Re: [Indico] Abstract Acceptance notification (#180)
by Ilkka Helenius
Dear WG1 conveners,
Thank you for accepting the abstract, I confirm that I can present the
talk in person in the conference in Santiago.
Best,
Ilkka Helenius
On Thu, 2022-03-10 at 19:11 +0000, noreply-indico-team(a)cern.ch wrote:
> Dear Ilkka Helenius,
>
> We're pleased to announce that your abstract "TUJU21: Nuclear PDFs
> with electroweak-boson data at NNLO" with ID #180 has been accepted
> in track "WG1: Structure Functions and Parton Densities" (Parallel
> talk).
>
> We ask you to confirm your availability to present the talk in person
> in Santiago de Compostela by an email to the corresponding WG
> conveners. If you cannot attend yourself, please provide any co-
> author that is able to come to Santiago.
>
> See below a summary of your submitted abstract:
> Conference: DIS2022: XXIX International Workshop on Deep-Inelastic
> Scattering and Related Subjects
> Submitted by: Ilkka Helenius
> Title: TUJU21: Nuclear PDFs with electroweak-boson data at NNLO
> Primary Authors: Ilkka Helenius, Werner Vogelsang, Marina Walt
> Co-authors:
> Track classification: WG1: Structure Functions and Parton Densities
> Presentation type: Parallel talk
>
> For a more detailed summary please visit the page of your abstract:
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Findico....
>
> Kind regards,
> The organizers of DIS2022: XXIX International Workshop on Deep-
> Inelastic Scattering and Related Subjects
>
> --
> Indico :: Call for Abstracts
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Findico....
2 years, 6 months
Re: [DIS2022_wg4] Abstracts submitted to WG4 and WG1 for DIS 2022
by Maria Vittoria Garzelli
Dear Tom and WG1 conveners,
after having carefully analyzed all abstracts, including those in common
between us and your group, we are back to you with our conclusions/proposal:
We plan to accept #199 for a talk (as far as we understood neither you
nor WG5 will do it, so we can do it).
We plan to accept #269 for a talk (that you are not planning to accept).
We would be happy to accept for talks even #119, #138, #264. These are
abstracts that you also would be happy to accept for talks, as far as
we understood. However, we kindly ask you if we can accept them at your
place, because we believe that they would fit well in our session (especially
#119 and #138, but even #264). This way you might have space for other talks.
We do not think that other WG1+WG4 fits so well in our preliminary program.
On the other hand, we wish to bring to your considerations another pair of
talks that were submitted to us, we think they are good, but we also think
are much more appropriate to you (because they do not include any
heavy-flavour stuff, and we focus particularly on the latter).
They are:
#172 Estimating missing higher orders in transverse momentum distributions
using resummations
#226 Inclusive jet measurement at 13 TeV, by CMS collaboration
We have shared them with you in the DIS 2022 website, so now they
should be visible also to you.
Maybe you can consider them for talks, instead of the ones that
we are "stealing" as talks from you ?
If at the end the number of accepted abstracts labelled as WG1 and WG4 is
large enough, we might also think to organize a common session.
But this will be clear only at the very end, after seeing the participants
who will really come.
Best regards,
maria v. and WG4 conveners.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2022, Maria Vittoria Garzelli wrote:
>
>> Dear Tom,
>>
>> ok, we will be back to you in the week with our opinions as for all common
>> abstracts. (....in the meanwhile you might start to send acceptance for
>> the talks where WG4 is not involved and you have already clear ideas).
>>
>> As for 424: it was submitted as a poster, it is perfectly fine with us
>> that you accept it in that format.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Maria V.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 7 Mar 2022, Cridge, Tom wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Maria,
>>>
>>> We are happy to wait for your input, indeed the email sent was intended
>>> to
>>> let you know our thoughts on
>>> shared abstracts so that you can respond with yours and then we can
>>> appropriately divide the talks.
>>>
>>> As for abstract 424, this is labelled as a poster in contribution type,
>>> hence our statement on accepting
>>> it as a poster, was that your intention?
