their parameters as well as some of the consumptions. I would like to have example maps of how the new fit phase space is constrained by the EFT analysis and again providing benchmarks for resonant and HH -- non-resonant HH. We had a meeting and have another one planned and a dedicated discussion on the Higgs collider at the Higgs 2021. We plan to have a meeting to survey the ongoing efforts from the LOI that are active in November as well. And that's all we have for today. I think it is probably time for your question. Thank you. 
>> Thank you, Caterina, for a very nice presentation and the highlights and plans. Please raise your hand or if you are there first one just ask questions. If you have a comment. 
>> I don't see any raised hand here. Oh, I see Sergio. I will let him go ahead. 
>> If you want I can go after you. 
>> No, go ahead 
>> It is just a comment, Caterina. Thanks for the nice presentation. I think it will be very useful not to only have like projections for individual colliders but also have projections in combination to what's expected at the end of the high luminosity LHC. It sounded like that was planned. I think it would be useful to have both numbers because different colliders provide different complementary if you wish. I can see that's already on your plot. 
>> Yes, it is not -- it is the ESG map. This one. I think that's pretty much what already the community has been doing. I think we will be continuing this way. It is important to explore the complementary of what high luminosity would provide. I think this has been the results shown so far in combination with low luminosity. I expect we will retain that to some extent. 
>> Thanks. 
>> Laura, you are next. 
>> Yeah. Something and I don't know if it is a previous slide to this one. 
>> Sorry. I cannot hear you any more. 
>> OK. 
>> Laura, you are very faint. Your voice/volume. 
>> The next slide probably. No, no, I saw another one. I just wanted to emphasize something on this slide which I think is important to our studies. This plot you are showing shows pretty clear message that the limitation to reach the precision we want is soon going to become the theory systematics. This is a really important plot. If we want to play this game, I think we really need to dedicate quite some effort in trying to understand how to reduce the systematics and theory is shown for the high luminosity LHC. It will be different future collideers -- colliders but the high LHC is the baseline. We need to fully exploit the machine because of theory reasons or else we lose a lot. This I think is an important point to be developed during this project. 
>> Yeah, thank you for marking that. I had a note in our wish list about the theory calculations but I think you made an important point. 
>> No, no, I saw this. You had it --  there it is really evident. I think -- 
>> And you stress an important point that high luminosity should be our target first because it is what we will have and we have to make sure it is very important. Thank you. 
>> I have a question regarding the summary slide. I think EF04 we covered the global fit including Higgs coupling. But the input measurement uncertainties from various Higgs observers, cross section, branching ratio, should come from EF01. The question is are you planning to scrutinize the input measurement in particular from different plus and minus to make sure there are more or less consistent? 
>> Yeah. 
>> Including the experimental systematics area assumed in different measurements. 
>> Yeah. That's what we are planning to make sure that the assumptions that are in the inputs are harmonized as possible. That should be part of our homework, yeah. 
>> Good. Thanks. OK. Next. Alessandro? 
>> OK. My comment is just to reply to Sergio. I think his comment was very good and I think this is what we should do. I want to remind everybody at the end of the day we have a dedicated session to discuss how to present the results in the report. I think Sergio's comment very much fits in that discussion and how to present the results in plots and tables. I invite Sergio and everybody else to join the discussion later this afternoon where we will discuss all these issues. Your input is appreciated. 
>> Thanks for the reminder. We have to in the interest of time move on to EF02 highlights which is given by Isobel on behalf of EF02. 
>> Let me try to share my screen. Can you hear me? 
>> Thank you, Caterina. Sorry. Thank you. 
>> OK. 
>> Let's see. 
>> Do you want me to share the slides? 
>> Let me try this. How is that? 
>> Sure. Still in the browser but OK. What we find a lot in this group is we have a good mount of complementary between EF01 and 02. Just a reminder on what we hope to include in the final report. What is a Higgs BSM in the context of Snowmass? We have a number of big questions we want to be able to perhaps address one day. There is a solution for the EWSB? What about the Higgs and flavor? Higgs portal models. How do we study these at future colliders? What detectors and computing/electronics do we need to study these phenomenon? And what improvements in analysis techniques such as machine learning for instance are going to be important for achieve any of these -- achieve answers to any of these questions. Here in the picture on the light -- right is the standard Higgs and us falling off the edge of the earth and traveling into the unknown. On the plus side, between EF01 and 02 we cover all of the Higgs. Precision measurements are under EF01 and standard deviations from the standard model are under EF02 but really we have a strong collaboration including a number of meetings that have been planned in as overlap. We have the meetings at the same time and alternate with the EF01 and 03 and that way anyone can attend them and they won't be overlapping. Here are a few previous meetings. I linked the Indico page. The next slides are a few topics we have discussed in these various meetings. If this were a normal, you know, if this were a normal conference it would be fun do a conference report based on the local scenery or flavors, however, this is on Zoom again. It is the end of the year and this is typically the time of the year with the state fair. This is the Minnesota state fair midway. Much of this year has felt like a roller coaster so perhaps there is overlap there. Let me discuss the Higgs and flavor and triple Higgs flavor part one and two. In our two Higgs double meeting, we heard from a number of people including Nathaniel Craig on theory overview. He adviced the types. All couplings of standard model states are fixed in terms of two angles. Philippe outlined current and future result of colliders both direct and indirect serves and gave a comprehensive overview. Then we heard from a number of people including Tonia's group where they discussed in the dublet model and current and future colliders which is a two Higgs model with possible dark matter candidates. All these talks with interesting and I encourage you to click on the links and watch. Here you can see CMS and ATLAS were -- productions on the left and right. In addition to this, we had a two-part discussion on Higgs and flavor. He heard from Sam about the large quark couplings can be and therefore why it is important to look for them even if it is quite difficult. Many of you experimentalists are quite pained by this but distinguishing between strange and bottom quarks are quite interesting and perhaps some day we can try to distinguish late quarks. But OK. There is a rich phenomenon that can be probed if we try make the effort of future colliders. We heard about strange jet tagging current and future colliders using neutral Qs. And we heard from using graph networks to distinguish between strange and bottom-type jets as well. So, again, I have linked all of these presentations. Do feel free to take a look. We have heard from a number of other people interested in trying to really probe different sorts of jet flavors at future colliders. In addition, we had a meeting focused on higher order -- triple Higgs couplings and quartic and Higgs plus X. Caterina discussed this briefly but I will show it one more time. Di-Higgs experimental results and how to do classification of various collider results in precision. Actually, in the EF02 group this was the first time we heard a muon collider report talking about Higgs quartic and