Re: [DIS2022_wg4] abstracts
by Daria Sokhan
Dear WG4 conveners,
We have finalised our list of abstracts and here are the conclusions
regarding those which are shared with WG4 and which you are not taking:
163 -- accept
174 -- reject (also submitted to WG1 but they have also rejected it)
212 -- accept (we will ask to merge with 211, submitted only to us)
261 -- reject (also submitted to WG1 but they have also rejected it)
270 -- accept (also submitted to WG1 but they have rejected it)
313 -- poster
347 -- poster
Let us know if you have questions or would like to discuss!
Cheers,
Guillaume, Rafal, Daria (WG2)
On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 at 12:51, Maria Vittoria Garzelli <garzelli(a)mail.desy.de>
wrote:
> Dear Beuf and WG2 conveners,
>
> thank you for your email.
> We are also finalizing our program. Here is our position with respect to
> the abstracts in common among WG2 and WG4. At the moment, we are planning
> to accept for talks the following:
>
> #31, #366 and #369.
>
> #31 you forgot in your email, we consider it interesting and we are going
> to accept it in our group (even because we invited it).
>
> #366 is of common interest. Considering that we explicitly invite the
> author to submit to our group, we would be happy to accept it from WG4
> and host for a talk in our session.
>
> #369: we will probably try to accept it even if it is from Russian
> federation.
>
> As for the abstracts #174, #212, #270, #313 and #163: we are not planning
> to accept any of them.
>
> As a summary: we would be happy if you leave us for a talk #366, #31 and
> #369. This would allow you to promote from poster to talk #347 (that we
> also think is very interesting).
> You can then use as a poster one of the residual ones.
>
> Please let us know if you agree,
>
> Maria V. on behalf of WG4.
>
>
>
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2022, Beuf Guillaume wrote:
>
> > Dear WG4 conveners,
> >
> > There are a few abstracts that have been submitted both to WG2 and WG4:
> > #212, #369, #313, #163, #366 and #347.
> > Out of these, we are considering to accept #366 as a talk, and #347
> probably as a poster.
> > On the other hand, #369 has been submitted by authors with Russian
> affiliations, and it is not yet clear how we
> > should proceed in such a case.
> > Due to the number of abstracts that we received, it is not possible for
> us to accommodate the abstracts number
> > #212, #313 and #163. Can you please consider these abstracts, keeping in
> mind that we will not be able to accept
> > them in WG2?
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Guillaume Beuf, for the WG2 conveners
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Administratorem Państwa danych osobowych jest Narodowe Centrum Badań
> Jądrowych, ul. Andrzeja Sołtana 7, 05-400
> > Otwock, zgodnie z przepisami RODO oraz zgodnie z obowiązującymi
> przepisami prawa. Szczegółowe informacje w
> > zakresie przetwarzania Państwa danych osobowych znajdują się na stronie
> > internetowej
> https://www.ncbj.gov.pl/klauzula-informacyjna-o-przetwarzaniu-danych-osob...
> .
> >
> > The Administrator of your personal data is National Centre for Nuclear
> Research, at Andrzeja Sołtana 7, 05-400
> > Otwock, in accordance with the provisions of the GDPR and in accordance
> with the applicable law. Detailed
> > information on the processing of your personal data can be found on the
> website
> > https://www.ncbj.gov.pl/en/information-clause-personal-data-processing.
> >
> >
> >
2 years, 6 months
Re: Abstracts submitted to WG6
by Daria Sokhan
Dear Yulia and WG6 conveners,
We have finalised our abstract list and we are happy to accept in our
session the three abstracts which were shared with WG6: 162, 260 and 307.