>>>
>>> Thanks again,
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>> From: Maria Vittoria Garzelli <garzelli(a)mail.desy.de>
>>> Sent: 06 March 2022 21:56
>>> To: Cridge, Tom <t.cridge(a)ucl.ac.uk>
>>> Cc: dis2022_wg4(a)igfae.usc.es <dis2022_wg4(a)igfae.usc.es>;
>>> dis2022_wg1(a)igfae.usc.es
>>> <dis2022_wg1(a)igfae.usc.es>
>>> Subject: Re: [DIS2022_wg4] Abstracts submitted to WG4 and WG1 for DIS
>>> 2022
>>>
>>> ⚠ Caution: External sender
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Tom and WG1 conveners,
>>>
>>> thank you very much for contacting us about the abstracts commonly
>>> submitted to WG1 and WG4. We have not yet taken final decisions for any
>>> of
>>> them, so, before accepting anything submitted to us and to you, we would
>>> be grateful if you can wait us (in other words, there might be something
>>> that you want to have for a talk in your session, but we might also
>>> want).
>>> From preliminary screening, we might be interested to two of the
>>> abstracts
>>> you seem also highly interested.
>>>
>>> Is it possible for you to wait some days ?
>>> We will have a discussion among us this tuesday.
>>> On wednesday or thursday it should be possible for us to confirm you if
>>> there is any of the abstracts you want to accept for a talk in your
>>> session or merge, that we also want for talks in our session.
>>>
>>> As for abstract 424 submitted for a poster to your session, fine with us
>>> if you accept it like that in your session.
>>>
>>> As for the WG1/WG4 abstracts you do not want to accept in your session:
>>> please, do not even reject them completely. We will think if accepting
>>> them in our session or if definitely reject them (if we also find them
>>> uninteresting/unsuitable).
>>>
>>> Thank you for your patience and best regards,
>>>
>>> Maria V.
>>> for WG4
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022, Cridge, Tom wrote:
>>>
>>> > Dear WG4 conveners,
>>> >
>>> > We wanted to contact you regarding shared abstracts between our two
>>> > WGs as it is useful to know how to
>>> > divide the talks across groups, particularly given the tight
>>> > constraints we all have. We believe there
>>> are
>>> > 17 abstracts shared between our WGs (five of which are also shared
>>> > with WG2, WG3 or WG5).
>>> >
>>> > In terms of these shared abstracts we wanted to accept the following:
>>> > 312, 167 (hoping to merge with another abstract we have), 214 (hoping
>>> > to merge with another abstract we
>>> > have), 150, 219, 138, 94, 264 and 119
>>> > - we are open to you considering the talks we have here which we are
>>> > hoping to merge with others so
>>> please
>>> > let us know if you were intending to take those talks.
>>> >
>>> > We also intend to accept 424 which is submitted as a poster.
>>> >
>>> > Therefore we do not intend to accept:
>>> > 199 (also shared with WG5), 110 (we could have this one as a backup if
>>> > needed), 174 (also shared with
>>> > WG2), 226, 261, 269 or 270 (also shared with WG2)
>>> >
>>> > Please let us know if you are taking any of these abstracts for talks
>>> > and feel free to contact us with
>>> > your thoughts on this or if you have any queries.
>>> >
>>> > Many thanks,
>>> > Tom for WG1 conveners (Tom, Klaus, Barak)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>
2 years, 6 months
FW: [EXTERNAL] [Indico] Abstract Acceptance notification (#413)
by Patrick Barry
Dear WG1 conveners,
Thank you for accepted my abstracts! I’m responding to this email, but my abstract ID #411 under which I am the speaker was also accepted.
I have requested travel approval from my institution of Jefferson Lab, and I am still waiting to hear back from them. I wanted to let you know of my current status, and I will keep you updated whether I can present the talk in person.
Best,
Patrick
From: noreply-indico-team(a)cern.ch <noreply-indico-team(a)cern.ch>
Date: Thursday, March 10, 2022 at 2:35 PM
To: Monahan, Christopher <cjmonahan(a)wm.edu>, Jianwei Qiu <jqiu(a)jlab.org>, Wally Melnitchouk <wmelnitc(a)jlab.org>, kostas(a)wm.edu <kostas(a)wm.edu>, David Richards <dgr(a)jlab.org>, Colin Egerer <cegerer(a)jlab.org>, savvas.zafeiropoulos(a)cpt.univ-mrs.fr <savvas.zafeiropoulos(a)cpt.univ-mrs.fr>, Patrick Barry <barryp(a)jlab.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Indico] Abstract Acceptance notification (#413)
Dear Patrick Barry,
We're pleased to announce that your abstract "Complementarity of experimental and lattice QCD data on pion parton distributions" with ID #413 has been accepted in track "WG1: Structure Functions and Parton Densities" (Parallel talk).