quintec. This got a number of us jumping off to do more muon collider-type studies so that was interesting as well. And then this past week we heard from Andre about the status of Higgs CP studies and various collider scenario. It was quite interesting. He talked about hadron colliders and polarization and the effect on CP studies and photon colliders with polarized beams. We heard a comparison on what we could probe at each of these collider scenario. Again, quite interesting to see the complementary and the differences in the different collider scenario. And then after like I said the muon collider discussions we had towards the beginning of Snowmass has kicked off a bit more discussion in various groups. From Jenna we heard about Higgs results from various groups interested in muon colliders some of which performed previously but many have been performed maybe in the last year or two which again highlights that the high energy muon collider provides a physic program. One thing interesting from this presentation is the explanation of when colliding high energy electrons we are colliding a bunch of high energy states. A mixture of gamma, quarks, ZW, Etc. You can see this in the diagram towards the middle on the right. Again, quite interesting. And he also mentioned a paper from tao han's group released recently detailing now new states beyond standard scenario can modify the running of relevant gauge of couplings. You can see this in the plot in the lower left. This brings me back to future meetings. Again, like I said, we have Wednesday 12-2pm. We are meeting once every three weekwise a tradeoff between EF 01, 2 and 10. Right now we are thinking to do an initial update from working groups. This will be next week. After that we are perhaps thinking about global fits and compelementary between frontiers and experiments and different collider experiments. We would like to discuss Higgs and dark matter and we are also welcome to hearing any additional ideas or things that could be missing from your discussion and our list. And conclusion, my co-convener couldn't be here today. I made a meme regardless to not let this group down, I suppose. We would like to try to encourage the U.S. community to coalesce around a long term plan to study Higgs and BSM. I am saying this as a young-ish person. I urge everyone to think about our Snowmass plans for the energy frontier using the holistic approach. The physics is extremely important. We want to think about the short term and long term reach. Measurements, searches and complementary across frontiers. Timeline is important. If we have a collider coming down in only 20-30 years we need to figure out how to sustain the community so we have people to study. We want to think about programs that build on future lessons. We should think about programs of sustainability and technology that will be useful across designs and frontiers and that can be upgraded as we go. Of course, we want to think about broader impacts and some combination of all of the above. In my personal opinion, it is worthwhile to think about how to improve ability to support funding and students and faculty that are some day in the future. I also think it is a good idea to think about how we can break out of the current center of mass energy constraints. In this meme, I suppose we the energy frontier Working Groups are Doug, the old man is the current collider proposals and the new collider proposals are the squirrels that Doug is always looking at. With that, I think this is my final slide. I welcome any questions or comments. 
>> Thank you, Isobel, for the summary of the past and what happened this week. Anyone who would like to ask any questions? Or make any comments? Please raise your hand. OK. Go ahead, Cameron. 
>> Thank you for a nice summary. It is great to see the calculations for various collider options. One of the discussions we had yesterday in the unconstrained discussion on future collider options and in particular those that can be enabled by advanced accelerators with the tradeoff in lepton colliders specifically between various properties like polarization. So we would certainly be interested to follow up that with folks in energy frontier including also potential options for many TeV polarized lepton colliders that have now become impossible. 
>> Thank you very much. I will write that down in my notes to keep this in mind for a future meeting since that can be quite a rich discussion. I was listening to that discussion, and yes, thank you again. 
>> Thanks very much. 
>> Thank you, Cameron, and hope you are attending the discussion of the last section because this would be a very good point to discuss there as well. 
>> Yes, absolutely. I was trying to think of the best time to bring it up but I fully agree it is relevant to both sessions. Thank you for that comment. 
>> Yeah, thank you. And thanks, Isobel. I don't see any other hands raised. We are sort of back on time so the next summary would be from EF03 and will be given by Doreen. Go ahead, Doreen. 
>> Can you see my slides OK? 
>> Yes, yes. 
>> Thank you. Hello, everyone. Reinhard and I are the co-conveners of EF03. What we decided to do for this quick summary is highlight what has been discussed specifically during this week but of course this is just a small subset of all the topics discussed during our meetings that have been presented in the letter of interest. Here is just the quick overview of all the different interesting physics topics we are addressing and in green you will see the topics cover this week which we will highlight in these 15 minutes. I want to point out there are many opportunities for additional contributions in all areas. You will see some examples when we go on through the highlights. Let's start right away with a very important property of the top quark we will address here. The precise measurement of the mass of the top quark. There is a lot of activity what we discussed here at this workshop is examples for new ideas. How the top quark can be extracted from data specifically by Kacper. Here is an example of some new results that have been presented in our Working Group on extracting the top mass from the threshold scan. It is just an example. You can see here the threshold scan of ttbar production at linear collider depends on many parameters. They have all their own uncertainties and correlations and that has been addressed in this new work by Kacper and Aleksandra. You can see here results where they showed the expected precision for click and LC and FCC and the improvement you can see by comparing the baseline assumption to the dash curve. These are very nice new results. Just one example of ideas of how to improve extraction of precision of the top mass at the linear collider. Other new ideas going back to had -- hadron collider. The ideaf of using the B jet production and the top production and the peak is sensitive to the top mass -- . This has been used by CMS to extract the top mass but the next step is to see if we can circumvent some of the uncertainties by using the BD -- B decay lengths. There was an interesting discussion on if that mass could be used with the lepton collider. Other properties that are under investigation are quark polarization and spin correlations. They are well known sensitive quarks beyond the standard model physics. We were shown an example measured at the LHC. Here you see, for instance, the angle separation of the lepton pair coming from top hep production and top decay. This is the spin correlation in the standard model and you see the effect of the new physics on the spin correlation. These, of course, are already very active and under investigation at the LHC and will continue to be so but for Snowmass there is also the idea of studying and expanding them to spin density matrix at future colliders. Other places where we have a sensitive folks to new physics are light quark production at lepton colliders. Quite some activity and Roman showed us an example of using production to, for instance, get information about that inspired models Higgs unification random modm. They are deviation from the order of a few percent. Zz bar has been very much already under investigation but their brand new results and you presented an appetizer for strange quark pair were introduction. -- production. Here is the angular production produced in fullsimilation and