PPAN Programmatic Review Presentation to PP town meeting Jordan Nash

Outline  Programmatic Review Process  Results  Advisory Panels

Process  74 PPAN items were grouped according to themes  Community asked to provide information about their projects to the programmatic review, by answering a set of questions.  Lead and second rapporteurs allocated to each theme  Rapporteurs agreed presentations and discussed marks, noting differences  Strategic Importance, Impact, Competition, UK Involvement, Scientific User Base, Science Output, Outreach, Training, Industrial Benefit  All members of PPAN were asked to read all material in advance and to assess all items.

Handling Conflicts  Any potential conflicts were discussed in advance between lead and second rapporteur, referred to chair if necessary  All conflicts declared and noted during presentations  If necessary second rapporteur took over for conflicted items  All items were presented and discussed with conflicted members always excluded

Scoring  Final marks and rankings were discussed and finalised exactly as would be done in a grants panel after two 2-day meetings in December and January  Scores were a starting point for the discussion  The position of each project in the ranking was discussed and agreed  Financial information and position of likely funding line only discussed at the very end (again as per normal peer review procedure)  Some reduction in funding of medium-ranked items was recommended in order to fund more projects, but top-ranked items were left untouched

Grouping  PPAN placed the projects in three categories  High Priority  These projects scored very highly in the categories of Scientific Impact, Strategic Importance, Scientific Output.  Medium Priority  All very good science projects  These projects were above the line we were told was realistic as a level of funds available  Tried to get as many projects as possible into this category  Lower Priority  These projects fell below the funding line

High Priority ProjectWhy ATLASWe have made a huge investment in the LHC and the exploitation of the GPDs has to be the highest priority in our area of science, as the case for building the LHC was based on the physics program of the GPDs. CMSAs for ATLAS. nEDMUK world leading experiment fundamental test of SM. Well ahead of competition. Projects in this category were recommended to be fully funded. 12 projects in this category across STFC Projects in this category were recommended to be fully funded. 12 projects in this category across STFC

Middle Priority ProjectWhy GridPPEssential for LHC physics. Without GridPP, we can’t exploit the data from the LHC. SuperNemoOnly a few new projects in the Medium term. Speculative, but one of two important directions in neutrino physics. ISLLow cost, unique project to test fundamental laws LHC UpgradesKeep productive physics from LHC while determining next direction in PP. This is for essential upgrades to keep the detectors operating during the lifetime of the LHC facility. T2KOnly new accelerator based project in the Medium term. This experiment can help to understand long term future direction of neutrino physics. LHCbThe UK leadership in LHCb is strong, and this facility is just about to start producing important physics at CERN, after substantial UK investment. However this physics is not expected to have as high an impact as that from the LHC general purpose detectors. CDFSome exciting potential during the last years of running for a fairly small investment. D0 eEDMPotential for world leading measurement for small investment. Competition from several groups Future Program PPAN recommended funding for all programs in Middle, and suggested levels of cuts to some of these projects to allow as many as possible to be placed in this category (34 projects across all STFC science)

Lower Priority ProjectWhy MinosHas been a high quality neutrino physics program, although late to get started. Probably nearing the end of its program. Lower priority relative to future neutrino program. LCFIPrograms for LC detectors were of high quality. However, given the uncertainty of the timescale for an ILC detector and the limited funding available PPAN felt it was not possible to continue to support these ILC detector developments at the level which was planned, and that investment in ILC detector development had to be a lower priority at this time. CALICEAs for LCFI. BabarNaturally near the end of its lifetime, and US had prematurely cut the operation of the facility. FP420Although potentially interesting, could not continue to support this as a standalone project. If it is to be supported should be through ATLAS or CMS as it must be fully integrated in one of these detectors. Projects in this category fell below the level of funding available, and were recommended to receive reduced funding in FY08 and none beyond – 23 projects in this category across STFC

Accelerator Physics Items  The discussion of funding of the accelerator physics program was not handled by PPAN, but will be handled by ASTAB as well as direct discussions between STFC and the directors of the accelerator centres  PPAN should be asked by ASTAB to comment on the scientific priorities of the accelerators on which R&D is proposed

Examine Funding levels – High Priority  Decision not to cut funding of the highest priority items across the STFC program  Why not cut these to mitigate damage to lower priority projects?  This is sending the wrong message –  Either; High priority projects are over-funded and if you squeeze us you save money for no loss of science  Or at the moment when we are turning on the biggest ever particle physics experiments with tremendous scientific potential, we are willing to do less science to allow us to pursue a lower priority program  And; It may be a small % cut for the big projects, but it is the same number of posts. You are moving them from high-priority to lower priority projects.

Funding Levels – Middle priority  Decision to look into funding reduction for some medium priority items across the STFC program  Why reduce funding for some of these projects?  Actually all these projects are in danger of cuts anyway given the dire financial circumstances  A large collection of projects in this region with comparable priorities.  Allowing some fractional reduction may help maximize science output overall

Relative ranking in the middle  What was the rationale?  The projects in the middle are all good quality, and many had similar “scores”  We looked at the program that was possible over the coming decade depending on whether projects were funded or not.  We felt it was important to have new programs in the medium term, otherwise there was a real danger of having very little PP program by the time of the next spending review  Middle High/Low  Council not yet able to commit to fund all middle projects at its end February meeting  List of middle projects split in half for presentation at SB town meeting

What was in the planning tables coming into PR 2007 ATLAS/CMSLHCbCDF/D0MinosBaBarLC Det. R/D 2011 ATLAS/CMSLHCbLC Det. R/D 2015 LC Det R/D 2019 LC Detector Build 2023 LC Detector Exploitation No provision for LHC Upgrades, no neutrino programme

Shape of the program after the PR 2007 ATLAS/CMSLHCbCDF/D0MinosBaBarLC Det. R/D 2011 ATLAS/CMSLHCb LHC Upgrade R/D T2KSuperNemo 2015 LHC Upgrades T2KSuperNemo R/D for next Detector 2019 LHC Upgrades Build for next detector 2023 End of LHC High Luminosity Era Next Detector Exploitation Science Results and community input needed to define fully the longer term program

Advisory Panels  PPAN will recommend setting a new advisory panel structure  Probably around 5 panels reporting to PPAN  A PP panel will be created  Provide Horizon scanning input for long term strategy planning  Provide input on CSR/Programmatic review priorities  Include members of PPAN/PPRP/PPGP on the AP  Contact point for communication with the community  Have asked some previous AP chairs for comments on strengths/weaknesses of previous system  Welcome input from community  Timescale end April