We ask you to confirm your availability to present the talk in person in Santiago de Compostela by an email to the corresponding WG conveners. If you cannot attend yourself, please provide any co-author that is able to come to Santiago.
See below a summary of your submitted abstract:
Conference: DIS2022: XXIX International Workshop on Deep-Inelastic Scattering and Related Subjects
Submitted by: Patrick Barry
Title: Complementarity of experimental and lattice QCD data on pion parton distributions
Primary Authors: Patrick Barry, Colin Egerer, Chris Monahan, Joseph Karpie, Wally Melnitchouk, Kostas Orginos, Jianwei Qiu, David Richards, Nobuo Sato, Raza Sufian, Savvas Zafeiropoulos
Co-authors:
Track classification: WG1: Structure Functions and Parton Densities
Presentation type: Parallel talk
For a more detailed summary please visit the page of your abstract:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__indico.cern.ch_event...
Kind regards,
The organizers of DIS2022: XXIX International Workshop on Deep-Inelastic Scattering and Related Subjects
--
Indico :: Call for Abstracts
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__indico.cern.ch_event...
2 years, 6 months
Abstracts submitted to WG6
by Yulia Furletova
Dear WG1,WG2,WG3, WG5 conveners
we (WG6) just had a meeting where we almost finally selected our agenda.
We have a lot of abstracts and we need to reduce this amount by a factor 2.
It looks like we will NOT have space in our WG6-main sessions for the following abstracts ( we now have 49 abstracts, while we have only 44 slots )
and therefore we propose to organize an ADDITIONAL joint sessions or if the following abstracts could be accepted by YOUR WG.
WG1 : #62, #72, #344, #361, #386
WG2: #162, #260 , #307
WG5: #147, #335 , #385
Note, we would like to accept in our (WG6) session following abstracts:
#13, # 69 , # 98, #124, #170, #175 , #300, #388, #372, #395, #419
Please, let us know by Friday if you agree or not!
Or if any issues or suggestions.
Best regards,
Alessandro, Michela, Yulia.
(WG6 conveners )
2 years, 6 months
Re: Abstracts submitted to WG6 and WG1 for DIS 2022
by Cridge, Tom
Dear WG6 conveners,
I am emailing to ask if you have had time to consider these shared abstracts yet? I am asking as we will need to cooperate somewhat on the abstract acceptances where they are shared and we wish to conclude this as soon as possible.
Many thanks,
Tom (for WG1 conveners)
________________________________
From: Cridge, Tom <t.cridge(a)ucl.ac.uk>
Sent: 06 March 2022 18:12
To: dis2022_wg6(a)igfae.usc.es <dis2022_wg6(a)igfae.usc.es>
Cc: dis2022_wg1(a)igfae.usc.es <dis2022_wg1(a)igfae.usc.es>
Subject: [DIS2022_wg1] Abstracts submitted to WG6 and WG1 for DIS 2022
⚠ Caution: External sender
Dear WG6 conveners,
We wanted to contact you regarding shared abstracts between our two WGs, we believe there are 9 abstracts shared between our WGs (three of which are also shared with WG2, WG3 or WG5).
In terms of these shared abstracts we do not have a session for future experiments as we hoped they would fit within your sessions, therefore as it stands we did not plan to take these shared abstracts:
62 (shared with WG3), 69, 170, 344, 361, 386, 419, 72 (shared with WG3 and WG5), 162 (shared with WG2)
Therefore please let us know if you are taking (or not) any of these abstracts and feel free to contact us with your thoughts on this or if you have any queries.
Many thanks,
Tom for WG1 conveners (Tom, Klaus, Barak)
________________________________
From: Cridge, Tom <t.cridge(a)ucl.ac.uk>
Sent: 06 March 2022 18:12
To: dis2022_wg6(a)igfae.usc.es <dis2022_wg6(a)igfae.usc.es>
Cc: dis2022_wg1(a)igfae.usc.es <dis2022_wg1(a)igfae.usc.es>
Subject: [DIS2022_wg1] Abstracts submitted to WG6 and WG1 for DIS 2022
⚠ Caution: External sender
Dear WG6 conveners,
We wanted to contact you regarding shared abstracts between our two WGs, we believe there are 9 abstracts shared between our WGs (three of which are also shared with WG2, WG3 or WG5).