very interesting experimental studies can be done. This is very much under investigation. Here is a nice overview Roman presented of what is already covered, what is not covered, and again, here is a call to action if anybody would like to contribute here, please contact Roman or me. There is a lot of potential in the studies and what we can do with these light quark pair productions at lepton colliders. Let's move on to top couplings and the interpretation of precision of top data in an effective hit theory. At the LHC this is one of the focus right now to extract new physics information in a consistent framework of EFT. We had two talks on global fits for top quark operators and let me add this. Here is a list of the top quark operators. The reason it is considered in ttbar consideration and also at singletop production, ttv operators, and then you are reminded they are all connected to other sectors of the standard model and electroweak observables. We are all aiming for global fits. This is clear how important this is. You see here an example just from a recent publication of attempting a global fit. This is all still in the context of the LHC. All the different topics we should address here for the future to to get the most out of these precision measurements in the interpretation and then EFT. She reminded us there is only limited work done for some of the future collider options. We need to also global analyses and just saying the combination of top and Higgs for future colliders include 1-loop effects. This is the communities. All of these different projects need to address to really make sure we are presenting the best potential for these kind of studies for future colliders. Here is just an example I would like to show you from a grand global standard model EFT fit presented by Marcel at a joint meeting just before the lockdown. You can see how Higgs coupling -- this is for the 20 -- 250 GeV. It is pretty table with top operators. The first column is the top operators and the second is this top operators but it is very different when you look at this which is affected by there top hitters. Now moving on to top and the role in hadron distribution function. We had a very interesting discussion in a joint section EF06. We had presentation from all three global fitters. And then also Amanda presented the experimental and phenomenological issues and a presentation on how to take advantage of all these frameworks to have a simultaneously fit. Let me start with Amanda's talk. This was an important issue that gets now addressed by all global fitters is the importance of systematics uncertainties in trying to bin down the gluon PDF from top distributions as the pT of the top and so on. This is, of course, something that constrains the high X gluon, and you see the eificate -- effect of the top mass. It makes the gluon harder. In these fits, the correlated systematics are taken into account in terms of nuisance parameters and Amanda showed us the effect of not taking the same nuisance parameter for each of the uncertainties like parton shower uncertainty and allowing them to vary and so to decorrelate. You can see there are quite some effects. Here is the gluon distribution. You see when you allow decorrelation, the red curve, the effects are the same order of magnitude of having high order corrections. All these issues are now under discussion and have to be addressed just keeping in mind we need 1% accuracy on PDF for precision studies. Let's look at some of the results from the global PDF collaboration. Marco showed the effect by including for instance 13 TeV data on the PDF and reminding us of the complementary of ttbar and jet data. Ttbar data constrain a large kinematic region here. And then, again, it is so important to constrain and to have these detailed information about those covariance and nuisance parameters to do these -- take full advantage of using top data. This is what has been done in MSHT2020. A large set of top data are used to bin down the gluon and improve the gluon PDF and the study of decorrelation has been shown here and how important it is to have this under control. And Emanuele showed us results and unfortunately they are not precise enough to really constrain the gluon PDF. There is a lot of activity there and important discussions. In terms of extracting more information, simultaneous fit, Matthew showed us nice results. There is still a lot of work to be done to include theoretical earn  -- uncertainties. Standard model prediction is a topic important for all of our studies and will be addressed in the theory frontier and other EF groups. We had interesting talks just specific for top observables. One my -- one by Nik. He showed the effect of the gluon correction. There is really interesting results. He presented result for high energy colliders. You see here for instance the effect of next to leading order versus an approximate next to leader order and you use the meeting at the next to leading gluon and it is close to 1 with soft gluon dominating the cross section. The interesting result is when you go to higher energy that is still true. Here is the last line you see for instance the approximate NLO versus the fixed NLO and it is pretty stable against going to high energy. 
>> Five minutes. Sorry for the interuption. 
>> Thank you. OK. Then a new topic for us, for just our groups, we just started looking into this. I think this will be a focus now for the activities and we had two talks. One by Tobias in the joint section. Tobias showed us nice result for top colliderness. He showed us how it appears as this operator in plus and minus ttbar and you see how the scale here is energy. You have here the operator and so on. That tells you high energy is actions that dominate and he showed the result for the click and the muon collide and the high energy muon collider takes advantage of having higher energy. Here is the reach for the four top contact interaction and the energy goes up to 80 TeV but here it shows up to 200 so a larger region here at the limits on the composite. And then in Patrick's talk we were reminded there are other things that can be studied. Boson fusion for instance. These results are taken from this nice paper that gives an overview of the prospects for these kinds of studies at muon collider. Again, you take advantage and you see the cross section for the ww infusion, independency of the center of mass energy at the collider and you have here the S channel and the process that decreases in energy and you have to vector boson that increases in energy. Again, this is a process that we can study and take advantage of a high energy linear collider. This is just for us in our group. It is just there beginning to consider this but it will be one of our focus points for the next few months. I won't go over this in detail. I just want to flesh this. This is important to remind you of other activities not covered in this week but of course they are all under consideration in our group most prominently flavor changing neutral current is something we want to study and probably 90%. The potential for those studies of future colliders in our report. We have prosspects like four top processes or looking for discovery potential in all hadronic searches in ttbar resonance at future collideers just to name a few examples. To finish, just final remarks. Hopefully you have seen there are many opportunities to contribute to top and heavy flavor production physics in our group. Most input we have gotten is from ILC and HL-LHC. We had some physic potential talks from other options but I think we need more studies as was pointed out earlier. And also for the HL-LHC it would be to have more studies. And we are working across the bondries as you see. And sheer the -- here is the information in how to get in touch and contribute. You can write your own ideas, open question, possible collaboration and so on. Thank you very much for your attention. 
>> Thank you, Doreen, for this comprehensive overview of EF03 activities. I will invite anyone who has comments or questions. I see Michael. Do you have your hand raised? Please go ahead 
>> I have a quick question on page 23, Doreen. This is very interesting the soft gluon is almost adequate by itself to explain the larger cross section. I am wondering if this behavior per tains if you apply flu fiducial sections? 
