From kotwal@phy.duke.edu Thu Jan 3 14:55:30 2008 Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 15:55:23 -0500 (EST) From: Ashutosh Kotwal To: R. Keith Ellis Cc: hcp08-iac@fnal.gov, hcp08-loc@fnal.gov Subject: Re: Request for advice on program Dear Keith, This is a nice program. There is a good balance between topics and between Tevatron and LHC, with coverage of other colliders. My comments on details are below: 1) I agree that top physics is a good topic to start with - but I agree with Mike Tuts that there should be a review of Tevatron status, plans and luminosity projections to "kick-off" the conference first thing in the morning. This will nicely complement the LHC machine and upgrade status/plans at the end of the conference. Furthermore, the physics results being presented are mostly from the Tevatron, and the conference is at Fermilab. 2) I agree with previous comments that as stated, the title of the talk "W/Z + heavy flavor" on tuesday afternoon tends to exclude light flavor jets. Heavy flavor should be specifically discussed, in detail, in the talk, but light flavor should not be excluded. 3) The "Standard model backgrounds at LHC" talk can be quite interesting, but as stated I find the title rather vague. A better title might be "LHC strategies for constraining SM backgrounds". The speaker can then combine strategies of measurement with a discussion of state-of-the-art generators to show a coherent plan for addressing this key issue. Any needs can be highlighted in the talk. 4) I agree with previous comments that the "Physics prospects at ALICE" talk should be given by ALICE speaker, but should also include discussion of ATLAS and CMS. 5) By the same token, the "b-physics talk at LHC(b)" should include (esp. complementarity of) ATLAS and CMS prospects, and I agree with Karl that the talk should be given by LHCB speaker. 6) I agree that the B-factories talk is useful - it helps to put the following B-physics at hadron colliders in context. 7) Friday morning - the 'prospects for early physics' for each of the four LHC experiments separately is not optimal - ATLAS and CMS can be combined eg. as proposed by Karl. This will make it less repetitious and make time for more physics discussion in these talks. 8) I agree with previous comments that "Higgs boson within MSSM" should not be restricted to MSSM, but extended to all BSM scenarios. 9) I wonder if the "Higgs prospects at LHC: discovery and measurements" two talks could be combined into one talk. At this point a separate 30 min talk on the latter alone seems redundant to me. 10) I agree with Mike Tuts' proposal for combining the 3 talks (LHC machine, ATLAS upgrade, CMS upgrade) into two talks (LHC and sLHC, experiment upgrades) 11) Regarding the "Theoretical summary" talk, I would suggest renaming the talk along the lines of "Physics vision - Tevatron, LHC, sLHC, ILC and beyond". The existing talk suggests the summary talk of a theory conference, which is not the case here, and the individual session theory reviews already support the experimental discussions that follow each. A "vision" talk, given by a theorist, could be inspiring! I might disagree with Karl's suggestion here that this talk should be dropped. 12) I also note, along with Karl, that there is no mention of particle ID in the conference. Viewing this more broadly, the reconstruction software & algorithms play a key role in the physics capability, just as the accelerator, detectors and computing do. There should be some discussion focussing on the physics readiness of the reconstruction software & algorithms. This can be presented as "particle ID" or as "algorithm performance". It can be organized along the lines of "prompt" particles (ie electron, muon, photon, etc) and "decaying particles" (ie b, tau etc), for instance. The presentations should be combined across experiments. I think the combination of the "Higgs prospects at LHC: discovery and measurements" on friday afternoon would free some time that would be usefully spent discussing algorithm performance. Those are my comments on the scientific program. Regarding conference organization, I would make two comments - a) I think a poster session mentioned by Rino is a requisite; it is appreciated and well-subscribed by young physicists, and helps to give additional exposure to both physics and physicists. b) I am not in favor of having session conveners - I think Keith and the local organizers would do a fine job, with help from the International Advisory Committee. In any case, speakers for experimental talks are negotiated and selected by respective Speakers Committees; in this forum we can discuss the review and summary speakers. Time management and Q&A at the sessions is well-handled by session chairs - senior members of the community can be invited to attend and fulfill this role. happy new year to all, Ashutosh ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ashutosh V. Kotwal tel: (919) 660-2563 Duke University, Dept. of Physics fax: (919) 660-2525 Box 90305, Durham N.C. 27708-0305, USA kotwal@phy.duke.edu