In terms of these shared abstracts we do not have a session for future experiments as we hoped they would fit within your sessions, therefore as it stands we did not plan to take these shared abstracts:
62 (shared with WG3), 69, 170, 344, 361, 386, 419, 72 (shared with WG3 and WG5), 162 (shared with WG2)
Therefore please let us know if you are taking (or not) any of these abstracts and feel free to contact us with your thoughts on this or if you have any queries.
Many thanks,
Tom for WG1 conveners (Tom, Klaus, Barak)
2 years, 6 months
Re: Abstracts submitted to WG2 and WG1 for DIS 2022
by Cridge, Tom
Dear WG2 conveners,
I am emailing to ask if you have had time to consider this yet? I am asking as we will need to cooperate somewhat on the abstract acceptances where they are shared and we wish to conclude this as soon as possible.
Many thanks,
Tom (for WG1 conveners)
________________________________
From: Cridge, Tom <t.cridge(a)ucl.ac.uk>
Sent: 06 March 2022 18:03
To: dis2022_wg2(a)igfae.usc.es <dis2022_wg2(a)igfae.usc.es>
Cc: dis2022_wg1(a)igfae.usc.es <dis2022_wg1(a)igfae.usc.es>
Subject: [DIS2022_wg1] Abstracts submitted to WG2 and WG1 for DIS 2022
⚠ Caution: External sender
Dear WG2 conveners,
We wanted to contact you regarding shared abstracts between our two WGs. We believe there are 6 abstracts shared between our WGs (two of which are also shared with WG4).
In terms of these shared abstracts we felt 104, 126, 162 and 350 all would fit better in your session than ours, with 162 and 350 specifically considering small x whilst for 126 we already have a couple of talks from STAR. There are also abstracts 174 and 270 shared also with WG4 which we do not intend to take in WG1 given the tight constraints we all have.
We also had abstract 149 submitted only to our WG1, which we are currently not intending to consider but may be of interest to your group, therefore I attach it to this email.
Please let us know if you are taking any of these abstracts for talks and feel free to contact us with your thoughts on this or if you have any queries.
Many thanks,
Tom for WG1 conveners (Tom, Klaus, Barak)
________________________________
From: Cridge, Tom <t.cridge(a)ucl.ac.uk>
Sent: 06 March 2022 18:03
To: dis2022_wg2(a)igfae.usc.es <dis2022_wg2(a)igfae.usc.es>
Cc: dis2022_wg1(a)igfae.usc.es <dis2022_wg1(a)igfae.usc.es>
Subject: [DIS2022_wg1] Abstracts submitted to WG2 and WG1 for DIS 2022
⚠ Caution: External sender
Dear WG2 conveners,
We wanted to contact you regarding shared abstracts between our two WGs. We believe there are 6 abstracts shared between our WGs (two of which are also shared with WG4).
In terms of these shared abstracts we felt 104, 126, 162 and 350 all would fit better in your session than ours, with 162 and 350 specifically considering small x whilst for 126 we already have a couple of talks from STAR. There are also abstracts 174 and 270 shared also with WG4 which we do not intend to take in WG1 given the tight constraints we all have.
We also had abstract 149 submitted only to our WG1, which we are currently not intending to consider but may be of interest to your group, therefore I attach it to this email.
Please let us know if you are taking any of these abstracts for talks and feel free to contact us with your thoughts on this or if you have any queries.
Many thanks,
Tom for WG1 conveners (Tom, Klaus, Barak)
2 years, 6 months
Re: [DIS2022_wg1]
by yoshitaka hatta
Dear Tom and WG1 conveners.
Thanks for taking 373. What about 54, the other abstract in the file
Qinghua sent you? We are also contacting WG4 about it. If neither WG wants
to take it, we may take it as a poster presentation
On our side, we will accept 141, 153 (merged with 167), 325 and 373 as
parallel talks for WG1. You say 325 is merged with another abstract, but we
don't see it so we will simply accept it. You can send a note to the
submitter.
