1. NCC meeting Aug 5, 2008 richard seto

2. doe report received https://www.phenix.bnl.gov/WWW/p/draft/seto/ncc/TaskForceDocs/DOEreport_Jul_2008 /https://www.phenix.bnl.gov/WWW/p/draft/seto/ncc/TaskForceDoc Structure –Addendum II – the report (see this) –Attachment A – our report for reference –Attachment B – our response to lanny’s private questions –Attachment C – excerpts of reviews comments (see this) –letter to Ludlam My comments here are only to the main report and not to the reviewers individual comments

3. dates Review July 9, 2007 review report received Aug 29, 2007 (we worked for 6 mo) Our report sent March 5, 2008 Phone conference July 2, 2008 report received July 31, 2008

4. the charge As a result of these concerns, the DOE Science Review made two recommendations: –I. “Each detector group should demonstrate and document scientific feasibility for two or more topics of high importance and submit to DOE for evaluation. PHENIX should submit to DOE a report documenting these studies for evaluation, prior to a technical review.” –II. “The NCC group should demonstrate by simulations that the non-projective geometry and shower digitization does not preclude the ability to eliminate background at the level necessary to accomplish the proposed physics goals. PHENIX should submit to DOE a report documenting these studies for evaluation, prior to a technical review.

5. the blow Summary The PHENIX Collaboration has responded to the two DOE recommendations by providing more detail on the NCC performance and by presenting the case for the π0, χc and “prompt” γ physics measurements. However, the response had left significant unanswered questions and concerns in place for the scientific topics chosen. The reviewers held that the proposed measurements, taken collectively, were either of marginal scientific value or that the proponents did not make a convincing case regarding feasibility of realizing the scientific goals. Thus, the PHENIX Collaboration’s response to the DOE recommendations is found to be unsatisfactory by all the reviewers. Based on these evaluations, the DOE Office of Nuclear Physics considers the Collaboration’s response insufficient to take the next step towards the initiation of the NCC project.

6. Gleaning helpful information Projective geometry Several reviewers believed the NCC proponents had done a reasonable job in showing that the non-projective geometry could work within specific kinematic regions. However, the simulation studies also highlighted significant problematic areas. These issues raised the question of whether the detector performance was adequate in the context of the proposed physics topics identified in the PHENIX Collaboration’s response to the second DOE recommendation. The work on the prototype should answer many of these questions. But this highlights the need to do a prototype in the PHENIX detector at high multiplicity – i.e. for run-10 a large prototype in PHENIX

7. pi0’s The reviewers believed the single-track π0’s in Au+Au needed better simulations. Given the limited rapidity extension compared to the existing RHIC pion measurements, some reviewers considered that this aspect of the of the NCC physics program offered only incremental or marginal value, while others opined the physics-case was either missing or not argued well. The response lacked a comparison of the science reach achieved with the NCC and what might be learned from RAA(π±) that could be available without the NCC upgrade. Single track pi0 needs to better simulations and a clearer understanding of how well it works. Edouard/Mickey etc are working on this

8. the chic The complete simulation and reconstruction analysis of the χc leading to the final “physics” plots were not included in the response. The simulated χc invariant mass peaks for Au+Au did not convince the reviewers that the signal-to-background ratio was understood. Credible estimates of the statistics achievable in one run-year assuming RHIC II integrated luminosity were not provided. The reviewers’ estimate of the data sample is at variance with the NCC response and they were unable to reproduce the Collaboration’s estimates which were significantly higher. This was my fault. A considerably better and clearer explanation of things was necessary. In particular the issue of statistics needs to be explained better. Statistics needs to be clearly written out.

9. Double takes Topics? –(two in Heavy Ion Physics and one in Spin Physics) that they believed required the NCC: π0 yield suppression (RAA) in heavy ion collisions with implications for direct photon measurements and gluon Parton Density Function (PDF) measurements through detection of γ-jet final states; Nuclear modification factor RAA for the χc charm meson and “Prompt” photon asymmetries (ALL) to determine the gluon spin contribution to the proton. –Report exec summary We have chosen to illustrate the capabilities of the NCC by doing full simulation studies of: 1) RAA in heavy ion collisions and its implications for the measurement of direct photons and photon+jet events and 2) RAA for C as measured by its decay into J/ + in heavy ion collisions. We believe ….

10. double takes What was our charge? –pi0’s The reviewers believed the single-track π0’s in Au+Au needed better simulations. Given the limited rapidity extension compared to the existing RHIC pion measurements, some reviewers considered that this aspect of the of the NCC physics program offered only incremental or marginal value, while others opined the physics-case was either missing or not argued well. The response lacked a comparison of the science reach achieved with the NCC and what might be learned from RAA(π±) that could be available without the NCC upgrade. –The reviewers held that the proposed measurements, taken collectively, were either of marginal scientific value… RKS comment – I think they discounted a lot. I think they gave us credit only for the 2 track pi0’s, and then judged the merits from there.

11. Reiteration of where we are Learn what we can from the report and move on – we have a program ahead of us, but it needs defense. Have gotten support of bnl management and even DOE to see that the needs of the PHENIX collaboration are met… (politically careful wording) We have now gotten the $200K for the prototype We need to argue for the $1.2M –in presidents budget – but clear R and D arguments need to be put forward Ed OB will be calling a meeting in the next week or so of many of us to put together an argument

12. initial distribution total energy in EM+HAD total energy in EM only showers PID as electron EM+HAD showers PID as electron EM only electrons π -π - Energy (GeV)