Abstracts submitted to WG2 and WG1 for DIS 2022
by Cridge, Tom
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 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_wg5] [DIS2022_wg1]
by Qinghua Xu
Dear Tom and WG1 conveners,
Please find #373 abstract attached and we also find #54’s topic is very close, so it is possible to consider them together?
Thanks,
Qinghua for WG5
> 2022年3月4日 上午5:31，Cridge, Tom <t.cridge(a)ucl.ac.uk> 写道：
>
> 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
>
>
> <abstracts_forWG5.pdf>_______________________________________________
> DIS2022_wg5 mailing list -- dis2022_wg5(a)igfae.usc.es
> To unsubscribe send an email to dis2022_wg5-leave(a)igfae.usc.es
2 years, 6 months
(no subject)
by yoshitaka hatta
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