On your side, please accept 132 and 377 as parallel talks in WG5, and 362
as a poster in WG5.
Best regards
Yoshitaka
2022年3月4日(金) 14:40 Cridge, Tom <t.cridge(a)ucl.ac.uk>:
> Dear Yoshitaka and WG5 conveners,
>
> Great thanks for sharing 373, we will consider it with our others. Thanks
> for dealing with the other shared abstracts and the ones we suggested for
> your WG, much appreciated. As for 132, CMS apparently accidentally ticked
> plenary for their submissions I believe but please ignore that, it is a
> normal parallel talk.
>
> Best,
>
> Tom
> ------------------------------
> *From:* yoshitaka hatta <yoshitaka.hatta(a)gmail.com>
> *Sent:* 04 March 2022 03:48
> *To:* Cridge, Tom <t.cridge(a)ucl.ac.uk>
> *Cc:* dis2022_wg1(a)igfae.usc.es <dis2022_wg1(a)igfae.usc.es>;
> dis2022_wg5(a)igfae.usc.es <dis2022_wg5(a)igfae.usc.es>
> *Subject:* Re: [DIS2022_wg1]
>
> Dear Tom and WG1 conveners,
>
> Thanks for taking in the three abstracts. We will take care of 237 and
> others.
> Sorry I should have sent you the abstract of 373. I noticed my fellow
> convener just sent you.
> Concerning the three abstracts you suggested, indeed these look more
> relevant to our WG. We can accept 132 and 377
> (not sure why 132 is meant for "plenary").
> As for the theory abstract 362, we probably do not accept it as a talk,
> but we can consider it for a poster presentation.
>
> Best
> Yoshitaka
>
>
>
> 2022年3月3日(木) 16:31 Cridge, Tom <t.cridge(a)ucl.ac.uk>:
>
> Dear Yoshitaka and WG5 conveners,
>
> Thank you for your email, we were ourselves going to contact you regarding
> shared abstracts as it is useful to know how to divide the talks across
> groups, particularly given the tight constraints we all have.
>
> In terms of these shared abstracts you mention and others:
>
> - We indeed intend to take abstract 141 as well as 153 (we will ask
> the authors to merge it with another talk we have - 167 which is shared
> with yourselves and WG4) and 325 (again we will ask the authors to merge it
> with another talk we have).
> - We do not intend to take 237, we felt it more appropriate for your
> sessions, nor did we plan to take 199 (leaving it to yourselves or WG4),
> 239, 72 (yourselves or WG3 or WG6), 378, 391 or 394 all of which we felt
> did not fit in our sessions and would match better your activities.
> - Please share abstract 373 and we will take a look, we also had some
> abstracts submitted solely to WG1 we thought might work better in your WG5,
> these were 132, 377, 362. We attach these to this email for you to consider.
>
> We too are in a difficult situation, indeed as Nestor noted WG1 has the
> most talks submitted, we therefore have more than 2x as many abstracts
> submitted as talks we can take. Nonetheless we have taken three of the
> shared abstracts as mentioned (141, 153 and 325), we hope you will be able
> to consider taking some of the remaining shared abstracts and those we feel
> are more appropriate for yourselves (attached).
>
> Many thanks,
> Tom for WG1 conveners (Tom, Klaus, Barak)
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* yoshitaka hatta <yoshitaka.hatta(a)gmail.com>
> *Sent:* 03 March 2022 14:14
> *To:* dis2022_wg1(a)igfae.usc.es <dis2022_wg1(a)igfae.usc.es>;
> dis2022_wg5(a)igfae.usc.es <dis2022_wg5(a)igfae.usc.es>
> *Subject:* [DIS2022_wg1] (no subject)
>
>
> ⚠ Caution: External sender
>
> Dear WG1 conveners.
>
> There are 10 abstracts jointly submitted to WG1 and WG5 at DIS2022. Among
> them we think #141 and #237 are worth considering for your WG. Also, #373
> has been submitted solely to WG5, but we do not see much connection to
> "spin and 3D". It might be more relevant to WG1?
>
> We are in a difficult situation where we have to reject almost 40% of the
> abstracts, so we would appreciate if you could accept at least one of them
> (especially #141).