Thanks,
Guillaume, Rafal, Daria (WG2)
On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 19:48, Yulia Furletova <yulia(a)jlab.org> wrote:
>
> 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 )
> _______________________________________________
> DIS2022_wg2 mailing list -- dis2022_wg2(a)igfae.usc.es
> To unsubscribe send an email to dis2022_wg2-leave(a)igfae.usc.es
>
2 years, 6 months
Re: Abstracts submitted to WG2 and WG1 for DIS 2022
by Daria Sokhan
Dear WG1 conveners,
We have finalised our list of abstracts and here are the results concerning
those which were also submitted to WG1:
104 -- poster
126 -- poster
149 -- we will ask to merge with 145 (submitted only to our session).
162 -- accepted (was also submitted to WG6).
174 -- rejected (was also submitted to WG4)
261 -- rejected (was also submitted to WG4)
270 -- accepted (was also submitted to WG4)
350 -- accepted
Please let us know if you have any questions or want to discuss any of
these!
Many thanks,
Guillaume, Rafal and Daria
On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 at 12:32, Cridge, Tom <t.cridge(a)ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
> Dear WG2 conveners,
>
> We have now made several of the decisions regarding our abstracts and are
> just waiting on your input to finalise things as we have communicated with
> the other WGs on shared talks. As a reminder the talks shared between our
> WGs that we do not wish to take (some of which are also shared with other
> groups) are:
>
> 104, 126, 350 (these are shared between our WGs and we do not intend to
> take them, regarding 126 we already have a couple of talks from/about STAR
> so we left this one)
>
> 162 (shared with WG6), we do not wish to take this as it is not too
> relevant to our WG, as far as we know WG6 also are not currently taking it
>
> 174 and 270 (both shared with WG4) we do not intend to accept these and we
> believe neither do WG4
>
> 149 and 261 are abstracts submitted only to our WG1 (and for 261 also to
> WG4) but we do not intend to take them and thought they could be relevant
> for your WG2 so have also made them available for you to view on indico, we
> believe WG4 do not intend to take 261 either, please let us know your
> thoughts on these.
>
> Once we have your responses on this we can finalise our decisions on
> abstracts to accept, reject, for backup, etc so we would appreciate your
> swift response on this.
>
> Many thanks again,
>
> Tom for WG1 conveners (Tom, Barak, Klaus)
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Cridge, Tom <t.cridge(a)ucl.ac.uk>
> *Sent:* 09 March 2022 14:52
> *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] Re: Abstracts submitted to WG2 and WG1 for DIS
> 2022
>
> 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: Abstracts submitted to WG2 and WG1 for DIS 2022
by Daria Sokhan
Dear Tom,
Thank you. We are having a meeting in a couple of hours to discuss and
finalise our list -- we'll email straight after that!
Thanks,
Daria
On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 at 12:32, Cridge, Tom <t.cridge(a)ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
> Dear WG2 conveners,
>
> We have now made several of the decisions regarding our abstracts and are
> just waiting on your input to finalise things as we have communicated with
> the other WGs on shared talks. As a reminder the talks shared between our
> WGs that we do not wish to take (some of which are also shared with other
> groups) are:
>
> 104, 126, 350 (these are shared between our WGs and we do not intend to
> take them, regarding 126 we already have a couple of talks from/about STAR
> so we left this one)
>
> 162 (shared with WG6), we do not wish to take this as it is not too
> relevant to our WG, as far as we know WG6 also are not currently taking it
>
> 174 and 270 (both shared with WG4) we do not intend to accept these and we
> believe neither do WG4
>
> 149 and 261 are abstracts submitted only to our WG1 (and for 261 also to
> WG4) but we do not intend to take them and thought they could be relevant
> for your WG2 so have also made them available for you to view on indico, we
> believe WG4 do not intend to take 261 either, please let us know your
> thoughts on these.
>
> Once we have your responses on this we can finalise our decisions on
> abstracts to accept, reject, for backup, etc so we would appreciate your
> swift response on this.
