1. Physics Analysis Summaries towards a proposal
Discussion at the November CB was constructive
no a priori negative opinions
practical suggestions brought forward
We should now come to a more specific proposal taking
into account as many inputs as possible
Let’s not concentrate on the more specific “constitutional”
aspects (leave them to the specific task force)
E. Scomparin, EB meeting, 13 December 2016

2. Inputs from the CB
Overall speed of the preparation/approval process is
probably one of the more delicate points
IRC  necessary, but optimization of the review is mandatory,
in order not to introduce delays
When should the IRC enter the game ? As soon as possible
We should have a fast process without compromising quality
 Leave as much as possible of the preparation process in
the hands of PWGs or their representatives, define a limited
set of formal steps to be accomplished
“Practical” structure of the document (template ?)
Not discussed in great detail, try not to be too strict
Example: comparison with theory models felt as not
mandatory, priority on the experimental results but
probably this has to be judged on a case-by-case basis

3. Inputs from the CB Need for a round in the Collaboration
Explicitly asked by some CB members, since the note is
signed by the Collaboration
No contrary voices to ~1 week circulation
Need for a “forced” set of comments
Felt as not necessary  do not appoint commenting institutes,
leave to each collaborator the “scientific” responsibility for
reading the PAS and sending his/her suggestions
An EB reader, to help with the quality of the write-up should be
appointed (early, together with the IRC ?)

4. PAS: definition, purpose
Physics Analysis Summary (PAS)
Definition
Public document that contains results and figures of a preliminary
analysis
Aim
Supply the Collaboration and the physics community with a
reference information, that helps in understanding the result
and its implications

5. PAS: structure Meant as a guideline
(1) Brief introduction and motivation
(2) No description of ALICE
(3) Dataset and analysis (no technical info, no
intermediate figures that you would not put in a
paper)
(4) systematic uncertainties
(5) results
(6) model comparison (not extensive)
(7) (short) physics discussion
All the figures that go in the PAS become
ALICE-Preliminary

6. PAS: steps and involved entities
Time zero is the conference for which the preliminary is issued
PWG decides on proposing a preliminary result and the analysis
team (AT) starts working on a draft
- 4 weeks: PB and EB are informed
EB appoints review committee (RC), formed by ARC+1 EB member
- 3 weeks: AT sends draft to RC, which reacts in a few days
- 2 weeks: forum approval and freezing of the physics content
- 2 weeks: circulation in the Collaboration, for 1 week
- 1 week: comments received (no re-discussion of general points)
and implemented in 2-3 days maximum
- 1 day: EB submits to CDS

7. Remarks Focus stays on the forum approval, it is the Physics Forum to
decide that the result goes out
Role of the PAS is simply to properly document the result,
no further stop is issued except if
A last-minute bug is found by anybody in the results
The PAS is not ready at -2 weeks (coincides with the
approval Forum)
In order for the procedure to be efficient and fast, a
constructive attitude and is required by BOTH AT & RC
 AT should provide a good quality document to RC
(previous PWG help is welcome)
 RC should give a decisive help, avoiding confrontation on
non-decisive issues

8. Physics Analysis Summaries
Some aspects which can be the object of a discussion today, beyond
the very existence of PAS
a) “Material” aspect of PAS
Similar to a public note, to appear in
As an entry in a devoted section of the ALICE web site …
b) “Triggering” body
PWG
PB and/or EB
c) “Approving” body
Forum / PB
d) Circulation in the Collaboration
1 week ? 2 weeks ? No circulation, only Forum discussion ?
e) EB role
Assign reviewers (ARC), editorial aspects (uniformity, etc.),
submission of the note
modulo “ARC/IRC” review