>
> Best regards,
> Yoshitaka, for WG5 conveners
>
>
>
2 years, 6 months
Re: [DIS2022_wg4] Abstracts submitted to WG4 and WG1 for DIS 2022
by Maria Vittoria Garzelli
Dear Tom and WG1 conveners,
thank you very much for contacting us about the abstracts commonly
submitted to WG1 and WG4. We have not yet taken final decisions for any of
them, so, before accepting anything submitted to us and to you, we would
be grateful if you can wait us (in other words, there might be something
that you want to have for a talk in your session, but we might also want).
From preliminary screening, we might be interested to two of the abstracts
you seem also highly interested.
Is it possible for you to wait some days ?
We will have a discussion among us this tuesday.
On wednesday or thursday it should be possible for us to confirm you if
there is any of the abstracts you want to accept for a talk in your
session or merge, that we also want for talks in our session.
As for abstract 424 submitted for a poster to your session, fine with us
if you accept it like that in your session.
As for the WG1/WG4 abstracts you do not want to accept in your session:
please, do not even reject them completely. We will think if accepting
them in our session or if definitely reject them (if we also find them
uninteresting/unsuitable).
Thank you for your patience and best regards,
Maria V.
for WG4
On Sun, 6 Mar 2022, Cridge, Tom wrote:
> Dear WG4 conveners,
>
> We wanted to contact you regarding shared abstracts between our two WGs as it is useful to know how to
> divide the talks across groups, particularly given the tight constraints we all have. We believe there are
> 17 abstracts shared between our WGs (five of which are also shared with WG2, WG3 or WG5).
>
> In terms of these shared abstracts we wanted to accept the following:
> 312, 167 (hoping to merge with another abstract we have), 214 (hoping to merge with another abstract we
> have), 150, 219, 138, 94, 264 and 119
> - we are open to you considering the talks we have here which we are hoping to merge with others so please
> let us know if you were intending to take those talks.
>
> We also intend to accept 424 which is submitted as a poster.
>
> Therefore we do not intend to accept:
> 199 (also shared with WG5), 110 (we could have this one as a backup if needed), 174 (also shared with
> WG2), 226, 261, 269 or 270 (also shared with WG2)
>
> Please let us know if you are taking any of these abstracts for talks and feel free to contact us with
> your thoughts on this or if you have any queries.
>
> Many thanks,
> Tom for WG1 conveners (Tom, Klaus, Barak)
>
>
>
2 years, 6 months
Abstracts submitted to WG6 and WG1 for DIS 2022
by Cridge, Tom
Dear WG6 conveners,
We wanted to contact you regarding shared abstracts between our two WGs, we believe there are 9 abstracts shared between our WGs (three of which are also shared with WG2, WG3 or WG5).
In terms of these shared abstracts we do not have a session for future experiments as we hoped they would fit within your sessions, therefore as it stands we did not plan to take these shared abstracts:
62 (shared with WG3), 69, 170, 344, 361, 386, 419, 72 (shared with WG3 and WG5), 162 (shared with WG2)
Therefore please let us know if you are taking (or not) any of these abstracts and feel free to contact us with your thoughts on this or if you have any queries.
Many thanks,
Tom for WG1 conveners (Tom, Klaus, Barak)
2 years, 6 months
Abstracts submitted to WG4 and WG1 for DIS 2022
by Cridge, Tom
Dear WG4 conveners,
We wanted to contact you regarding shared abstracts between our two WGs as it is useful to know how to divide the talks across groups, particularly given the tight constraints we all have. We believe there are 17 abstracts shared between our WGs (five of which are also shared with WG2, WG3 or WG5).
In terms of these shared abstracts we wanted to accept the following:
312, 167 (hoping to merge with another abstract we have), 214 (hoping to merge with another abstract we have), 150, 219, 138, 94, 264 and 119
- we are open to you considering the talks we have here which we are hoping to merge with others so please let us know if you were intending to take those talks.
We also intend to accept 424 which is submitted as a poster.
Therefore we do not intend to accept:
199 (also shared with WG5), 110 (we could have this one as a backup if needed), 174 (also shared with WG2), 226, 261, 269 or 270 (also shared with WG2)
Please let us know if you are taking any of these abstracts for talks and feel free to contact us with your thoughts on this or if you have any queries.
Many thanks,
Tom for WG1 conveners (Tom, Klaus, Barak)
2 years, 6 months
