ANNIE Meeting Minutes Oct 2, 2013
attendees: Henry Frisch (U Chicago), Mayly Sanchez (Iowa State), Bob Svoboda (UC Davis), Matt Wetstein (U Chicago), Michael Smy (UC Irvine), Hank Sobel (UC Irvine), Minfang Yeh (Brookhaven), Bob Wagner (ANL), Pavel Murat (FNAL), Francesca Di Lodovico (Queen Mary)
Matt W presented a brief introduction to the ANNIE experiment
Michael Smy commented on the Diffuse Supernova Background measurement issues. As it turns out, there are many cases where the backgrounds may also produce neutrons in the final state and so knowing the actual number of neutrons produced is important in this context. I will try to link to a source on that.
During the discussion of new reconstruction discussion, Francesca spoke on the important impact of the new pattern fitting on their physics. Similar approaches could be much stronger with detectors the measure the 4-vectors of individual photons, rather than factorizing the time and charge information.
After the introduction talk, we went around the room to gauge what aspects of ANNIE were more appealing to the crowd.
We discussed the current status of ANNIE - text of a proposal is on its way, we have working reconstruction, hoping to finish up MC studies a week or two off from the deadline to submit proposals to the FNAL PAC.
There was a brief discussion of budget and LAPPD availability. THe current plan is to look for institutions willing to redirect some human resources to ANNIE (finding overlap with existing efforts) and expertise. In terms of M&S, our estimate (not including LAPPDs) is around $300k. Including the first 5-ish LAPPDs could likely add around $100k (these are one-offs and early on, so they are not as cheap as the asymptotic price will be). The hope is that we will be able to get these 5 LAPPDs in 2 years or sooner.
We have decided to submit an “Expression of Interest” rather than a “Letter of Intent”. We felt that the collaboration was not ready for a full LOI, and rushing things might prematurely shut down the experiment. However, we want to submit something to the PAC.
The discussion turned to exactly *what* our goal in submitting the EOI might be.
I suggested that one of the goals was simply to inform Fermilab of our existence: for their strategic planning purposes, and so that we could establish that we are interested in the SciBooNE space.
Henry pointed out that it would be good to have specific “asks” of the PAC.
We came up with the following list:
Deadline for the EOI is soon (Nov 3).
We plan to organize a collab meeting for late winter/early spring (Feb/March?). We need people to fill out a doodle poll.