1. HPS EC Report
John Jaros
HPS Collaboration Meeting at JLAB May 5, 2017

2. HPS Executive Committee
Members: Nathan Baltzell, Raphael Dupre, Matt Graham, Tim Nelson, Maurik Holtrop, John Jaros, Stepan Stepanyan
Website on confluence with Meeting Summaries
Recent Business * Establish MC and Tracking Czars * Reviewed procedures for unblinding data, presenting new results, writing analysis notes, and publishing physics results * Prepared Update to Management * Guidelines for approving upgrades * New Members * Elections for EC and HPS membership

3. Czars
Established New Positions * Tracking Czar—to oversee, coordinate, and help with tracking improvements, tracking performance studies, and alignment. * MC Czar—to oversee, coordinate, and help improve the accuracy of the detector simulation, better match the MC to the data, validate physics generators, and mix in real beam backgrounds.
Congratulations! * Tracking Czar Omar Moreno, and deputy (serf?) Norman Graf * MC Czar Takashi Maruyama, and deputy Bradley Yale

4. Before we publish…
Some guidelines are useful as HPS moves toward publishing its first physics results. New territory for us. No map! * Rules for Unblinding * Analysis notes * Procedures for Presenting First Results * Procedures for Preparing physics publications
This meeting gives us an opportunity to discuss these procedures and whether/how to formalize them. * HPS customs? * Modify the bylaws?

5. Unblinding
We agreed to these steps at the last Collaboration Meeting: Before unblinding the data for a particular physics analysis: 1. An analysis note describing the analysis in detail must be available 2. The MC must reasonably describe the data 3. The analysis group grants approval to unblind (In practice, the analysis group charged a committee to review the analysis note, ask questions as needed of the author, and advise the group on readiness to unblind.) After a few fits and starts, this seemed to work ok. Should this be HPS custom?

6. Analysis Notes
How detailed should an analysis note be? What is it’s function?
Such a note is called for in our Bylaws, but as a prerequisite for writing up an analysis in a paper, not for unblinding the data. Same note for both purposes?
Discussion: Define an Analysis Note
EC will propose a list of guidelines. Omar should incorporate them in his revised Bump Hunt analysis note, and let it serve as an example for the future.

7. Going Public Procedures for Making New Physics Results Public
Our Bylaws say the following: circulate key slides before the talk show only official “preliminary” or “final” results discuss new results before the talk get approvals from EC, PPC, and 2/3rds of Collaboration
We’ve modified these slightly: circulate and discuss the results for the collaboration a week before the presentation EC, PPC, and Analysis Group must all approve Then, Collaboration votes. Approved if 2/3rds of members agree PPC still reviews proposed presentation

8. Publishing Procedures for Writing and Approving a Physics Publication
Our bylaws provide good guidance Analysis note goes to EC, PPC, and Collaboration EC and PPC grant approval to prepare a manuscript PPC forms a writing committee to prepare manuscript Paper goes to Collaboration for 2 weeks for comments “Review Team” is formed, takes comments into account, and produces a second draft Collaboration reviews draft 2 and comments Final changes are made to manuscript EC and PPC approves manuscript Collaboration approves with a 2/3rd vote
Procedures may get modified as we have real experience producing our first published physics result.
Let’s test drive this before we amend it.

9. Update to Management
JLAB management had requested an update on HPS’s progress in publishing its first results. (We had hoped to publish by last September).
We wrote a document explaining the problems we had encountered, progress we were making, and plans for dealing with a shortfall of vertex reach.
“Progress toward Publishing HPS Results” was sent to JLAB management on January 30, 2017 along with a copy of Omar’s talk (10% bump hunt) from the “April” APS meeting. It was also sent to SLAC and DOE HEP. You can find it here:

10. Approving HPS Upgrades
The EC has decided on these procedures for approving HPS Upgrades
Presentation to the Collaboration Physics justification Simulated performance improvements Proposed Design Cost, schedule, manpower and resource availability Commissioning Plan (time and effort required)
Technical Review ½ day review with local experts to judge technical feasibility, cost, and schedule once actual design is completed
Monthly Progress Updates for EC
EC “Readiness” Review before installation

11. New Members! Welcome Luca Marsicano, INFN Genova
Luca is a graduate student at Genova advised by Marco Battaglieri. Although he is writing his thesis on BDX, he'll devote half time to HPS Ecal calibration and will help with many phases of HPS operations during future HPS runs.
Welcome Mike Testa, UCSC
Mike is a graduate student advised by Robert Johnson at UCSC. He’ll work on the SVT upgrade, SVT DAQ, and tracking, and write his thesis on HPS.
Welcome Miriam Diamond, SLAC
Miriam is a new post doc, who will begin working at SLAC after this meeting. She’s done hidden sector searches at ATLAS, and will help with the SVT upgrade, tracking, and analysis.

12. Elections
Election of new HPS Collaboration members Vote “yes” or “no” for each. * Domenico D’Urso, INFN Sassari Interests in tracking code and running the experiment
* Robert Johnson, UCSC Interests in silicon detectors, SVT upgrade, LDMX and supervising Mike Testa
Election to the HPS Executive Committee Vote for two. Shouldn’t be too hard. * Raphael Dupre, Orsay * Tim Nelson, SLAC

13. Future EC Business
Push HPS Physics Publications for 2015 and 2016 results.
Review and Approve the HPS Upgrades asap; prepare for ERR on June 12 at JLAB.
Submit Run Plan Request by July 1
Start preparing for 2018 run
Plan new HPS Theses with new Graduate Students
What else?

14. More Issues for the EC?