Dear Yoshikata, thank you for your email. As a general methodology issue, I have to tell you that if there is an abstract that was submitted to WG4 and WG5, to which you are not interested in WG5, you should have left us the decision about what to do with it, instead of bypassing us and going to propose it to WG1. As a matter of correctness in our respect. In any case: abstract #54: "machine-learning assisted measurement of multi-differential lepton-jet correlations in DIS with H1 detector" this submission reenters in a series that was somohow encouraged by us, but the specific topic is not too much of our interest and I have serious doubt that we can take it. Therefore if WG1 or you want to accept it, it is fine with us. In any case, before speaking with WG1 on it, you should have spoken with us, considering that the abstract was submitted to WG5 and WG4, and not at all to WG1. abstract #167: "TMDs of heavy baryons" this can also be of our interest. It is submitted to WG1, WG4 and WG5. We will stay in touch with WG1 as for it. In case we can not give a talk to it, it is good if they take it. abstract #199: "Electromagnetic structure of heavy-baryons" submitted to WG1, WG4 and WG5. Good to know that nobody wants it. Maybe we also do not. In any case, we will think about. abstract #218: "Transverse Single-Spin Asymmetry of Midrapidity Heavy Flavour Electrons in 200 GeV p+p collisions at PHENIX": yes, this is an interesting abstract. My co-conveners can tell more about it. abstract #339: "Phenomenology of gluon TMSs from eta_b,c production": it is very unlikely that this can be guest in our session, it does not reenter well with the program we have in mind for it, and, personally speaking, I am also not completely convinced about its scientific robustness. Best regards, Maria V. On Sat, 5 Mar 2022, yoshitaka hatta wrote: > Dear WG4 conveners, > There are 5 abstracts submitted jointly between WG4 and WG5. These are > > #54 > #167 > #199 > #218 > #339 > > We have already accepted 218 (we should have checked with you, but it looks more relevant to us so > hopefully it's ok). > We have been in touch with WG1, and they say they can take 167 merging it with another abstract for their > session. We also asked if they are interested in 54. Though it is not submitted to WG1, the topic looks > more relevant than to WG4 or WG5. If you want to take it please let us know. > > Neither WG1 nor WG5 intend to take 199. It's up to you. > Concerning 339, we are hesitating whether we want to accept. It looks equally relevant to your session, so > let us know what you think. > > Best regards, > Yoshitaka for WG5 conveners > > >