>> This is for total but Nik has differential distributions in his talk but I would have to go back to look at those. 
>> OK. This is nice. It is, of course, interesting from the perspective of the QCD group as well. 
>> Yes, definitely. We should definitely have at some point a joint session on these kind of topics. 
>> I agree. Thank you very much. 
>> Thank you, Michael. Yes. 
>> Thank you. I think next is Pablo. 
[Audio distorted]
>> We cannot understand you. You are like underwater. 
>> Yeah, so I am in outer space but now you should hear me. [Laughter] 
>> Yes. [Laughter] 
>> First of all, Doreen, thank you for nicely summarizing our joint section with EF06 in which we discussed the prospect for constraining the ttbar production. What I wish to discuss is there is this big issue you pointed out that we really don't, as a community, we don't have a systematic approach to treat experimental systematic uncertainties in all these measurements. It makes very difficult for the analyzing of the data and to understand what it tells us. What can we do as a whole energy frontier to bring up the importance of this issue and also propose the solutions? 
>> Probably highlighting it here. This is not just a question for me. That's a question to everyone, right? And to our groups that are concerned with this. Our two groups for instance. 
>> Just to add, I am involved in the LHC top Working Group and that's the avenue where this should be discussed and it has for the last 3-4 years where it specifically the theory modeling uncertainties that should be correlated between ATLAS and CMS but after a four-year effort the definitions are not exactly the same. You can't do naive correlations or decorrelations still. It is a big topic in the LHC top Working Group and even there where it is being discussed it hasn't been resolved. This is very important and we have to keep pushing on this. 
>> I think that's precisely the place where resources or encouragement to do this kind of work from the community will be very valuable. 
>> I totally agree. This is a discussion we should take up this afternoon as well about the systematics and final result for the Higgs group were the LHC studies and maybe similar ones we could try to push for convergence with these studies. I would say let's discuss it further this afternoon. Thank you for bringing it up. It is a really good point. 
>> OK. I don't see any other hands raised so thank you, Doreen. We will move to the next set of highlights and I give it over to Alessandro to run that session. 
>> In this session we would have a first presentation it is already up from Ayres in EF04 which is the last presentation on electroweak physics and then we transition to QCD with EF05 and 06. Ayres, go ahead. 
>> Thank you. I want to start off with a brief reminder of what our group 04 is about. I should mention this is on behalf of my co-conveners. So we kind of have different kinds of things that we are doing. One could say an overarching picture we like to study the sensitivity to new physics from the precision measurements in different sectors like electroweak, Higgs, top, and so on. Because of that, naturally, there are continuous communications with other groups in the energy frontier like EF01, 03 and 05 that have to do with the different sectors of the standard model. The electroweak sector per se is also then the area to study in more detail. Some of the questions we are trying to pursue is, you know, what is the scale of new physics that can be probed with these precision measurements at different colliders. What is the predicted value collider bring over what we know today? And different precision. There is the issue of how one can consistently take into account correlations that exist between different observables and the different theoretical interpretations. Can one improve these things with new analysis strategies and not just new colliders? What do we need as tools to make this happen in the future like theory calculation, Monte Carlo tools, and, you know, is this a potential limiting factor. Overall, the goal is to arrive at some more or less global interpretation of the reach of different collider options. The tool we pretty much have chosen in the scope for doing that is the SMEFT. I mention six extensions of the standard model. This could be argued about if this is good or not and we can do the interpretation in different frameworks but seems like this is the consensus we settled on. At this workshop, our group was involved in two main activities. One is the joint session that happened yesterday in the morning together with EF03 and 04 generally on topic of precision measurement and different sectors where we had five speakers presenting on these topics. On Monday which was a little bit funny with the timing but somehow that opened slot in the schedule that fit best to do it like on the first day but nevertheless we had a discussion on the EFT global fits. We do now have a team of volunteers that was assembled to perform these global fits for the Snowmass effort. They were kind of hosting discussion on several sub-areas and tieing together input by the community for what decisions should be taken for the way forward. So I want to highlight a few things of what happened at these sessions. There was some contributions about lepton collider studies in particular for FCCEE. And what's kind of remarkable is they their declared goal is to perform studies that outline the requirements needed for detector development so that systematic, experimental systematics don't become the limiting factor. Given the ambitious statistical this is a daunting challenge. You can improve for instance the B versus C tagging if you have a smaller bin pipe and therefore can move the vertext detector closer to the beam. This is shown in the plot on the right. You can increase the precision for experimentally determining your angular acceptance by putting an additional element and a silicon pad in between the tracker and the meter. Doreen mentioned this already. There is also a push to study precision measurements at future muon collider. It should be highlighted we are not necessarily talk about 125 GeV muon collider but a multi-TeV muon collider. That can still do precision measurements. This is to a large extent driven by the fact that the cross sections are relatively large for boson fusion processes. This is shown in the plot on the right for Higgs coupling determinations. There are some studies happening through to include the beam induced background which is the biggest experimental challenge of the muon collider. It degrades the precision a little bit but partial studies that exist seem to inidate -- indicate it isn't a show stopper and does change the big picture. For us, important questions for the muon collider we would like to learn more about what it can do in electroweak physics. For instance, for electroweak precision observables or boson couplings. There is not much work happening there so far so that would be nice to see. For the Higgs measurement, an important information one needs is the precise measurement of the Higgs mass because that needs to be in the interpretation of cross section measurements if you want to turn that into a Higgs coupling extraction. We would need to know the Higgs mass to do that. Moving on to hadron colliders Doreen mentioned also the contribution from N Cas tro. I would say the most important take-home message is the LHC is moving to an analysis where multiple EFT operators are including to parameterize new physics. This is up to five dimensional parameter space so far. Another important area of hadron colliders is of course vector boson fusion or vector boson scheduling processing. They can tell us a lot about another boson coupling and about details of electroweak symmetry. So far the studies that are performed in the LHC assume only triple gauge boson couplings appear beyond the standard model. That is a significant assumption because if one works in a general EFT one can have new operators that model the coupling to the quarks. They can have a significant impact that is shown here on the plot. This is just a RECASTing done by phemnologist. In red you see what you get in terms of restrain if you only have triple boson coupling. Green is what you get if you allow all new dimension six operators