ECCE Public Announcements

["Roche, Julie" <rochej AT ohio.edu>]

Good morning,

Thank you for putting together this paper: there is much information there, 
and this paper will be a helpful reference.

I read the report line by line up to page 30 and a bit faster for the rest 
(in the interest of time). My mark-ups are available in this file:  
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://catmailohio-my.sharepoint.com/:b:/r/personal/rochej_ohio_edu/Documents/Marked_JR_part1.pdf?csf=1&web=1&e=FJgOWr__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!GnySBNAN5qb5FVFtYS0Zg_LSlmeZu74LITdZu92qSO_V-FQaWaoYlTNCqfe6Xy43A5mEzUN3TMWTpNYSKuM0SGZdxq6vgQ$
 

Here are a few general comments:
-As mentioned earlier, it is evident that different authors wrote each 
section. First, some introductory mentions are repeated in multiple sections. 
 For some of the subsections of section 4, it feels like the focus is more on 
the impact of the EIC  and less on the detector occupancy/resolutions, and in 
others, it is the opposite.  A bit more balance would be good.
- There are many figures in the paper, and I am not convinced that all are 
necessary. Working on the captions explaining what the figure shows will help 
decide if the figures can stay or need to go. 
-Table 4 shows which generators were used for which process. I feel one 
should add which version of the simulation was used for the studies presented 
in the paper. It gets confusing when reading through section 4. I also had 
trouble picturing how important the simulation version was. 
 - There are some comments here and there in the paper about future or 
ongoing studies. It sends the message that the paper is not written at a good 
time. I advise being a bit careful with these.

Have a good weekend,

Julie

===

On 5/10/22, 2:52 PM, "Garth Huber" <garth.huber AT uregina.ca> wrote:

    Use caution with links and attachments.
    
    I've read over the paper, and my comments for improvement are attached.
    
    As I briefly mentioned in this morning's WG meeting, it is evident that 
the
    various section authors have written their respective parts in isolation 
from
    each other.  As a result, there are various inconsistencies and a lack of
    awareness of what is being discussed in the various sections that need to 
be
    fixed before the paper is ready for wider circulation.  As a starting 
point, I
    recommend that each of the various Sec 4 authors read the other parts of 
this
    section that they did not work on, and think about how to revise their 
sections
    so that the paper comes across as a more coherent work.  Some specific 
examples
    are given in the attachment.
    
    Regards, Garth Huber
    ---
    
    Zisis Papandreou wrote:
    > Hi folks:
    > I did a 1st pass through the paper, up to and including section 4.5.  I 
will
    > look more after Monday, when the other sections are ready. (Including 
4.7, ...)
    > Content looks good and overall the sections read well.
    > Rachel and Bill, I have annotated a version I downloaded on May 6, at 
16:24 CST.
    >   My comments are here:
    > 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Fwww.dropbox.com*2Fs*2F8rdj9jrisqtrh0x*2Fecce_paper_phys_2022_02_May6-1624CST_zp.pdf*3Fdl*3D0&amp;data=05*7C01*7Crochej*40ohio.edu*7C4be88a0953bd45b25ed008da32b62077*7Cf3308007477c4a70888934611817c55a*7C0*7C0*7C637878055790611743*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C3000*7C*7C*7C&amp;sdata=4gN9cIja*2BN0It*2FQHBmjXwmXJ*2FO*2BNV6sIZdtRreCoXhQ*3D&amp;reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!P4SdNyxKAPE!GnySBNAN5qb5FVFtYS0Zg_LSlmeZu74LITdZu92qSO_V-FQaWaoYlTNCqfe6Xy43A5mEzUN3TMWTpNYSKuM0SGaXkGG6fw$
 
    > If it is convenient -- and does not add confusion -- I can enter most 
of those
    > in Overleaf.  Please advise.
    > Cheers, Zisis...
    > Dr. Zisis Papandreou
    > Head, Department of Physics
    > Professor of Physics, Ph.D, P.Phys.
    > ---------------------------------------------------------
    > Department of Physics
    > University of Regina
    > 3737 Wascana Parkway
    > Regina, SK  S4S 0A2 CANADA
    > *Phone: (306) 585-5379*
    > Fax: (306) 585-5659
    > Email: zisis AT uregina.ca <mailto:zisis AT uregina.ca>
    > Website:
    > 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Fwww.uregina.ca*2Fscience*2Fphysics*2Fpeople*2Ffaculty-research*2Fzisis-papandreou*2F&amp;data=05*7C01*7Crochej*40ohio.edu*7C4be88a0953bd45b25ed008da32b62077*7Cf3308007477c4a70888934611817c55a*7C0*7C0*7C637878055790611743*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C3000*7C*7C*7C&amp;sdata=wAjcmSohJQQgDky6CoRrLCvFemRgAtoeVN3FmFBNTYo*3D&amp;reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!P4SdNyxKAPE!GnySBNAN5qb5FVFtYS0Zg_LSlmeZu74LITdZu92qSO_V-FQaWaoYlTNCqfe6Xy43A5mEzUN3TMWTpNYSKuM0SGZZhoO2qw$
 