>
> Many thanks again,
>
> Tom for WG1 conveners (Tom, Barak, Klaus)
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Cridge, Tom <t.cridge(a)ucl.ac.uk>
> *Sent:* 09 March 2022 14:52
> *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] Re: Abstracts submitted to WG2 and WG1 for DIS
> 2022
>
> 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: Abstracts submitted to WG2 and WG1 for DIS 2022
by Cridge, Tom
Dear WG2 conveners,
We have now made several of the decisions regarding our abstracts and are just waiting on your input to finalise things as we have communicated with the other WGs on shared talks. As a reminder the talks shared between our WGs that we do not wish to take (some of which are also shared with other groups) are:
104, 126, 350 (these are shared between our WGs and we do not intend to take them, regarding 126 we already have a couple of talks from/about STAR so we left this one)
162 (shared with WG6), we do not wish to take this as it is not too relevant to our WG, as far as we know WG6 also are not currently taking it
174 and 270 (both shared with WG4) we do not intend to accept these and we believe neither do WG4
149 and 261 are abstracts submitted only to our WG1 (and for 261 also to WG4) but we do not intend to take them and thought they could be relevant for your WG2 so have also made them available for you to view on indico, we believe WG4 do not intend to take 261 either, please let us know your thoughts on these.
Once we have your responses on this we can finalise our decisions on abstracts to accept, reject, for backup, etc so we would appreciate your swift response on this.
Many thanks again,
Tom for WG1 conveners (Tom, Barak, Klaus)
________________________________
From: Cridge, Tom <t.cridge(a)ucl.ac.uk>
Sent: 09 March 2022 14:52
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] Re: Abstracts submitted to WG2 and WG1 for DIS 2022
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
abstracts
by Beuf Guillaume
Dear WG4 conveners,
There are a few abstracts that have been submitted both to WG2 and WG4:
#212, #369, #313, #163, #366 and #347.
Out of these, we are considering to accept #366 as a talk, and #347 probably as a poster.
On the other hand, #369 has been submitted by authors with Russian affiliations, and it is not yet clear how we should proceed in such a case.
Due to the number of abstracts that we received, it is not possible for us to accommodate the abstracts number #212, #313 and #163. Can you please consider these abstracts, keeping in mind that we will not be able to accept them in WG2?
Best regards,
Guillaume Beuf, for the WG2 conveners
Administratorem Państwa danych osobowych jest Narodowe Centrum Badań Jądrowych, ul. Andrzeja Sołtana 7, 05-400 Otwock, zgodnie z przepisami RODO oraz zgodnie z obowiązującymi przepisami prawa. Szczegółowe informacje w zakresie przetwarzania Państwa danych osobowych znajdują się na stronie internetowej https://www.ncbj.gov.pl/klauzula-informacyjna-o-przetwarzaniu-danych-osob.... The Administrator of your personal data is National Centre for Nuclear Research, at Andrzeja Sołtana 7, 05-400 Otwock, in accordance with the provisions of the GDPR and in accordance with the applicable law. Detailed information on the processing of your personal data can be found on the website https://www.ncbj.gov.pl/en/information-clause-personal-data-processing.
2 years, 6 months
(no subject)
by yoshitaka hatta
Dear WG2 conveners,
There are two abstracts #41 and #192 that are jointly submitted to WG2 and
WG5 (spin and 3D) by Kovchegov and his collaborators.
Do you have room to accommodate these abstracts? In WG5, we are in a
daunting situation where we have to reject almost half of theory abstracts.
We'd appreciate it if you could consider at least one of these abstracts
for your session. Maybe #192 is more appropriate for WG5. How about #41?
Best regards,
Yoshitaka Hatta (for WG5 conveners)
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 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
note on my abstract application
by Sanjin Benić
Dear organizers,
I have applied an abstract to DIS2022 under #360. In the abstract I wrote
that the paper is in preparation. I would like to notify you that the paper
has appeared on the arxiv on 3.3.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.01685
Thank you for your consideration,
Sanjin Benic
2 years, 6 months