that can enter in these processes including constraints from the left. You see a big degrading in the precision for these two parameters. It would be really nice to basically get this from the experiments themselves. The challenge is the cost of Monte Carlo sampling is much larger if one has a larger parameter space. For me as a theorist I might wonder maybe there is interesting cross pollenation that could be used here. An important question when we talk about EFT fits at the hadron colider is whether we run into validity bounds in particularly in the high energy tails. As you probably all know, in the EFT description we can expand into a leading piece which comes from the standard model and then higher order with the dimension 6 being the next to leading part and dimension 8 and so forth. If we square the amplitude we get a unique next to leading order piece which comes from dimension six operators and the high order comes from squaring the dimension and from dimension. This dimension is typically not included in these stud AECHLTZ we basically assume that this -- studies -- one over Lambda to the fourth term is negligible. One way to test it is to look at this dimension 6 squared piece which you kind of get more or less for free in your studies. The open question is how do we set a quantitative cut off? How large does this piece need to get before we say the EFT is not valid any more. Once you set the cut off, how do you implement it in a study? One straightforward method is flipping where you exclude any data that, you know, has too large energy and violates your validity criteria. Of course, the violation of this EFT validity criteria you only know post. You don't know that in advance. What you need to do is run your simulation with the assumptions of where you put the clipping cut off which is computationally extensive. Something much easier is to do there clipping in the EFT signal hypothesis after you have done your measurement. So you basically say, you know, there is basically no deviation from the standard model above a certain energy. It is just cut off. This is not a well defined procedure but it can serve as a cross check to see if anything went wrong. This whole problem with EFT validity will be reduced if we accumulate more statistics. At the high luminosity LHC it will become less of an issue. We have had several discussions about the global EFT fit process that is happening within the current Snowmass effort. There is a team of people preparing that and several of these people participated in discussions. You know, some of the things they are trying to consider is one needs to choose a basis of operators. Your whole study depends on what basis you choose. You can reduce this dependency on the basis by working with effective coupling. Firm couplings you work with effective Z boson couplings. That is independent of the basis you choose then. Obviously, we cannot work the whole set of 2500 dimension 6 operators. One needs to make certain asumpt -- assumptions to reduce parameters. Common consumption is to exclude all or almost all  fermion operators. The question right now happening within the community is how generally can we be in our -- can we include more operators than what has been done in the past? The team is also trying to use a strategy called optimal observables and processes where it matters. Is in particular for ww production and e plus and minus. It can improve the precision for the efficient determination quite a bit. An important part is to highlight for Higgs coupling determination it is important to have improved measurements of Z-pole quantities. Here is an example for that on the right-hand side. This is a determination of the Higgs self-coupling in an indirect method for looking at single Higgs production and the coupling appears in the corrections. If you didn't have improved Z-pole predictions the precision you can get shown on the right is degraded by some 20-30 percent compared to what you get with improved measurements. There are many open questions for the fit effort. What's the impact of different E plus and minus run scenario. Whether a collider runs at a Z-pole or gets electroweak precision data at high energy? What can be gained from a high energy run at 500 GeV or 1 TeV even? You can get additional information about Higgs physics or H-boson physics. In particular for E plus and minus. We are asking ourselves if we can include in this comparative EFT fit some of the collideers that haven't been considered. Muon or electron had drawn colliders, for instance. -- hadron. There is only information about specific observables and the sensitivity of those. We don't have the input of what is needed for a global fit but it would be nice if this can be done. Also, even HL-LHC only limited projections are available. It would be really nice to have more input including correlations, for instance, for the capability of these machines. We have several LOIs in groups for people who are interested in studying that and looking forward about what can come out of this. And, you know, the goal is always in these fits to try to compare different colliders in an apples to apples way meaning consistent assumptions about systematics and so on. This requires close interaction with the experimental collaborations and studies. To finish off, we are after the slowdown back to regular meeting schedule for our group. Every other week, Friday at 10am. The schedule is on the indico page. Some things we are trying to get through before the white papers are do is go through a systematic review of the LOI studies and in particular seeking contributions from the LOI submitters for specific topics that are of key interest to our group. Also, actually, we would try to collect open questions for which we at this point don't know if anybody is actively studying that. It would be great if we can find answers for these open questions within the Snowmass process but we can't promise that to be the case. At least it may be useful if these open questions are properly explained in the report. The fit team as I mentioned is continuing working and very actively seeking input from any experimental studies and for the different topical groups. We do have a working document that is available on -- it is linked on the Snowmass web page but here is the direct link also. It is continuously updated whenever we get concrete input from the community. We encourage anybody to speak up on that if they see something that could be added there. Thank you. 
>> Thank you. That was a very nice overview and thank you for perfect timing of our presentation. I see already there is a question. 
>> Yes, thank you, Ayres, for this nice overview. Could you, please, go back to slide 8? I want to comment on the exclusion of data that rubs me the wrong way. Data is always right. I would strongly advocate if data is excessive you fix the model and not throw away data. Maybe I misunderstood what is being said. 
>> The goal isn't to completely throw away the data and it is lost in the dustbin of history. That's exactly kind of the I was probably going fast but mentioned with the computational expensive thing. The goal is to rather present the data in basically as a distribution or, you know, some bined histogram as a function of this clipping parameter. You can shift the parameter to infinity but if you want to pursue a particular theoretical interpretation where that would not be OK that also data is presented in a form where this clipping parameter does cut into the phase space and phemenological can perform that. 
>> Yes, and we have done this in at ATLAS as a function of the clipping parameter. It shows how strong impact unionization will have, for example, basically the perceived sensitivity to the real sensitivity if you clip something tells you a lot. It is good information to provide. 
>> Yes, absolutely. 
>> Thank you. 
>> Thank you for the question. I think bottom line more differential distributions is what we all want. I don't see any other raised hands so I thank Ayres and the EF04 for the nice presentation. We move on to the next presentation for EF05 and the speaker will be Stefan. 
>> Yes. Hello. Can you hear he? 
>> Yes, a bit faintly but I think it is -- 
>> OK. 
>> I will try and get closer to the microphone. 
>> It is better. Thank you. 
>> OK. 