    >
    >>>> "Wenliang (Bill) Li" <billlee AT jlab.org> 05/03/2022, 12:01 PM >>>
    >
    > Dear all,
    >
    > This email will provide a timeline regarding the complication and 
internal
    > review of the Exclusive, Diffractive & Tagging summary paper.
    >
    > Here we would like to thank the review team for leading the internal 
group
    > review: G. Huber, Z. Papandreou, J. Roche, A. Schmidt,
    > The plan is as the following:
    > By tomorrow (May 4) at 10:00 am EDT, Sections 1, 2, and 4 (except 4.6) 
will be
    > ready for the internal group review.
    > By Monday (May 9) at 10:00 am EDT, Sections 3, 4.6, and 6 will be ready 
for the
    > internal group review.
    > Monday (May 9), we will present our paper at the ECCE bi-weekly meeting 
to the
    > consortium.
    > Friday (May 13), the paper will be ready for comments from the 
consortium.
    > Please let us if you have any suggestions or comments on this plan.
    > Greatly appreciate the individuals who worked hard on polishing the 
studies, we
    > would like to *emphasize the importance of the common standard on how 
we present
    > our plots*.
    > For important key figures, we must polish them to the following 
standard:
    > 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Fnbviewer.org*2Fgithub*2FECCE-EIC*2Ftutorials*2Fblob*2Fmaster*2FECCEStyle*2FECCEStyle-Python.ipynb&amp;data=05*7C01*7Crochej*40ohio.edu*7C4be88a0953bd45b25ed008da32b62077*7Cf3308007477c4a70888934611817c55a*7C0*7C0*7C637878055790611743*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C3000*7C*7C*7C&amp;sdata=vYzO*2FZrWIjQdmS4DaeaP0Iuh30bYdsczNe8nw4tu7Nc*3D&amp;reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!P4SdNyxKAPE!GnySBNAN5qb5FVFtYS0Zg_LSlmeZu74LITdZu92qSO_V-FQaWaoYlTNCqfe6Xy43A5mEzUN3TMWTpNYSKuM0SGaYz93kgA$
 
    > I also included a few great examples in the attachment. We don't want 
to ask
    > everyone to use the same template, please preserve a few common 
features when
    > generating the key plot which includes: the ECCE label, scattering
    > configuration, and readable axis labels.
    > Please consider using the following style script to standardize the 
font or
    > configuration (download them to your local directory):
    > 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Fraw.githubusercontent.com*2FECCE-EIC*2Fmacros*2Fmaster*2Fcommon*2FECCEStyle.C&amp;data=05*7C01*7Crochej*40ohio.edu*7C4be88a0953bd45b25ed008da32b62077*7Cf3308007477c4a70888934611817c55a*7C0*7C0*7C637878055790611743*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C3000*7C*7C*7C&amp;sdata=HfH83GgxBuZ5pKTfsFgRMdQ6kZqNBZwkkz9MzxdDhrE*3D&amp;reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!P4SdNyxKAPE!GnySBNAN5qb5FVFtYS0Zg_LSlmeZu74LITdZu92qSO_V-FQaWaoYlTNCqfe6Xy43A5mEzUN3TMWTpNYSKuM0SGbbB3VWfw$
 
    > 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Fraw.githubusercontent.com*2FECCE-EIC*2Fmacros*2Fmaster*2Fcommon*2FECCEStyle.h&amp;data=05*7C01*7Crochej*40ohio.edu*7C4be88a0953bd45b25ed008da32b62077*7Cf3308007477c4a70888934611817c55a*7C0*7C0*7C637878055790611743*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C3000*7C*7C*7C&amp;sdata=3arOU5uiw8ETLokqMz7QOVCf4F69MVGRnpyH*2B6bYfao*3D&amp;reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!P4SdNyxKAPE!GnySBNAN5qb5FVFtYS0Zg_LSlmeZu74LITdZu92qSO_V-FQaWaoYlTNCqfe6Xy43A5mEzUN3TMWTpNYSKuM0SGY1uedvAw$
 
    > To use them, please you can use the following root macro command to 
trigger the
    > style:
    >      gInterpreter->Declare("""#include \"ECCEStyle.C\"""");
    >      gInterpreter->ProcessLine("SetECCEStyle()");
    > The ECCE label can be generated with the following TLegend example:
    >      auto legend1 = new TLegend(.35,.75,.65,.93);
    >      gStyle->SetLegendBorderSize(0);
    >      legend1->AddEntry("","#it{#bf{ECCE}} Simulation","");
    >      legend1->AddEntry("","e+p 18+275 GeV","");
    > For the intermediary plots, please remove the overhead labels and 
reduce the
    > white space on the plot. Please also double-check the bin sizes: 
choppy-looking
    > plots should be re-binned to show a smoother shape.
    > We would like to ask the interviewer to pay special attention to 
figure/plot
    > quality.
    > Finally, the WG has decided on the author list strategy (by vote). Our 
summary
    > paper will first list all students and postdocs in alphabetical order, 
followed
    > by all members of the WG in alphabetical order, then the rest of the 
consortium
    > in alphabetical order.
    > Many thanks
    > Bill on behalf of Exclusive, Diff & Tagg WG
    
    --
    Dr. Garth Huber, Dept. of Physics, Univ. of Regina, Regina, SK S4S0A2, 
Canada.
    tel: 1-306-585-4240. fax: 1-306-585-5659.