>> Yes, so hello, everyone. This will be a slightly long summary. We decided because EF0 and -- EF05 and 06 are similar we will have two presentations and go over LOIs and white papers to give an impression of what is currently going on in the groups. These questions are given by there people who are actually driving the efforts. -- the people. Just as a reminder this is EF05 and conveners are listed there. The mandate of our group is to deal with aspects of measuring or determinations of the strong coupling and precision measurements at lepton colliders and there DOS. Precision observables. Z and tau decay. Other new and exciting techniques weheard about in all the group meetings. Jet physics including jet substructure at current and future colliders and new correlation measurements and jets and systems for example in connection with EF05 and 7. Monte Carlo and perturbative which is important and need to be understand in more detail in order to get reliable systematic earn certainty -- uncertainty estimates. Monte Carlo simulations. We will hear about an LOI on particularly this topic in a few minutes. And these overlap with other groups like EF01, 3, 4, 6 and 8 and with the theory and computing frontier also. We try to exploit them -- explore them as best as we can. You can see the website and the indico category where you can find the past meetings. The group meetings usually happen Monday 10:30am estern time ge 4:30 CERN. I am not going over all the LOIs we received. Here is a list of bought -- what people are interested in. You can see there are many topics. There are certain LOIs we identified as the primary EF05 and there are other ones that logically belong to a different group. Like the parton distribution belongs to 6 but we keep a close watch on all of them. We have cross talk with the other topical groups in particular on these issues. So the restarting after the pause, we would like to invite all of you to give updates on on going projects for example during a group meeting or any other Snowmass channel. Slack or email us for example. In particular, if you have any new ideas that have come up during the pause. New studies being were -- proposed let us know so we can include them in the final document and make other groups aware of them. One thing we would like to mention, again, in particular is if you are new to Snowmass, please try to connect with us. We would like to especially invite young scientists at this point. We have heard a number of nice talks on individual projects and summaries of workshops that happened in the past and new interesting topics came up. I invite you to go to the individual presentations and have a closer look at them. And we plan to cycle in the next topical group meeting through the existing LOIs in the next few weeks and ideally this might lead to a draft outline of the group report by the end of 2021. This is next major milestone probably from the perspective of EF05. I would like to thank everyone for participating in these activities. We look forward to your new ideas. If you have suggestion, comments or anything, please, send them to us. And with this, I would like to hand over the microphone to one of the LOI authors who is connected to present the effort on fragmentation studies. LOI LOIs 
>> Thanks. Let me share my screen. Aye-aye. 
>> If you have a problem, maybe Stefan, want to share the screen? 
>> Yeah, it would be easier. 
>> There is only a few slides. Ah, I found it, I think. Can you see it? 
>> It is coming up, yes. 
>> The slides were prepared by Anselm who is actually the person responsible for the Snowmass and QCD but unfortunately he can't join so he asked me to jump in. I am caught in the water because I am not that much involved. Let me see. Some of the topics that can be studied better to propagation and hadronization has been a tupic -- topic already studied. There is a number of QCD studies. These are important because they are fundamental QCD studies and input DIS experiments and photon collision of hadrons in the final state. There is the EIC coming up. The focus will be here on four channels that really need high statistics. One already had a very good data center but there are some channels like hadronisation that are more difficult to access and we need more statistics. We still had limititations when looking at the wire bond data. This is a topic. Correlations and multi-dimensional measurements and looking at not just one kinematic variable but really do the measurements in full differential. That will fire high precision data and high statistics dataset. There are some things beyond just the statistics. For instance, the new vertex detector which will have separate charm and light for the uds quark contributions. They are all formed into the bond. That will likely be much easier. Then there are also various ideas for jet physics program. We can look at jet based imbalances and so on.
This has to be studied what can be done. And then, of course, e plus and minus is a nice way to really look at hadronisation and hadronisation models like jet set and that can be used it really benchmark Monte Carlos to look at certain observables that are both wide and constraining these Monte Carlo models. Besides that there is always an important measurement now going on for the g minus 2 efforts. That is the main contribution of the uncertainty. They are bonded and constrained or restricted in what they can do. Belle II will have a better possibility to provide cross section measurements. This is a list of the activities and the workforces here. Basically, the list of people is very limited actually. Many of the people at Duke, Riken, and me here. We have all started Monte Carlo studies of jet production at belle II and same for fragmentation of belle II. We had a discussion with the Monte Carlo groups about what can be the relevant contributions from theal -- the belle II. We have discussions with the g-2 theory initiative and what we can do for the hadranization measurements. The plans are the following:  We have already a large set of Monte Carlo samples which should be sufficient for the studies needed for the white paper. In fact, a lot can already be done from our measurements at Bon. Someone can extrapolate a lot to the final dataset of belle II. What has to be done in more detail is the charm detection and how much it helps and what can be improved there. For jets, dedicated studies are underway though I can't comment because I am not involved there. For g minus 2 they will have a new trigger system for belle II to study this exclusive cross section measurements and this has to be studied and how to reduce and how much and what can be reached there. This has to be quantified, of course, for the white paper. I think that is all I was given on some slides. So if there are questions I will try to answer them. 
>> Thank you very much. I wonder if Stefan wanted to have some final words? 
>> Yes. I would like to quickly follow-up on this. We have identified this as an important way to benchmark Monte Carlo models and hadronisation models in general because -- just to provide a little bit context. Current Monte Carlo and everything we know about hadronisation stands from hep data which are taken at a single energy point. It is important and it has been considered important by the Monte Carlo community at least over the years to check and validate the energy extrapolation because the data we have for example from previous experiments are limited and belle II provides another point point that hopefully allows us to reduce our systematic uncertainties. 
>> Thank you very much. It was a nice set of slides and good plans. If there are no other questions or else I will start with a couple of comments. This study for hadronisation implementation and what is listed here using also belle II data this could be done with precision physics from tier and I see they are connected today. This is pretty much in EF05 activities. G minus 2 and also charm physics and it also overlapping with the frontier and maybe something we can comment on. 
>> I don't have a comment but I think it is a good idea because there is certainly a lot of experience on that side. Maybe it comes from the QCD part of parton studies. I think people from charm side and g minus 2 we should discuss with them what is the synergy there. 
>> Also in terms of coordination of analysis and tools and the split of activities. 
>> Which group was it actually -- because I am -- it is called precision physics grow. -- group. If you go to the Snowmass wiki page you will find it. The liaison is connected and you can find the name in the wiki page. 
>> We can discuss that later.
I think it will be very interesting to everyone to coordinate. 
>> Good. Thank you. The last comment I had which is an idea that just occurred to me hearing Stefan comment on the strong interlink between EF05 and 06. An idea that hasn't been discussed with anybody but something we can discuss in the afternoon session on the reports. We may even conceive to have a common report between EF05 and 06 since the topics are close and intertwined. An idea I wanted to throw out and maybe we can discuss further in the afternoon session and of course in future weeks and months. 
>> Yes. So in fact, [indiscernible] will present the common effort on the white paper we are working on. I think this may be a good idea, yes. 
>> Very good. And since I don't see any other raised hand, we move on to EF06. 
>> OK. Good. Do you hear me well? Can you see my slides? 
>>  Not on full screen but as you prefer. 
>> How about that? Do you see them? 
>> Yeah. Perfect. OK. 
>> Good. Well, I will just takeover and emphasize the point the EF06 covers a large range of projects and we have multiple overlaps with other groups. EF05 and 03 discussed the parallel sessions of this workshop and I will not repeat all of this for the sake of saving time. But also, EF07 will come after us and discuss many topics that we studied together. This is an issue for us. We have so many broad topics. Perhaps we should write one report on QCD with EF05 and maybe with other groups would be very good. Just as a reminder, we have three major areas that we are studying in EF06. Hadron struck CLR and participate ton distribution. QCD at the high density region. A major topic that will be not be presented today because Krysztof is not available but it is very actively studied in our group. And also another topic that overlaps quite well with the proposals frontier is the -- and I will not discuss it today but some of us have to keep in mind there is a lot of activity going on there. We actually started working very rigorously quite early in 2020 before the pause. We had many meetings, I think about 15 meetings, that you can see at the indico agenda that is shown on the slide. We didn't really stop or fully pause during the last few months because there was ongoing work on various distributions going in parallel. Some will be quickly summarized after my short presentation. This is a list of focus questions that may be useful in the frontier conveners when we try to formulate what we want to recover in the reports. The range of the topics is very broad as you see. We have about 60 or 70 LOIs depending how you count the overlap. You can see a single document filled with all the LOIs that are pertinent to EF 06. It is clear what we need to do in the next few months. We meet in the fall, and tentively meet every two weeks, and we will primarily track progress on several white papers. We have all these LOIs but the scope of the work is already so large we need to focus on pressing on the key issues with the goal all white papers will be archived by March 15, 2022. Of course, we have directions in the group. In particular, several of the studies as we know are open to new participants. There is some work to do in this white paper studies especially some studies can be very amendable for early career researchers. Therefore if you wish to present your work on Snowmass contributions, for example, you wish to give a talk in one of the meetings, or you are looking for a project to join either for you or your students or postdocs, please, contact us. We have a special scope of work that needs to be covered. Just to give you a few examples. Today we will talk about three LOIs. First of all I will talk about major study on the proton structure of the precision frontier that is prepared by these three groups. EFO5 and 06 and TF06. And then we will learn about two other LOIs that made substantial progress. On the LHC forward physics facility and the hadron structure collider. I don't have to remind you that the PDFs of all kind are very important for a variety of measurements at the energy frontier and the fixed target experiments. We need to get PDFs as accurate to NNLO QCD predictions. That requires studying a complex set of issues arising in theory, experiment and also in the statistical analysis. The PDF analysis is an example of a large scale data analysis. Therefore if we wish to meet the physics target for the Higgs coupling discussed by there previous groups we have to understand what's going on in the QCD sector and especially with the PDFs. Aside of that is the structure of the proton is interesting in its own right because there are many new coming experiments especially the electron hadron collider interested in the various kinds of nuke nuclei. This is a very big table I think we discussed at one of the workshops and I will probably not go in detail but this discusses the various topics related to the PDF analysis. What you see here are the topics that we covered in the 2013 report from the QCD Working Group. As well as the updates that we need to make in this new report that will be produced. But also, when we target the highest accuracy at the high luminosity LHC area, we have to look into multiple other issues that were not relevant eight years ago. Therefore we really need to think as a community how to address these issues if we really wish to reach the accuracy target by the LH37 -- LHC. The way to approach this is to write a white paper coordinated by through groups. On the top you see the names of the general coordinators of this major work. Now on the left hand side you see the table of contents from this white paper. The idea is to give a pretty comprehensive introduction to the model status of the PDF that covers all sorts of issues. Obviously it is very difficult to write this large scope paper. We decided to assign small groups of leading authors. If you like coordinators that will spend the few months to write there bulk of the test. -- the. In small groups this makes it most efficient. In December we will open the paper to the comments from the whole community and then every community member who is interested can sign up on the message of the paper as one of the authors. Of course, the coordinated will be highlighted as the main con tribtributer -- contributors to the work. If you are interested in a particular topic and would really like to play a role, meaning you have to commit the time, please contact us. We still have a few of these chapters, well, not fully covered. Here is a list of the authors that are currently working on individual sections. Wherever you see who else it indicates we are looking for additional contributors. If you would like to contribute to this paper, work on any of these topics, like for example, we are especially welcoming experimentalists from ATLAS and CMS to tell us how they see the vision of measuring the quantities for PDF or controlling systematics errors. We need your input. With this, I would like to now switch and give a few minutes to Maria first who will tell us about the forward physics facility. Maria, I can show your slide if you like. I hope you can hear me. 
>> Yes, yes, that's probably good you show them. Can you hear? Yes. OK. Then I will tell you when to change the slide. First of all, yes, this is one of the involving EF05, 06 and 07. It can be coming from Jonathan Lee and Felix and myself and others who have started helping. Next slide. The idea is to do the following. As you know, ATLAS and CMS can just look at particles submitted at low but there are a lot of other particles at larger and these are essentially lost. I mean particles that are larger than 5. There are some experiments and ideas to exploit the beams of sneutrino and muon and the particles produced in this way. There are already two experiments that have been proved and are now under development and they will start taking data during round 3 that will be sensible to this particle. Go to the next slide, Pavel. They will be located at00 meters from the interaction point. You see one on the one side that is called a UJ 12 and the other is the UJ18. This cover will be at the time of -- the problem of this experiment is they can only exploit limited space and so also limited sensitivity in terms of rapidity. People start to think of what to do for the next round and can we improve the situation, better measure this kind of forward neutrino and particles and the idea came up of trying to design a forward physics facility. For this, Pavel, next slide. There are two possible ideas that are now being elaborated at CERN by the engineering group. One is to enlarge one of the existing and the UJ12 will be co-located in such a way to create cover where one could put the bigger experiments. The other possibility is to create from scratch a new shopped and a new cavern -- shaft -- on the opposite side around 600 meters from the UJ12 in a region where there is just now grass. This would be the best option because as you can see from the next slide, this would allow to put them in this new cavern that would be large enough and arrange different experiments characterized by different technologies and covered in different ranges in such a way that one can make a program of diversified physics. Go to next slide. And in particular, we see a number of QCD opportunities relate today the fact that the neutrinos and muons we see are produced by light flavor and heavy flavor production and decay. This will allow us to study a number of problems from proton PDF that can study small and large to nuclear PDF that can be study from the neutrino and neutrino cut on many different targets that would be put in these experiments. The complementary tweak -- we can get from the forward and future experiments like the EIC. The possibility of starting alternative to the factorization framework in particular eb factorization framework which in collaboration of energy log rhythm would be relevant especially for the description of charm production in the forward region and also the production reaction.
Then we can think to constrain by means of data that can be extracted in this facility non-perturbative models and also maybe better tuning and there are also other connections with astoparticle physics. This would give us a lot of insight about neutrino and hadron production in the atmosphere. Just to give an example of the advantage of going from run3 where we could see 10 scattering events by means of the cc to the 1,000 events we can see with better statistics of a factor of 100. Next slide. This is what we have done in this month that Snowmass was under after the first participate we -- paper we submitted to Snowmass. There was a meeting in November 2020 and a second in May. Afterwards we start to write the first paper that at the moment is almost 70 pages and almost ready. It concern all aspects from civil engineering to physical exploration study and involves several tens of orders and 12 topical conveners. We want to submit to to the archive soon. There will be a third meeting on this subject in October 2021. That would be devoted mostly to the discussion on the Snowmass paper that we want to submit by Spring 2022. We expect the same orders working now that started to do the calculation for the forward facility and additional collaboration from people that maybe want to join the effort. In case you want to join us, please, write us an email. We would find something for you to do for sure. The physic facility will not stop with the end of the Snowmass process. We want to submit conceptual design paper in autumn 2022 and in autumn 2023 for the TDR. If everything is approved then this can be started to be build during the long shutdown three between 2025-2027 and be ready for taking data during the high luminosity phase. 
>> Thank you. As you can see this happens quite soon. That's very interesting. Now, let me invite Timon to say a few words about the other LOI and then we will take questions for all of us. 
>> Yes, thank you, Pavlo. Indeed these comments will be brief and essentially almost all entirely programmatic in the interest of time. Basically, what I wanted to do on behalf of my fellow co-organizers of the proceedings that we are developing on this subject is provide a reminder that we exist and very brief update regarding the status. In particular what this concerns is the electron ion collider, EIC and hadron tomography which you can read as measurements of the EIC that could be constraining with respect to hadronic or nuclear structure and in particular build a cross over subject and what measurements of that type could have a say with respect to the energy frontier or really in high energy physics in general. This of course includes the LHC but neutrino nuclear scattering as well as fermilab and elsewhere. There is an embedded summary in the two dimensional code and you can see the link to the original LOIs which is very brief and succinct. A reminder of what we have been up to. Looking back to the early part of this year, January 2021 we assembled a large groupf people interested in the subject. It is a very broad subject relating to PDFs and things like generalized parton functions and TMD measurements. We had something on the order of something 160 plus LOI contributors who are being funneled toward the proceedings. One we objective we agreed to carry forward is studies that had been somewhat only briefly covered in the EIC report that was completed in March of this year bringing some conclusions forward and developing them further in the proceedings. We had identified that community. We had somehow broken it into a number of appropriate sub-concentrations concerning things like PDFs and TMDs and we made substantial progress in building a template document which we might correlate conclusions in each area. That document is completely open. We invite contributions from anyone with expertise in the area that we have outlined keeping inside the track that we have developed and a link to that over leaf is embedded in this slide and the yellow-green text at the bottom. Lastly, I just wanted to note on this point that, of course, we are looking to complete this in march of next year giving us just half a year to finalize this. We are in the process, as the pause ends, outlining the key efforts and we will be reaching out to that end. Next slide, please. This is my last slide already. The current status where are we as I just mentioned in words, we already created a lot of material in the key areas that are relevant here. We brought forward a great deal of this from the report. We already gathered a lot to do with there PDFs and nPDFs. There is development with high energy neutrino scattering and not unheard of like in the last talk and TMD and TMD fragmentation and lattice calculations for the GPDs. Building the relation to the areas already present is something that needs to be developed further. In the coming six months there are a number of crucial things that have not been expanded or mapped out at all to this point and that includes the spin polarized distributions, possible simultaneously analyses of three dimensional observables, and thren mapping out a little bit further the EIC's impact on high energy QCD as well as nuclear physics for ultra peripheral collision we will be actively soliciting key players in the next couple months. I stres this is an open process. The link to the overleaf is available and I invite anyone interested to reach out either to me or my colleagues. That's all we would like to say for now. Thank you, Pavel. 
>> With this, we conclude our EF06 presentation. Thank you very much. And the speakers. 
>> And the whole EF06 group. And the conveners for engineering all the sessions. Questions. 
>> I think this is comlemeant -- complementary. This will be both small and large. We can, I mean, there is the comlementary where we don't see LHC. We will reach like 10 to the minus 7. I agree. It is an important. 
>> I think just an analysis would be interesting. 
>> Yeah, I think we can do this because we have on board the people that are also working for the EAC. I mean the main PDF collaboration. This is definitely possible. 
>> Thank you. 
>> I don't see any raised hands. So with that, we thank all the speakers. And we take a break of about 24 minutes or so. Then we will continue with another plenary session where we conclude the highlights and plans from all there other energy frontier topical groups. So we close this session here. I want to thank also Maggie the captioner from White Coat Captioning. 
>> Maggie: Thank you. 
>> We will see you in about 23 minutes from now. 
>> Alessandro, isn't it an hour? 
>> Apologize. It is at 1:00, yes. I mixed up the agenda. Yes, it is less than an hour from now. 53 minutes. Thank you, Laura, for correcting me.